Colt LE6920 or S&W M&P15 Mid

Colt LE6920MPS vs S&W M&P15 Mid MOE


  • Total voters
    36
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

ob3ygiant

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2011
Messages
8
I've been interested in getting an AR for quite some time and narrowed my search to two that fit my budget...but can only afford one.

If you had to decide between a Colt LE6920MPS or S&W M&P15 Mid MOE which would you choose? Both seem to be well-respected and I like the Magpul furniture offered on both...which of the two would you pick and why? Is there really much difference between a carbine vs mid-length gas system?
 
I don't think you would go wrong either way.
If one was substantially less expensive, I would go with that one.
If they're close in price, I would go with the Colt, because it has a pony on it. ;)
 
I agree with Paul , it will resale better with the Pony . Both are nice rifles , I like the mid-length gas system better on the S&W . I have the S&W MOE, I bought it a little after Sandy Hook when the AR's disappeared from the shelves . The only thing that I don't like about it is the heavy trigger pull . If they were priced the same I would pick the Colt .
 
I have both. I prefer the S&W and I prefer the mid-length gas system. I've found that the S&W seems to shoot a bit more consistently, with tighter groups possible. Of course that's likely just the luck of the draw - both rifles are worth the money and I'm sure they're both similar quality. If you can handle them before purchase, judge which trigger you like better and go from there. I replaced the trigger on my Colt almost immediately, with a better feeling aftermarket unit. Of course this is just my two cents.

I don't buy my rifles because one MAY have a better resale value - I buy the rifle for myself and get what I want. I decided a long time ago that unless I can't buy food or pay housing, don't sell any firearms! 99.9% of all sales were regretted!
 
I know for a fact that the LE6920s are fully milspec everywhere it counts. The S&Ws, I highly doubt it. Definitely not if you're looking at the Sport models.

However, I would highly suggest increasing your budget and going with a BCM mid length. They're Colt quality, but with modern features, like mid length gas system, free float handguard, non-M4 barrel profiles, etc. And they probably have as much or more resale value as Colt.
 
Between the two I would probably go with the Colt. My first AR, which I still have, was a Colt SP1 and I guess I would just like to keep everything in the Colt family.
 
I would and did go with the Colt. Like cdb1 I have a dislike of S&W. My Colt has been good, never a problem in 5 years. I looked at a lot of ARs by other companies. Some are high quality and some are not. I was never interested in the sport models either.
 
Mil-spec is important to many people. I could care less.

I like to think of milspec as a baseline. That's the level of quality, and just as importantly, quality control, that is necessary to produce a good, reliable, durable AR 15. With the cheapies, you just never know what you're going to get. It could go 20k rounds without a hiccup, or the bolt could break your first time to the range with it. It may be accurate enough to circumcise a fly at 100 yards, or the bullets might keyhole at ten paces. I've seen lots of people buy el cheapo ARs and have nothing but problems, and I've seen lots of people buy Colts, LMTs, and BCMs and be 100% satisfied. There's a definite pattern in terms of which brands you see pop up with lots of complaints at the range and on the internet. And an even more clear pattern of the brands you never hear anything bad about.
 
I know for a fact that the LE6920s are fully milspec everywhere it counts. The S&Ws, I highly doubt it. Definitely not if you're looking at the Sport models.

However, I would highly suggest increasing your budget and going with a BCM mid length. They're Colt quality, but with modern features, like mid length gas system, free float handguard, non-M4 barrel profiles, etc. And they probably have as much or more resale value as Colt.

I really like the BCM Mid-16 Mod-0 but it's about $250 more than the Colt..do you really think it's worth the extra cost?
So far it looks like the Colt is favored over the S&W by quite a bit in the poll.
 
Personally, I wonder what "top tier components" (as stated above) the Colt has that the S&W doesn't. That's not really a topic for this thread, but comparing the two rifles for the OP, I doubt there's anything on or in the Colt that eclipses the quality of the S&W part. Just sayin'. Like I said, I have both. In comparing them side-by-side, if there is any discernable difference at all, I'd say the S&W has a slight edge in the finish, which has nothing to do with functionality. I'd venture a guess that most of the internals come from the same bins of parts somewhere.

Either rifle is going to be just fine.
 
Personally, I wonder what "top tier components" (as stated above) the Colt has that the S&W doesn't. That's not really a topic for this thread, but comparing the two rifles for the OP, I doubt there's anything on or in the Colt that eclipses the quality of the S&W part. Just sayin'. Like I said, I have both. In comparing them side-by-side, if there is any discernable difference at all, I'd say the S&W has a slight edge in the finish, which has nothing to do with functionality. I'd venture a guess that most of the internals come from the same bins of parts somewhere.

Either rifle is going to be just fine.
HPT/MPI bolt, 7075 buffer tube, HPT/MPI chromed barrel, H buffer, etc. The Sport II is a fine rifle, the Colt is just better. Its not a knock on the S&W, since you are paying for the better parts.
 
I really like the BCM Mid-16 Mod-0 but it's about $250 more than the Colt..do you really think it's worth the extra cost?
So far it looks like the Colt is favored over the S&W by quite a bit in the poll.

S&W took a lot of heat for the Sport II, which was more expensive and not as good as the original Sport. In general, I think the quality of their firearms has been plummeting along with everyone else lately. I had one of the original Sports, and it was pretty nice, especially for 550 bucks. I sold it, so I can't say anything about the long term durability, but the fit and finish was nice.

In answer to your question, yes, I would spring for the BCM. If Colt made a mid length I would say no. You're also getting nicer furniture right out the gate, so that's like a hundred dollar value right there. It may not be a big selling point, but having a nice stock with a good cheek weld is important, and the reduced angle grips feel REALLY nice. The extra room on the mid length handguard is also going to improve your shooting. It's just an all around better package. Personally I would opt for one with a KMR rail, but even the mod 0 is putting you way ahead of the 6920 in terms of ergonomics.

Of course I would always build, at least the lower, especially if I were on a budget and had to have something right away. I would build an Anderson lower with an A5 buffer tube and then order the upper from BCM. It doesn't take much to build a lower, and I would even argue that the term "build" in that case is extremely misleading. You can get a KMR upper for 850 with the BCG included. Another 50 for an Anderson lower, 75 for a good LPK, and about 100 for the A5 extension. That gives you an incredibly kick butt setup for about 1100. Note that BCM complete rifles don't even have A5 extensions as an option, so you're already way ahead of the game if you do it this way.

And, ETA, I wouldn't worry about resale value. It's something to think about, but the fact is that you're going to loose money on any AR. You're crazy if you sell an AR right now, regardless of brand. So don't let resale value stop you from building.
 
"The carbine is the first to feature Colt’s new mid-length gas system."

They're acting like they invented it, those narcissistic jackwagons!:rofl:

...................................................

But yea, that would definitely be an option. Not really a huge fan of the handguard, though. But I could live it. It's just not as versatile as the KMR, and probably a little heavier, and not as refined from an engineering standpoint. With all that said, though, I would probably opt for that over the 6920.

But, again, if it were me I would build the lower myself and get a BCM upper. That's going to put you ahead of the Colt middie for the same price.
 
I like to think of milspec as a baseline. That's the level of quality, and just as importantly, quality control, that is necessary to produce a good, reliable, durable AR 15. With the cheapies, you just never know what you're going to get. It could go 20k rounds without a hiccup, or the bolt could break your first time to the range with it. It may be accurate enough to circumcise a fly at 100 yards, or the bullets might keyhole at ten paces. I've seen lots of people buy el cheapo ARs and have nothing but problems, and I've seen lots of people buy Colts, LMTs, and BCMs and be 100% satisfied. There's a definite pattern in terms of which brands you see pop up with lots of complaints at the range and on the internet. And an even more clear pattern of the brands you never hear anything bad about.

Are the DPMS Oracle, Ruger AR-556 and Windham AR's mil spec? I have no idea. If any of them aren't then do they fall below your baseline of what you consider a "good, reliable durable AR 15"?
 
Are the DPMS Oracle, Ruger AR-556 and Windham AR's mil spec? I have no idea. If any of them aren't then do they fall below your baseline of what you consider a "good, reliable durable AR 15"?

Not a clue on the Windham or Ruger. But for the price of the Oracles, I would be willing to bet they're not. As far as the Windham and Ruger, you would just have to trust the company to adopt their own practices that resulted in milspec level quality or better. But judging from my recent experiences with Ruger products I wouldn't be holding my breath. Windham I have no experience with whatsoever, nor have I heard anything either way.
 
To the OP,

I would choose the Colt, and in fact have followed my own advice on this. I own one Colt, an M4A1 roll marked SOCOM II. While this was a limited run, and you won't find one like it the points I will make in Colt's favor on my rifle will largely apply to even the most basic LE6920, or LE6720, or better yet the LE6960 CCU.

I am also not going to denigrate the S&W, I don't have any direct experience with the S&W line of AR's they might be good rifles but I haven't inspected one personally to tell you.

When you buy a Colt you will get a carbine built as closely to the US military technical data package as possible while still being civilian legal. The benefit here is mostly in material specifications, testing and certification of the critical parts, and assembly steps and techniques. Without any further ado this is what we know the Colt offers, and what you should frankly consider the minimum acceptable quality in an M4 pattern carbine for serious use:

1.) Chrome Moly Vanadium 4150 barrel steel (abbreviated CMV), the barrel is also high pressure tested (HP) and magnetic particle inspected (MP). In the case of the Colt it will also have a chrome lined bore and chamber for increased life and corrosion resistance. This barrel will have a true 5.56X45mm NATO chamber, so you can safely run hotter 5.56mm NATO ammo with no pressure issues, it will also have a gas port appropriately sized for 5.56mm NATO. Barrel twist will be military standard 1:7" which will stabilize the heaviest bullets you can still load in the magazine. The gas block and front sight post will be taper pinned in place, this is a strong all steel part and will never come loose. The barrel will be manganese phosphate finished on the exterior, and the finish will include all the area under the gas block/front sight post which many el-cheapo's skip.

Some other makers offer 4150 CMV barrels with all the same tests that are salt bath nitrocarburized and that is also a good durable case hardening and corrosion resistant process too.

Colt also individually tests each barrel, they are not batch tested, so your barrel on that carbine will have been tested.

2.) Carpenter 158 bolt, shot peened, HP tested, and MP tested individually. You definitely want this, and should accept no less in a bolt. Additionally the Colt will include a tool steel extractor with the current M4 spec extractor spring.

3.) Bolt carrier will be a full auto profile carrier, chrome lined inner bore where the bolt lives. Properly staked gas key bolts, this is critical and a lot of el-cheapo outfits skimp on this. If those bolts loosen you will have gas leaks and short stroking, failures to feed, and no hold open on an empty magazine. Gas leaks are bad m'kay...

4.) Upper and lower receivers made from 7075-T6 forgings, type 3 hard coat anodized. Additionally you'll get a tougher Mil-Spec 7075-T6 buffer tube, and Colt will properly stake the living crap out of the castle nut that holds the buffer tube in place so it doesn't rotate on you under hard use. For some reason (OK no mystery to save $$$) el-cheapo guns often use a weaker 6061-T6 buffer tube, and more often than not don't bother staking the castle nut.

5.) Heavy weight buffer, or H2 buffer. A lot of el-cheapo brands use standard carbine buffers with steel weights because they are cheap. Colt uses either H or H2 buffers with tungsten weights because they moderate recoil better, delay bolt opening a bit to increase extractor life, and generally make for a smoother shooting carbine. Tungsten is expensive though.

There are probably a few things I missed but the heart of the rifle is the barrel, bolt, carrier, and trigger. I didn't address the trigger because GI spec triggers generally suck, and are the first thing I replace with a Geissele Automatics 2 stage.

Generally speaking the above features are what you should be looking for at a minimum for a good M4 type carbine if it is going to be a potential bet your life on it, has to work, fighting gun. I'm not going to tell you that it has to be a Colt, there are plenty of other reputable manufacturers out there building guns to this spec and even higher.

If it were me, and I was buying my first one, I'd save a bit more coin if you can, and buy a Colt LE6960, otherwise known as the Colt Combat Unit Carbine. It's mid length with all the above features plus a more logical barrel profile, a great M-LOK free floating fore end, and good Magpul furniture. Just needs iron sights of your choice and a good combat optic that meets your needs, plus a good sling. I'd happily take one out of the box, run a bore snake down the barrel with a bit of CLP, lube it all up, put sights on it, slap my Nightforce NXS 1-4X24 on top or my old Aimpoint, mount my Vickers sling, load a bunch of mags; and go take a high round count class with total confidence it will run like a raped ape. Probably buy a good light for it too. Then you're done, general purpose carbine achieved. Add a trigger that doesn't suck when you can.
 
Last edited:
"The carbine is the first to feature Colt’s new mid-length gas system."

They're acting like they invented it, those narcissistic jackwagons!:rofl:

...................................................

But yea, that would definitely be an option. Not really a huge fan of the handguard, though. But I could live it. It's just not as versatile as the KMR, and probably a little heavier, and not as refined from an engineering standpoint. With all that said, though, I would probably opt for that over the 6920.

But, again, if it were me I would build the lower myself and get a BCM upper. That's going to put you ahead of the Colt middie for the same price.

The KMR is a good rail, and the Key-Mod mounting system is a good one. However big Army looks to be going M-LOK, so I expect more M-LOK stuff in the future. I have a Key-Mod 15" rail on a Daniel Defense and really like it and my brother bought an otherwise identical rifle with M-LOK, got to say I like the M-LOK better from a subjective "feel" standpoint.

The Centurion rails are very very good quality though, frankly I like them better than the BCM stuff and I like BCM a lot. Either way choosing between them is a true first world problem. LOL.
 
The KMR is a good rail, and the Key-Mod mounting system is a good one. However big Army looks to be going M-LOK, so I expect more M-LOK stuff in the future. I have a Key-Mod 15" rail on a Daniel Defense and really like it and my brother bought an otherwise identical rifle with M-LOK, got to say I like the M-LOK better from a subjective "feel" standpoint.

The Centurion rails are very very good quality though, frankly I like them better than the BCM stuff and I like BCM a lot. Either way choosing between them is a true first world problem. LOL.

The KMR is the first rail that I thought had a truly intelligent attachment, with the clamping force being applied above the nut instead of under it. I'm sure other rails with the clamp below the nut are plenty strong, but the KMR design allows for a lighter, more streamlined package with the same or likely greater strength as the competition. Having the seven sides of keymod is also a huge advantage IMO. With an Arisaka inline scout mount, the light is as low profile as it could possibly get. With only three sides of keymod (or mlok), you're forced to use an offset mount, which isn't as low profile and adds weight. Definitely a first world debate like you said, but really slick engineering like that floats my boat big time.

Also, I really like mounting my sling stud at 11 o'clock instead of 9. It just adds to the whole low profile, ultra ergonomic feel. Again, it's the little details that really make me happy. I'm a terrible perfectionist.
 
Hey man having high standards is a good thing. I personally prefer the 9 o'clock sling mount, but I run a "Sling Ding" on my sling and it works better in the that location giving me more rotation capabilities for locking into a position against a barricade, car door, hood, door jam, etc. Personal preferences.

If you're not familiar with the "Sling Ding", it is a simple sling addition that Pat McNamara (Sgt.Maj 1st SFOD-D retired) came up with. It is super versatile and easy to use, he teaches it in his classes so that is where I learned it and bought it.

 
Not a clue on the Windham or Ruger. But for the price of the Oracles, I would be willing to bet they're not. As far as the Windham and Ruger, you would just have to trust the company to adopt their own practices that resulted in milspec level quality or better. But judging from my recent experiences with Ruger products I wouldn't be holding my breath. Windham I have no experience with whatsoever, nor have I heard anything either way.

Windham's are excellent ARs. For all intent they are the original Bushmaster. Just did some looking and from what I can tell Windham is a combination of Mil Spec and Commercial, the other two are Commercial with the Ruger having some proprietary parts. Using your own criteria none of them fit your idea of "good, reliable durable AR's. There are many people who would disagree with you. I'd be happy to own a Windham or Ruger or a number of DPMS models, but not an Oracle because the gas block sits lower than the receiver.

My son has a Stag that I bought him. The Stag website says their rifles are Mil Spec. My son's Stag sure doesn't seem to have better fit and finish or have been more durable than my DPMS A2 Classic I bought at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top