Colt Modular Convertible Carbine SP901 Pricing

Pricing for the new Colt SP901 Modular Convertible Carbine has been reported in forums. The MSRP will be $2,129.00, which is not a bad price for a high-end .308 AR-style carbine. The SP901′s distinguishing feature is that it’s fully ambidextrous lower receiver can be used with standard AR-15 mil-spec upper relievers.

The naming of this rifle is confusing. Stamped on the rifle is “Colt Convertible Carbine”, but the marketing folk have been referring to it as the “Colt Modular Carbine”.

Caliber .308 Win (7.62×51 NATO)
Capacity 20 rounds
Finish Matte Black
Barrel 16.1″ Heavy Full Floated
Twist 4 Grooves, 1-12″ RH Twist
Overall Length 34.24″ – 37.5″
Weight 9.4 lbs
Sights Flip-Up Adjustable
Other Features Ambidextrous Controls
Availability 2012

Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


  • SoulTown

    Hmm, that’s actually pretty good pricing. But no CHF barrel, right?

    • Joseph

      It does have a hammer forged barrel according to a rep Michael Guerra of Colt.

  • 543

    This is going to be a hot seller for Colt especially if aftermarket caliber conversions become soon available. This could have been the excellent ACR if it hadn’t turned into an epic cluster-turd of corporate mismanagement.

  • Burkefett

    I might be mistaken, but a quick glance at my mil-spec AR upper makes it look like the rifle pictured will not fit AR-15 upper recievers. The rear takedown pin seems to be in the right spot, but the front takedown pin looks like it is far too low to engage the lug on the upper reciever. Are there additional parts necessary to make it engage an AR-15 upper, or is this just an early photo that’s not representative of the actual weapon?

    • Jeff

      apparently the magwell block holds the front takedown pin down.

      Personally, I think colt (as well as dpms, kimber, noveske, etc) needs to stop supplying the kool-aid (ar-15/1911s) that we (myself included) all drink from and make something completely new.

      Too bad there’s no market for that though. But I digress….

  • Lance

    You can almost but a separate M-4 and AR-10 for the price of one of these. All the modular talk of recent guns has faded away sine the Army isn’t looking for that capability. it would be better to buy two decaded ARs in different calibers than one over priced one that can do two.

    • Tierlieb

      Well, if you live in a country where the amount of guns you can buy is limited, yet the amount of uppers is not, this is absolutely great. That’s why I love it.

    • Other Steve

      That’s BS. Let’s see you price out a colt-quality AR-15 and AR-10 for the same amount.

      • W

        lance is not wrong, provided you buy a basic AR10 for 1100-1200 and a basic AR15 for 700-800 (both armalite).

        Colt quality? that’s hilarious. Colt’s are hardly the pinnacle of AR15 design. I would lump them with Bushmaster, Armalite, and Stag Arms. These are not terrible rifles; on the contrary they are fine weapons. In no way, however, do they compare with Noveske, LMT, POF USA, LWRC, PWS, or dare i say, H&K.

        If you want to throw a ground shaking name around when it comes a quality AR15 standard, Colt isn’t included in the sentence.

  • Lance

    I can say also be cheaper though for spare parts.

    • Other Steve

      Was this English?

      • 18D

        Thank you! I’ve been trying to figure out what the hell he’s been saying for the last few months!

    • Lance

      18D you seem to be in lala land again if you want to pick a fight over modular AR and none modular AR be my guest your name calling shows how simple you are.

  • I take it that this is the civilian semi-auto version of the military CM901?

    Anyone know what the weight would be fitted with a slimmer 5.56mm barrel, in comparison with an AR-15?

    This modular approach could be the best kind of solution for armies today, faced with fielding a mix of 5.56mm and 7.62mm rifles and with the (admittedly remote) possibilty of a new long-range intermediate round coming along some time. In the short term, you can standardise training for both 5.56mm and 7.62mm guns, as well as simplify logistics. In the longer term, you could adopt a new calibre with just a conversion kit.

    AFAIK the FN SCAR H is the only other military rifle which offers convertibility between 5.56mm and 7.62×51.

    • Other Steve

      I don’t think Colt is going to release it’s Upper and Lower weights separately. At least not until they would sell just a lower.

      The SCAR-H has a rumored kit, but it’s not available to civ and I’ve only ever heard stories of it’s existence. One thing that Colt got right is that if you wanted to caliber change, replacing the upper with optic is really the better way to do it. Not possible on the Scar as the upper is the firearm. Caliber change on the Scar-H would be limited to armory/range only which is probably more than fine for it’s intended use.

      The whole ‘quick’ change with no tools setup is fairly odd from a practical sense. I must not be the intended customer for that feature.

      • W

        “One thing that Colt got right is that if you wanted to caliber change, replacing the upper with optic is really the better way to do it.”

        That is exactly what ive been preaching since i have first heard of quick change barrels on carbines. it is a unnecessary feature that is actually inferior since a different barrel and bolt would not be zeroed with the optic mounted on the upper. Changing out the upper is too easy. I truly believe it can be achieved quicker than even the fastest quick change barrel, with the added bonus of a optic and/or iron sights being zeroed to that particular barrel.

        I believe Colt’s system is truly more modular than different systems that rely on a quick change barrel for their modularity. A multi-caliber lower receiver just makes a lot more sense. The ability to quickly change uppers (even in the same caliber) is one of the reasons why the Ar15 platform is still relevant in this century and becoming increasingly popular around the world.

        In response to comments about the weight. you do know the 5.56 upper on this rifle is anywhere from 6-8 lbs (depending on the type) right? the 7.62 upper is 9 lbs. BFD. in the words of “the 13th Warrior”…”I cannot lift this (sword)…” response “grow stronger”…

    • Joseph

      It’s a different upper, not a whole other barrel fitting. Likely it will weigh as much as you figure some extra metal on your lower will with your current LW 5.56 upper. However, I’m sure if you wanted to ask Colt and e-mail or phone call would suffice.

  • charles222

    Well, with that price I guess it’s a plus I’m getting promoted soon.

    But yeah-I can see the aftermarket really taking off for these.

  • Rijoenpial

    Hi guys

    I am glad that the civilian version of the famed CM901 is finally coming to light…

    I am still waiting for civilian feedback to see if this is a good combo weapon or if it comes short on both calibers…

    I also hope they will sell the lower receiver separately, and if they can fit other 308 Ar-10 clone uppers…

    Nevertheless, since the SCAR conversion kit is for military eyes only, this is the sole opportunity so have a modular 308 for caliber conversion purposes…

    Now, if you don’t already have an Ar-15 or Ar-10 rifle (unlikely for the first), this SP901 will imply you buy TWO uppers for ONE lower!

    Assuming the marketing is right and that any Mil-spec Ar-15 fits the lower receiver (haven’t heard YET about any 308 upper being able to fit…), that is a curious weapon to buy…!

    However… I will wait until feedback about accuracy, reliability and component durability surfaces, because combos always make me wonder ‘is it better to have two GOOD separate rifles or a SO-SO one that combines the two?’

    Time will tell…


    • noob

      As far as I know, AR-10s are very divergent between makers. Bolts from DPMS won’t work in Bushmasters. BCGs from SR25s won’t work in Sudanese AR-10s.

      For this reason and others, the Colt modular carbine has it’s own 7.62 nato upper that is the only 7.62 nato that will work with this lower. It even has a funny front take down pin that goes low into the angled cut off portion of the lower at the front of the long magwell.

      On the flip side, inserting the 5.56mm nato magwell block into the magwell and securing it with the front takedown pin will make the lower+magwell block combo work with almost any ar15/m6/m4 upper. This is because the magwell block has a secondary takedown pin hole on top of it that makes the total dimensions of the receiver fit the ar15 standard.

      so sorry you are locked into Colt for 7.62 nato, but you can bring your own AR15 uppers.

    • Other Steve

      Like noob said, there is no change of any other upper fitting this at least for the foreseeable future. Even if Mega wanted to make one of their mono uppers work, it would probably mean having to also adapt for the Colt bolt and carrier as well since looking at the 901 lower, trigger pins, and ambi controls, it seems it’s all new with this.

      I would not hold my breath for aftermarket support for quite some time IF this becomes popular.

  • Jim

    Not trying to nitpick, but the article says:
    “The MSRP will be $2,129.00”

    and the spec chart in the article says:
    “MSRP (Price) Not yet announced.”

    Kinda confusing

    • W

      and the ACR was supposedly supposed to be 1,500 $. I’ll believe the price of this rifle when i actually see it.

  • john

    That’s one heavy piece for a DI gun.

  • Bill

    Aesthetic furniture observations

    – Win for Tango Down and Vltor. It’s almost the same choice that Noveske uses/used. Usually a lot of manufacturers choose Magpul.

    – Not sure on the rail but the built-in rail QD points seem to be the trend these days.

  • MarkM

    Another boutique gun for the well heeled. Why all the hyped up comment about it taking off in the aftermarket when it’s about the same price point as the FN or ACR? The one major significant whine about them still being posted is that you could get TWO AR-15s for the overpriced single weapon?

    What’s missing in the evaluation is why a shooter would need to change uppers? A cartridge is designed for a specific optimal application, entirely the reason different weapons are fielded, which create depth in response to threats. At the average engagement distances, the intermediate cartridge does most of the job, at longer ranges, a select few are used. The ratio in Afghanistan is about 100,000 M4’s to less than 5,000 refitted M4’s.

    Most soldiers will NOT be carrying the extra upper around just in case. Same for shooters, it will be a strictly range toy exercise. Soldiers will choose the caliber for their role in a specific mission, and that’s what ammo they will draw as a basic load. Very rarely will anyone pull two basic loads and then attempt to carry it with two sets of mag pouches. Not happening, their supply sergeant isn’t likely to have taco pouches on the shelf for just everyone.

    SOCOM? Already has the heavy SCAR, the whole point of that debacle was not spending one more dime on weapons out of their budget.

    Colt’s putting it on the market using their Brand Power to create some profit to pay back for development, since the military isn’t a likely customer now. Be advised, buy one in .308, you’re still out $500-750 for another upper if it’s not already owned, and using it usually means a lower that can’t be at the same time. That makes it a $2,800 gun – and folks were squawking about the SCAR or ACR?


    • I doubt very much if any military interested in a modular gun would be imagining that soldiers would carry conversion kits and swap calibres in the field. Probably most guns would stay in one calibre throughout their lives, although the option would remain to switch the relative numbers of 5.56mm and 7.62mm back at the base if a particular campaign called for a different mix.

      The advantages of a modular weapon are that it simplifies training (since all of the handling, controls etc would be identical whatever the calibre) and also simplifies logistics (as many of the spare parts would be identical).

    • Other Steve

      That’s great that you can get two AR-15s for the same price as this…. unless you want to shoot out to and past 800yards that is.

    • Lance

      Fact is except for SOCOM there is not one else needing a caliber change in a rifle no infantryman will carry two barrels and uppers for a weapon. Most SOCOM ops ditched that idea as well. But like some said in a the case of wanting two guns in one receiver for a one time price its not bad. As for M-4s the caliber for new M-4A1/2s will still be 5.56mm no other caliber will be adopted a new barrel and piston set up is whats planned for it.

    • W

      yes, there is a reason why the military never included the barrel swap feature as necessary for the next carbine. it is strictly a marketing gimmick that is unnecessary in combat.

  • JM

    9.4 lbs? Yeah, no thanks.

    • Other Steve

      Scar-H is listed at 7.9 lbs for the 16″ so, yea, I have to agree. 9.4lbs is a bit of a piggy.

      It’s a shame they are pushing quad-rail over a modular rail. Esp for something they are calling a MODULAR carbine. They could have lost upto a pound there considering the mega mono uppers make guns that are under 8 pounds. I would like Colt’s monolithic upper if they lost the quad rail though.

      • noob

        but what does it weigh with a colt 5.56 upper and mag block? I’m betting same as ar15+magblock

  • Other Steve

    A couple things no one has mentioned…

    The price on this is not that crazy considering the cost of the F2000, Aug A3, ACR, SCARs, SR-25, really most AR-10 style guns, HK MR556, etc. It’s quite reasonable really, considering the AR-15 commonality. Hell, awhile back JUST the HK416 uppers were selling for 3-5k alone… People will pay anything for anything, but this Colt is actually a fine deal.

    More so if you consider registering a lower as an SBR. Normally, AR-15 is the one of if not the best firearm to register and pay the $200 tax on because of the insane number of calibers you could fit. This Colt makes slightly more sense if you were the type to consider a 10.5″ or 14.5″ 7.62×51. By registering this lower you can go from .22lr to 300WSM in any barrel length you could possibly want. Now, IMO a 10″ 308 or similar is a bit silly, but that’s just my opinion.

    Also the Ambi Controls on this gun are pretty interesting. The fire control pins also seem different.

    • I mentioned it … “which is not a bad price for a high-end .308 AR-style carbine.” 😉

    • noob

      In the vietnam war the ANZAC SAS sbr’d their L1A1 FAL rifles so they could swing them around in the jungle.

      The modification required extensive reinforcement of the rifle and alteration to the timing.

      It was loud. It was annoying. It was known as “THE BITCH”

      • W

        US advisers that first stepped foot in Vietnam were also known to carry M1 or M2 carbines instead of battle rifles. They were also the first to use the M16’s (alongside the South Vietnamese) due to their better suitability in the jungle.

        Given the conditions of the jungle, and inadequacies of the original M16, i would have rather carried “the bitch” more than anything.

  • fw226

    308 for hunting, 223 for patrol, and 22 for plinking? And other Steve is right – only one SBR required. Yeah, that would be a nice setup.

  • Joseph

    Receivers is spelled wrong.

    I actually like this rifle for what it is. It for that price could easily act as a dedicated 7.62… and yet if I really wanted to, I could slap on a 5.56 upper. I think that’s awfully spiffy in this day and age! It would look so cool with a Mk18 Mod 2 strapped on.

    • 18D

      A MK18 MOD2 upper would look cool…….if such an upper excited. Sorry, had to say it;)

  • Eric S

    Is it wrong that I want a pistol version so I could call it the CCCP?

  • Henry

    With that amount of money why not just go for a Springfield M1A SOCOM 16?

    • Joseph

      Different animal but you’re kinda right…

    • W

      because Springfield SOCOM 16’s, and M14s, are obsolete technologies. I am not pleased that there continues to be a debate in the military and civilian world about bringing a rifle back that was state of the art in 1945.

      • bandito762

        So instead we use one that was state of the art in 1965

      • Lance

        The AR design evolved you cannot say a SP-1 from 65 is the same as a M-16A2 or M-4 today or M-4A2 a few years from now.

        I’m a fan of the M-14 and it dose the job of EBR/DMR well, it will continue to fill niches in the Navy and even Army for many years to come, like DMRs and navy look out rifles. But for sniper rifles the M-110 has been championed by those who want a semi auto sniper rifle. Its accuracy beats FN’s and Remington’s piston plastic guns by a mile.

      • W

        in 1965? wtf is your point!? that 20 years was light years worth of progress in military rifle design. Besides, the AR10 was conceived in 1956.

        There has been no major breakthrough in small arms design over the past 60 years, just evolutionary changes like polymers, advanced alloys, and machining technology.

        My main point: the M14 is obsolete. It has been superseded technology and performance wise with the FAL, G3, new AR10 copies, SIG 510, HK 417, and SCAR 17, although still remains in service with the US military due to bureaucratic inertia and stupidity of the military constantly re-learning lessons earned since World War II.

        The idea of bringing back these weapons is absurd and stupid…I fear ive opened up a can of worms.

        And lance, Remington and FN did not have equivalent contenders when the M110 was adopted, so comparing those companies products then is utterly stupid. Now with Remington’s RSASS and FN Mk 20 SSR, both which have been recently unveiled, the M110 now has some competition (don’t even bring up the semi automatic sniper rifle vs sniper support system garbage; they are comparable in accuracy and range).

      • Lance

        You can argue a M-110 vs M-14 EBR but it was abetter gun then the G-3 ever was as well it was as good as a FAL.

      • bandito762

        Well if you really want to get picky the M14 was designed around 1954, the AR10 around 1956, and the AR15 around 1957. My point is, just because a design is old doesn’t mean it is outdated.
        When the US went to Afghanistan they found themselves outclassed by terrorists at long range with old Enfields, so they adapted to the situation as fast as they could using equipment they had instead of asking pretty please to start another procurement program which would take 5+ years to complete. The M14’s did the job, maybe not the very best it could have been done but they still did it. I agree that it may be time to look for a replacement as they are doing now, but to act like the m14 is a musket that is senseless to take on to a battlefield is ridiculous.

      • Lance


        Is right the fact is our enemy hasn’t advanced either the AK-47 is made in 1947. The Enfield is over 100+ years old and and Russia and China still use the Kalashnikov action (The Type 95 uses much of the AK action in its design) which is WW2 tech also. The M-14 has very good reviews from solder and Sailors who use them.

      • W

        “Well if you really want to get picky the M14 was designed around 1954, the AR10 around 1956, and the AR15 around 1957. My point is, just because a design is old doesn’t mean it is outdated.”

        oooohhh…close but no cigar. The M14 was actually conceived from a long line of experimental weapons derived from the M1 Garand. It is interesting that after all these tests, the differences were actually insignificant (detachable magazine, 308 chambering, different barrel, and select fire ability). The M14 is a select fire, magazine fed weapon chambered for a full power rifle cartridge; such a concept has already been conceived with the Gewehr 43, SVT40, Federov, and Mondragon rifles much earlier.

        Sorry, but just because it was introduced in 1959, doesn’t mean it was state-of-the-art. By the time it was introduced to vietnam, it was already obsolete. The future was determined to be intermediate caliber rifles (7.92 kurts, 7.62 soviet, 5.56, 5.45 and the sadly less used 270 sized cartridges).

        Considering the problems that are associated with the M14, perhaps you need to do a little homework on a company named Smith Enterprises and their refurbishing techniques.

        “When the US went to Afghanistan they found themselves outclassed by terrorists at long range with old Enfields, so they adapted to the situation as fast as they could using equipment they had instead of asking pretty please to start another procurement program which would take 5+ years to complete.”

        I believe you are mistaking the use of enfields with other weapons. Yes they were used (significantly less by the time the US invaded in 2001), though this was easily remedied by a increased issue of PKM machine guns and SVD rifles. US troops on the ground relied significantly on the M224 60mm and M252 81mm mortars in 2001, which could engage taliban at long distances. Consider our use of precision airstrikes as well.

        In contradiction to the “enfield” sniping tactic, which could easily be defeated by superior US sniper rifles, machine guns, mortars, and precision airstrikes, the Taliban actually favor closing on the US forces to deny them the advantages of their firepower (similar to what the Soviets did in WWII and what the Vietnamese did to the French and US in Indochina).

        “The M14′s did the job, maybe not the very best it could have been done but they still did it.”

        Now that’s a proper assessment. M14’s were fielded simply because there was no other rifle to fulfill the DMR niche in infantry units. Simply a winner by default. A stock, mil-spec M14 actually has inferior accuracy, reliability, and modularity as a more modern battle rifle. To even be in the same ball park as a FN SCAR 17, it requires expensive modifications by a highly talented gunsmith.

        “I agree that it may be time to look for a replacement as they are doing now, but to act like the m14 is a musket that is senseless to take on to a battlefield is ridiculous.”

        You are contradicting yourself. first you admit that “may” be time to replace the M14 (it needs replaced yesterday), though to admit that the idea that its obsolete is senseless. make up your mind. Anybody who knows anything beyond field stripping a M14 will tell you its time has passed.

        “Is right the fact is our enemy hasn’t advanced either the AK-47 is made in 1947.The Enfield is over 100+ years old and and Russia and China still use the Kalashnikov action (The Type 95 uses much of the AK action in its design) which is WW2 tech also. The M-14 has very good reviews from solder and Sailors who use them.”

        The AK47 is a assault rifle, not a battle rifle. The assault rifle idea is the result of lessons learned from WWII, and is still modern until somebody introduces something radical and different (like a phase disruptor 😉 they are the staple of modern, highly mobile armies that are superior to battle rifles in high-tech close combat, though battle rifles are also essential for designated marksman rifles (a lesson the Soviets figured out in WWII).

        Nobody is denying that older weapons are still being used. I am saying there is no excuse for a superpower army (like the one that can engulf every inch of the world in thermonuclear fire or strike the head on a pin with a 1,000 lb bomb) to be using obsolete weaponry when there is clearly evolved technology out there.

        Of course the M14 has rave reviews. Comparing that to a M4 in afghanistan is a no brainer. I preferred to carry my M14 than a M4 simply because of the engagement range and more predictable performance of the 7.62mm NATO round at ranges beyond 300 meters. Regardless of what the internet rumors read, the M14 and its magazines need specific attention and maintenance, especially in Afghanistan (keep CLP the &$#% away from it) and arctic conditions.

      • Nater

        The state of the art in 1945 was the StG. 44.

  • Esh325

    It does seem like one of the top .308 rifles right now. I’d think the military would be very interested in such a weapon. Would be a more logical choice then fielding M14’s still. Then again, had we chose a better caliber (7mm,6.5,etc) there would be no need for such a weapon.

    • mosinman

      hate to nitpick but you (W) seem to have a uber crush on the scar. yeah its lighter and all but really, it seems like anything that is old is “junk” in you opinion. im not an expert at anything but i dont see how the FAL is better than the m-14. they both were failures in full auto they are both piston designs and fire the same round. the g3 isnt that revolutionary either. it has a crappy charging handle, the FAl and the m-14 are superior in this regard. it also fires .308 nato. the roller lock system is good, but it mauls your brass, doesnt matter from a military standpoint since they dont reload ammo. so tell me, what makes those 2 rifles better? because they are made by the germans or belgians? im sure the scar is lighter and it should be because its new. but why buy new rifles when you’ve got a good dmrs in warehouses ? im sure it costs less to accurize and modify a m-14 than it does to but a completely new rifle.

      • Nater

        The FAL is definitely a superior weapon the the M14. It’s more durable, it’s lighter, carbine variants are widely available, ect. The SCAR-H is basically a new take on the old 50.63 FAL.

        The same story with the G3. Shorter, lighter, more durable, better. They’re both superior to the M14, as they should be. The M14 is basically a rifle from the 1930s.

        The US Army really screwed the pooch when it adopted both 7.62×51 over the .280 British and when it adopted the M14 over the FAL.

        You’d ideally buy new SCARs because the M14 isn’t “perfectly good” at all. The M14 is simply cheap and available. That is really all it has going for it.

      • mosinman

        actually i wouldn’t, id buy the m-14. i wouldn’t buy the SCAR when i could get ammo and a good accurate reliable m-14 for around the same price. the g3a4 is 10 pounds the m-25 (which is the dmr variant) is 10 pounds as well. you are right about it being shorter than the m-14 but its by like 4 inches not all that dramatic. where do you get a lack of durability from? if its a rifle from the 30’s like you say then its a modified garand right? the garand isn’t fragile. the garand is reliable. so why wouldn’t the m-14 be? did adding the ability to use detachable magazines make it fragile ? im pretty sure it didn’t. im not trying to discredit the FAL its a great rifle, 90 countries have used it. nor am i saying the G3 is bad. what im trying to say is that the m-14 isn’t “bad’ my point is when its updated it can be just as good as the other .308 DMRs

      • Lance

        The M-14 is a good weapon I wont compare it to other so others wont try to fight you but its reliable accurate and hard hitting. AR-10 and SCAR H are way too expensive for alot of gun owners so the M-14 is a great choice. And its still liked by US troops with over 95% approval.

      • mosinman

        good way to put it lance. nothing wrong with the scar, i just dont think it significantly better than the m-14 to warrent replacement. but it’ll happen soon. hopefully its a domestic american design, because we can design fire weapons just like anyone else

      • Lance

        No real problem while the Army and Marines use M-110s to supplement M-14 in its various forms the Navy will use M-14s for much longer time for ship deck watch and for firing tow lines in mid sea resupply and as a maritime security rifle the M-14 will be around for a long time.

      • 18D

        It’s hard to understand why so many shooters have these misconceptions of the M14 and the battle rifle in general. It’s usually because these shooters have heard ridiculous rumors over the years, don’t have the operational experience with the M14, and generally don’t have a lot of time if any behind other battle rifles in operational environments. Of course, there’s also the old timers who just can’t let go, as well as those individuals who would rather not conform to more effective modern shooting techniques and methodology.

        The M14 is all but obsolete! Many units in OEF are looking hard for replacements and many units are either in the process of replacing their M14’s or have already done so. Mosinman, you mentioned that you were “sure it costs less to accurize and modify a M14 than it does to buy a completely new rifle.” If we’re talking about a complete M110 package, then you’re right. If we’re talking about a MK17 SCAR, you’d be wrong. The MK14 EBR package costs more money than any of us care to spend, and its much more costly than a new SCAR-H. It also costs more money to support or maintain the standard M14 than it would a SCAR-H. Think of it like a 1911, it would take a lot of time, effort, and proprietary components to keep the M14 running than it would any new design.

        “I wouldn’t buy a SCAR when I could get ammo and a good accurate reliable M14 for around the same price”

        Your right, a brand new Springfield M14 is going to cost less than a brand new SCAR-H, but not by a lot. Not only that, but an M14 out of the box is not going to be nearly as accurate as the myths suggest. The SCAR-H and the AR10 will shoot circles around the M14 any day of the week. The M14’s wooden stock tends to cause fluctuation in its accuracy and can cause reliability issues when not properly taken care of. The M14’s accuracy requirement was 5.6in at 100yds! Hardly match grade.

        “Where do you get a lack of durability from? If its a rifle from the 30’s like you say then its a modified Garand right? The Garand isn’t fragile. The Garand is reliable. So why wouldn’t the M14 be?”

        The M14 is reliable. But, it requires more maintenance than new battle rifles like the SCAR-H. And yes, the addition of a magazine on the M14 does make it less reliable than the Garand by way of design.

        “Don’t think the SCAR is significantly better”

        You’re entitled to your opinion, but your lack of operational understanding is effecting your judgement. The M14 is 11.5lbs and 44in long, with a 22in barrel. Check that against the SCAR with a 16in or 13in barrel. Trying to clear rooms or maneuver with your team is going to be a chore with the M14. Not fun at all. The M14 doesn’t have near the logistical support either. Weapons like the SCAR, M-110, MK11, and MK48 are much easier to maintain and require less logistical support. The M14 is not compatible with modern accessories either. Try keeping an optic zeroed on that God awful M14 optics mount that replaces the stripper clip guide. It is gaurentee to come loose every 50 rounds, and increases the height of the optic to the point where getting a good cheek weld is all but impossible. Accessories like the PEQ15, VBLIII, and M203/203A1 are not compatible either. I don’t have to tell you what a problem that is. No clip night optics, no clip on thermal, the M14 doesn’t support those items.

        Manual of arms (terrible safety placement), accuracy problems, increased maintenance schedule, flash hider alignment issues, special tools, and the list of problems goes on and on. The SCAR-H is light, compact, easy to use, has ridiculous accuracy and reliability, and supports all modern accessories in the latest SOPMOD kit. It’s a battle rifle in an assault rifles body built for the 21st century with operator input. I’m not sure where you get the idea that the SCAR-H or even the M110 variants aren’t substantially more capable than the M14. The Marine Corps is currently in the process of replacing every M14 with M110’s, and many SEAL teams (MK14 supporters) are doing the same. There isn’t anything wrong with shooting an M14 for sporting use, but for 21st combat, the M14 is done!

      • Lance

        @ Mosinman

        With all these plastic gun lover cry and say they hate the M-14 and say its a dead weapon. Strange over 08% of troops like it it worked in the mud rain snow and dust of the world and is still in use be elite troops as well as regular GIs today. All this posturing from a few on and the fact the M-14 is still around confounds them and proves they are just saying there opinions. besides if the M-14 was soooo inaccurate why do all the DMs in a squad chose the EBR over M-110s and other 7.62mm weapons in a theater where men can find ways to get any weapon they want for specific missions.

      • W

        18 is absolutely correct.

        “With all these plastic gun lover cry and say they hate the M-14 and say its a dead weapon.”

        Like I have said before, this anti-“plastic gun” mentality is alarmist, uneducated bullshit that keeps getting spouted over and over again. The irony, which ill add is so thick you can cut it like butter, is that the anti-plastic gun crowd here lauds the AR15, which was met with criticism by the army brass when it was adopted because it wasn’t constructed mostly of steel and wood.

        Given the facts, the M14 is obsolete. Mountains of evidence and facts point to this, but it seems to be deliberately ignored by lance and other lovers of the M14 that resort to emotional arguments in regard to scientific, mechanical principles based on fact.

        “Strange over 08% of troops like it it worked in the mud rain snow and dust of the world and is still in use be elite troops as well as regular GIs today.”

        Like I said previously (do you $*#@ing see a pattern here!?!? repeating the same facts over and over again in front of blind eyeballs), I wouldn’t blame any sensible soldier for loving the M14…simply because the weapons they are carrying are less effective at a extended range theater in which M14’s are employed (afghanistan). It is the victory by default.

        “All this posturing from a few on and the fact the M-14 is still around confounds them and proves they are just saying there opinions.”

        There is nothing frustrating about the M14 still being around. The military is “brilliantly” relearning new concepts, such as designated marksmen, thus M14’s, which have been stored in large numbers, are being reintroduced into service because there are no other rifles available in those quantities.

        The fact that there is now a better alternative out there than the M14 seems to strike a nerve with the steel and wood loving crowd. To add insult to injury, this polymer and alloy rifle, for all practical purposes, outperforms their beloved weapon in most aspects.

        This is not about bragging about one’s intellectual endowment. it is about placing a adequate rifle into the hands of the world’s most powerful military. The soldiers deserve better than “working with the equipment they have, not with what they want”.

        “besides if the M-14 was soooo inaccurate why do all the DMs in a squad chose the EBR over M-110s and other 7.62mm weapons in a theater where men can find ways to get any weapon they want for specific missions”

        ok, this is utter bullshit. Conventional soldiers do not have the option of getting any weapon they want. 1st SFOD-D and other similar units may have this luxury, though everybody else doesn’t. The M14 is selected, simply because larger numbers are in service than the M110 and other weapons. Again, there is that victory by default again. The M110 is not a designated marksman rifle, it is a sniper rifle designed to replace the M24. The M14 is a designated marksman rifle designed to fill in a niche previously forgotten by the US military and re-learned after the War on Terrorism.

        Keep up the work cupcake, ill give you a D for effort.

    • 18D

      Plastic gun lovers? Show me a plastic gun! There are none. There are however guns with polymer parts and components. I don’t love plastic guns. I love innovation and progress. I like it when I see a new weapon system that is light, compact, durable, accurate, and reliable. I don’t care where it came from or what its made out of. You assume too much, that’s your problem.

      I don’t hate the M14 either. But, it has little use on the modern battlefield when new weapon systems are available and new TTP’s have taken over. Wake up at get with the 21st century.

      Your assumption is once again wrong. DM’s are not all reaching for an EBR. That’s why the Marine Corps is getting rid of them for M110’s. They are swapping them out 1 for 1. The SOF community continues to use the MK17 more frequently while phasing out the M14’s and MK14’s. I don’t know what unit you are referring to when you say they can get any weapon they want. Any unit that can do that is NOT picking up EBR’s. Not only that, but I don’t know what kind of unit that can do that period. SOF is not some kind of magical unit of wizards that can just run whatever they want.

      The M14 was put into play as an interim solution to the battle rifle. The whole idea is to replace every single one for a more modern solution. The units currently operating overseas knows the same things I know and that’s why they are getting rid of them. They just don’t offer any advantage over current modern systems and they cost too Mich to outfit and maintain.

      • Lance

        The SCAR is NOT phasing out weapons in regular forces and is only supplementing weapons in SOCOM innovatory You can go on you rant again over how if a guns old its garbage but I see it still in service if you dont like it. Well start your own army then. The SCAR H will supplement older weapons yes but it will NOT replace everything.

      • Lance

        And strange I see and seen many modern pics of EBRs and older M-14s still in use too.

      • 18D

        Once again you fail to properly read my comment. I didn’t say the SCAR is phasing out anything in the conventional forces inventory. I specifically said that conventional forces are moving to M110’s, like the Marine Corps. Not only that, but I didn’t say the M14 was obsolete because it was old. I said it was obsolete because it has failed to meet requirements for the modern battlefield. If you would have ACTUALLY read my comment you would know that. But, like I said, you ASSUME way too much.

        BTW, PICTURES? You’ve seen modern pictures?! LMFAO! You sunk your own ship with that comment!

    • mosinman

      18d i am by no means a SF solider or a solider of any sort. i do value informed and coridal discussions , so thank you for not being argumentative. now when i meant id buy a m-14 i meant like the socom kind with a poly stock and the rails for all the bells and whistles. ive heard that they are quite accurate, and expensive unless you know where to get them : ) i am not against innovation, im for it, but what im trying to say is the M-14 when modified correctly isnt something to laugh at. i guess ive just got a liking to “obsolete” technology (hence the name^) i know the m-14 isnt gonna be around forever and im cool with it. if i ever had to defend my country as a civi (probably never will have to) i feel confident that my nagant will serve me well. (yes i know its limited) im very familiar with it, i shoot it well and thats what matters. yes theres better rifles than it. but if i shoot the MN better than others then thats what i need. enough of my off topic rambling lol .

      • 18D

        Thanks for the respective reply. Sometimes my frustration with others may get into a conversation with some I don’t wish to be argumentative with. I’m glad you didn’t take it that way. I try to be as objective as possible but my experience as an SOF soldier does come into play during conversations like this. I respect your opinions and I too love a good M14. I just feel that it doesn’t have much place in modern operations due to its lack of modern amenities. Of course, with a chassis system the M14 becomes much more capable.

        Thanks again for your comments.

        BTW, I can’t argue with the Mosin Nagant. It’s a great rifle from the past and a solid performer. It wouldn’t by my choice for modern combat operations, but I still love a good MN!

      • mosinman

        oh it totally isnt lol except for a budget sniper rifle. fun guns though.

      • W

        You know mosin man, there have been US soldiers, in the 21st century, that have been killed by Enfields, Mosin Nagants, and Mausers that were state of the art in the late 1800’s. Just because it is old, doesn’t mean it doesn’t function when the time is right.

        I’m guilty of loving old guns too. I own a Armscorp National Match that is a dream to shoot, though still prefer to shoot my M1 Garand.

      • mosinman

        W, oh totally, i mean a rock can even kill someone so i agree , when in the right hands anything can deadly, except maybe a plastic spork lol and if you’ve got a garand i wouldnt blame you for wanting to shoot it : )

      • W

        haha, the M1 has sentimental value to it. My grandfather gave it to me as a enlistment present when I was 17.

      • mosinman

        thats neat-o, quite a nice gift thats also why i like old weapons.. tons of history.. if only they could talk…

  • actually, considering what this rifle is capable of, 21 hundred is a nice price point.

    For small town police forces, it’s one rifle. New uppers can be had for much less than a whole new rifle.

    Heck, for most LEO, this is a godsend. Simplify maintenance and keeping costs down. Uppers are available from many makers.

    For the sport shooter, imagine switching from a match barrel for competitions to a hunting barrel then later changing to a .22lr barrel for some fun with the family.

    As to why the army rejected it? Big Army is wedded to 5.56mm. Deal with it. We’ve got a billion, kajillion rounds of the stuff. The large mag well looks like a dirt and crud trap (I said looks like).

    Say what you will about other calibers, but we have too much invested in the “poodle shooter” caliber to change over.

    • noob

      hmm imagine only having two armorer’s courses on offer at the small town PD.

      this rifle, and glock.

      boring as hell, but it sure would be cheap.

  • noob

    Is it trolling to suggest that they should have made the magwell even longer so it could accept 30-06 mags?

    • noob

      heh, just realised that the 338 lapua is even longer than the .30-06. and of course the .50bmg is longer than that though only by a millimeter.

      if only there was a way to put all the user controls on one receiver and all the bits that touch the bullet on the other receiver. that way the magwell will stay with the barrel and the Bolt group, while the fire control group (semi or select fire) stays with the restricted firearm part.

      something like the KRISS vector’s set up, except for rifle calibers.

      its either that or make a lower with the most giant magwell possible and then shrink it down with mag well blocks.

      • There’s a much bigger difference in length than you suggest.

        The 7.62 x 51 measures c.70mm overall
        The .30’06 is c.85mm
        The .338 LM is up to 94mm
        The .50 BMG is 138mm

  • William C.

    I’ll take one.

    Good to see news from Colt. I haven’t heard anything about their APC or AHC. I think they’re offering the ACC-M in the Individual Carbine competition.

  • Nater

    Why do they always go with heavy barrels on these things? There isn’t a need for sub-MOA accuracy on a battle rifle. I’d rather have a lighter gun.

    • noob

      maybe they’re marketing it as a competitor to the civilian versions of the SR25, M110 or other designated marksman/sniper rifles? That would also explain the price point.

      Are battle rifles more popular in the civilian market than sniper grade rifles? or is the market roughly the same size?

    • W

      The heavy barrel fad has something to do with the fact that they are more suitable for sustained fire and heavy use.

  • charles222

    Just how many calibers would work with this?

    • Nater

      Well, assuming a different barrel, you could run pretty much anything that uses the .308 Winchester as a parent case. .243 Winchester, for example.

      Also, with the appropriate upper receiver you could run any caliber that can be run through an AR-15 (5.56 NATO, 6.8 SPC, .300 Blackout, ect.).

  • Lance

    @ NATER im not goin to start another fight I know you love your little FAL and hate the M-14 with all your being the Army chose the M-14 deal with it. The M-14 is far more accurate than a FAL. The SCAR is a AR-18 action NOT a FAL and is crappy furniture make it has its own issue.

    The FAL is a great weapon. So shut up Nater makes me think your lonely if you have to pick a fight with me on Christmas eve.

    • Nater

      I don’t celebrate Christmas, it’s just another day to me. I just get it off because a lot of other people have to indulge their pseudo-Christian/Pagan/Consumer Capitalist tendencies on it.

      Have you ever seen an AR-18 action? My guess is that you haven’t, because the SCAR and the AR-18 are substantially different. The SCAR is part of the AR-16 (not 18) lineage, but it’s not an AR-16. The bolt carrier has a much in common with the Kalashnikov as it does the AR-16 but it uses an Stoner-type multi-lug bolt.

      It is, however, exactly what I said. A fully modernized version of the old 50.63. They’re very similar weapons.

  • Lance

    Check out MARSOC pics from about two weeks ago. Most snipers have gone to the M110 but DMRs in the Army and for other services in the navy insure the 14 will be gone in a year or two.

  • I would like to know if anyone knows if their is any difference other then the LE markings between the two versions of the Colt LE901-16S and the Colt SP901? I have tried several times to talk with a Colt rep on this issue but every time I try, I’m on hold for over 20 min. waiting to speak with someone from the Colt Company. I would greatly appreciate any info for this.
    Thanks for your help,