Colt Ar 22 cal Cheap or not

[JGARDNER]

I Have been looking for a AR 22 cal COLT, S&W, SIG and others all look like thier cheap
pieces of junk.
As for the Colt, hard to understand why they would put thier name on it.
Don't get me worng I have many Colt's and they manufacture some fine handguns and ARs.
But Colt's M4 is not made by them.
Any Ar 22 shooters out there that might have an Idea; or is there something I'm not seeing.
Any and all help is appreciated.
Jack

[dfariswheel]

One way to go is with a upper that's built as a .22LR using a good conversion kit.

This eliminates the problems with odd-ball designs like the Walther/Colt version and the cheaply made, non AR interchangeable parts in some others.

Also Ruger is making one based on the 10/22 action. Externally, its an AR, inside it uses a 10/22 receiver:
http://www.ruger.com/products/sr22/index.html

[chucksolo69]

I have the Colt M4, SIG SG22, and the GSG-5. I find the Colt to be well made and fun to shoot. When buying one of these .22s you have to keep in mind that this is NOT an AR15; it is a .22 rifle made to look and feel like one. My argument against a dedicated .22 upper for my existing AR15 is that I balk at taking my .223 AR out of action when the upper is installed. That's why I also eschew .22 conversions on my center fire handguns. The "tactical" .22 rifles on the market should be viewed as fun guns and nothing more. I find the overall build quality of the Colt superior to the S&W which is ALL plastic, including accessory rails and buttstock tubing. There are fans of every platform but for me, the Colt has more than lived up to my expectations. Having said that, I believe that the SIG SG522 is superior to both the Colt and S&W and way more superior than the GSG-5. If I could have only one, it would definately be the SIG. As for the Ruger mentined above, I don't even think of it as an AR externally. Ruger should stick to selling the 10/22 as is.

[RDak]

I've been very happy with my Spikes .22lr upper (M4 flat top):

http://www.spikestactical.com/z/inde...ex&cPath=72_73

They now have a light weight pencil barrelled upper.

Spikes uppers aren't cheap but are well made IMHO.

Mine has a couple of thousand of rounds through it and it has functioned flawlessly.

[mag318]

Gardner, I agree with you as to question why Colt would allow their name put on this gun. The first time I attempted to field strip mine I gagged at the sight of the pot metal trigger housing and bolt carrier. The cheap build quality is exceeded only by the poor design. Both the Smith & Wesson M&P15-22 and the Sig Sauer 522 are better rifles.

[chucksolo69]

In your opinion! IMHO, the Colt is "better" than the S&W simply because it's made of metal. I wish people would quit comparing this .22 "fun gun" to an AR. No AR style .22 LR gun made is anywhere near a "real" AR; let's get real here. I agree on the SIG though. The SIG IMHO, is the better made out of the three "tactical .22" rifles I own.

[Ky Bob]

I have not shot either but did get to squeeze the trigger on the Sig and SW. The Sig trigger was twice as smooth as the Smith. The place I was at had them on sale for $389 and I'm kicking my tail for not buying one.

[mag318]

People compare the Colt/Umarex to an AR because that is exactly how Umarex markets it. In print they exclaim "The black rifle goes rimfire", on TV they do likewise. The only thing this gun has going for it is that it looks like and M4 carbine. This is why I bought one when they first came out, plain and simple I liked the way it looked. If I could have field stripped it first at the dealers ( something I attempted and could not do) I never would have bought it. Granted it is metal if you don't mind cast aluminum and pot metal. It is just a fun gun and nothing more, the design worse then a GSG5. The Sig 522 and the S&W M&P15-22 are fun guns also, but at least the S&W could be used as a training aid as it's controls operate exactly like a centerfire AR. The S&W also takes down just like an AR and it's trigger group is pure AR. The S&W even with it's plastic upper and lower is a superior design.
The Sig 522, which mimics the Sig 556 also has a plastic lower, but it too is a much superior desin when compared to the Colt/Umarex. The only complaint with the Sig I've ever had is that until now they came without sights. Every 522 I've handled had a great trigger out of the box, it field strips easily like the S&W and is well designed. A large retailer I know who sells all three brands told me the Sig and S&W outsell the Colt/Umarex by a huge margin. There is a good reason for this.

[chucksolo69]

I disagree that the "only thing the gun has going for it" when refering to the Colt M4 .22 is its looks. The gun, or at least my gun is, extremely accurate. Training gun? Forget it, I doubt the military is going to pay for "plastic" guns for training. All these guns are "just for fun." For everyone of you, like Mag318 that dislikes the Colt, there are 2 who really enjoy the rifle. And as for the "large" retailer's comment, I really am dubious about any comments made by "large" retailers. Most of those bozos don't know a .22 LR from a .22 Mag.

[mag318]

Chuck is a staunch defender of the Colt/ Umarex as I am with the Smith & Wesson M&P15-22. The beauty of this and other forums is the information gleaned from opposing points of view. At least one thing we do agree on is that the Sig 522 is one of the best (black rifle) 22s.