Retro Black Rifles

[wags]

Colt's first attempt of a M16 carbine 1964/65, the Model 605. Standard type D non trap door stock and triangular hand guards, 15" barrel w/3 prong flash hider, slick side upper with out forward assist, chrome non serrated bolt carrier group, and 4 position selector lever in a partial fence lower receiver. A complete disaster. Here is my cloned model. This one works like a dream thanks to John Thomas at Retro Arms Works. 

[wags]

And another neat little carbine, the XM177E2. An M16A1 style upper with forward assist, 6 hole handguards, 11.5" barrel with Moderator, aluminum 2 position butt stock. This little guy is a great reliable shooter. Forgot to thank and mention NoDak Spud LLC who produces accurate M16A1 lower receivers and earlier ones too. And John Thomas at Retro Arms Works who made me this replica Moderator and completed finally assembly. 

[tomb]

Very nice rifles, I've always liked those aluminum butt stocks and the 3 pronged flash hider in the top picture.

[sistema1927]

wags, When you say "complete disaster" was this a case of not matching the buffer to the barrel length or something else?

[wags]

sistema1927, I was being a little over dramatic using the term complete disaster. But, the Model 605 was retired in short order due to being unreliable. There were two models: the 605A which had a 3-way selector switch (safe, semi, full). And the 605B which had a 4-way selector switch (safe, semi, full, burst). Both models used the Edgewater design buffer assembly that was discontinued at the time of the M16A1. I don't know the original gas hole diameter for the 605, but shortening the barrel to 15" had an impact on the gas pressure. Putting everything together and the US looking for a quick M16 carbine to field led to its quick demise. I'm sure there is more to it.

My 605 works like a champ! The retro guys who have built this style of rifle have brought up they don't like to run in cold weather? Living on Lake Erie where winters can be brutal, I've found that having the gas hole opened to .120 thousands works best for reliability. I was told going any larger than .120 and it will start shaving the jacket from the bullet. All in all it's a great little clone with a short history as the first attempt at a M16 carbine rifle. 

[CXM]

My Colt AR15 is pretty old... an SP-1 which lacks the assist lever (auto jammer) but other wise shoots ok and is reasonably reliable... I don't shoot it much, but for some reason I keep it around...

My most shot AR is a 9mm version... just plain fun to shoot and reasonably accurate as well... and cheaper to shoot as well...

FWIW

Chuck

[Jäger]

Jun 19, 2017 5:38:43 GMT -5 wags said:

Both models used the Edgewater design buffer assembly that was discontinued at the time of the M16A1. I don't know the original gas hole diameter for the 605, but shortening the barrel to 15" had an impact on the gas pressure.

Not familiar with that, but sounds like another in the parade of "oopsies" over the decades.

Just about the time I think there's no end to what guys in basements can do to make Eugene Stoner's rifle unreliable, I remember that the government has been setting the standard in that area for decades.  It's not that Stoner's design was perfect, right out of the box, but rather that government seems to just change things without fully testing what the results will be.  And that applies to the service ammunition just as much.

The current short barrelled M4 is an example of more of the same.  Both on the weapon side with issues relating to higher gas port pressures, and on the ammunition side.  Why is it only the US complaining about the ineffectiveness of the M855 round in the sandbox, and not the Canadians, Brits, Aussies et al reporting the same thing while using the same ammunition?  Maybe because they're still using the original 20" bbls on their M16 variants or similar 5.56 weapons, without the velocity loss that the M4 barrel lengths incur?  Was shaving 6" off the barrel actually worth it?  I ran troops from various countries through CQB training facilities that were mock-ups of Afghan villages, grape huts, etc., and I didn't see any handicaps incurred or prevented by 6" of barrel length.  And every country using the M16 platform also has APCs they ride around in... 6" of barrel means nothing when dressed in today's full battle rattle.

Thirty years ago I started out despising the M16 platform and thinking we needed 7.62 platforms for the imminent battle we would be fighting with the Soviet Union in the cities of Germany after they poured through the Fulda Gap.  Happily, that didn't happen (which is probably why I am still on the right side of the grass).  But the last 30 years have changed my mind on the M16 as the platform of choice - for the infantry at least; I can't speak for the other combat arms.

I've got exactly one AR - a Colt M16A4 clone, minus the go-fast switch that I never used overseas anyways and have no interest in.  The rifle is almost boringly reliable, and 1 MOA accuracy at 300 yards with select 68 grain and 77 grain handloads is something nobody can complain about when you have a military chrome lined barrel complete with bayonet lugs and handguards that aren't free floating.  The identically configured .22 rimfire upper makes for cheap practice, cheap fun on the range, and certainly good enough for keeping the local gophers in check as long as ranges are within 100 yards.  The beauty of the platform I used to hate is if I want something else, it is just a matter of switching out the upper, whether for a super accurate varmint caliber, a National Match upper, or to go deer hunting (which will never happen, with a safe full of fine classic hunting rifles).  Not particularly attractive looking, feels more like a work tool than a fine rifle in your hands - but what an awesome weapon/competition platform!

Anyways, I can certainly understand interest in collecting M16 historical variants, just as others collect HPs, S&W revolvers, etc.  I am guilty of being a military rifle collector myself.  But in the case of the M16, I am left bemused at how many government "improvements" over the decades are examples of causing more problems than they eliminated - rifles and ammunition.

I guess we will see how the new M855A1 environmentally friendly service round works out... happily, I no longer will be one of the ones putting it to the real test overseas.

[CXM]

This will probably qualify me for the 'Old Pfart' club... if that is the case... so be it!

I didn't like the M16/AR15 when I first saw it in 1967... I didn't like it any better in 1969... and don't like it any better today (though I do have a few examples so as to have something handy when a deploying friend needs to practice with small arms... the same reason I have a Beretta 92... I will concede however, that an AR in .22LR is fun to shoot... as is a 9x19mm.

I learned to shoot military rifles on a M14... sort of an improved M1 rifle... The M1 rifles were reliable, accurate and had good range... none of which are bad. The 7.62NATO round was a winner too... it and it's precursor the 30-06 ball round were powerful, reliable, accurate and had good penetration... I recall the videos made for the AR15/M16 media blitz of the 1960s... these clips showed a .223 round hitting a concrete block and shattering the block... of course it was a put up job... the 7.62NATO round was entirely capable of blasting through a cement block...

What we wound up with was a rifle that was bought by a bean counter who imagined himself along with his 'whiz kids' as knowing more about small arms than the Army...

To me the real problem with the AR15/M16 was the whiz kids were trying to fill the need for a rifle with a carbine!!! The AR15 as bought by the Air Force to replace the M1 carbine worked fine... it was not intended for long ranges maintained long enough barrels to keep velocity up... stated velocities on the .223 in those days was over 3,100fps. When used as designed and intended, the AR was a good carbine. For short range work the .223 was at least acceptable...

However for those in areas such as Europe where long range engagements would have been the norm the .223 didn't have what it took... Ever since the 1970s the Army has looked for a way to improve the long range performance of the M16... success have been elusive at best...

Fast forward to the Sand Box. The Army though still in denial looks for a rifle that performs better at long range... land discovers that despite giving huge numbers of M14s away, a quantity still remained in inventory and many were issued to troops in the Sand Box... Troops were pleased to have a longer range more powerful rifle... so the Army (being the Army) decided they needed to look into improvements for the M16/M4 series!!!! The Army of course is smarter than everyone else... they KNEW the M14 could not possibly be the answer... the answer HAD to be new and expensive...

Which brings us to where we are today... We still don't have a replacement for the M16. We have had some really nice committees make recommendations... but no solution... The .30 BLK would probably be a good choice... but the Army doesn't like that... leaving us where we started...

All this experimenting and wrangling certainly makes for an interesting field for collectors...

V/r


Chuck

[sistema1927]

While in Korea in the early 80's I was a "dismounted" Armor NCO (long boring story). Other than basic training it was the only time that I was actually issued an M16. Even though Daddy said "never volunteer for everything", it was an easy decision to step up to the plate when Top asked for volunteers to serve as M60 gunners for the post QRF. Yes, it was heavier to lug around, but if the sky had filled with DPRK paratroopers it would have been more comforting to have some 7.62 "goodness" at my disposal.

That said, I have several AR's, including a couple of AR pistols, one in 300 AAC, and enjoy them. However, if you need a rifle, you need a rifle.

[wags]

Chuck: Your Colt SP-1 rifle is becoming a very valuable asset. Colt made this model from 1964-1985 (some of the earlier ones had the Edgewater buffer). Not a bad run. Prices now are hovering around $1300 and over $2000 depending on condition, in the box, etc. If your interested what year it was manufactured, ar15.com has a very nice data base of serial numbers in the retro rifle section. Would sure like to see a picture of it!

Isn't it amazing that just about everyone who has served, shoots or collects military rifles has an opinion on the M16 series rifle. It's like a love/hate relationship. My active duty years in the corps the main U.S. battle rifle was the M16A1. Served me well. No complaints. Lightweight, accurate, and yes reliable. Just keep the chamber and bolt carrier group clean. A few of the older senior enlisted/Officers didn't have a favorable few of the M16. I can still remember their complaining like it was yesterday.

But I do like the retro series of the M16. And I've had ZERO problems with them. Enough said. I have quite a few I've built over the years using as many retro USGI parts that I could acquire. Amazing back in the 80's at gun shows you couldn't give away A1 or earlier parts. Everyone one wanted A2 items. Lol. Now the smallest parts are becoming insanely expensive. Thx for sharing guys!

[Jäger]

Jun 19, 2017 18:39:18 GMT -5 wags said:

Isn't it amazing that just about everyone who has served, shoots or collects military rifles has an opinion on the M16 series rifle. It's like a love/hate relationship. My active duty years in the corps the main U.S. battle rifle was the M16A1. Served me well. No complaints. Lightweight, accurate, and yes reliable. Just keep the chamber and bolt carrier group clean. A few of the older senior enlisted/Officers didn't have a favorable few of the M16. I can still remember their complaining like it was yesterday.

It goes beyond the M16s.

About the time I started out as a cop, speedloaders were just coming out (well, they were nothing new - there were speedloaders for Webley revolvers, and I'd love to find one).  The old sergeants sneered at those of us who carried them and said we should learn to shoot.  Daily wear body armour was arriving in law enforcement about the same time, also sneered at by the old sergeants - although the guy from Second Chance running around and demonstrating it to everybody by shooting himself while wearing a vest certainly got everyone over that in a hurry.  And while we were still using revolvers, pistols were frequently talked about, and the common wisdom from the old sergeants was that you would have to be a fool to trust your life to unreliable pistols.  I well remember the reference "jam-o-matics"...  These days, the current flavor is that you have to be a fool as a cop to trust your life to a 9mm instead of a 45 ACP, old sudden death itself.

Then I went to the military because jumping out of airplanes and playing at night in interesting foreign places seemed more interesting.  In no particular order, I've watched grizzled old sergeants (including after I became part of the same peer group) sneer at all kinds of things: ballistic armour, GPS vs compass, optical sights on infantry weapons, mortar versus grenade launcher, etc.  And of course, the 7.62 versus 5.56 rifle issue.  When we exchanged our 7.62's for 5.56, they assured us that now we were all gonna die.  Same guys telling me the new fangled GPS units were gonna get us all killed as well.... just a matter of what killed us first.

The rifle issue gets presented via various avenues of attack i.e. "spray and pray" versus the cool and deliberate one shot one kill rifleman (hello Jeff Cooper), stopping power, range, and so on.  In real life, there is no such thing as squads of one shot one kill riflemen, no matter what weapon platform.  In real life, the enemy uses the dirty trick of firing from camouflaged positions, masking muzzle blast and muzzle flash, just like we do.  They build their defenses in depth - meaning one firefight right after another - just like we do.  There is smoke - theirs and ours - and drifting dust often reducing visibility to near zero, which makes precision aim a bit of a Hollywood scenario.  There's the reality of assaulting through an objective while gasping for breath, your heartbeat at about 180, and having to start providing cover fire for your partner immediately after you stop moving, eliminating any semblance of good firing position, good cheek weld, careful alignment of sights, proper trigger press, etc.  Or trying to return fire while listening to bullets snap overhead and thump into the cover you are behind... you don't poke your head up very long for cool, deliberate, return fire.

The caliber debate in real life is never as simple as comparing platforms or bullet sizes and weights. 

In real life, in my 30 years, most infantry small arms engagements take place inside 200 meters.  That's what our military research analysts say, and that's what personal experiences of soldiers say.  Which may be why the NATO spec for small arms ammunition runs around 2 MOA capability at best.  Not just now, but for many, many decades at least.  The training areas of Germany as far as topography go are not that different than training areas like Ft Lewis, Yakima, etc.  The chances of long range small arms engagements other than harassing fire are about nil.  You light me up at 600 - 800 meters, and you are unlikely to win the firefight because it will not happen.  You will, however, have me calling my friends in the cannon cockers and close air support to pay you a visit, not to mention the chain guns in the carriers.  Not into fair fights, to see who are better shots.  Engage at 200 meters or less, and now even poorly trained soldiers can be much more effective, and going backwards is almost as dangerous as going forwards.  I have never once considered calling the cannon cockers when the bad guys were within 200 meters, although close air is still an option even if fast air is not. 

There is a reason we train commanders from the highest levels to the lowest to use the complicated combined arms tactical plans that we use - never put soldiers up against the enemy when you can put artillery, direct fire support, tac air, etc up against the enemy instead.  I am not going to get stuck into a long range firefight that I don't have to, and if an enemy is engaging me at long range with small arms fire instead of letting me advance to closer distances where their fire will be more effective, there is probably a reason they're doing that.  And I am not going to stick my troops and myself into that to see what his plan is.  Arty and air will sort it out while we do our thing to redeploy and re-org.

The Russians think and practice the same way.  I bet the Chinese do as well.

You win the firefight, and once the enemy fire is suppressed, you destroy them by whatever means is most effective and available after that.  That's how TICs work in the real world of today, both in the defense and in the offense.  5.56 versus 7.62 ballistics isn't going to make any difference.

I started on the FN-FAL; quite possibly the most reliable and simplest weapon for infantry ever devised.  I loved that rifle; still do, regularly shoot my surplus rifle all the time.  However, the superiority of the 5.56 round to the 7.62 round from the perspective of both an individual soldier and as a small unit commander is so overwhelming that I would never consider returning to the 7.62 as the standard arm, no matter what platform you stuck it in.  I wasn't around for the original days of the M16 platform so I wasn't exposed to whatever happened back then.  But for the last 30 years or so, the M16 rifle has been pretty rock solid dependable, despite whatever interesting deviations the government took along the way. 

There's a reason that The Beards from every NATO country in the world, who can pick pretty much whatever platforms and toys they want, carry 5.56 platforms.  Along with being capable of carrying a lot more ammunition - a big deal when immediate ammunition resupply isn't going to happen before the next TIC - effectiveness with the 5.56 platform improves both with your every day garden variety troops as well as The Beards.  Heavier calibers have their place with designated marksmen within small units, but that also means more logistical nightmares for the re-org.  A pretty common approach these days is to arm the DMs with the same platform as far as caliber and magazines goes, but with weapons that are accurized and using mission specific loads i.e. in the 5.56, 77 grain and heavier OTM ammo.  If things go to hell in a handbasket and the unit finds itself fighting from room to room in a mud walled compound in urban ops at rock throwing distances... well, the same magazines and same ammunition everybody else is carrying will work in the DMs rifle just fine, and he gets to stack up in a brick as well to join the fighting.  And as far as that goes, his magazines and ammunition will feed just fine through others' weapons if it comes to that..

The M16 hate is kind of like Trump - all else aside, doesn't matter what good it might do, the verdict is it's terrible compared to what the alternative was for many of them.  Small arms engagements - and the logistics of supply, load carrying, effectiveness, etc leading up to that - are a lot more complex than that.

As far as retro M16s go, my brother has a very early AR15 with a pronged flash eliminator (I think), triangular handguards, Colt scope, and I think a Colt .22 rimfire conversion kit.  Not really sure as I don't think I have looked at it for over 20 years.  I wonder if he's tried to get an idea of what it might be worth to collectors - he's been eyeballing a Ross sniper rifle that's for sale for a few weeks now; the price is a little bit too steep for him at the moment.

[Jäger]

Jun 19, 2017 17:24:50 GMT -5 sistema1927 said:

Even though Daddy said "never volunteer for everything", it was an easy decision to step up to the plate when Top asked for volunteers to serve as M60 gunners for the post QRF. Yes, it was heavier to lug around, but if the sky had filled with DPRK paratroopers it would have been more comforting to have some 7.62 "goodness" at my disposal.

That said, I have several AR's, including a couple of AR pistols, one in 300 AAC, and enjoy them. However, if you need a rifle, you need a rifle.

Assuming the DPRK would jump at the same altitudes as we would/have in combat jumps, you would have something like 12 seconds of trigger time, max.  Assuming you were actually at the gun, waiting for the moment the chutes deployed, of course.  And I suspect the DPRK has a lot less concern for the welfare of their paratroopers in low altitude jumps than the US does, so it would probably be less.  Common these days for airborne ops to have close air support working the flanks of the DZ.  One of the things that close air support pays particular attention to is support weapons i.e. machine guns, mortars, etc.

And the thing about machine guns is... they're bullet and rocket magnets.  Why fire your RPG at a rifleman, when there's a noisy machine gun firing, complete with tracers (which have the helpful effect of working both ways) to help with aiming at night?

I was always quite happy while still an enlisted man to be carrying the M16 rifle instead.  Was REALLY happy to turn over the LMG and MMG to the next up and coming private when my turn was over.  I doubt I will ever again carry a weapon for business, but if I ever have to, it's going to be an AR-15 rifle.  And not one of the new generation of "SBR" or whatever they're classified as.

[sistema1927]

Jun 20, 2017 17:38:00 GMT -5 Jäger said:

Jun 19, 2017 17:24:50 GMT -5 sistema1927 said:

Even though Daddy said "never volunteer for everything", it was an easy decision to step up to the plate when Top asked for volunteers to serve as M60 gunners for the post QRF. Yes, it was heavier to lug around, but if the sky had filled with DPRK paratroopers it would have been more comforting to have some 7.62 "goodness" at my disposal.

That said, I have several AR's, including a couple of AR pistols, one in 300 AAC, and enjoy them. However, if you need a rifle, you need a rifle.

Assuming the DPRK would jump at the same altitudes as we would/have in combat jumps, you would have something like 12 seconds of trigger time, max.  Assuming you were actually at the gun, waiting for the moment the chutes deployed, of course.  And I suspect the DPRK has a lot less concern for the welfare of their paratroopers in low altitude jumps than the US does, so it would probably be less.  Common these days for airborne ops to have close air support working the flanks of the DZ.  One of the things that close air support pays particular attention to is support weapons i.e. machine guns, mortars, etc.

And the thing about machine guns is... they're bullet and rocket magnets.  Why fire your RPG at a rifleman, when there's a noisy machine gun firing, complete with tracers (which have the helpful effect of working both ways) to help with aiming at night?

I was always quite happy while still an enlisted man to be carrying the M16 rifle instead.  Was REALLY happy to turn over the LMG and MMG to the next up and coming private when my turn was over.  I doubt I will ever again carry a weapon for business, but if I ever have to, it's going to be an AR-15 rifle.  And not one of the new generation of "SBR" or whatever they're classified as.

I wasn't planning to shoot them out of the sky, but their appearance in my AO was a distinct possibility. I remember spending 6 hours in MOP Level IV in the hot August sun on the base wall with ammo racked up, two extra barrels next to me, and about 12 cans of linked ammo. What they thought was the beginning of an attack north of us turned out to be one very bewildered Chinese Mig-29 pilot trying to defect.

[Jäger]

Jun 20, 2017 21:09:13 GMT -5 sistema1927 said:

Jun 20, 2017 17:38:00 GMT -5 Jäger said:

I wasn't planning to shoot them out of the sky, but their appearance in my AO was a distinct possibility. I remember spending 6 hours in MOP Level IV in the hot August sun on the base wall with ammo racked up, two extra barrels next to me, and about 12 cans of linked ammo. What they thought was the beginning of an attack north of us turned out to be one very bewildered Chinese Mig-29 pilot trying to defect.

There's still a reason we call support weapons like machine guns, grenade launchers, APCs armed with chain guns, etc., "bullet magnets". 

For small unit commanders - say company level on down -they're the first thing we target for destruction.  Particularly on the offensive, as they are generally sited as the intended strong points holding the defensive plan together.  And unlike the really bad news support stuff - like tanks - that take some serious toys to destroy, crew served weapons can be destroyed with just one grenade, one M72 or Carl G round, etc.  The little WP 60mm mortar rounds are particularly effective for light infantry; big bang for not a lot of weight.  And you don't have to actually hit the support weapon, all you have to do is get close.  Getting dusted with one WP round usually puts an end to enemy RPG, machine gun, etc positions, even when sited behind high mud walls or grape huts while firing through murder holes that not even the 25mm chain gun on the LAV and Bradley can defeat.

That's why machine gunners in equal force on force engagements usually have very short life spans.  It just is.  I should try and find a YouTube video a friend sent me a few weeks ago.  It's footage from some helmet cam a SAW gunner ran while on patrol in A'stan.  They get taken under fire and the camera shows about three minutes of the battle.  Every time the SAW gunner relocates in the irrigation ditch they're fighting from in a field, the soldiers he goes to ground near to start firing promptly take off to find somewhere further away from him to fight from.  And then you hear the nasty hissing of the incoming RPG rounds and actually see one of them go over his head.

Oh, what fun!

A MIG pilot wandering around in the skies over Korea while trying to figure out how to defect must have been interesting indeed .  Did he make it?

Machine gunners got big brass ones that clang when they walk... or they're convinced God made them bulletproof, I'm not sure which.

[sistema1927]

Yes, he made it. When he came over Inchon they opened up the AA on him, he continued up the Han River and encountered AA near Seoul. Word we got was that "Inchon has been bombed and Seoul is under attack", and that is what put us into MOP IV and geared up.

I was wrong earlier, it wasn't a MIG29, but the Chinese version of the MIG21. August 7, 1983, and the pilot, Sun Tianqin, received 350 kg of gold, the highest paid to any defector and he was made a Colonel in the Taiwanese Air Force. He married a musician who had also defected, and after being discharged from the Air Force they emigrated to Canada.

Recognize that I wasn't much worried about being a "bullet magnet" in those days, since I knew enough about our strategic aims to realize that there were just enough US troops in the ROK to ensure that the nation would fully engage after we were wiped out. Enough of us to matter, but not enough to be able to hold off a determined attack. A sad way to conduct national affairs, but it was what it was.

It kind of scares me that things on the Korean peninsula are even worse now than then, and my son spends a couple of weeks every other month in Seoul with his work as a Department of the Army civilian. At least I had a chance to shoot back, but I am afraid that when things go south it will be a DPRK nuke that Seoul will face.