First a little background...

The first AR I built was a retro, because I just happened upon a retro upper at a gun show.  I didn't know exactly what I had, so I started doing research and asking questions in the forum, and was able to put together a decently faithful replica of a 603 with help from everyone on that forum.  It was nice having a forum for the specific variant of rifle I was building, as the people who had similar interest in that type of rifle were a valuable resource that helped me gather information and make informed decisions. It was also nice to be able to come to Arfcom knowing that there was a forum where I could find exactly the information I needed without sifting through lots of posts that might be irrelevant to me.

Now, I'm starting an A4 build.  All I have is a BCM upper, but I'm pretty proud of it.  I always like to post my AR related purchases so that others can make informed decisions.  I didn't know exactly where to post it, so I put it in the A2 forum, since, save for a carry handle, it seems that the A2 and the A4 are nearly identical from a builder's perspective.

I was told by a couple of the posters on there that the A4 was out of place in the A2 forum, and that I should post in the A4 picture thread instead.

First, let me say I am ABSOLUTELY not calling out the posters who pointed this out.  Neither was rude in the least, and Arfcom is great because we have members and staff who value the site and take care to ensure that posts are relevant to the particular forum in which they are posted. This makes the site run smoothly, and they were totally in the right to point out that my post was perhaps not in the correct thread.

But, it also highlighted something important...if A3/A4 clones don't fit in the A2 forum, then where do they fit?

It seems, since the A4 is arguably the "state of the art" as far as M16's are concerned, it would only make sense that there was a "home" for them on Arfcom.  Same for the M4.  Seems like people who are building these particular replicas don't really have a place to share knowledge of their specific builds.  

It would even make sense to change the A2 forum to an A2-A4 forum.  It seems that the differences between the A2 and A4 are basically cosmetic...after all, an A4 with a carry handle virtually duplicates the functionality of the A2, and seems as if there would be little that pertained to A2's that wouldn't also pertain to A4's, with the exception of optics/iron sights.

I know we can't make a forum for every possible variant of every AR15 iteration that could ever be made.  But, it seems strange that the A2 has a forum where A4 builds would be unwelcome.  I'd say that there's probably less difference between the A2 and the A4 than between all of the "retro" rifles combined...slab sides, carbines, partial fence, full fence, etc.

Building military replicas isn't like building other AR's.  If I build any other gun, I can spec it out pretty much the way I want.  If I build a military replica, I have to build to a specification, and without a forum to ask questions, it adds a lot of time and frustration to the process.

Anyway, I know, 14'er and all of that, but even a title change from "A2 Builds" to "A2-A4 Builds" would make a LOT of sense as far as I am concerned.  Maybe that's just me.  

TL/DR - Would like the "A2 Builds" forum to be the "A2-A4 Builds" forum since they are basically the same with the exception of one part. Pretty please?

edit: fixed a few mistakes and clarified some.

I would suggest a modern AR clone forum instead. M4s, A3/A4, M4A1, etc... There are plenty of threads dedicated to cloning more modern and current issue ARs. And going from retro>A2>A4 might be whittling it down to excessively and making it too specialized.

There are already lots of threads that can be imported to set a tone.

Like the retro forum it would need to be very well policed.

I would be absolutely fine with that.  Being a new guy, I didn't want to suggest re-inventing the wheel and thought that a forum title tweak would be more likely.

ETA:  When you think about it, there are only really three variables in making a military style clone:  receiver type, stock type, and barrel length. I think expanding the A2 forum could handle that.

But yes, from a builder's perspective, I certainly think a "modern military clone" forum of some type would make sense.

Gee whiz, its not like they're all that different

I agree with the other response - a .mil clone forum would be good. Or at least let A4s in the A2 forum.

A mil AR clone thread would be the perfect forum for:

The MK12 thread
The multiple MK18/CQBR threads
Augee's obscure CAG clone threads
AFSOC/Pararescue thread
The Issue M4 and clone thread
The M4A1 Block II thread
The M16A4 clone thread
Etc...

The difference with the A2 forum is it seems to be more than just cloned A2s (have you ever seen the "modernized A2" threads). And with that type of lee-way, adding the A3/A4 would literally turn it into the AR discussion thread. Same with having a strictly A3/A4 forum; it would be nothing but a flat-top forum.

I agree.  It doesn't seem like a realistic setup to have only one forum dedicated to one particular iteration of modern M16. But, it doesn't seem right to have an exclusive A3/A4 thread, either, because then what do you do with M4's?  It would begin to get too segmented, I'd think.  I'm sure the forum operators probably don't want a thousand different forums for every possible version of AR.

If the Retro forum is for all mil rifles A1 and earlier, it makes sense to have a Modern forum for A2 mil rifles and later. Most people understand the difference, and you see very few if any "modern" rifle threads in the Retro forum.

And I understand what you're saying about the leeway on the A2 thread.  I'm not complaining or knocking anyone, but it seems like a faithfully build A4 clone would be perhaps more in keeping with the spirit of the forum than a heavily "updated" A2 clone, even though it doesn't have the same name.  In every way that matters, it is the same gun.

I don't want to sound like I'm knocking the guys that build those, because I think the rifles themselves are cool and I totally understand the reasons for building them.  I guess I'm just wondering why can't the same consideration be given to a rifle without a carry handle.

[Edited for clarity]

Flat tops are far more common at this point than any carry handles. And I don't mind having an A2 forum that's more than just mil issued clones. I'd also agree that an A4 clone would be more in keeping with the spirit of the A2 forum than "look at my modernized A2", or "what would A2s look like if the flat top was never invented". But to open up the A2 forum to A3/A4 would basically destroy the A2 forum completely and turn it into AR General Dicussion.

I think having a "Post A2 Military AR" thread would be significantly more useful and targeted without being open-ended. It would also provide a place to discuss odd-ball setups like some seen in, but not appropriate for, the M4A1 Block II thread.

Yeah, I understand that. And if the A2 people don't want flat tops in their forum, I certainly understand that, too. When I used to hang out on the retro forum quite a bit, one thing that I appreciated was that things seemed to stay on topics that, in one way or another, were pertinent to what I was interested in. I never felt like anyone posted fluff or anything that was too far off topics, and actually enjoyed seeing some of the different historical variants that people were trying to clone.  I learned a lot.

See, the last thing I would want is to mess things up for someone else, which is why I was hesitant to even start this thread.  I realize I'm new here and all, but I think that documenting my build could do a lot more for others with the same interests in the A3/A4 than a mere picture thread.  

I just can't help but think, if the popular sentiment is to keep A2's separate, that a Post A2 Clone forum would work around that.  It's a good idea.

But, I'm certainly getting a better understanding of it from hearing others' opinions.  Thanks.

The suggestion of a "military clone" subforum has come up a couple of times, however, I can't help but to be somewhat against it, maybe for selfish reasons.  

The biggest reason that I'd prefer to keep the "modern" military rifle discussions in the "General" Tech forum is not only are many of these rifles still being used in active combat, but we have a lot of end-users that have recent, live feedback on them that "stumble" into the discussions while perusing AR Tech, and they often have a lot of good input, experiences, and information to share that I think, if we segregated the military clones from the rest of the forum, would be lost.  

I love the Retro forum, and parts of the A2 forum, but to be honest - they're not necessarily the way I would have "designed" them, either.  When we were first discussing the A2 forum split, it was out of the Retro forum, because they were considered "too recent" to be acceptable there - however, there were a lot of members devoting the same amount of scholarship and research to building A2 clones and development.

Instead of being an "academic" forum for the M16A2 and/or other 1/7 twist variants, however, the A2 forum has kind of become the place where people go to post any of their fixed carry handle "creations" that would be unwelcome in the context of the Retro forum, and would get them a ration of shit in AR Tech from folks who would say "just get a flattop and a red dot."  Not that I think that that should happen, but that's neither here nor there - but things like the fact that the Somalia/BHD thread still lives in Retro, and the fact that Lt. Col. Lutz's "SAM-R Prototype" thread basically got no attention in A2, while it got a good bit on interest in Retro point to the fact that the A2 Forum is not really an historical research focused venue.  

The other thing that to me militates against moving threads like the SOPMOD, CQBR, and M16A4 threads to their own separate forum, is that they are still front-line combat weapons, and feedback and user input and development of those platforms very much still informs the "AR World At Large."  While not everyone might be into building clone configurations, particularly those weapons used by front-line Infantry and SOF units represent the largest sample of user feedback for "cutting edge" developments of the AR15 as a combat platform, and a great indication of "what works" and "what doesn't."  While military procurement necessarily lags behind the commercial market for reasons of bureaucracy, they still represent the best example of long-term combat use in large numbers - there's nowhere near the amount of user feedback on say the KAC SR15E3 as there is on the M16A4 or M4A1.  IMHO, losing that in AR Tech would be a loss for the whole community, as, I suspect, would happen if those threads got moved to a separate sub-forum, where they would become almost solely the province of "clone spec" obsessed cloning, and random questions about "I saw this random part in Afghanistan..."  

Of course, there's a good deal of friction between the "clone spec police" and the "personal preference" and "spirit of" folks, and arguably, a platform like, say the MK 12 SPR or the early "JSOC M4A1s" are chronologically closer to "BHD" than to today, but by and large, short of a couple big flare-ups and some occasional contentiousness, I think it does okay where it's at.  

~Augee