Guys, need to know if A2 rifles and M4 carbines used crush or peel washers and if they used tic or no tic selectors
Thanks!!!

Crush
Tick

Peel washer for an A2, crush washer for an M4.

Lots of A2's and early M4's had a no-tick selector. Chris Bartocci talks about a lot of this kind of stuff on his YouTube channel. It's a good one to check out if you want to nerd out about AR's.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_tDPoCymsSKJ4uViL3G_zQ/videos

Tic selectors were created specifically for the A2, even the earliest of rifles had them as standard. As such the A2 carbines and XM4's had tic selectors. Chris is a wealth of knowledge but every one makes mistakes. His book even states the Tic selectors were one of the 11 changes required for the A2 program. As far as peel washers go, they were used on A4's early M4 direct from Colt.

Can anyone please explain to me what tick and no-tick means? I did a google research and looked at my M16A1 selector but did not yet understand the point.

Thanks!

USGI A2 and newer lowers have SAFE, SEMI and either BURST or AUTO markings on both sides of the receiver. The selectors for these rifles have a 'tick' on the right side so that it's easy to see what position the lever is in. No-tick selectors were used on earlier rifles which did not have markings on the right.

Thank you, Sir! I fully understand now. I had noticed that marking. Anyway I thought it had to do with the detent, but I could not see any difference.

Just to muddy the waters on this, I just dug out my all original Colt R6600DH (1986) and it does NOT have a tick on the right side.  So on the SP1(SP2) side of the house not all A2's will show a tick.  So I would not bet on all M16a2s showing a tick on the right.  They may have called for the change but Colt did not go and throw parts away.  Anything Colt there are no absolutes.

My made in 1994 Colt A2 20" "Sporter Target" model does not have a tick or markings on the right side.  







And FWIW, it IS my favorite AR.  Can't you tell by my smile?  



And no, I don't shoot with a magwell hold.  I'm just holding it that way people.  Although admittedly I don't put my arm out nearly as far as a lot of you guys.

Looks naked without a sling, I never feel like my rifles are 'complete' without one lol.

I don't think any of the Colt semi rifles had tick selectors in the past or as recently as my 2016 LE6920. I'm not sure about now. My comment above was related to USGI rifles only. I don't recall seeing any military A2s and newer without them, and spent plenty time as a range safety/coach checking shooters on the line who would lay their rifles down right side up, with the bolt to the rear and the gun on safe upon entering, between stages, and before exiting the range.

Colt not throwing anything away had no bearing on whether or not they could choose to tick or no tick, the specifications were called for by the marine corps in regards to the A2. The very first A2 presented to the MC as a presentation rigle has a tick selector, it was called for in the TDP.

William

Since we're on the topic of the A2, I never had the opportunity to get my hands on one when I was in the Army. Never even saw one, in fact. The first one I ever saw/held was when I put one together a couple of years ago.

Were the issued A2's gray, like the A1's or were they black?

It makes complete sense that they would be different.  I apologize if my post doesn't apply.  At least we know that commercial A2's might not have them.  LOL.

They were gray. Black finish would be on an arsenal rebuild, or production shifted to black sometime around 1995 at the earliest. We know that the first M4s from 1994 were gray. Anything we can positively ID as post 2000 is black.

I thought that might be the case, what I have is all black, so I'll likely end up hitting it with some Moly Resin when I do my XM16E1.

GI M16A2s all had some sort of selector "tic," and even the conversion kits that were issued (e.g., EMCO) came will selectors with tics, though many of the conversion guns have a raised rectangular tic rather than a recessed pyramidal one.  

That being said, with guns that have been in service for so long, there's no telling what might have happened during maintenance, and since a lot of A1 selectors were replaced in the conversion kits--there are probably still a bunch floating around in "bench stock."

Crush washers began being used ~2000 instead of peel washers, so M16A2s, A4s, and M4/M4A1s could have either--again, not only does production date play into this, but also repair/maintenance--an earlier gun could have ended up with a crush washer sometime along the lines.

Speaking in generalities, the anodizing used from the mid to late-80s on Colt guns is a "bluish gray" often referred to as "Preban Gray," which is distinct from the "light gray" or "XM gray" common on M16A1s. The Preban Gray started trending towards a "grayer gray" if that makes sense throughout the early 90s. By the mid-90s, and around the time that the M4 began being issued, the anodizing is best described as a "Charcoal Gray," a very dark gray which in most lighting conditions looks almost black--an is often "confused" for flat black, however when a "charcoal" part is placed next to a modern "flat black" part, you can see the difference between them. Into the 2000s, the anodizing took on a "truer" flat black appearance which persists today.

Of course, this is, as I mentioned, a very general statement--and not by any means a "rule" when you consider a) Colt using older parts in inventory, especially on, but not limited to commercial guns, b) subcontractors, c) at any given time--"black" anodizing will sometimes come out with a purplish hue, d) once again--maintenance and refurbishment--depending on the echelon, level of damage, what was available... and probably the whims of the individuals, some repaired/refurbished guns were refinished in with flat black paints/finishes, while others were simply sprayed with moly-lube making them look gray. At the same time, sometimes COTS M16A2 carbines were simply sprayed painted flat black over gray at the user level.

At a certain point it becomes a question of:

Do you want to build "typical"?

Do you want to build something specific that you have photographic documentation for?

Are you simply interested in "possible" or is there a certain level of "probable" that you're looking for?

Are you trying to justify using a certain part?

~Augee