M72 parts? - Page 1

Site Notices

Posted: 3/22/2014 10:14:56 PM EDT

Not sure if this should go here or maybe in the relic section.....

But I bought a m72 tube today at the gun show. It's missing a few parts and was wandering if you guys might have any resources for where to find these parts. Missing the front cover, rear cover that I can figure for now.

Now these were replaced by the at4 (right?) but are there any modern versions or modern upgrades? Seen some Wilcox stuff over on own the night but again, curious if there's other upgrades.

Posted: 3/26/2014 2:08:02 PM EDT

[#1]

The front cover is connected to a strap - I have an extra cover, strap and spring if you want it.

Rear cover, that is a little harder to get though. I might have something that will work for you. PM me.

There are different models of the M72 LAW. I think the most recent for US Mil acceptance is the M72A9 ASM and the M72A7 LAW. NAMMO WEBSITE

HERE IS A LINK TO AN INSPECTION EXCERPT

I have an M72A2 dated April of 1973 for sale, pretty complete minus a rocket here: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_7_170/1285806_M72A2_LAW_tube_and_sling.html

Compare the pics and see if yours is missing anything else. Most of them are missing the front blade sight glass thing due to Pm-147 radioactive materials being in there.

Will

Posted: 4/6/2014 1:49:47 PM EDT

[#2]

SOCOM still buys new LAWs, and the USMC as well, I believe. Modern ones have a picatinny mount glued on from the factory. There are different warheads currently purchased, for different missions.

Posted: 4/6/2014 7:12:30 PM EDT

[#3]

Any reference photos you've seen with the rail?

Posted: 4/6/2014 7:55:24 PM EDT

[#4]

Quote History

Quoted:

Any reference photos you've seen with the rail?

View Quote

Posted: 4/7/2014 6:32:37 AM EDT

[#5]

Awesome thanks! Are the sights different in that top pic?

Posted: 4/7/2014 11:54:23 PM EDT

[#6]

You're welcome. The sights are not different in the top pic; they are simply deployed. The Marines in the lower pic are holding LAWs in the stored position. The soldier at top is completely ready to fire. When the tube is extended, the spring-loaded sights pop up automatically. The current-production LAW uses "rifle" type sights originally developed for the cancelled FGR-17 Viper in the early 80's. Apparently, the "big" Army (not just SOCOM) has been buying thousands to supplement the M136/AT4, and the USMC to supplement their Mk153 SMAW. (Top soldier is 2d Cavalry Regiment). Both were basically adopted to replace the aging LAW in the 80's, so the M72 has really come full-circle.
The original Vietnam-era sight used a front etched-glass reticle, as seen here:

Etchings in the clear glass were filled with radioactive paint, so it glowed in the dark.
If you want more info, here are some good links:
A History of the M72 LAW and Current Improvement Programs (11MB)

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004guns/thurs/duke.ppt
http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/law.html

http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/detail.asp?smallarms_id=72

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M72_LAW#US_variants
I really can't help you regarding parts. Maybe Sarco or Numrich? You might try contacting the manufacturer for parts. Slim chance they'll even reply, but stranger things have happened. Good luck.

Posted: 4/9/2014 6:02:57 PM EDT

[#7]

Here's mine....

Posted: 4/9/2014 6:04:31 PM EDT

[#8]

The one in the army hands looks like a skinnier type rear and a thicker front sight....

And any clue on who manufacturer is?

Posted: 4/9/2014 8:47:50 PM EDT

[#9]

Nice!

Yours is an older tube (M72A3 or earlier), probably produced by Hesse-Eastern Division of Norris Thermadore. They stopped production in 1983. They had subcontractors for parts and assemblies, just like Nammo-Talley does today. Some parts were/are made in Norway by Nammo Raufoss AS.

You have the old-style sights, not the rifle sights of current production. Your rear sight is missing the rubber boot.

Modern "rifle" sight part numbers are:

Front Sight Spare Part Kit P/N 53227-1

Rear Sight Spare Part Kit P/N 53228-1

I don't know if new ones would fit your tube, even if you could obtain them. They haven't made sights like yours has since 1983.

Posted: 4/9/2014 11:11:42 PM EDT

[#10]

Yeah the sights have definitely been upgraded.

The old sights SUCK. Especially when the weather is bad. Think of a windshield, with NO DEFROST & NO windshield WIPERS!

The rifle sights are much better.

The tubes are a little longer and the rockets are a lot better, faster.

Nice display Joe_Momma.

Will

Posted: 4/10/2014 7:59:41 AM EDT

[#11]

Okay, my SOT (also a DD manufacturer) just had me buy Law and Disorder and I'm looking to LEGALLY reactivate one of these. Other than the one that was sold above (GAH great price BTW!) where can I find one of these things complete? I got the okay from the wife so long as she gets to shoot it first...

Posted: 4/10/2014 7:26:25 PM EDT

[#12]

There is no 'ammunition' for these, so they are not DDs. Folks shoot model rockets out of these, but they are not even close to the performance of the real thing. The gov made sub caliber trainers, but they are pretty scarce these days (I have a sub cal adapter, but no ammo). Making proper full performance projectiles (even inert ones) is a dangerous and expensive venture.

Posted: 4/11/2014 11:08:56 AM EDT

[#13]

I was under the impression that each loading would require a tax stamp but that it could be done... I'm well aware of the risks involved here. Believe it or not I spent years dealing with things a lot more dangerous than any explosive you can think up. Hell, my last job we used a high explosive for a reaction catalyst...

I've still got my employee possesor letter in the safe somwhere for posterity.

So any good line on picking up a tube?

Posted: 4/11/2014 11:25:19 AM EDT

[#14]

Quote History

Quoted:
There is no 'ammunition' for these, so they are not DDs. Folks shoot model rockets out of these, but they are not even close to the performance of the real thing. The gov made sub caliber trainers, but they are pretty scarce these days (I have a sub cal adapter, but no ammo). Making proper full performance projectiles (even inert ones) is a dangerous and expensive venture.

View Quote

Has anyone tried to make new production subcaliber rounds? I have an excellent condition M72A2 with M190 adapter and I'd love to pop a few off.

Posted: 4/11/2014 1:52:05 PM EDT

[#15]

Quote History

Quoted:

So any good line on picking up a tube?

View Quote

If you find a source for an AT4, id be willing to let mine go

Posted: 4/12/2014 10:07:29 PM EDT

[#16]

Quote History

Quoted:
I'm well aware of the risks involved here.

View Quote

Then you'd realize what a bad idea this is. The cost to do this safely would be astronomical.

A full power projectile is ridiculous in it's power and capability. The rocket motor burns in it's entirety before it leaves the tube (so it doesn't blast you in the face). It sounds like an explosion, not a rocket. It is sitting against your neck on firing. The opportunity for things to not work out well is great.

You don't need a tube to develop a projectile, and you have some serious R&D to do before you are ready to stick it next to your face and squish the trigger. You develop a safe round first, I'll give you one of my tubes.

I get playing with DD's. If you want to have a legit DD that could be safe (and even affordable) to re-load and shoot, check out an RPG2. It's straight black powder, with a percussion firing train. If you do it right, you can probably do it more than once.

Posted: 4/12/2014 10:12:51 PM EDT

[#17]

Quote History

Quoted:

Has anyone tried to make new production subcaliber rounds? I have an excellent condition M72A2 with M190 adapter and I'd love to pop a few off.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
There is no 'ammunition' for these, so they are not DDs. Folks shoot model rockets out of these, but they are not even close to the performance of the real thing. The gov made sub caliber trainers, but they are pretty scarce these days (I have a sub cal adapter, but no ammo). Making proper full performance projectiles (even inert ones) is a dangerous and expensive venture.

Has anyone tried to make new production subcaliber rounds? I have an excellent condition M72A2 with M190 adapter and I'd love to pop a few off.

I've thought about it, but have set my sights higher

My next project is an RPG2.

Posted: 4/16/2014 11:07:02 AM EDT

[#18]

I was figuring on some kind of chaulk round or something like that. Since the tube does not contain any detonation pressure (it directs a deflagration) I don't see any reason why the tubes couldn't be reused. Maybe run it down to the local machine shop and magnaflux the metal portion after each use? I figure I could cook up something that will burn that fast without risk of going high-order.

I'm guessing a sub-caliber setup would be simplest. Heck, I suppose you could even refit it to hold a 40mm tube inside, as those training projos are readily available, but at that point I'd rather get a 203/320.

Posted: 4/18/2014 11:00:10 AM EDT

[#19]

Quote History

Quoted:
I was figuring on some kind of chaulk round or something like that. Since the tube does not contain any detonation pressure (it directs a deflagration) I don't see any reason why the tubes couldn't be reused. Maybe run it down to the local machine shop and magnaflux the metal portion after each use? I figure I could cook up something that will burn that fast without risk of going high-order.

I'm guessing a sub-caliber setup would be simplest. Heck, I suppose you could even refit it to hold a 40mm tube inside, as those training projos are readily available, but at that point I'd rather get a 203/320.

View Quote

A) Yes the tube just directs the round, as the round itself holds all the pressure of the deflagration. Magnafluxing the tube isn't going to tell you much, x-raying the rocket motor tube would be a good idea though.

B) There are PLENTY of recipes out there for propellant.

QUESTION: What is the difference between rocket propellant and explosives?

ANSWER: Initiation method, grain construction and burn.

Many 'rocket fuels' are explosive, its just that they are manufactured in a density that keeps it from detonating, initiated to BURN and then they don't transition to a detonation (DDT: deflagration to detonation transition) by OTHER controls.

A lot of 'rockets' in the R&D go BANG at some point. GOOD LUCK.

~Will

Posted: 4/19/2014 2:28:59 PM EDT

[#20]

Quote History

Quoted:

A) Yes the tube just directs the round, as the round itself holds all the pressure of the deflagration. Magnafluxing the tube isn't going to tell you much, x-raying the rocket motor tube would be a good idea though.

B) There are PLENTY of recipes out there for propellant.

QUESTION: What is the difference between rocket propellant and explosives?

ANSWER: Initiation method, grain construction and burn.

Many 'rocket fuels' are explosive, its just that they are manufactured in a density that keeps it from detonating, initiated to BURN and then they don't transition to a detonation (DDT: deflagration to detonation transition) by OTHER controls.

A lot of 'rockets' in the R&D go BANG at some point. GOOD LUCK.

~Will

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
I was figuring on some kind of chaulk round or something like that. Since the tube does not contain any detonation pressure (it directs a deflagration) I don't see any reason why the tubes couldn't be reused. Maybe run it down to the local machine shop and magnaflux the metal portion after each use? I figure I could cook up something that will burn that fast without risk of going high-order.

I'm guessing a sub-caliber setup would be simplest. Heck, I suppose you could even refit it to hold a 40mm tube inside, as those training projos are readily available, but at that point I'd rather get a 203/320.

A) Yes the tube just directs the round, as the round itself holds all the pressure of the deflagration. Magnafluxing the tube isn't going to tell you much, x-raying the rocket motor tube would be a good idea though.

B) There are PLENTY of recipes out there for propellant.

QUESTION: What is the difference between rocket propellant and explosives?

ANSWER: Initiation method, grain construction and burn.

Many 'rocket fuels' are explosive, its just that they are manufactured in a density that keeps it from detonating, initiated to BURN and then they don't transition to a detonation (DDT: deflagration to detonation transition) by OTHER controls.

A lot of 'rockets' in the R&D go BANG at some point. GOOD LUCK.

~Will

The High-Power rocketry guys that make their own propellants, i believe almost all have an LEUP (Low Explosive Users Permit) from BATF because of the umm...energetic materials involved....and a WHOLE Lot of those things go BOOM rather than Whoosh when the button is pushed.

Posted: 4/21/2014 1:20:44 PM EDT

[#21]

Quote History

Quoted:
The High-Power rocketry guys that make their own propellants, i believe almost all have an LEUP (Low Explosive Users Permit) from BATF because of the umm...energetic materials involved....and a WHOLE Lot of those things go BOOM rather than Whoosh when the button is pushed.

View Quote

Yes they do, BUT, they also don't launch those out of a aluminum & fiberglass tube right next to their neck & head.

I am not talking about the LEGALITY of such an endeavor, I am talking about the RISK of pursuing such an endeavor.

There are SO MANY factors that can affect/effect the burn rate, including impurities in the grains, air gaps, initiation speed, Temperature, etc. How many static position tests before the person says "Yeah, I will give that a go!" ? 10-20-100? How is variability addressed in the extrusion of the propellant grains? Make and then use one batch? How is the next batch going to perform?

The R&D (if correctly done) alone is a pretty thorough affair to preclude MOST that aren't independently wealthy from pursuing it unless there is SOME $$$,$$$ payoff at the end, other than thrills. Thrills are short lived and expensive, but then again, that thrill may last the rest of an un-naturally cut short lifespan...

Have fun, TAKE PICS. I enjoy before & after pictures!

~Will

Posted: 4/25/2014 11:46:13 PM EDT

[#22]

I found an end cap, I sent you a PM.

~Will

Posted: 4/26/2014 2:34:46 AM EDT

[#23]

Quote History

Quoted:

Yes they do, BUT, they also don't launch those out of a aluminum & fiberglass tube right next to their neck & head.

I am not talking about the LEGALITY of such an endeavor, I am talking about the RISK of pursuing such an endeavor.

There are SO MANY factors that can affect/effect the burn rate, including impurities in the grains, air gaps, initiation speed, Temperature, etc. How many static position tests before the person says "Yeah, I will give that a go!" ? 10-20-100? How is variability addressed in the extrusion of the propellant grains? Make and then use one batch? How is the next batch going to perform?

The R&D (if correctly done) alone is a pretty thorough affair to preclude MOST that aren't independently wealthy from pursuing it unless there is SOME $$$,$$$ payoff at the end, other than thrills. Thrills are short lived and expensive, but then again, that thrill may last the rest of an un-naturally cut short lifespan...

Have fun, TAKE PICS. I enjoy before & after pictures!

~Will

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
The High-Power rocketry guys that make their own propellants, i believe almost all have an LEUP (Low Explosive Users Permit) from BATF because of the umm...energetic materials involved....and a WHOLE Lot of those things go BOOM rather than Whoosh when the button is pushed.

Yes they do, BUT, they also don't launch those out of a aluminum & fiberglass tube right next to their neck & head.

I am not talking about the LEGALITY of such an endeavor, I am talking about the RISK of pursuing such an endeavor.

There are SO MANY factors that can affect/effect the burn rate, including impurities in the grains, air gaps, initiation speed, Temperature, etc. How many static position tests before the person says "Yeah, I will give that a go!" ? 10-20-100? How is variability addressed in the extrusion of the propellant grains? Make and then use one batch? How is the next batch going to perform?

The R&D (if correctly done) alone is a pretty thorough affair to preclude MOST that aren't independently wealthy from pursuing it unless there is SOME $$$,$$$ payoff at the end, other than thrills. Thrills are short lived and expensive, but then again, that thrill may last the rest of an un-naturally cut short lifespan...

Have fun, TAKE PICS. I enjoy before & after pictures!

~Will

Not me...i;ve seen factory built HPRM's and MPRM's CATO too many times to dick around like that with something homemeade by my ear... it's like the guys that reactivate some of the Demilled DD stuff out there. Welding a patch onto the bore-diameter hole in the expansion chamber of the launcher IMO is a bad idea...More power to you if that's your thing...but i'll be over there out of Frag Range just in case something does go wrong.

Posted: 5/3/2014 11:00:41 PM EDT

[#24]

Hey Joe, the parts that I sent - do they work for you?

Cheers!

~Will

Posted: 5/4/2014 11:02:03 AM EDT

[#25]

Its all great now! complete as can be (or as i know)

Posted: 5/12/2014 3:16:35 PM EDT

[#26]

New plan: I'm thinking more like a tennis ball launcher, as I started looking at propellants and my risk-adversity took over. Turns out knowning a lot about chemistry makes one less likely to try vast areas of the discipline...

Maybe one day when I'm filthy stinking rich or have nothing to do all day.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - M72 parts?

Armory » Destructive Devices (DD)

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us