I wanted to share the latest video done by Tim from the Military Arms Channel (MAC) giving a good comparison of the Troy XM177E2 vs the Brownells XM177E2 model of retro rifles.  You can certainly draw your own conclusions, but I think it pretty clearly shows something that I have stated myself in past posts.  Though the Brownells rifles are pretty nice, they are a little overpriced for what you are getting.  Both the Brownells and the Troy rifles have faults at being 100% correct clones but in my opinion the Troy version is still a better and more accurate representation when it comes to the XM177E2 model in particular, especially considering the lower price and all the extra bonus items you receive with it.  Special thanks to Tim for taking the time to produce this comparison video.

Military Arms Channel - YouTube Video - Retro XM177E2 Comparison: Brownells vs. Troy

Talk about being over priced, wheren't the Troy rifles selling for ~$900 - $1,000 not long ago?  Now they are $1,200 - $1,300!  Why?  What justified a $300 increase?  I can build my own facsimile clones for half that.

The Troy XM177E2 rifle is $1,199.00 MSRP while the Brownells XM177E2 rifle is $100.00 more at $1,299.00 MSRP and you get less for your money.  I think the Troy rifle is priced more fairly for what you get and a good option for someone that does not want to or does not have the means to build their own more accurate representation.  On the other hand I think the Brownells version should definitely be priced for less then the Troy.

Don't forget the Troy is painted gray over black annodization, while the brownells is dark grey/light black annodization.

Brownells is also using NDS forgings.
.
.
The being said, I think the Troy is a more correct base rifle with just a couple things needing to be changed.

Not bashing brownells as I think they do a great job overall. The Troy is just a better and cheaper base.

Both companies need to start using some reproduction A1 style ejection port doors.  It stands right out to me and rarely anyone even mentions it.

Isn't Troy donating a % of each rifle sale to the SF foundation or something?

Your reading comprehension is off.  I stated that the Troy rifles used to cost a lot less....

No I understood what you said and were referring to, but the Troy XM177E2 rifles were always selling for $1,199.00 MSRP from the beginning.  Troy was running a promotion discounting and selling them for less a while back.  Once Brownells started selling their version for $1,299.00 I imagine Troy no longer felt the need to discount their’s anymore.  It makes sense, why would they since they are already selling them for less then Brownells and giving you more for your money.

I wonder how durable the Troy paint is?

I think $50 off each rifle goes to The National League of POW/MIA Families, no dollar amount is listed on their site so I don't know where I got that number from but I remember someone saying that.

I remember in his GAU-5 video he specifically calls the finish out as paint, in this video he says the XM177E2 was parkerized and troy has recreated that finish. Does this mean they recreated the "look" of the parkerized finish with paint? Or is it parkerized?

I believe Troy is using some type of paint or coating that resembles the original finish color of a XM177E2.

I don't personally own one of the Troy rifles so I do not know how durable the finish is but I have not heard of any serious complaints from owners about it not holding up.  About the only complaint I have heard is that when you open the rifle up you can see that the receivers were sprayed.  This was mainly heard on the first production ones and they may have since improved on this.

there were early pictures of the grey paint rubbing off and showing the black anodized finish.  i believe this was one of their preproduction rifles so it may have just been rattle canned.  not sure if their production ones uses a more durable coating like duracoat or ceracoat.

It won't stand up to a church fire.

Hopefully, a better product than Arsenal's AK paint jobs.

I think it's still over priced regardless of what other manufacturers like brownells are doing.  When it was selling for around $900 - $1,000 it was more reasonable.  Anyone that into the nitty gritty details of correctness would just build their own anyway.  Anyone who wants just the general look will just use a standard M4 lower and buy or build a period correct upper for a fraction of the price.  Maybe swap the furniture out of the lower, but that doesn't take much cost or effort.  It looks close enough to 99% of people and functions exactly the same.

I thought Hickock was the only guntouber that smoked pot but MAC must have been on something. You cannot parkerize aluminum, it will destroy it. Probably a slip of the tongue and he mean anodized but every review I have seen said these are painted gray over a normal type 3 black anodize.

I definitely think he just misspoke.  When you view a lot YouTube videos from various GunTubers almost every one has at least a single mistake in terminology in it somewhere.

I don't care who ya are that's funny right there!

Wish they would just anodize it the correct color instead of painting.

I agree that it would be nicer.  I suspect it may be because they are (or maybe were) re-profiling A2 lower receivers that are already anodized black.

Since the Brownells XM receivers are based on NDS A1 forgings and they are anodized gray, to me this adds more than $100 of extra value over the Troy offering. This makes the Brownells rifle a “better deal” than the Troy offering.

In my opinion...

I would agree on the Brownells anodized receivers definitely being better, though they still need to work on the coloring a bit, but that’s were Brownells having anything nicer ends in my opinion.

The Troy has a mil-spec. aluminum buttstock, better looking and more accurate engraving (including a fake sear pin hole and auto selector marking), a nicer looking faux moderator permanent attachment method, the bayonet lug removed, an original USGI pistol grip, a DoD stamping, a field expedient sling, two magazines included (one 20-round and one 30-round), extra manuals besides the M16 comic book, a donation to a military charity, and all for $100 less.

I had heard Troy is or was using NoDak Spud upper receivers or receiver forgings but that is something Mike or Harlan would have to confirm.

Troy had them on sale for a period of time and were able to sell all that for even less yet, while being a much smaller company then Brownells.  Don’t get me wrong Brownells is a great company and I greatly appreciate what they are trying to do, but there is no doubt in my mind that all the rifles in their M16 retro line are a couple hundred dollars overpriced.  By comparison their AR-10 retro rifles with all the retooling involved in that platform and the fact that no one else is doing it seem fairly priced to me.

You have to consider that Troy is building their own rifles were as Brownells is paying another company to assemble them (I believe Aero Precision).  So there is a middle man, hence extra cost that the consumer is paying for.  If you add up all the parts Brownells is using separately it looks like they are getting about $300-$400 to assemble them, and thats above retail pricing on the parts.  You can buy inexpensive complete AR-15 rifles for $450 right now.

In the recent YouTube video from the 904 Outdoors channel with IV8888 comparing a Colt SP1 to a Brownells M16A1 retro rifle Eric makes mention of the Brownells rifle being “kinda pricey” and he imagines at some point they may get down to a $1,000 or $1,100 which in my opinion is where they should be to begin with.  I will share the video in a separate post so as to not confuse the discussion of the particular rifle comparisons.

I've been kicking around the idea of either doing a build or buying a Troy. Troy is the easy way, of course and I generally love doing the build. So that's where I'm leaning.

Do you have a few sources for parts that you can share?

The “paint” you speak of is dry film lube, it’s what was used on the originals, over black anodizing, just like the originals.

I for one hate the fake sear pins... I'd much rather not have anything that obviously fake on a rifle.

That is entirely incorrect.

Where did you read that?

Dry Film Lube was for overhauls when a percentage of the anodizing was gone and the bare aluminum was exposed...IIRC.

Me too!! They don't serve a purpose!

I wasn't arguing the dry film.

I was arguing how the originals were black annodization.

Nope......it’s right as rain

Never stated the originals weren’t black anodized. These “originals” that people see as being gray were were dry film over black anodizing.
The gray equals dry film lube.

Not wanting to argue, but, it is what it is.

They could at least have put the grenade ring the right way.

I'm confused at what you are trying to claim, but here are the facts.
.
.
Originals were never black annodization.

Originals were annodized various shades of gray.

Gray dry lube (Sandstrom 9A) was not used as an external factory finish, only factory internal or as a field touch-up/depot refinish that didn't require reannodization.

Ok, my apologies.

I was incorrect as I was thinking of the rebuilds not as they were originally produced.