AR Sponsor
Posted: 2/25/2021 4:31:09 PM EDT
|
The article to which I will be referring throughout this thread is found here. Attached File Attached File Attached File There is an interesting thread found here that contains images of some interesting, non-typical early AR-15s. The above article is posted in the above thread as a potential answer to the question posed there. I gave my opinion of the article in the linked thread, but I want to repost it here so that the information is easily accessed and searchable in the future (once this thread drops into the archive). This was my (slightly edited from that thread) opinion: I have been working with and studying the history of "Retro" AR-15s now for four years (doesn't sound that long in hindsight). However, in this time I have referenced more photographs than I can count and read all of the leading books related to the rifles in this forum. As also shown at the top of the forum, I have conducted museum work with both the West Point Museum at the United States Military Academy and the National Infantry Museum at Fort Benning, Georgia. The body of knowledge and understanding of the early AR-15 platform has rapidly advanced in the time since I began doing this, and it is lightyears ahead of the level of understanding from 1980-2010 or so. The above article was written in 2001 and I believe it is fundamentally flawed. First, most of the issues being described in the last column of the first page were issues with the XM16E1 in the 1965-1966 timeframe, when the Army was screwing around with the original Technical Data Package ALOT. The main mistake the Army made was switching from the IMR powder that had been reliably tested with millions of rounds fired from 1958-1963. The Army switched the loading to a ball powder, which sped up the cyclic rate of the weapon and threw the time-pressure curve of the weapon off. Soldiers paid for this mistake with their lives and it took the Army years to adjust and make the platform reliable again. The Model 601 was very successful in its field trials with SOF units during Project AGILE (1963 I believe), which occurred before the Army switched to the IMR propellant. That’s why the military continued to pursue the platform based on the results of Project AGILE, among other field tests. Additionally, the article alludes to the fact that the author thinks that ArmaLite manufactured the Model 601s (the 601 does have an ArmaLite roll mark on the magazine well, but it also has “Colt” and the Colt Trademark logo). It appears he believes this one rifle is the “missing link” between ArmaLite manufactured Model 01s and Colt manufactured Model 02s, but this simply isn’t the case. Colt began production with the Model 01... that’s why it’s called the Model 01. When we discuss “Transitional AR-15s” we are primarily discussing XM16E1s of 1965-1967 because a lot of changes were made in that window. It is possible the rifle in the article could be a “transition” between the 601 and 602, but we know the changes between those models were very few. Some of the changes included small things like barrel markings, rollmarks, the furniture, and maybe the rifling twist depending on when you believe the 1/12 twist was introduced into all production rifles. Some say late Model 601s had the 1/12 twist, while others claim that the 1/12 was introduced with the Model 602. It is tough to believe that the rifle in the article is "transitional" between the Model 601 and the Model 602 because it notes that the rifle has a parkerized bolt carrier. Model 602s retained chrome bolt carriers through their production run, and we know that chrome carriers were still common in rifles in the 1965 and 1966 timeframe. They also didn’t get rid of the chrome because it was “reflective” as claimed in the article but because the “flashy chrome” would flake off of the carrier in the jungle environment of Vietnam. He says the rifle retains its “original and obsolete Model 01 buffer.” That’s not really a profound discovery because the edgewater buffer was in use until about 1967, so there’s no “transition” there if this rifle was produced in early 1964. Same goes for the stock. The author states the fact that the stock on this rifle doesn’t have a trap door. Again, this doesn't really prove anything because the trap door wasn’t introduced until 1971. He also talks about “simulated wood finish” on the furniture. There is no such thing. The material was Bakelite and it was brown and had a grain to it. There is nothing that says it was developed to look like wood, but those who don’t know just assume that is the case. It was the prolific composite material of the day. I understand there’s better info today than when this article was written but I don’t think that makes it free from criticism. There’s no doubt that the rifle being discussed is interesting (and I wish there were more pictures of it) but this article is flawed. In my opinion, using what we know today (that Colt would set serial numbers aside to be built as executive guns and tool room guns later), this rifle was one of a few similar “parts guns” or “one-off” builds (left column, last page) made at Colt using later parts than what would be expected for that serial number. Put differently, serial numbers 14,500 through 14,999 were built in 1965 on 1965 era receivers. Colt’s military production run rifles (601s and 602s) were were well past serial number 50,000 by the end of 1964, many of which display earlier features than the ones noted on this rifle (chrome bolt carriers and fat head firing pins, for example). Colt was doing a lot of weird things during the AR-15's development and I have no doubt that this is a factory Colt rifle. Anything is possible when studying early Colt AR-15s, and that is why I find studying them so interesting. However, I find that many of the claims and facts being stated in this article to be either false, or un-profound. |
|
Quoted: Thank you for you passion and dedication to this subject that is dear to most of us here, @AmericanSheepDog. And thank you for sharing your research with us! Great stuff as usual. Lmao, you’re welcome. Glad you liked my “opinion piece.” I have read the article before and it didn’t sit well, but I didn’t care enough to post anything about it. But when it came up in the other thread, I already wrote a lengthy response to correct the things I perceive as mistakes. Just felt it should be accessible for easy search in the future if somebody is practicing their “google-fu.” |
|
History is a work in progress. When an article is published, it becomes set at that point in time. However, the search for new knowledge and the uncovering of other old knowledge is on going. The author of the article you cite was probably not insincere when the article was written, and was using the information that was available at the time. Now we know more and the article has become dated. That’s where you come in. Your job is to bring the state of knowledge up to date, and show the rest of us what is known now but wasn’t known then. You are doing fine. Keep up the good work! |
|
Quoted: History is a work in progress. When an article is published, it becomes set at that point in time. However, the search for new knowledge and the uncovering of other old knowledge is on going. The author of the article you cite was probably not insincere when the article was written, and was using the information that was available at the time. Now we know more and the article has become dated. That’s where you come in. Your job is to bring the state of knowledge up to date, and show the rest of us what is known now but wasn’t known then. You are doing fine. Keep up the good work! Thanks. And I know that is the case, that is why I mentioned the fact that I know the knowledge/information is much better today than it was 20 years ago. Just wanted to get the info up to date, as you said. |
|
My whole point of posting that article was to show that in our hobby, there are no "absolutes". We must continue to study with an open mind. As said above and I've said myself, ASD, you and aeyoung have uncovered a lot of fantastic info and actual pieces. I speak for myself but sure many agree,, we can't thank you guys enough for sharing it all with the rest of the hive. And who knows, 20 years from now someone may find fault or inconsistencies in what has been found in the last couple of years. RBR was started by a few that were willing to share what they had learned, to that date, but we've certainly uncovered a ton-o-stuff since it was started. |
| I own one of these “transitional” rifles. I purchased it from the original owner in 2001. He bought it new in 1965. It is quite strange being marked Model 01, but having much later parts and features consistent with a 604. My rifle is identical to the one described in the article but has a much later serial in the 202,800 range. I’ll take some more detailed photos and post to this thread later. |
|
Attached File Not the best pic, but it was on my phone and easy to get. |
|
Quoted: I own one of these “transitional” rifles. I purchased it from the original owner in 2001. He bought it new in 1965. It is quite strange being marked Model 01, but having much later parts and features consistent with a 604. My rifle is identical to the one described in the article but has a much later serial in the 202,800 range. I’ll take some more detailed photos and post to this thread later. Very cool and much appreciated! |
|
Quoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/387476/6CC5685B-48C8-4F15-B9EF-D6386D8B8479_jpe-1850576.JPG Not the best pic, but it was on my phone and easy to get. That just might be the most strange anomaly I have ever seen in all of retro rifles, and I've seen some strange stuff lol... At least in terms of chronology lol |
AR Sponsor