Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 10/2/2004 11:40:06 PM EST
I found an interesting artical on the M-4 I thought you might find interesting, it's a number of pages long (just keep clicking continue at the bottom of the page....) and goes over the history, variations, who is useing it, the assessorys, etc.....

www.specialoperations.com/Weapons/Features/M4/Default.html
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 11:49:55 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 9:18:09 AM EST
I want a "Master Key".
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 9:36:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By 89grand:
I want a "Master Key".



they're like $1700 + regular sales tax + $200 SBS tax stamp = approx $2200, now if i had an extra 3-4 grand in my pocket......i'd buy two
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 9:38:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By 89grand:
I want a "Master Key".



Better off with a short 870.
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 9:45:57 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 10:20:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:
That site is so full of misinformation that I didn't get past the second paragraph. I'll save this 15 minutes of my like.


such as?????
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 10:28:11 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 2:39:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By 9245:
I found an interesting artical on the M-4 I thought you might find interesting, it's a number of pages long (just keep clicking continue at the bottom of the page....) and goes over the history, variations, who is useing it, the assessorys, etc.....

www.specialoperations.com/Weapons/Features/M4/Default.html



Thanks, interesting read.
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 6:22:28 PM EST
tag
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 7:34:45 PM EST
This problem was aggravated by the fact that the M-16/CAR-15 series of weapons when fired on full automatic caused excessive carbon build up inside the barrel.

No, the powder problem caused a buildup of calcium carbonate in the gas tube.

To remedy this the barrels of the weapons were chrome plated, this made it easier for cleaning rods to remove excess builds up.

No, the bores and chambers were chromed to prevent rusting (and rounds sticking in the chamber because of rough rusty chambers) due to the high humidity and rain.

Like Heavymetal, I found too many mistakes in the first few paragraphs to bother reading further. The author does not know what the f--- he is talking about, to be blunt.
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 7:44:18 PM EST
It's amazing how many AR experts there are on this site. Problem is, which one of the 200 can I trust?
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 7:53:17 PM EST
When someone posts misinformation on this site they get bitch slapped pretty damn quick. Just read and you will learn what is and what is not.
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 7:59:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By DevL:
When someone posts misinformation on this site they get bitch slapped pretty damn quick. Just read and you will learn what is and what is not.



Been on both sides of the bitch slapping quite a few times. When I started here I didnt know an AR15 from an AR10. I am not joking.
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 4:44:47 PM EST
D'uh, the AR-10 costs $5 less!

AR-15
-AR-10
______
=$5


Link Posted: 10/4/2004 5:04:31 PM EST
Tagged for the read. Interesting that they list the maximum range of the 11.5" Commando at 600m, maybe if you fired the whole rifle out of a cannon.
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 5:15:18 PM EST
Of course, all of us can make 600 m shots with iron sights and 11.5" barrel.

And .22LR's can shoot half a mile. (where is the eye rolling smilycon?)
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 5:29:43 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/4/2004 7:05:12 PM EST by _DR]

Originally Posted By KNEESINTHEBREEZE:

Originally Posted By HeavyMetal:
That site is so full of misinformation that I didn't get past the second paragraph. I'll save this 15 minutes of my like.


such as?????




Such as...
The CAR-15 IS NOT the same as the XM177, as they claim:

Colt XM607 "CAR-15"



XM177E1 (Colt M609) & XM177E2 (Colt M629)


It irritates me when I see so called "experts" in gun articles/mags calling any AR15/M16 based carbine a "CAR-15".


THIS is a much better reference: US Assault Rifles

Edited to add: This is only my opinion; your results may vary


Link Posted: 10/4/2004 5:37:04 PM EST
When did the term CAR-15 start getting applied to the XM-177 since age 5 so for 20 years I have been calling the XM-177 a CAR that is the first pic of a "true CAR-15" I have ever seen
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 5:40:05 PM EST
Minor nitpick, compared to the above, but the picture on page eight labeled "View From Raptor Sight During Nighttime Conditions" is a fake. The picture is edited from one of the pictures taken on the Sava river pontoon bridge from Croatia into Bosnia.

I only care because I have a copy of the picture. If the pic had been taken about 20 vehicles later, I'd have been IN the picture.
My unit crossed just after this one.
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 6:49:37 PM EST

Originally Posted By 89grand:
It's amazing how many AR experts there are on this site. Problem is, which one of the 200 can I trust?


Imagine that! Experts on the AR15 at a sitecalled AR15.com!

As for who you can trust, if somebody spouts a bunch of crap around here they'll get slapped down. Sometimes there'll be differences of opionion about things liek whether the Aimpoint is better than the EoTech, but it should be obvious when a fact is being argued or an opinion.

The advantage of this site is that it is live so people can respond. The site referenced in the original post is static. You can read it but if it's BS there's no way for anybody to pass comments to other readers that it's crap.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 7:10:50 AM EST
Why don't we put together a project to make the definitive history of the AR-15 and its variants? I know many have tried, but single-person attempts seem to have many detractors here on ARFCOM. Perhaps have a location where people can input their historical information on the AR-15's, sources cited of course, and then have an "editor" put it all together. Once in draft mode, have the membership here review for accuracy and when voted upon for completeness and correctness, released as a DEFINITIVE history?

I volunteer to edit... and I can work on setting up a location (on ARFCOM or personal server) for the peer-review to take place.

I think this would be a neat project, and surely one that will take a long time and will cause great debate, but in the end, can put a lot of the arguments to rest.

What say ye, folks? There are so many experts here that it'd be a waste to not put all the good information here to good use and to have it recorded for posterity.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 7:30:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By Edge767:
Why don't we put together a project to make the definitive history of the AR-15 and its variants?


It's already been done: www.ar15.com/content/books/BlackRifle/
There's also a second volume titled New Black Rifle II: The M16 Into the 21st Century
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 7:32:54 AM EST
If it's on the internet.

It'd gotta be true!
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 7:36:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By Hoplophile:

Originally Posted By 89grand:
It's amazing how many AR experts there are on this site. Problem is, which one of the 200 can I trust?


Imagine that! Experts on the AR15 at a sitecalled AR15.com!

As for who you can trust, if somebody spouts a bunch of crap around here they'll get slapped down. Sometimes there'll be differences of opionion about things liek whether the Aimpoint is better than the EoTech, but it should be obvious when a fact is being argued or an opinion.

The advantage of this site is that it is live so people can respond. The site referenced in the original post is static. You can read it but if it's BS there's no way for anybody to pass comments to other readers that it's crap.



I can see that there would a number of experts here, but what amazes me is that there seems to be more dissagreement than concensus. It makes it a little hard for the newbies to sort the facts from the opinions. And yes, if something is B.S. I want to know about it as I am not one of the AR experts.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 11:35:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By 89grand:
... as I am not one of the AR experts.


You nor me. But I do know a lot more than I did when I first got here and that's what it's all about.

Disagreements take two forms:
- Somebody posted BS. These are generally identifiable because they tend to be very lopsided with only one or two people on one side and many people on the other. They also rarely last more than a day or two.

- There is a difference of opinion. For example, Aimpoint vs EoTech for CQB optics. Usually what this means is that there isn't a wrong answer, just one answer that is 'more right' than the other depending on personal preferences. These can usually be identified because they tend to be split evenly with some people on one side and some on the other. They also tend to run forever and never get resolved because neither side is wrong.

Link Posted: 10/5/2004 11:58:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By mongo001:
Tagged for the read. Interesting that they list the maximum range of the 11.5" Commando at 600m, maybe if you fired the whole rifle out of a cannon.





Digital
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 12:01:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By mongo001:
Tagged for the read. Interesting that they list the maximum range of the 11.5" Commando at 600m, maybe if you fired the whole rifle out of a cannon.



Now that was friggin' funny...

Take a bow, mongo!
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 8:30:22 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/5/2004 8:31:51 PM EST by pettifogger]
CAR-15 stands for Colt Automatic Rifle-15 and refers to a whole family of weapons, including a SMG, a carbine, a survival weapon, and a belt-fed light machine gun, based on the AR-15/M16. Other than the M16 and M16A1, the only member of the family to see much use was the CAR-15 SMG.

Here is a scan from The Black Rifle.
http://www.stwing.upenn.edu/~wcchang/M16/CAR15table.jpg


Originally Posted By _DR:
The CAR-15 IS NOT the same as the XM177, as they claim:



According to the The Black Rifle, the XM177s are CAR-15s. On page 231, there is a section titled "The CAR-15 Commando Becomes the XM177/XM177E1" and quotes a report saying, "The Type Designated SUB-MACHINE GUN, 5.56mm XM177 (Air Force Version) and XM177E1 (Army Version) has tentatively been assigned to the CAR-15 SMG."



Originally Posted By _DR:
Colt XM607 "CAR-15"



Don't confuse Colt's three-number model designations with the military's Xperimental and Model numbers. It's the RO607 or Model 607. The Model 607 didn't get a military designation. The Model 609 and 610 did and became the XM177E1 and XM177.


Originally Posted By _DR:
THIS is a much better reference: US Assault Rifles



It should be noted the Supply Bunker is an information site for a RPG called the Morrow Project.



Originally Posted By Hoplophile:

Originally Posted By Edge767:
Why don't we put together a project to make the definitive history of the AR-15 and its variants?


It's already been done: www.ar15.com/content/books/BlackRifle/
There's also a second volume titled New Black Rifle II: The M16 Into the 21st Century



There is the unfortunate problem that the The Black Rifle and the Black Rifle II sometimes contradict themselves. For example, in the table provided in the Black Rifle II, it lists the RO602 as a USAF-purchased AR-15 without a forward assist, while it is explicit in The Black Rifle the 602 is the XM16E1 with a forward assist. On page 223 of the The Black Rifle, there is a picture of a GAU-5/A, which the caption lists as a Colt Model 649 with a barrel length of 14", including suppressor. The Black Rifle II lists the Model 610 as the GAU-5/A and the Model 649 as the GAU-5/A/A.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 1:23:33 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/6/2004 1:30:36 AM EST by Tweak]
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 1:41:28 AM EST
Would the Colt XM607 "CAR-15" pictured above have a foward assist?
Very nice Nice pictures!
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 2:29:30 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 5:49:25 AM EST
tagged
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 1:02:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By garr:
Would the Colt XM607 "CAR-15" pictured above have a foward assist?



This is cut and pasted from a post Colt-653 made in the summer.



The last units delivered to NSW(SEAL) had the XM177E1 moderator installled. I've got a few pics of a 607's with the later moderator I'll try and post.

About 65% of the 50+/- or so Colt 607's made went to NSW, the rest went to the US Army. As far as I know the rest were issued to trackers(K-9) units. Have a friend that was a USAF tracker that carried one late in 1969 while stationed in central Vietnam, he aquired it from a US Army Sgt that was headed home. Trying to get him to search through his old pics and see if he has any with the 607 in it.

Another question people have is about the Fwd assist and what style of pistol grip. Some were made with and some were made without. I've got pics of each style. Colt only made them in 1965. They were using up parts from the earlier M16 so the first ones were made using M16 non Fwd assist uppers and the stubby style grip from the Colt CAR survival rifle., maybe the first 10-15 made. The last ones were made with M16A1 uppers, fullsize A1 grips and the the XM177E1 style moderator.

Link Posted: 10/6/2004 1:19:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By Tweak:
Most likely correct, a lot of those changes took place around the same time. That lower even has full A1 reinforcements so it's not an early piece. The moderator looks wrong though.

WA Tom's place

Who is the luthier referred to in that referenced URL?
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 4:25:30 PM EST
Tweak?
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 4:57:26 PM EST
"The Type Designated SUB-MACHINE GUN, 5.56mm XM177 this is confusing by deffinition a 5.56 can not be a sub machine gun as the term sub machine gub pertains to caliber and not size. Sub Machine gun fires a pistol bullet. I have read in colt info before refering to a 5.56 sub machine gun...... I guess that is no different than Marlin calling their detachable Box Magazines ---- "clips" I wrote marlin a letter about this and got no response
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 6:52:09 PM EST
OK then I retract the CAR15 comment. I can't argue with The Black Rifle.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 9:21:08 PM EST
Top Top