Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/24/2017 4:44:23 PM
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 10/7/2004 6:05:56 PM EST
Since there have been some threads about M16 reciever types, I took some pics of some of our M16's while we had them out getting them zeroed and ready for the WPW matches.

Here is a side by side of M16's serial 254xxx " Top rifle "and 270xxx " bottom " that show the change over from M16 Slab side to fenced mag release. Note that 254xxx also has the buffer tube pin hole while 270xxx doesn't.



An Early AR-15 M16, Mod 02's went to around 45k, the lowest straight M16 I have seen was 63k.



Some H&R pics, I have seen a few M16A1 marked Air Force recvr's but never an A1 upper.



Another view, she may be ugly but shoots well




Link Posted: 10/7/2004 6:30:33 PM EST
geez I always thought slab-side meant no forward-assist. I have never seen one without a mag fence, thanks
Link Posted: 10/7/2004 6:37:16 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2004 12:11:45 PM EST by El_Roto]
Why does a tear-drop FA bring a tear to my eye...<sniff>...now I'm all verklempt over here..
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 8:42:17 PM EST
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! The "experts" around here have been posting repeatedly that all "16s" without the mag fence were marked XM16 or similar. I've avoided getting into arguments w/them about this, though I've always known damn good and well that the mag release fence was adopted well after the designation was changed to "M16A1"----and your pic now proves it.

I'm going to bookmark this thread, and maybe I can get the "experts" to stop posting this error
Link Posted: 10/8/2004 8:48:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By El_Roto:
Why does a tear-drop FA bring a tear to my eye...<sniff>...now I'm all verklempt over here..




You sure they're tear drop? To me they look like the early type round ones, which are larger in diameter than the current round type.


But I could be wrong
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 5:23:47 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2004 5:30:19 AM EST by tangeant]

Originally Posted By shamayim:
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! The "experts" around here have been posting repeatedly that all "16s" without the mag fence were marked XM16 or similar. I've avoided getting into arguments w/them about this, though I've always known damn good and well that the mag release fence was adopted well after the designation was changed to "M16A1"----and your pic now proves it.

I'm going to bookmark this thread, and maybe I can get the "experts" to stop posting this error



Colt Mil M16 production is very confusing with all the different commercial model #'s and mixed serial blocks. It's my understanding that the AF only purchased M16's and not M16A1's so even while the Army was buying A1's the AF was still buying 16's hence the later AF M16's built with obvious A1 type lowers but are stamped " M16 " and serial stamped in the M16 assigned block..

I don't recall ever coming across " XM16 " in all the hundreds of AF m16's I have looked over..

We don't use/have any of the earlier colt/armalite mod 01-02's for marksmanship weapons so getting pics of those is difficult.

These uppers in the pics are A2 upper's we put together back in 89-90? so they use the older large round A2 forward assist.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 11:06:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By shamayim:
THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU! The "experts" around here have been posting repeatedly that all "16s" without the mag fence were marked XM16 or similar. I've avoided getting into arguments w/them about this, though I've always known damn good and well that the mag release fence was adopted well after the designation was changed to "M16A1"----and your pic now proves it.

I'm going to bookmark this thread, and maybe I can get the "experts" to stop posting this error



How does his picture prove the magazine release fence was adopted after the designation was changed to M16A1? The top rifle is an M16 as is marked as such without a magazine release fence.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 12:10:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By shamayim:

Originally Posted By El_Roto:
Why does a tear-drop FA bring a tear to my eye...<sniff>...now I'm all verklempt over here..




You sure they're tear drop? To me they look like the early type round ones, which are larger in diameter than the current round type.


But I could be wrong



No, you're right. I panicked.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 12:31:33 PM EST
Damn thems some sexy guns...

One day, I shall join the ranks of M16ness...

Until then, I shall be content albeit jealously looking at your guns like they were porn.


Carry on

- BG
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 5:04:57 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/9/2004 5:08:12 PM EST by TangoRomeo]

Originally Posted By tangeant:
It's my understanding that the AF only purchased M16's and not M16A1's so even while the Army was buying A1's the AF was still buying 16's hence the later AF M16's built with obvious A1 type lowers but are stamped " M16 " and serial stamped in the M16 assigned block..



I think tangeant is right on the mark. I was assigned to an Air Force Security Police unit in Vietnam in 1970. I don't recall seeing anything other than plain jane M-16s in AF units until probably around 1972-73. It seems like it was about that time that I started seeing a few rifles with forward assist and birdcage suppressors. But even those may still have been marked as M-16s instead of A1s. I hate to admit it, but that was a long time ago, and those details have long since faded from memory.
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 5:11:32 PM EST
Oops! Forgot to mention that our unit's dog handlers carried CARs. Sorry 'bout that!
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 5:15:46 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/9/2004 5:43:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
I think Id be pissed about those Dremel tool "Burst" and "M16A12" markings....



Why? If it works who cares what it looks like. Its combat not your local range.
Link Posted: 10/24/2004 12:07:33 PM EST
Bump for someone that wanted pics....
Top Top