Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/22/2005 11:58:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 10:37:14 AM EDT by ch139]

Got to shoot a couple Air Force weapons this afternoon. They seem pretty excited about their new M4s which are pretty cool to be sure, but I’m still pretty geeked up about the old GUU-5P that are making their way out of arms rooms and up to that big rack in the sky.

The GUU-5P that was out there today is apparently a pretty old one. The SN is 909xxx she was outfitted with what appears to be an older lower, chrome plated bolt carrier without any forward assist notches and a 14.5-inch 1/7 lightweight barrel. Also of note, it appears that the weapon came from Colt with factory markings of GAU-5/A/A that have been XXX out and GUU-5P was stamped below all the other markings. The auto sear was pulled out at some point, don’t know if it was to dash our fun afternoon, or if it’s been like that for a while.

I did spy a second GUU-5P wandering around, but the guy carrying it wasn’t very nice and wouldn’t let me take any pics of it. This GUU had an upper with the A1 type sights, forward assist and a shell deflector.

In the family pic below, the GUU (pronounced goo by the SF guys)is the weapon on the far right.








Link Posted: 8/23/2005 12:12:22 AM EDT
Looks like that would've been lots of fun. You can't beat playing with a piece of history (especially one with a third choice on the selector switch!)
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 12:14:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 12:15:38 AM EDT by METT-T]

Originally Posted By ch139:
The auto sear was pulled out at some point, don’t know if it was to dash our fun afternoon, or if it’s been like that for a while.




Probably the former. I worked a couple of different armories as an SP and never saw one without the auto-sear.

Thanks for the pics, brings back memories!
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 12:14:43 AM EDT
Great Post and Pics!!! Thanks
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 8:47:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Wombat_SCSO:
Looks like that would've been lots of fun. You can't beat playing with a piece of history (especially one with a third choice on the selector switch!)


The switch was there and would move into the third position, but it was missing a part; making it a semi-auto only. The M4 was a burst weapon though. We had some fun dropping the different uppers onto the M4 lower and shooting em in burst.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 9:13:44 AM EDT
CATM must have pulled the part for a reason, is it a dedicated training weapon?
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 10:25:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Stickman:
CATM must have pulled the part for a reason, is it a dedicated training weapon?


It might be. As I understand it, this is one of a couple GUU that is going to stick around as a CATM weapon indefinitely.

Still trying to get my hooks on one with the M4 barrel.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 10:40:42 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 10:40:57 AM EDT by jquillen1985]
I'll bet it was light. How did it feel compared to a regular M4?

And pardon my ignorance, but what was the purpose of the chrome lined bolt group and why did they stop doing it?
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 11:01:59 AM EDT
It would go into the 3rd position, but would it still safely fire?

Removing an auto sear without changing the disconnector could create a nasty little problem. Wonder if the person responsible for moving the Auto Sear knew enough to figure that they better put a semiauto disconnector in as well.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 1:48:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ch139:
I did spy a second GUU-5P wandering around, but the guy carrying it wasn’t very nice and wouldn’t let me take any pics of it. This GUU had an upper with the A1 type sights, forward assist and a shell deflector.



That was the idea behind my latest build.

Link Posted: 8/23/2005 2:06:23 PM EDT
That GUU-5P is an interesting mutt. The lower receiver dates from about 1967, and the upper receiver/port door/bolt carrier date from 1964. Barrel is probably rather recent.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 3:11:56 PM EDT
Cool, I wish I could play with some goodies like that

WIZZO
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 4:59:31 PM EDT
What, no pictures we can criticize for idiotic trigger discipline or asinine stance??

Good pics.

Cheers
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 5:39:35 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 5:44:00 PM EDT by gcpd19]
What is the one next to the GUU-5P? I remember the M16's as a young Airman with the chrome bolts, all our original M16's where marked AR-15, but CATM could not tell us why. We also had some of the 14.5 inch guns at my last duty station, but none where marked GUU. Really brings back some fond memories, and some not so fond memories (specfically ABGD and cleaning those damn things all the time).
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:00:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 6:01:23 PM EDT by GHPorter]

Originally Posted By Stickman:
CATM must have pulled the part for a reason, is it a dedicated training weapon?

All of the Air Force "dedicated training weapons" I've seen have been complete. "Train the way you'll fight" is true in the Air Force too.

My last couple of qualifications were at Lackland AFB using basically the same rifles they hand to basic trainees. While they weren't as clean as I'd have had them (KEEP SCRUBBING AIRMAN! SOMEONE'S LIFE MAY REST ON THAT WEAPON!!!) They had all the parts. These were field-upgraded M16-A2s; a new upper dropped onto an M16 lower with the A2 trigger parts installed in it.

Edit to add: I forgot to ask, but what was the difference between the GAU-5 and the GUU-5?
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:16:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Ekie:
That GUU-5P is an interesting mutt. The lower receiver dates from about 1967, and the upper receiver/port door/bolt carrier date from 1964. Barrel is probably rather recent.



Ekie:

I thought that chromed / non-serrated carriers were standard issue up to late '66? Ditto the unmarked upper, I was under the impression they all looked like that up to the time when Congress arranged for multiple sources. I would have thought it possible for the upper parts to have been manufactured in late '66 then assembled into a complete rifle with the receiver a few months later. What do you see that I don't?
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:26:42 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:26:59 PM EDT
So, what they doing with the old ones after they get their new M4 carbines? Please tell me they're going to a good home.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:29:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BlairHous:
So, what they doing with the old ones after they get their new M4 carbines? Please tell me they're going to a good home.

Odds are that the ones worth keeping are going into storage, while the ones that aren't worth keeping will go where they won't be anyone's problem anymore.

Remember: they are ACTIVELY demilling Garands every day. You don't think ARs will escape the same fate, do you?
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 6:31:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wombat_SCSO:
Looks like that would've been lots of fun. You can't beat playing with a piece of history (especially one with a third choice on the selector switch!)




Piece of history? We just got some GUUs to deploy with. We haven't even qualified with them yet!
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 7:29:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 7:44:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BravoCompanyUSA:
Thanks for the pic!
I am kinda working on something similar, now I have a good idea of what its gonna look like.



No problem.........I luv postin' pics!
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 8:04:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BattleRife:

Originally Posted By Ekie:
That GUU-5P is an interesting mutt. The lower receiver dates from about 1967, and the upper receiver/port door/bolt carrier date from 1964. Barrel is probably rather recent.



Ekie:

I thought that chromed / non-serrated carriers were standard issue up to late '66? Ditto the unmarked upper, I was under the impression they all looked like that up to the time when Congress arranged for multiple sources. I would have thought it possible for the upper parts to have been manufactured in late '66 then assembled into a complete rifle with the receiver a few months later. What do you see that I don't?



Given the upper could date as late as say 1970. Also, I made a mistake, the port door cover is a modern A2.

In regards to the carrier far as I can tell the SP1, 604, and the XM16E1 all went into production in 1964 with chrome carriers, and that chrome was soon dropped. I find no evidence that chrome was used on carriers on any Colt's rifles as late as 1965.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 11:57:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BlairHous:
So, what they doing with the old ones after they get their new M4 carbines? Please tell me they're going to a good home.



I'm sure they'll keep the good stuff for spare parts, send off the ok stuff to an allied country, and destroy the junk.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 11:58:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Wirebrush:

Originally Posted By Wombat_SCSO:
Looks like that would've been lots of fun. You can't beat playing with a piece of history (especially one with a third choice on the selector switch!)




Piece of history? We just got some GUUs to deploy with. We haven't even qualified with them yet!



That shouldn't be happening at all. Not only should GUU's NOT be deployed, but you certainly shouldn't be deploying with a weapon that isn't BZO'ed...
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 1:45:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/24/2005 1:49:29 AM EDT by GAU5-A-A]

I don't know if the USAF ever had a standard GAU-5/A/A. When I was an SP CC (late 1980s), I had a number of them to pick from, and there were quite a few configurations.

My first had an ultra short barrel, approximately 10 inches long, measured from end of the birdcage flash hider to the front end of the upper receiver. The birdcage touched the front sight base. It was great for gettitng in/out of a vehicle 25 times a shift, but worthless for hitting anything. At the range, the muzzle blast would ruin my night vision after the first few shots, it climbed like a raped ape during full auto mag dumps and got too hot to hold (no gloves then), and accuracy was dismal. Weighed about 5 lbs, just an overgrown pistol, easily used with one hand.

I tried a few others, finally settled on a 14" barrel with forward assist and birdcage. It was a tack driver at the range. As I recall,there were about 25 in the armory, and very few were identical. Different barrel lengths, flash hiders, and lowers with/without forward assists, mag release guards, etc. All were full auto and stamped GAU-5/A/A. Some were quite accurate, others were like shotguns. Very tough gun. I beat the hell out of mine and it never failed to fire.
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 2:24:55 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 4:57:13 PM EDT
It seems as though the Air Force does what they want with their small arms. I still think my fav is the GUU with the M4 profile barrel; something about it being all different kinds of parts is cool.

quillen1985, the GUU was noticably lighter than the M4 (it did have an Aimpoint) and probably my short Bushmaster too.
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 5:11:39 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 5:53:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ch139:
It seems as though the Air Force does what they want with their small arms. I still think my fav is the GUU with the M4 profile barrel; something about it being all different kinds of parts is cool.

quillen1985, the GUU was noticably lighter than the M4 (it did have an Aimpoint) and probably my short Bushmaster too.

The Air Force has a history of doing what they must with small arms. Until very recently, "hind tit" was a mild term for how well the Air Force was provided with new and up-to-date weapons. I remember the vast assortment and variety of rifle-type weapons the various SP units had in Panama in 1988 and 89-truly remarkable. I asked one senior NCO why no two of his troops had the same weapon and he told me flat out that they had what they could scrounge or build from parts.
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 6:27:07 PM EDT
The AF just really doesn't care about small arms and would rather spend the money on new office furniture or building buildings around buildings

Getting the various carbines that have seen hard use replaced with one standardized model like the M4 has been way overdue.
Link Posted: 8/25/2005 3:26:53 AM EDT
The mutt carbines they built. work, ad thats all that counts.
Link Posted: 8/25/2005 3:47:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ch139:
In the family pic below, the GUU (pronounced goo by the SF guys)is the weapon on the far right.



Was this an all-USAF range?

Just nitpicking (for proper terminology), but if so, there's no one in the USAF that is SF, unless they're former Army SF. They might be properly referred to a SOF, but not SF.
Link Posted: 8/25/2005 4:01:16 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/25/2005 5:44:45 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ShakenNotStirred:

Originally Posted By ch139:
In the family pic below, the GUU (pronounced goo by the SF guys)is the weapon on the far right.



Was this an all-USAF range?

Just nitpicking (for proper terminology), but if so, there's no one in the USAF that is SF, unless they're former Army SF. They might be properly referred to a SOF, but not SF.



Different "SF" entirely. It used to be "SP", and before that it was "AP", but now all Air Force cops are "SF"-Security Forces.
Link Posted: 8/25/2005 10:13:07 AM EDT
When I was an SP, we had a mix of rifles. I still had one with triangular handguards, three prong flash hider, ad no shell deflector. The only ones issued the GUU's were K-9 , and our spec ops guys (pj's, tac p's and such) Now the Air OFrce calls the SP's, Security Forces (SF).
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 12:23:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2005 12:24:03 AM EDT by ch139]

Originally Posted By ShakenNotStirred:

Originally Posted By ch139:
In the family pic below, the GUU (pronounced goo by the SF guys)is the weapon on the far right.



Was this an all-USAF range?

Just nitpicking (for proper terminology), but if so, there's no one in the USAF that is SF, unless they're former Army SF. They might be properly referred to a SOF, but not SF.


Air Force range and Security Forces (SF)
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 5:15:32 AM EDT
Sweet looking carbines
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 9:35:00 PM EDT
Very interesting post. I like reading the various responses, especially from current/prior SP/SF (Security Forces) members. Recently, when our unit was activated for 2 years, we were converting the base M16 rifles to M16A2 rifles. We came across several M16 rifles that were part of the FIRST US military issue M16s. This occurred, I believe, in 1962, when the USAF ordered 10,000 M16 from the parent company of ArmaLite. We did save one ORIGINAL M16 rifle for historical purposes, and have contacted the USAF SP Museum (Lackland AFB, TX) about transferring the rifle to them, for all (USAF military anyway) to appreciate. This rifle has the chrome carriers/bolts, GREEN furniture, machined firing pin retaining pin, early 3 prong, etc. Serial number is BELOW 5000, receiver marked ArmaLite. Next week, if I don't get too preoccupied with other tasks, I will take several photos of the rifle, and post here.
Link Posted: 8/26/2005 10:40:37 PM EDT
Please do take pics, I would be very interested. Here is a thread I started on the subject:

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=242620
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 7:41:52 AM EDT
tagged for later reading
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 11:16:45 AM EDT
Pugsley, please do take some pics and post em.

If you don’t have a place to host them, I can put them up for you.

And if you wouldn’t mind, could you please e-mail me the hi-res versions, I’d be very grateful.

The base that I’m hanging out at has had many of those M16s that the Air Force made into A2s. I think most of em are going away in favor of the M4s though.






Link Posted: 8/27/2005 1:49:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ch139:
The base that I’m hanging out at has had many of those M16s that the Air Force made into A2s. I think most of em are going away in favor of the M4s though.




Hey ch139 if you get a chance might make not of serial number here and there. For instance, trying to figure out how late the Air Force was getting 604's, and the highest serial number I have heard of is the one you pictured above, 4.2 million. Near as I can tell Air Force M16 model 604 serial number fall into these ranges 40,000-99,999, 500,00-899,999 1,000,000-1,999,999 4,000,000-5,500,000.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 3:23:07 PM EDT
Good point.

The M16A2 right up there is 4246xxx aqnd the GUU on the front page is 909xxx.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 4:07:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ch139:
Good point.

The M16A2 right up there is 4246xxx aqnd the GUU on the front page is 909xxx.



Right, the 900,000-999,999 range was reserved for carbines.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 4:52:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By tangeant:
The AF just really doesn't care about small arms and would rather spend the money on new office furniture or building buildings around buildings

Getting the various carbines that have seen hard use replaced with one standardized model like the M4 has been way overdue.

Freakin' CONGRESS tells the Air Force where to spend each and every PENNY they grudgingly give. Apparently Congresscritters like to visit Air Force commanders who have nice office furniture, because they apportion a ton of money to that. Until the last few years they gave almost exactly dick to the Air Force for individual weapons.

Yes, this is a sore point for me. After over 23 years of having to PRETEND I could use a weapon if I ever had to, and all the while projecting how much money it would take to cycle out furniture every few years, I think I'm entitled to having a sore point or two. I qualified on the M16 exactly FIVE times in that entire 23 years (and twice on the M9). I was a Senior NCO for almost 9 years, and people looked up to me for guidance in all sorts of circumstances-how could I lead people in combat if I didn't have enough training myself?!?!

<deep breathing......>Ok, I'm better now. But do NOT rag the services for spending money the way Congress FORCES them to.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 4:53:13 PM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 5:23:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/27/2005 5:28:58 PM EDT by METT-T]

Originally Posted By GHPorter:

Originally Posted By tangeant:
The AF just really doesn't care about small arms and would rather spend the money on new office furniture or building buildings around buildings

Getting the various carbines that have seen hard use replaced with one standardized model like the M4 has been way overdue.

Freakin' CONGRESS tells the Air Force where to spend each and every PENNY they grudgingly give. Apparently Congresscritters like to visit Air Force commanders who have nice office furniture, because they apportion a ton of money to that. Until the last few years they gave almost exactly dick to the Air Force for individual weapons.

Yes, this is a sore point for me. After over 23 years of having to PRETEND I could use a weapon if I ever had to, and all the while projecting how much money it would take to cycle out furniture every few years, I think I'm entitled to having a sore point or two. I qualified on the M16 exactly FIVE times in that entire 23 years (and twice on the M9). I was a Senior NCO for almost 9 years, and people looked up to me for guidance in all sorts of circumstances-how could I lead people in combat if I didn't have enough training myself?!?!

<deep breathing......>Ok, I'm better now. But do NOT rag the services for spending money the way Congress FORCES them to.



I agree...to an extent. But I've always been of the opinion that the AF and other armed services get authorization to spend $ on the programs they've lobbied for. There's not a lot of AF bird colonels stalking the halls of Congress seeking support for small arms or UCAVs.

And I definitely feel you on the lack of range time. I was issued a 203 and 18 40mm HE rounds just about every day I went to work for my first year, riding as an Alpha member on ARTs and SRTs or a Bravo gunner on a fire team. I would carry it with varying regularity thereafter, generally on deployments. But I always noted that I spent more time in the Air Force in equal opportunity training than I did on the 203 range.
Link Posted: 8/27/2005 5:39:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By METT-T:
I agree...to an extent. But I've always been of the opinion that the AF and other armed services get authorization to spend $ on the programs they've lobbied for. There's not a lot of AF bird colonels stalking the halls of Congress seeking support for small arms or UCAVs.

And I definitely feel you on the lack of range time. I was issued a 203 and 18 40mm HE rounds just about every day I went to work for my first year, riding as an Alpha member on ARTs and SRTs or a Bravo gunner on a fire team. I would carry it with varying regularity thereafter, generally on deployments. But I always noted that I spent more time in the Air Force in equal opportunity training than I did on the 203 range.

You're at least partly right about what gets lobbied for is more likely to get funded, but for the last ten years or so the Air Force has been more and more tasked with actual hands-on, weapons-carrying missions, and the Security Forces big wigs have been screaming for weapons and equipment for longer than that.

The SF school actually got brand new M4s (the first new weapons they apparently EVER got) in 2003, and that was a Good Thing. But the rest of us still got jack in terms of useful practice and continuing training. We all still got graded (ORI time) on whether or not we were safe with the weapons, and whether or not we could load, unload, etc. by the book, but we weren't ever given the proper hands-on, real firing line time needed to make us all comfortable with the weapons. Hell, I NEVER, EVER got to fire ANYTHING on Auto. Ever. Even in exercises. And it's because Congress doles out just so much for training ammunition (and contracts for only so much to be manufactured...another major sticking point for me) that the majority of Air Force members' weapons training cycles is every 30 months. That is just NOT good enough.
Link Posted: 8/29/2005 3:52:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/29/2005 3:53:50 AM EDT by GAU5-A-A]

Originally Posted By GHPorter:

Originally Posted By METT-T:
I agree...to an extent. But I've always been of the opinion that the AF and other armed services get authorization to spend $ on the programs they've lobbied for. There's not a lot of AF bird colonels stalking the halls of Congress seeking support for small arms or UCAVs.

And I definitely feel you on the lack of range time. I was issued a 203 and 18 40mm HE rounds just about every day I went to work for my first year, riding as an Alpha member on ARTs and SRTs or a Bravo gunner on a fire team. I would carry it with varying regularity thereafter, generally on deployments. But I always noted that I spent more time in the Air Force in equal opportunity training than I did on the 203 range.

You're at least partly right about what gets lobbied for is more likely to get funded, but for the last ten years or so the Air Force has been more and more tasked with actual hands-on, weapons-carrying missions, and the Security Forces big wigs have been screaming for weapons and equipment for longer than that.

The SF school actually got brand new M4s (the first new weapons they apparently EVER got) in 2003, and that was a Good Thing. But the rest of us still got jack in terms of useful practice and continuing training. We all still got graded (ORI time) on whether or not we were safe with the weapons, and whether or not we could load, unload, etc. by the book, but we weren't ever given the proper hands-on, real firing line time needed to make us all comfortable with the weapons. Hell, I NEVER, EVER got to fire ANYTHING on Auto. Ever. Even in exercises. And it's because Congress doles out just so much for training ammunition (and contracts for only so much to be manufactured...another major sticking point for me) that the majority of Air Force members' weapons training cycles is every 30 months. That is just NOT good enough.




Hmmmmm,


I was a SAC SP CC in the 1980s. Got more weapons training than I could shake a stick at. Of course, I decided to get qualified on everything the USAF had - M38, M9, shotgun, M16, GAU5, M60, M203.

There were several courses for individual weapons. The M60 had a general course that required passing, but also fam courses like firing from moving peacekeeper vehicles, rapid reloading/barrel changing, etc. For M16/GAU5 there were several qualification courses, including night firing and gas mask firing. I probably shot a course every month.

Many guys got tired of it. They were damn good marksmen, could shoot expert every time, and didn't like losing off-duty time to go requalify.

I enjoyed all of it, and even buddied with the CATM guys, who were tired of all the qual courses and proficiency shooting they had to do. We'd go to the range, they'd shoot, qualify, and there'd be a huge mound of ammo they still had to expend. So I'd help them out. Actually, I'd shoot almost all of it. GAU5 on full auto mag dumps, and I'd just about fry an M60 barrel, burning thru one assault pack after another. Get a little fancy shooting the M60 one-handed, letting the recoil support the weight of the gun. Start out firing away from a target and walk my fire into it. Try writing stuff into the berm with bullet impacts.

Top Top