Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Page Armory » M-16
Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Posted: 1/16/2015 7:20:28 PM EST
So I know the differences, the a2 has a beefier rear portion and i know there's something that was altered around the front mag well portion. But my main question is why the changes. Like what issues arose that constituted the changes? From what I can tell, there's about a 4-10k difference depending if its property marked or not. However what id really be interested in is one of the uber rare remanufactured colt receivers that they did in The 90s with the type 3 hard coat anodizing. Autoweapons has a few but he's asking 38-42k and that seems a bit expensive.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 7:33:58 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/16/2015 7:35:00 PM EST by Essayons]
See the tacked "AR15/M16A1 Lower Receiver: Model Guide/Clone Building Guide/FAQ, redux " tread in the Retro forum. LINK







This is also covered in one of the Black Rifle books (Black Rifle or Black Rifle II. IIRC the rear reinforcement was to prevent failure of the receiver while firing rifle grenades. At the front of the receiver, they added additional material under the pivot pin holes to prevent cracking or breakage.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 7:50:38 PM EST
What about the differences between the A2 and this? http://www.autoweapons.com/photos14/sep/vk340m16.html
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 7:53:48 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/16/2015 8:00:12 PM EST by Essayons]
The link doesn't work for me.

ETA I think I found the photo you mean. I've seen it before. It's kind of an oddball lower with A2 features but stamped M16A1.
Link Posted: 1/16/2015 7:59:32 PM EST
http://www.autoweapons.com/photos14/sep/vk340m16.html
Link Posted: 1/17/2015 11:28:02 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Essayons:
The link doesn't work for me.

ETA I think I found the photo you mean. I've seen it before. It's kind of an oddball lower with A2 features but stamped M16A1.
View Quote

one of the rebuilds Colt did?
Link Posted: 1/17/2015 12:36:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/17/2015 12:38:31 PM EST by Essayons]


This lower has the additional material under the pivot pin holes and around the receiver extension hole (A2 features) but has an A1 rollmark.

IIRC Colt proposed these changes before the A2 was standardized, so maybe it is a very late A1 (before they started rollmarking lowers as A2s). There's another thread on this lower somewhere on ARFCOM.
Link Posted: 1/17/2015 12:53:26 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Essayons:
http://www.autoweapons.com/photos14/sep/vk340m16m.jpg

This lower has the additional material under the pivot pin holes and around the receiver extension hole (A2 features) but has an A1 rollmark.

IIRC Colt proposed these changes before the A2 was standardized, so maybe it is a very late A1 (before they started rollmarking lowers as A2s). There's another thread on this lower somewhere on ARFCOM.
View Quote

Manufacturer's rollmark shows that it's a modern replacement receiver - the legality of which is questionable. That style of rollmark didn't come into use until the late 1990s at earliest.

A late production M16A1 would be roll marked

COLT'S FIREARMS DIVISION
COLT INDUSTRIES
HARTFORD, CONN.
U.S.A.
Link Posted: 1/17/2015 1:02:56 PM EST
More info in this thread:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_23/436433_M16A1_with_A2_Reinforcements_.html
Link Posted: 1/17/2015 2:16:30 PM EST
Another "theory" on why the reinforcements (at front and rear) were added is that a number of A1 receivers were broken when the rifles were used as pry implements or were stepped on.
Page Armory » M-16
Top Top