AR Sponsor
Posted: 6/2/2006 6:50:59 AM EDT
|
Viet Fucking Nam. Few things are improved by increasing their complexity--especially in life and death situations. You can have it your way--any color of black you'd like--no need to replace your black furniture with a slightly different shade of black every 6 months. Unless you dump mag after mag FA, lightweight profile barrels are superior. Batteries are not required. Storage compartments are for minivans. Screws, nuts, and bolts belong on cars--not weapons. If I want a VFG I'll grab my mag well. Practically doubling your carbine's weight is about as helpful as doing the same to your wife. No optics to fog up when going between temperature extremes. Nothing to "turn on" before use. Why the hell do I need a quick change barrel in an AR? If you want to quickly change calibers, you should just carry a second rilfe (you practically are when you realize you need different mags, different bolt, different barrel, differently zeroed BUIS, differently zeroed optic). Last time that I checked, the highly accurate, service rifle competition dominating AR operates just fine without a piston. Slings worked just fine before they became trapeze sets. "Original" and "Vintage" never go out of style--unlike the aluminum rail forend du jour. |
|
Curare, 30 years ago, I could shoot sub MOA groups with the M16A1 sights. 10 years ago, I could shoot MOA groups with the M16A2 sights. This year, every AR15/M16 I actually use wears some type of optical sight. They are heavy. In another 20 years, I just hope they can fix my eyesight enough to see the damn target. Did I mention that I am going deaf and had to get an AAC suppressor for everyday shooting. The old timers did not lie to me over the years: Getting old sucks! HTH, Carey |
Yeah. Getting old is the second worst thing in the world. The worst thing? DYING YOUNG! And the SP1 carbine I XM177d in 1978 and class 3d in 1979, is atill my favorite AR! 
|
|
KISS principle? I guess I just like 'old things'. Now that I'M old, I'm beginning to like things MY vintage, LOL.han |
What exactly is a Son Tay Raider CAR? Not meant to be a thread hijack, but in all the Son Tay picutres I've seen, the look like plain XM177E2s. Am I wrong? |
You mean like this   I love my Retro A1 carbine, built from parts purchased on this sight from guys like you. She is light, handles like a dream and is drop dead sexy. Yes this is the way it was intended to be. A lot of work went into this baby, including the hand made A1 carbine hand guards done by yours truly. |
|
When you all get done with this circle jerk, remember that our men in uniform continue to demand modifications. Some things they don't want- they may like light barrels or two point slings, but they all seem to want lights, lasers and optics. Even the old fashioned ones. EDIT: You like the A1 handgaurds even though they require two part numbers, and don't cool the barrel as well. How is that simple? EDIT II:And the M4 stock provides a longer toe that makes the weapon easier to use. And it doesn't add an parts. Why is it too complex? |
Not to continue to Hijack, but here you go: XM177E2 (?) image from Son Tay raid for the retro interested Unfortunatley this probably creates as many questions as it answers. You would think the US Army Son Tay Raiders would have carried XM177 E1's or E2's. However if you look at the pics the "XM's" do have a 11.5" Barrel, but no forward assist.  So what does that make them? Closest thing would be a Colt Model 630, but that should have been USAF issue not US Army issue. So what is the answer, not real sure? Hopefully somone will come up with what the real scoop was. Good Luck, "Capt Richardson" |
|
My "go to" AR has A1 non forward assist top with iron sights, A1 stock, plastic handguards. The only modern change was to a stiffer 16" barrel with flutes and the whole gun was teflon'd inside and out. It is accurate and light. Really light. 5.5 lbs light. Every time I bring it to the range some one offers to buy it. Simplicity works. I think a basic $6 surplus A1 stock is better than 90% of the collapsibles on the market. |
Nice job on the shorty handguards! I have not seen them done that way before. |
Those handguards are like the type used on the LaFrance M-16K:  What did you use for the front part? Did you have to fab up a different cap? Nice job! I think they look great! 
|
|
Not to continue to Hijack, but here you go: XM177E2 (?) image from Son Tay raid for the retro interested Unfortunatley this probably creates as many questions as it answers. You would think the US Army Son Tay Raiders would have carried XM177 E1's or E2's. However if you look at the pics the "XM's" do have a 11.5" Barrel, but no forward assist. i36.photobucket.com/albums/e30/captcarbine/Historical/standard2.jpg So what does that make them? Closest thing would be a Colt Model 630, but that should have been USAF issue not US Army issue. So what is the answer, not real sure? Hopefully somone will come up with what the real scoop was. Good Luck, "Capt Richardson" Well, I guess that makes sense. The Raiders consisted of of 90-some USAF Air Rescue Servicemen and 50-some Army Special Forces soldiers. So, even if the Army brought their own weapons, the majority would be USAF issued. The Colt Model 630/GAU 5 makes sense. |
Thanks for the compliment! No I used the original round carbine hand guard cap. After I cut down the A1 hand guards I took an old crappy pair of round standard hand guards chopped off the connecting pieces, wedged them in between the heat shield and hand guard body, made sure everything was real snug and lined up correctly, then filled it all in with a batch of JB weld. After it hardened (a day latter) I did my final trimming/sanding then refinished the exterior of the new carbine length hand guards in a matt semi textured black. I retained the heat shields completely, so If you flip them upside down they look like normal hand guards. Did I mention they fit "Like a glove" nice and snug, no play what so ever.
|
If you check the pics, the Raiders pictured are definitely Army, not USAF personnel. However it is very possible that the USAF may have supplied the weapons given that they were the majority, and there may have been some logistic issues. Still trying to nail that one down! Thanks, "Capt Richardson" |
When I was stationed at Ft.Knox I had a boss who had been prior-service before he joined the Army. He has spent a year in Vietnam as part of the Brown Water Navy on a river patrol boat. We had been talking about his time over there and the subject of weapons came up. He told me that his personal weapon was an M79 but, he also said (and I quote) "any weapon you can think of could be had over there." So, I can see how the Raiders could have ended up with weapons that weren't "normal issue." Doc hug.gif |
AR Sponsor