AR Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - probably a crazy thought (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 12/21/2010 3:11:21 PM EDT
|
I've been intrigued by this picture for years and have always wondered WHY didn't they make the AR/M16 series with the top rifles upper receiver?
Does anyone know? and how cool would you be to take one like this out to the local range on Fudd day to show off. Yes I am a sci fi fanatic from way back and I've always loved Forbidden Planet. 
|
|
Yeah, it's very strange. Clearly an early prototype but, one wonders where it fell in the line.
In TBR it mentions that the first prototypes were developed in .222 Remington before they developed the .223 to meet the army's criteria. If that's true, it stands to reason that this one might be .222. Then you have to wonder, is the upper machined or forged? It wouldn't make sense from a cost perspective to have only 1 upper forged so, if it is forged, what happened to the potential others? TBR also has a photograph of a note along with a set of forgings stating that they were part of 40 forgings ordered by Armalite for the first rifles. Again, one has to wonder, is that 40 pairs, or 40 individual forgings? Since Springfield Armory has rifle #27 in their collection, that may indicate 40 pairs. But, then that means there could be as many as 39 complete rifles out there. There are 5 at Springfield, at least 2 at Knight's, and maybe 1 at Aberdeen. That's only 8. So, (of they exist) what happened to the other 31? There are just so many unknowns around these originals Armalite rifles. It's really kind of sad that we know so little about them. Plus they look damn cool. 
|
|
Quoted:
Yeah, it's very strange. Clearly an early prototype but, one wonders where it fell in the line. In TBR it mentions that the first prototypes were developed in .222 Remington before they developed the .223 to meet the army's criteria. If that's true, it stands to reason that this one might be .222. Then you have to wonder, is the upper machined or forged? It wouldn't make sense from a cost perspective to have only 1 upper forged so, if it is forged, what happened to the potential others? TBR also has a photograph of a note along with a set of forgings stating that they were part of 40 forgings ordered by Armalite for the first rifles. Again, one has to wonder, is that 40 pairs, or 40 individual forgings? Since Springfield Armory has rifle #27 in their collection, that may indicate 40 pairs. But, then that means there could be as many as 39 complete rifles out there. There are 5 at Springfield, at least 2 at Knight's, and maybe 1 at Aberdeen. That's only 8. So, (of they exist) what happened to the other 31? There are just so many unknowns around these originals Armalite rifles. It's really kind of sad that we know so little about them. Plus they look damn cool. Don't forget Rock Island Arsenal Museum in Illinois...they have many AR's and prototypes and early guns. http://riamwr.com/museum.htm |
|
Quoted:
In TBR it mentions that the first prototypes were developed in .222 Remington before they developed the .223 to meet the army's criteria. .222 Remington Special = .223 Remington. The loadings were probably technically different, but there are various loadings still of commercial .223 Remington. The Army tested the original AR-15s in this and the Winchester .224 E2 cartridge. EDIT- I see the very first of the prototype AR-15s were chambered in the commercial .222 Remington Cartridge as well, so nvm. |
|
Quoted:
interesting rear sight. Could this be a NM variant? Might explain the dove tail front sight post as mentioned earlier. Looking at the photo again of the rear sight...I don't see anything for windage.  I think these were prototype battle sights. The rear aperture would probably have little or no adjustment vertically, and no windage adjustment. Windage would be dialed, or rather, knocked in, by tapping the front sight left and right in it's dovetail till it was good enough, and elevation would be adjusted by using different height front sight blades/posts or by carefully filing down a sight blade a bit at a time to zero the rifle. The result would be very rugged sights that were pretty hard to knock out of alignment, especially if the front blade were to be staked in place. My guess is that, knowing the relatively flat trajectory of the 5.56mm, they would have zeroed the rifle at a good range to take advantage of the ballistics, and the fixed sights were intended to keep soldiers from messing with the rifle. Troops would be trained to point and shoot, perhaps with a little training on kentucky windage or hold-overs/unders. Some WW2 rifles were similar, though they usually had range/elevation adjustment. Some Mosin Nagant rifles can be seen with numbers indicating the height of the front sight post, so that the armorers could tell if the soldier the rifle was issued to had filed on his sights to adjust them. I've also seen rifles with witness marks smacked over the dovetails (And some that looked staked in), I assume this was to provide evidence of a moved front post. |
|
Seriously, wouldn't all of us want to go to the range with a Buck Rogers gun just to make the oh so tacticool crowd sit up and go "HUH"!!!!!!!!!
Then explain that all their new fangled stuff, isnt really new at all but already been there done that.. Just having that type of upper would be great, I would use a prototype FSB that is getting developed in another thread since it would be easier for me to get. But that flash hider is definately 50's sci-fi looking. And I guess painted PVC pipe for the handguards since I cant make poly resin stuff... |
|
I see the hardest part as being the Upper, the rear is so radically different from a "normal" production one that you couldn't just do a modification. Then again, I've never seen what the other side of it looks like so who knows how different it might be...
But, it sure is fun to dream... 
Oh well, I have my NDS-32 upper for my prototype inspired middy build...
|
|
It could be done with a little creative cutting and welding.
I wouldn't want to do it unless I could get as accurate as possible. Fiberglass handguard, custom FSB, etc. I thought about hacking up an airsoft to make into a wall hanger but, there arent many decent retro-ish airsofts. |
|
I keep waiting for Mike or Harlan to chime in here with a manufacturing point of view, I assume it would be cost prohibitive to make these types of receivers in such hard economic times and in such a small niche market, but an answer on feasibility would be appreciated.
I know I dont have the resources or ability to make anything like this prototype upper that's why I ask the questions.. |
|
I just want a double slab side lower with proper "semi,safe,auto" markings to match their trigger charged upper.
I'm sure with a bit of creative engineering it could be done to work with existing mags but, with all of the other custom parts you'd need to go along with it, it might start getting prohibitive. As for the upper, I wonder if a cast upper might be feasible? Lets face it these prototypes would be more or less conversation pieces. None of use are going to be dumping 1000's of rounds per range trip through them but, we do want them to function. Heck, I'm sure the upper could be CNCed easily enough. |
|
Well the lower is easy, you just use the NDS-601 lower as it looks like the ones in the pictures.
You don't even need dimpled pins or anything since they aren't in the pics either. Now, trying to get the proper selector to go with the non standard markings of semi, safe, auto may be a bit of a big stretch. As for the machine work, I have no idea. But I know what would be changed to make it easier to build and who here maybe could make some small runs of the needed parts like the flash hider, the rear peep sight, the prototype FSB is in another thread. I know someone was working on different plastic stuff for handguards or pistol grips. As for the other stuff, it would be a big time retro community working together project. All I had was a vague idea and a desire. Last thought, That bolt hold open, I would just go with the standard because that inside mounted one looks like way to much extra heartache to me. Not to mention the additional costs involved with trying to make it from scratch again. |
|
Quoted:
It could be done with a little creative cutting and welding. I wouldn't want to do it unless I could get as accurate as possible. Fiberglass handguard, custom FSB, etc. I thought about hacking up an airsoft to make into a wall hanger but, there arent many decent retro-ish airsofts. http://www.gp-web.com/en/productspop.php?pid=2722 http://www.gp-web.com/en/productspop.php?pid=2721 http://www.gp-web.com/en/productspop.php?pid=2710 http://www.gp-web.com/en/productspop.php?pid=2599 http://www.gp-web.com/en/productspop.php?pid=2725 http://www.gp-web.com/en/productspop.php?pid=2211 http://www.gp-web.com/en/productspop.php?pid=2210 http://www.gp-web.com/en/productspop.php?pid=2209 http://www.gp-web.com/en/productspop.php?pid=2207 ETA: 601 and 602 http://www.everything-airsoft.com/blog/2010/08/10/viper-tech-goes-back-to-basics-with-colt-model-601-and-602/ Looks like WillP's pics have been stolen |
|
Well since it's been a week and nothing from teh machinist's in the way of feasibility to manufacture one or modify a current production upper I guess this is a dream whose time hasnt come yet.
Oh well, IF i ever won the lottery it might happen...... why yes I am dreaming, is that a bad thing?
|
|
Quoted:
Well the lower is easy, you just use the NDS-601 lower as it looks like the ones in the pictures. You don't even need dimpled pins or anything since they aren't in the pics either. Now, trying to get the proper selector to go with the non standard markings of semi, safe, auto may be a bit of a big stretch. As for the machine work, I have no idea. But I know what would be changed to make it easier to build and who here maybe could make some small runs of the needed parts like the flash hider, the rear peep sight, the prototype FSB is in another thread. I know someone was working on different plastic stuff for handguards or pistol grips. As for the other stuff, it would be a big time retro community working together project. All I had was a vague idea and a desire. Last thought, That bolt hold open, I would just go with the standard because that inside mounted one looks like way to much extra heartache to me. Not to mention the additional costs involved with trying to make it from scratch again. Tourq,the lower is NOT easy.Octane said "double slab side lower" which means NO hump for the mag release lever,and the bolt stop mounting ears are NOT there.The pin for it is set in a slot milled into the sidewall of the receiver.And knowing this crew of retro knuckleheads,an NDS single slab side would not be good enough for a build like this..View this old thread:http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=3&f=123&t=376813&page=1 |
|
Quoted:
Well since it's been a week and nothing from teh machinist's in the way of feasibility to manufacture one or modify a current production upper I guess this is a dream whose time hasnt come yet. Oh well, IF i ever won the lottery it might happen...... why yes I am dreaming, is that a bad thing?Believe me, I've looked at the photos and given it some thought. The machining wouldn't be terribly hard to do, but using a rough forging to cut, fit, weld, and shape the rear sight area before any machining would probably be the way to go. I think you would probably want to have the whole weldment re-tempered before machining anyway. |
|
Octane said "double slab side lower"
Somehow OOOP's just doesnt cover missing something like that, but I missed it nonetheless. So it could be a possibility for someone with enough time and know how, which definately leaves me out!!! As for the upper, having never seen the other side of it, there might be a lot more than I can imagine needing done. Thanks for giving me so much more to think about M1 and My65pan, I love dreaming big.......i think. |
| That early lower just taunts me. The best was to do it would be to machine it from a raw forging but, I just don't have the tools. Plus that bolt catch... I just can't figure that one out. There are no visible external holes. It's possible that it could just be held between the upper and lower but, that doesn't seem likely. It's got to be held in there some way. If only I could get a hold of one... or find a picture of one cracked open with the parts laid out... |
| http://en.valka.cz/attachments/4461/ar10_rozpad.jpg AR10 schematic |
|
It still looks like it's not held inside the lower. It looks like it just drops into the slot and isn't fastened in any way.
I suppose I can live with that but, I just want to get everything at least 99% before I start really looking into getting a lower done. |
| I'm trying to understand how they drilled a hole for the pin and where that hole might be???????? It looks like the only places it could be are in the magwell or the FCG area of the lower...but I've never seen one in person or even pics to explain how it went together. |
|
Well, look at from a standpoint of eliminating what we already know.
The very first AR10's used an L shaped pin that was inserted from right of the mag well into a slot and then was rotated down to lock it into place. A photo in TBR illustrates this very well. The next several AR10 productions used a tiny pin inserted into a hole just left of the bolt catch. That pin secured the larger pin that the catch rotated on. The notch in the wider late AR10 bolt catches is to give access to this pin. Then, we have our mystery late AR10 and early AR15 catch. There's no cut for the L shaped pin and there's no hole for a tiny pin. There aren't any visible holes at all. We know that the pin must be horizontal so, where does one drill a hole into that area and keep it horizontal? Either from the left or the right obviously but, then we have two more problems. From the right, the entire lower is in the way. It's very unlikely that they drilled through 6 inches of lower to pin a tiny catch. So, what about the left? Well, now the magwell is in the way. It is possible that they drilled it out through the magwell, it's a short distance, and we've never seen the pivot pin area so, there could be a hole hiding in there. There's really no way of knowing though. So, going from the only sources we have so far, there are two obvious possibles: 1) the bolt catch is pinned via a long hole drilled through part of the receiver (possibly the magwell) 2) the bolt catch just sits in it's slot and is held in place simply by the closing of the two halves Neither seem all the great to me. Workable for sure but, not the best. I wonder if Springfield Armory have a picture in their photo archives... |
|
Quoted:
That early lower just taunts me. The best was to do it would be to machine it from a raw forging but, I just don't have the tools. Plus that bolt catch... I just can't figure that one out. There are no visible external holes. It's possible that it could just be held between the upper and lower but, that doesn't seem likely. It's got to be held in there some way. If only I could get a hold of one... or find a picture of one cracked open with the parts laid out... As was posted before, the bolt catch etc. has already been done by member Bucknakedracin on his prototype replica. Ryan is a good guy, maybe we can get him to post some close ups of how he did it? 
|
|
Quoted:
Me too, That is a fantastic looking rifle!!!! What's that hole for at the top right corner of hte lower just below where the buffer tube screws in for? The early ones had a roll pin that intersected the threads on the buffer tube so it couldn't back out. NDS lowers have this feature also, but the hole is slightly relocated and only for cosmetic appearance. |
|
Quoted:
Any chance we might see standard A1 hand-guards in carbon fiber like the ones shown there, and if so, what would they cost? I bet they'd make a regular old rifle look really trippy! http://www.hydrodipping.com/ he had those custom dipped |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Any chance we might see standard A1 hand-guards in carbon fiber like the ones shown there, and if so, what would they cost? I bet they'd make a regular old rifle look really trippy! http://www.hydrodipping.com/ he had those custom dipped Interesting! Does that guy have a commercial site or just the photos? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Any chance we might see standard A1 hand-guards in carbon fiber like the ones shown there, and if so, what would they cost? I bet they'd make a regular old rifle look really trippy! http://www.hydrodipping.com/ he had those custom dipped Interesting! Does that guy have a commercial site or just the photos? Nevermind, I mis-read your post. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Any chance we might see standard A1 hand-guards in carbon fiber like the ones shown there, and if so, what would they cost? I bet they'd make a regular old rifle look really trippy! http://www.hydrodipping.com/ he had those custom dipped Interesting! Does that guy have a commercial site or just the photos? http://www.hydro-dip.com/ There are several places that have this service. Google search, hydrographics, or hydrodipping. |
|
I will eventually craft the furniture for my build from fiberglass. I'm experimenting with some hardware store material. Once I feel that I've gotten it down well enough, I'll order the correct fabric and some high strength resin, along with appropriate dyes.
Mostly still in the process of planning out my build. There's a lot of information and materials to gather and so many possible ways to do things. |
|
There is a TELKO AR10 on gunbroker, http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=208858759 , with several pictures that show the bolt catch area. I didn’t copy the pictures as they are marked with the seller’s gunbroker name.
Pic 9 & 10 are distant shots of the left side of the mag well and there does not appear to be any bolt catch pivot pin retaining pin in this location. Pic 13 shows the hammer and trigger pins, you can also see the rear of the mag well bump and there is no pivot pin for the catch visible there. Pic 37 is a shot down into the lower receiver and seems to show that the bolt catch pivot pin may be integral with the bolt catch itself and that the bolt catch simply drops into a slot in the lower receiver. You can also see that the left (forward) end of the pivot pin seems to be flattened on top, possibly to locate it properly in its slot so perhaps the pin is separate from the catch? I realize this is not an original lower but I would assume ( ) that original parts would have been used simply to lower costs.
There is a short promotional film at http://www.archive.org/details/AR10_Promotion, that has some grainy footage of an Armalite AR-10. At about the 3:02 point you can see a closeup of the bolt catch; this assembly appears to be very similar to the TELKO lower. The film shows someone performing a field stripping operation, at about the 5:22 point you can make out (almost) the bolt catch still in the lower receiver. They never appear to remove the bolt catch in this movie nor does it appear to be just dropped into the lower as they never seem to be worried that they will lose the bolt catch while the receiver is open, so it must be retained in some way. The schematic posted by 44Echo10 suggests that the pivot pin has a spring, the only reason for this would be to provide some tension to keep it in its slot, perhaps the slot has a slight undercut for the pin to rest in? |
I'd wager the Telko is a similar to the set up on this:
(photo from HHollow, will remove if asked) I tiny pin goes through the receiver and into the square end of the catch to keep it in place. The notch in the bolt catch on the Telko is for access to the pin. I can't imagine it being easy to get that set up apart though. Looks like a once together, never apart kind of deal, which is probably why they changed it. I believe this one below is a later AR-10 with the same style as the prototype AR-15's. 
No visible pin hole anywhere. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - probably a crazy thought (Page 1 of 2)
AR Sponsor