AR Sponsor
Posted: 8/23/2011 3:11:10 PM EDT
| I have a couple NDS lowers and I wanted to try to bring one closer to Colt looks. I have a couple of demilled Colt lowers and from what I can see the only diff between my Colt demilled lowers (beside the obvious provisions for the auto sear) are the contours. The pivot lugs up in front have a bit more material on the NDS lower (I believe is intentional for added strength - smart) and the rear buffer tube loop has a defined ridge where the loop starts to head into the base of the lower. Overall the contours, edges, curves, ridges etc. on the NDS lower are sharper than the Colt. The Colt has a bit softer edges overall. Since the receivers are very close and I’m getting close to being anal, what would be the best tools to carve a bit more out of the front lugs and soften some of the edges to come closer to the Colt? |
| I noticed the same thing. I'm in the process of re-working a Aero Precision A2 lower and I think files and progressively finer grit sand paper are better (safer) for those kind of changes. I'd do the same thing but it will mean re-anodizing and more FFL fees. Post some pictures of your progress and when you are done. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I just buy Colt AR15's. Pay a little more. Get authentic. I'd take an M16A1 clone built with all original parts on a NoDak lower receiver over an SP1 any day. That is, unless it's an early SP1. The Colt is retro. The NDS is repro. And your point? I'm not a fan of slabside receivers (unless on a 601 or 602) and large pivot pins. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I just buy Colt AR15's. Pay a little more. Get authentic. I'd take an M16A1 clone built with all original parts on a NoDak lower receiver over an SP1 any day. That is, unless it's an early SP1. The Colt is retro. The NDS is repro. And your point? I'm not a fan of slabside receivers (unless on a 601 or 602) and large pivot pins. My point is if you want a true retro black rifle you have only to choose from Colt. Maybe a couple of others ( Hydro-matic comes to mind) .As great as it is NDS is not Retro. It is a Reproduction of an earlier Colt. Not a lesser part, just a newer part. Not Retro at all. |
|
Quoted:
My point is if you want a true retro black rifle you have only to choose from Colt. Maybe a couple of others ( Hydro-matic comes to mind) .As great as it is NDS is not Retro. It is a Reproduction of an earlier Colt. Not a lesser part, just a newer part. Not Retro at all. So along your line of thinking, if someone wanted a "retro" M16A1 or XM16E1, they'd be out of luck unless they're Class 3? Because obviously with the NoDak receiver, the rifle wouldn't be retro.  Sorry, but that's senseless.
ETA: So if I bought a '65 Mustang and replaced a damaged hood with a reproduction, the car is no longer classic? |
|
Retro is making something that is new in the old style.
Vintage is an original of that style. Repro aka repop is a new part that's identical to a vintage piece. C'mon guys, car people have had these terms straightened out for decades. PS: I had thought we'd be safe from the Kool-Aid here in the retro forum. I guess not. |
|
Quoted:
I noticed the same thing. I'm in the process of re-working a Aero Precision A2 lower and I think files and progressively finer grit sand paper are better (safer) for those kind of changes. I'd do the same thing but it will mean re-anodizing and more FFL fees. Post some pictures of your progress and when you are done. I'm converting a DPMS A2 lower into a RETRO half fence lower. I used a milling machine for more of the metal removal. I did some fine deatil work with the dremel. Then a mill file, and currently a smooth file. It's sandpaper next. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
I'm using sandpaper and the good thing for us with the NDS A1 lowers is only minor rounding of edges is really required. Colt lowers tend to have slightly more rounded corners and edges. The front pivot lugs are real close to the Cotl M16A1 shape they just need a bit of rounding on the curve where they seem to be a bit more flat and not as rounded thus making it appear to be not as straight back (like an A1) as it should be, but it is actually really close once you round them out a bit where the lug meets the mag well.
So to recap the two areas of slight improvement would be Round or bevel the edge of the front of the mag well where it meets the front pivot lug a bit more. Round or bevel the rear raised area where the buffer tube loop part of the lower meets the base part of the lower reciever....make it more semi half moon with the top part being a bit lower. I may have to take some pics to illustrate this more. For nuts like me, maybe soften the lip of the bottom of the mag well so its not as prominant. Use your demilled lowers from Colt as a guide. I hope I can finally wrap up my almost 30 year quest to build that battlefield pickup Colt model 603 rifle! I've owned a couple of lowers and up until the NDS, I have not been to happy Lowers I have owned (and still do) Frankfort Arsenal semi auto A1 (they used an Olympic arms lower and stamped their name on it) - Horrible lower...jet black PWA commando lower - not bad....finish machinging not up to Colt standards at the time - flat black Essential Arms - cast gray lower (not a bad receiver...it was gray, but incorrect looking) Eagle Arms - The best one of them all from the late 80's and close to the NDS in quality - dark gray at my request, machining was not bad NDS - Game changer....if I only had these and the colors back in the 80's....the only better alternative would be if Colt gave us a semi auto version of the select fire lower with no autosear hole and thicker walls where the autosear would go....instead of continuing on with the Model 601/602 and cutting off the 2 raised areas over safe, auto, and the rediculous larger lugged front pivot SCREWS??? Could you imagine how much the price of a 1964 602 styled AR15 would be today? How about if they made a short run of the XM16E1 and M16A1 with feature changes right along side the select fire versions? |
| That is a great question, not sure back then if anybody would have noticed the difference between the 602, 603, or 604 until us retro guys showed up on the scene. The sales probably would have been the same, but instead of 2 useless screws to break the weapon down, I'm sure an uncaptive pin (like the 602 that was being produced at the time the SP1 was produced) or the later captive pin 603/604's might have made it a bit more popular. |
AR Sponsor