AR Sponsor
Posted: 3/19/2014 6:13:48 PM EDT
"The Army's first XM16E1's, being inspected at Colt's before being delivered in March of 1964" -TBR page 149 Has anyone else ever noticed whats "wrong" with this picture? This is a bad iphone picture of a book, but you can still see it. |
|
Quoted:
ding ding I think in the book it really looks like a triangle, but I guess there is a chance its just the lighting/shadow. But it wouldn't surprise me in march 1964 if Colt was using up some old parts Quoted:
Quoted:
Possible Triangle CH on the left. ding ding I think in the book it really looks like a triangle, but I guess there is a chance its just the lighting/shadow. But it wouldn't surprise me in march 1964 if Colt was using up some old parts Beaten by 12 seconds! |
|
Quoted:
Beaten by 12 seconds! Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Possible Triangle CH on the left. ding ding I think in the book it really looks like a triangle, but I guess there is a chance its just the lighting/shadow. But it wouldn't surprise me in march 1964 if Colt was using up some old parts Beaten by 12 seconds! You still get extra credit 
|
|
Quoted:
i saw the CH but i don't think it's a triangle one, i think it's just the way it's slightly tilted. it doesn't have the right angles on it to be triangular imho. Well now I feel foolish.
The first time I saw it, I was sure it was a triangle but you might be right. |
|
Dang, I'm late to the party.
It looks like forward assist rifles on the left and Non forward assist rifles on the right. Maybe 2 inspectors, One for Army, One for AF...? Looks like Duckbills on lower right rifles too. I didn't know LBJ moonlighted as a Colt inspector. 
These kind of factory pics really show that anything could have come out of the factory. |
|
Yeah, I was thinking those were duckbills too, or at least some of them. But no grenade spring, so..? The tri-CH is iffy. Could be.
In the book those really appear to be duckbills and the tri-CH is a real toss up, but looks like a triangular. The picture may be miscaptioned in the book could be the real issue - "The Army's first XM16E1s being inspected at Colt's before being delivered in March of 1964" |
|
Quoted:
Could be. I just see it as a license to make more mix-master retro guns  Quoted:
Quoted:
The picture may be miscaptioned in the book could be the real issue - "The Army's first XM16E1s being inspected at Colt's before being delivered in March of 1964" Could be. I just see it as a license to make more mix-master retro guns +1 Exactly. |
|
Quoted:
Four UAW guys visible and all apparently hard at work? They might be UAW, if they are required to strip and inspect each rifle in 2.3 seconds or less, and they have to maintain that pace for 11 hours straight. I'll venture a guess that they are not UAW, since they all look too happy, and aren't dirty/sweaty enough. I would suggest that this was likely a staged photo, fronted to the media by Colt's for promotional purposes. |
|
Quoted:
Dang, I'm late to the party. It looks like forward assist rifles on the left and Non forward assist rifles on the right. I can't make out any forward assists. Where do you see one? Given that the forward assist design was finalized only shortly previous to this photo, it wouldn't surprise me if once contract 508 was awarded, the M16s were ready relatively quickly, but the XM16E1s started rolling a bit later. Thus this photo may show the first of the M16s being inspected alongside the last of the 602s. |
| It is my understanding that 'XM16E1' was the Army designation for the weapon - period. So, even if non-FA M16s were delivered (602s and 604s) temporarily at the beginning of the contract, the Army still called them Xm16E1s, regardless of features. FWIW, my postman went to VN in '65 with Army 11th Air Assault (later re-designated 101st Airborne) and was issued a non-forward assist weapon. If the reporter was using Army nomenclature at the time (and why wouldn't he?) that would explain the discrepancy. It would be interesting to know how many non-FA weapons the Army accepted prior to receiving the weapon we know as the XM16E1, and even more interesting to know if those were roll marked as Xm16E1s. I doubt they were though. |
AR Sponsor