User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/28/2019 4:29:56 PM EDT
[#1]
Are you referring to FN’s A2 lowers or the later pattern? There are essentially three A2/M4 lower types: early Colt/Balimoy, late FN and Colt/Sabre, and the current FN, of which only the second pattern is commercially available unfortunately.
Furether more, lowers currently available have the trigger well flashing is removed for “cosmetic” reasons and have always bugged me as all but the 01/02 models leave this flashing intact from all Govt. manufacturers. No one makes a pattern one or three that I know of, unfortunately. William |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2019 4:40:30 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Hi folks, I posted this question in the Build It Yourself subforum under the ongoing 80% lower thread, but I thought the A2 experts here might be able to answer it: Does anyone sell an 80% forged lower that matches the style of the early FN M16A2 in this post by MauserMatt? The particular detail I’m looking at is the lack of the cylindrical “bulge” / reinforcement on the right side at the rear of the receiver were the hole is drilled from the back end for the takedown pin detent / spring. I’m still looking through the links in that 80% thread, but so far, all of them show that reinforcement that characterizes a later lower. I tried looking at the pinned lower receiver thread in this forum to better understand the detail variations, but a lot of the photo links are broken. I’m guessing I may have to look at having someone mill off that detail on a standard lower for me. Thanks for any help you can offer! If you talking about a 80% lower contact John Brace he is known as Braceman on here. He can profile it the way you want it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2019 6:16:36 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you referring to FN’s A2 lowers or the later pattern? There are essentially three A2/M4 lower types: early Colt/Balimoy, late FN and Colt/Sabre, and the current FN, of which only the second pattern is commercially available unfortunately. Furether more, lowers currently available have the trigger well flashing is removed for “cosmetic” reasons and have always bugged me as all but the 01/02 models leave this flashing intact from all Govt. manufacturers. No one makes a pattern one or three that I know of, unfortunately. William |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2019 7:37:38 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Are you referring to FN’s A2 lowers or the later pattern? There are essentially three A2/M4 lower types: early Colt/Balimoy, late FN and Colt/Sabre, and the current FN, of which only the second pattern is commercially available unfortunately. Quote HistoryQuoted: Are you referring to FN’s A2 lowers or the later pattern? There are essentially three A2/M4 lower types: early Colt/Balimoy, late FN and Colt/Sabre, and the current FN, of which only the second pattern is commercially available unfortunately. I’m referring to the reinforced area to the rear of the takedown pin in this photo (I hope @MauserMatt doesn’t mind if I repost his photo). This is what he described as the oldest FN A2 that he had in the armory where he works:  Attached FileCurrent 80% lowers all seem to have the raised cylindrical reinforcement from the rear plate to the takedown pin where the spring and detent pass through, like this Colt Cerro 6920:  Attached FileLMT’s seems to be even more heavily reinforced, with the cylindrical bulge only visible at the rear:  Attached FileCan you indicate how these align with the variations you described? I think, as mentioned, I’ll ask Braceman to make the modification to a Cerro 80% lower. Too bad he can’t engrave it also... Furether more, lowers currently available have the trigger well flashing is removed for “cosmetic” reasons and have always bugged me as all but the 01/02 models leave this flashing intact from all Govt. manufacturers. No one makes a pattern one or three that I know of, unfortunately. Could you explain or provide a photo showing what you mean by the trigger well flashing? I’m guessinf I’ve seen it and will recognize it, but I’m not sure what you mean. Thanks, William! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2019 11:10:29 PM EDT
[#5]
https://mdxarms.com/mdx-arms-7075-t6-80-ar15-lower-anodized-with-open-trigger-guard/
Disclaimers: I have not seen these in person. I have no idea when the pics were taken. The ones shown appear to be what you are looking for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/29/2019 11:27:04 PM EDT
[#6]
I would but I can’t figure out how to post pics ??
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2019 4:41:57 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’m referring to the reinforced area to the rear of the takedown pin in this photo (I hope @MauserMatt doesn’t mind if I repost his photo). This is what he described as the oldest FN A2 that he had in the armory where he works Last I heard, they'll be phasing out all of the M16A2s we had in the state within the next year or two.... I'm sure all the extra parts will probably end up in the shredder...  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2019 5:09:41 AM EDT
[#8]
I know you wanted an 80%, but those little differences are one of the reasons when I start "A2" era projects, I buy a Colt sporter or very early "post ban" match target.
Colt quality, color, minor details, overall feel, other period parts you don't have to track down > 80% lower with faux markings (most look fake anyway) that you are never going to get right in terms of color (without paint)or shape..... The Colt nuances like bolt carrier, trigger pins dont bother me. The screw pivot pin is a little bit of a PITA / can damage the lower, but can deal with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/2/2019 10:25:00 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Colt quality, color, minor details, overall feel, other period parts you don't have to track down > 80% lower with faux markings (most look fake anyway) that you are never going to get right in terms of color (without paint)or shape.....  Attached File Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2019 1:19:48 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote History |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/3/2019 10:40:40 AM EDT
[#11]
Long story short, our unit had about a 90% turnover of personnel after our ‘05-‘06 deployment. As we were reconstituting in the fall of ‘06, we were receiving about 5-10 new privates each week, each with newly-issued gear. We were really short on NCOs too, so I think this stack was all privates, with maybe a PFC or SPC as the team leader. This may have been the last year that I saw the Army issue those old 3-mag pouches before we transitioned over to all MOLLE.
On a side note, the last guy in the stack was promoted to E-7 two years ago. It’s always great to see good Soldiers grow up! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2019 9:10:06 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Long story short, our unit had about a 90% turnover of personnel after our ‘05-‘06 deployment. As we were reconstituting in the fall of ‘06, we were receiving about 5-10 new privates each week, each with newly-issued gear. We were really short on NCOs too, so I think this stack was all privates, with maybe a PFC or SPC as the team leader. This may have been the last year that I saw the Army issue those old 3-mag pouches before we transitioned over to all MOLLE. On a side note, the last guy in the stack was promoted to E-7 two years ago. It’s always great to see good Soldiers grow up! "DA" stacked the unit about 6-9 months prior to deployment.. Most of the 11B E-6 and above had just come off some sort of instructor duty. By the time everyone came off block leave after deployment, 2/3s of the unit was PCSing somewhere else... Many being sent to recruiter, DS, instructor, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2019 2:26:42 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Long story short, our unit had about a 90% turnover of personnel after our ‘05-‘06 deployment. As we were reconstituting in the fall of ‘06, we were receiving about 5-10 new privates each week, each with newly-issued gear. We were really short on NCOs too, so I think this stack was all privates, with maybe a PFC or SPC as the team leader. This may have been the last year that I saw the Army issue those old 3-mag pouches before we transitioned over to all MOLLE. On a side note, the last guy in the stack was promoted to E-7 two years ago. It’s always great to see good Soldiers grow up!  The good old days.Looking forward to seeing your FN clone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/4/2019 8:52:13 PM EDT
[#14]
I remember a few guys using both the LBV and mag pouches when the LBV pockets shrank to where you had trouble fitting mags in them. It always did seem little excessive though.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Looking forward to seeing your FN clone.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/5/2019 1:15:35 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I remember a few guys using both the LBV and mag pouches when the LBV pockets shrank to where you had trouble fitting mags in them. It always did seem little excessive though. It’s coming along slowly. Halfway done, at least! The easier half... FN Cerro upper, FNMI barrel, BCG, and charging handle, and Colt handguards. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/27888/DF9AC031-0AEF-44A9-9D12-4C23C8232AAC_jpeg-833684.JPG |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/22/2019 4:19:10 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I remember a few guys using both the LBV and mag pouches when the LBV pockets shrank to where you had trouble fitting mags in them. It always did seem little excessive though. It’s coming along slowly. Halfway done, at least! The easier half... FN Cerro upper, FNMI barrel, BCG, and charging handle, and Colt handguards. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/27888/DF9AC031-0AEF-44A9-9D12-4C23C8232AAC_jpeg-833684.JPG Quote HistoryQuoted:
I remember a few guys using both the LBV and mag pouches when the LBV pockets shrank to where you had trouble fitting mags in them. It always did seem little excessive though. Quoted:
Looking forward to seeing your FN clone. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/27888/DF9AC031-0AEF-44A9-9D12-4C23C8232AAC_jpeg-833684.JPG I used a modern FN lower however to complete it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/25/2019 7:19:35 AM EDT
[#17]
OP,
you need to find a mid-late 90's Colt lower in order to get the feature you're talking about. My old Mtach Target made in 2000 is like that and the forging style is one of the reason I didnt sold it yet despite being a HBAR
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2019 12:56:18 PM EDT
[#18]
Well, after a lot of searching, I think I’ve narrowed it down to “pretty close.” It looks like the LMT lower that I posted above is the style made by Anchor Harvey. I got one of their 80% lowers last week, but it had an odd modification done to it (seen here), so I’m tracking down an unmodified version. There’s a slight difference in the reinforcing “collar” at the rear of the receiver, but I think by removing the small bit of raised area over the takedown pin detent spring, it will look pretty close to the real FN lower below:
LMT / Anchor Harvey lower: Attached FileFN M16A2:  Attached FileQuoted:
OP, you need to find a mid-late 90's Colt lower in order to get the feature you're talking about. My old Mtach Target made in 2000 is like that and the forging style is one of the reason I didnt sold it yet despite being a HBAR |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2019 1:16:43 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, after a lot of searching, I think I’ve narrowed it down to “pretty close.” It looks like the LMT lower that I posted above is the style made by Anchor Harvey. I got one of their 80% lowers last week, but it had an odd modification done to it (seen here), so I’m tracking down an unmodified version. There’s a slight difference in the reinforcing “collar” at the rear of the receiver, but I think by removing the small bit of raised area over the takedown pin detent spring, it will look pretty close to the real FN lower below: LMT / Anchor Harvey lower: https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/27888/A15D0E1F-30C1-4DFF-AD6F-D356201B29BC_jpeg-824786.JPG FN M16A2: https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/27888/FNMI_FK_Upper_Receiver_jpg-922920.JPG The problem with that is that I’m cloning an FN M16A2. I can’t use a Colt lower to do that. I’m trying to go the 80% route to get it as close as possible. ETA- If you really want to get creative, you can research who was making raw forgings and or sub contracting lowers back then. For example, LAR Grizzly or LMT, etc... Then cross reference that with who was supplying FN and a commercial company at the same time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2019 11:23:40 AM EDT
[#20]
Try here Cerro Forge which is the closest I could find to the early profile. Braceman is doing FN A2 and A3 for me with that lower. For later A4 and M4A1 I went with the AH forge from Delta Team Tactical in UT.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2019 3:23:12 PM EDT
[#21]
I actually posted here about my frustrations with the Cerro lower from Right to Bear. The new version that they are selling looks kind of like older Colt A2 lowers in the rear “collar” area, but it’s almost identical to the FN M4A1 lowers that I’ve seen. The only difference is the prominent point at the bottom of the magwell fence - FN M4A1s have a traditional rounded fence:
 Attached FileFunny that you mentioned the Delta Team Tactical Anchor Harvey lower, because I just looked it up, and their listing uses the same photo as the Omega Tactical Distribution listing for the same 80% lower here - and both of them are showing a Cerro lower, with the Keyhole forge mark visible at the top rear of the trigger well. @HenryKnoxFineBooks - Would you mind posting a photo of each side of one of those lowers, if you have one handy? I asked Omega for photos a couple days ago but haven’t heard back. I’ll order a couple from Delta Team Tactical if it’s the style I’m looking for (theirs are cheaper). Thanks! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2019 7:09:03 AM EDT
[#22]
FN lowers over the years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2019 12:03:37 PM EDT
[#23]
Here are views of the AH 80% - flash removed from the trigger well and rear detent channel tapered for a screw for those who have to conatantly futz with their weapons are the two obvious differences from mil lowers.
right side - 
For the most part, that forging is close enough for me. Pic of the FN M4A1 above is like the Cerro forging Here is a ColtA2 with what looks to be a Cerro lower  Attached FileColt M4A1s with both  Attached File Attached FileBy the time we reach 1988, when FN gets its first M16A2 contract, the early lowers we see on the Colts have gone away - as we see in the XM4 pics, which looks close to the AH lower, while the thinner rear reenforcement look to date to pre 1987 weapons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2019 10:28:41 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here are views of the AH 80% - flash removed from the trigger well and rear detent channel tapered for a screw for those who have to conatantly futz with their weapons are the two obvious differences from mil lowers. I've found that, like many things when it comes to military weapons, the flash on the inside of the trigger well varies between individual weapons and batches. Here are photos of two later production FN A2s that I got a chance to look at back in March. The first one shows the flash almost completely ground down, while the second has a thin line of flash at the mold seam. Based on that, I'm not concerned about trying to replicate that on a clone - it could be hit or miss as to whether the real on has the flash in that area. My apologies for the mediocre photos - it was pretty overcast that day, and I was in a rush.  Attached File Attached FileI posted additional photos of these receivers here, in case you’re interested. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2019 2:26:30 PM EDT
[#25]
These are the new offerings from RTBA. Cerro forging but way different rear configuration. Perhaps close to early Colt or Balimony??? Looks like they would be harder to reprofile to A1 configuration.
https://www.righttobear.com/cerro-forge-raw-80-percent-lower-receiver-p/80raw-1.htm 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2019 5:50:02 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
These are the new offerings from RTBA. Cerro forging but way different rear configuration. The one you have actually looks a little different from the one I received. Mine had the rear 1/4 or so of mounting “fin” for the pistol grip cut off to make room for the tensioning screw hole that they added to the later version. Does yours have the threaded screw hole in that location? I think there was an interim version in between without it. I’m actually curious whether they are actually Cerro lowers, because I couldn’t find any evidence that they ever had a Cerro keyhole forge mark on them, despite what the RTB page says. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2019 6:11:27 PM EDT
[#27]
The ones I received did not have the new set screw hole and likewise, I ordered them with a different picture of the item. I got them with the intent of having a couple reprofiled to A1 configuration but I don't think they have enough material to allow that. Oh well, plan B, perhaps a Balimony clone...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2019 9:48:50 PM EDT
[#28]
Do yours have this same sharp point at the bottom of the magwell fence? If it wasn’t for that, I’d love to Buy one off you for an FN M4A1 clone, but I think that would bug me (yes, I’m a little obsessive).
 Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/1/2019 3:22:11 PM EDT
[#29]
Same point at bottom....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/2/2019 12:23:38 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I actually posted here about my frustrations with the Cerro lower from Right to Bear. The new version that they are selling looks kind of like older Colt A2 lowers in the rear “collar” area, but it’s almost identical to the FN M4A1 lowers that I’ve seen. The only difference is the prominent point at the bottom of the magwell fence - FN M4A1s have a traditional rounded fence: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/32677/IMG_4664_JPG-733188.JPG Funny that you mentioned the Delta Team Tactical Anchor Harvey lower, because I just looked it up, and their listing uses the same photo as the Omega Tactical Distribution listing for the same 80% lower here - and both of them are showing a Cerro lower, with the Keyhole forge mark visible at the top rear of the trigger well. @HenryKnoxFineBooks - Would you mind posting a photo of each side of one of those lowers, if you have one handy? I asked Omega for photos a couple days ago but haven’t heard back. I’ll order a couple from Delta Team Tactical if it’s the style I’m looking for (theirs are cheaper). Thanks! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/5/2019 8:18:28 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Same point at bottom.... Quoted:
Delta Team Tactical/Omega Manufacturing/ Davidson's Defense are all one/same. Shady ass company.  Attached File Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2019 12:57:02 PM EDT
[#32]
@3ACR_Scout
(I now believe this lower is from Precision Forge after seeing photos on their website) CDNN - Bushmaster A2 Upper Kit Noreen Firearms also advertizes this odd forging as an 80%. Noreen 80% Cerro-type lower I have also seen this "pointy" fencing on Anderson's 80% lower with closed trigger guard. (also with the earlier RE reinforcing) (will add a photo of that one later if I can find it again) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2019 5:09:01 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Colt M4A1s with both https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/180398/colt_m4a1_jpg-1070197.JPG https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/180398/coltm4a1_jpg-1070198.JPG By the time we reach 1988, when FN gets its first M16A2 contract, the early lowers we see on the Colts have gone away - as we see in the XM4 pics, which looks close to the AH lower, while the thinner rear reenforcement look to date to pre 1987 weapons. The oddball Colt "A2" lower in its various forms continued until the mid 2000s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2020 10:16:54 PM EDT
[#34]
@Dex223 - Thanks for sharing the info about that unusual Bushmaster lower. That's strange - looks like an intermediate version between the "traditional" Cerro lower and the current one they're making. I recall finding a reference somewhere to a "Gen 2" Cerro lower that looked like the newer style but without the tension screw hole above the grip. The same seller referred to the current one with the tension screw hole as a "Gen 3" Cerro lower, if I remember correctly.
I'm still looking for someone who sells the Anchor Harvey 80% lower with the magwell lip finished in the thinner, more rounded style that all other lowers have. I haven't gotten around to asking Braceman or anyone else if they can reprofile the version that I have, but even if they can, it will probably be a lot of work (expensive), and it would be much easier and cleaner for me to start with one that has the magwell lip profiled correctly. Anchor Harvey 80% lowers seem to be really uncommon, unfortunately. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2020 2:16:56 PM EDT
[#35]
@3ACR_Scout
Please see my edited post above. I believe the Bushmaster receiver is not a Cerro. Then, possibly, the 80% Noreen is selling isn't either. I think the seller with the "Gen 2" and "Gen 3" Cerros is doing just that...selling. Lowers have been offered for several years now with threaded tension screws, as well as threaded bolt catch pivot holes, and threaded pivot pin detent areas. Whoever is doing the machining on those lowers is using that to distinguish between them and the "regular" ones. I'm starting to believe the lower you got from DTT might be a Cardinal forging. They offer one similar to Anchor-Harvey. Also, it could be an "A4" forging. Compare it to the middle photo of FN receivers posted by USGI in this same thread. They appear to have the same chunky mag well lip. It is strange, that 80% A-H lowers are uncommon. A lot of big producers have used that forging recently (i.e. Colt, Bushmaster, F.N.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2020 9:20:00 AM EDT
[#36]
I wanted to provide a quick update to this quest of mine. I sent the Anchor Harvey 80% lower pictured above to Braceman, who said he can reprofile the magwell lip to look more like a standard GI lower. He's going to have to do it by hand, but I'm sure it will look great, based on his other work. He's also going to remove the small raised tube-thing over the rear takedown detent/spring channel. I'll post photos of the modified lower when I get it back.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2020 10:07:37 AM EDT
[#37]
@3ACR_Scout
I am now able to post photos, so here is what a Cardinal Forge lower looks like.   Notice the "lip" around the bottom of the mag well. It looks like an Anchor Harvey, only a little different. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/12/2020 7:24:52 PM EDT
[#38]
I've ordered 5D Tactical's 80% unfinished lower for use in cloning an FN A4. It seems to be the Anchor Harvey style as shown in your Delta Team Tactical 80% lower, also with slightly too large a magwell lip. It doesn't seem to have the horizontal tube on the right side, just the reinforced bossing which doesn't smoothly transition into the receiver itself (which seems to be an earlier feature if I understand correctly). Also when I checked Delta Team Tactical's website, the image they have of the 80% shows the horizontal tube.
Just for my clarification, there really are only 3 different lower forgings? An earlier Colt style with smooth transitions from the bossing into the receiver, a 2nd gen AH style one as described above, and then a 3rd gen one which has the horizontal tube? I'm a bit confused. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2020 9:35:00 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: I am now able to post photos, so here is what a Cardinal Forge lower looks like. https://i.imgur.com/8HjP5SR.jpg https://i.imgur.com/LPs7arO.jpg Notice the "lip" around the bottom of the mag well. It looks like an Anchor Harvey, only a little different. @Dex223 That's interesting, apparently my late 2004 Bushmaster is a Cardinal forging - I hadn't looked closely at it and just thought it was the usual Cerro forging that's common now, but I don't think those showed up til a few years later. Are those still being made?  Attached FileQuoted: Just for my clarification, there really are only 3 different lower forgings? An earlier Colt style with smooth transitions from the bossing into the receiver, a 2nd gen AH style one as described above, and then a 3rd gen one which has the horizontal tube? I'm a bit confused. I've been trying to figure that out myself. If we're talking just about M16A2 lowers, here are the variations that I've seen so far: Colt / Balimony (this is the only Colt A2 forging I've found so far) - note the reinforcing "tube" over the rear takedown pin spring/detent channel that cuts through the tapered reinforcement around the receiver extension:  Attached FileEarly/Mid FN (no reinforcing "tube" over the spring/detent channel) - this is the style I'm trying to clone:  Attached FileLate FN - I thought this was a Cerro M4-style forging, but Dex223's post above makes me this it could be a Cardinal forging. I didn't think Cerro's forgings were around earlier enough to be used on A2s:  Attached FileThe pinned USGI M16A2 Lower Forgings and Variations Guide at the top of this subforum discusses some of the other variations in the forgings (like the magwell fence), but I haven't gotten beyond figuring out this rear reinforcement thing at this point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/26/2020 10:57:49 PM EDT
[#40]
It seems FN also uses that "Colt" style forward-tapered-reinforcement forged lower for M16A4's. Pic below from a 2013 article on the South Carolina factory.
This contradicts my idea that the forging styles correspond to eras of M16's, since our previous evidence indicated the forward-tapered reinforcement was early. Also, FN's website shows the forward-tapered-reinforcement lower on their M16A4.  Only other forging style on FN A4's I've seen is the non-tapered, tube-fully-visible version you showed before, like this pic:  But my Aero A4 clone lower has the non-tapered, takedown pin detent spring tube only visible at the back forging style. Thanks for the answers. I think I'm going to use a RBA forward-tapered-reinforcement lower for a Colt A2 clone, and one of the non-tapered 5D tactical lowers (tube visible or not? doesn't matter to me) for my FN A4 clone. Good luck on finding the intermediate style FN lower! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2020 4:06:20 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It seems FN also uses that "Colt" style forward-tapered-reinforcement forged lower for M16A4's. Pic below from a 2013 article on the South Carolina factory. This contradicts my idea that the forging styles correspond to eras of M16's, since our previous evidence indicated the forward-tapered reinforcement was early. Also, FN's website shows the forward-tapered-reinforcement lower on their M16A4. https://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/P1290573-900x601.jpg Only other forging style on FN A4's I've seen is the non-tapered, tube-fully-visible version you showed before, like this pic: https://astirodysseus.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/5806701.jpg But my Aero A4 clone lower has the non-tapered, takedown pin detent spring tube only visible at the back forging style. Thanks for the answers. I think I'm going to use a RBA forward-tapered-reinforcement lower for a Colt A2 clone, and one of the non-tapered 5D tactical lowers (tube visible or not? doesn't matter to me) for my FN A4 clone. Good luck on finding the intermediate style FN lower! The first picture you show is not what the early Colt A2 lowers looked like. Those are much more stark in their taper whereas the older Colts were more blended in without much angular look. The pivot pin area was also a bit tighter radiused than the current type. Kind of an in between from the old A1 radius and the current big radius. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2020 2:50:49 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The first picture you show is not what the early Colt A2 lowers looked like. Those are much more stark in their taper whereas the older Colts were more blended in without much angular look. The pivot pin area was also a bit tighter radiused than the current type. Kind of an in between from the old A1 radius and the current big radius. Ah I see that now, thanks. I might try to have the reinforcement reprofiled to the more gradual taper then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/28/2020 9:20:09 PM EDT
[#43]
@3ACR_Scout
On your post above from 6/26/2020: The first photo of the receiver extension area is from a Cerro forging receiver. The fourth photo that you call a "Late FN" is also a Cerro forging. The photo I posted of a Cardinal forging is most like an Anchor Harvey forging with a short spring tunnel at the rear of the receiver, which is not shown in that particular post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2020 5:13:35 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ah I see that now, thanks. I might try to have the reinforcement reprofiled to the more gradual taper then. @mb44kar You could probably get the taper to resemble that of the early Colt receiver extension, but it wouldn't have the two "tunnel" sections for the takedown pin spring. (no material in the right places) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/30/2020 11:34:20 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @mb44kar You could probably get the taper to resemble that of the early Colt receiver extension, but it wouldn't have the two "tunnel" sections for the takedown pin spring. (no material in the right places) Unless I somehow find a 20% or 0% raw forging of one of these (since it seems there were never 80%'s of these), I think that's what I'm going to have to live with if I want to have it engraved and/or not pay a lot for an older (improperly marked) Colt lower. Also for some reason in most of these threads and on pictures on the internet, the right side of the lower is shown less than the left side, so I'm less used to seeing those tunnel sections on the right than I am the plain taper that is on the left side. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2020 12:30:28 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @3ACR_Scout On your post above from 6/26/2020: The first photo of the receiver extension area is from a Cerro forging receiver. The fourth photo that you call a "Late FN" is also a Cerro forging. The photo I posted of a Cardinal forging is most like an Anchor Harvey forging with a short spring tunnel at the rear of the receiver, which is not shown in that particular post. Quote HistoryQuoted: @3ACR_Scout On your post above from 6/26/2020: The first photo of the receiver extension area is from a Cerro forging receiver. The fourth photo that you call a "Late FN" is also a Cerro forging. The photo I posted of a Cardinal forging is most like an Anchor Harvey forging with a short spring tunnel at the rear of the receiver, which is not shown in that particular post. @Dex223 The two forgings are slightly different. The first photo of the Bushmaster lower forging has the raised spring tube located slightly above the bottom of the tapered collar around the receiver extension. You can see how the taper extends down below the tube to meet the flat face of the receiver. It looks to me like the raw Cardinal forging you posted has the same raised tube across the face of the tapered collar. On the more familiar Cerro forging that was used for years and only recently replaced by the one with the angled collar, the tube is at the bottom of the tapered collar, which does not extend below the raised tube. Are you saying that they are both Cerro forgings, which would make the style on my Bushmaster lower an earlier version? Here's a photo for comparison:  Attached FileQuoted: It seems FN also uses that "Colt" style forward-tapered-reinforcement forged lower for M16A4's. Pic below from a 2013 article on the South Carolina factory. This contradicts my idea that the forging styles correspond to eras of M16's, since our previous evidence indicated the forward-tapered reinforcement was early. Also, FN's website shows the forward-tapered-reinforcement lower on their M16A4. https://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/P1290573-900x601.jpg That's the style of tapered reinforcement used on all of FN's M4A1s that I've seen photos of. I posted a photo of one of their M4A1s above, and you can see the collar (partially cut off) on the left. That style of forging appears to match the current Cerro forging that I also posted above (here), except that the Cerro forging has a sharp point at the bottom of the magwell fence, instead of the normal rounded one seen on the FN lowers. I wish Cerro had stuck with the normal magwell fence, because that would have made those 80% lowers perfect for cloning later FN A4s and M4A1s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2020 9:21:49 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: @Dex223 The two forgings are slightly different. The first photo of the Bushmaster lower forging has the raised spring tube located slightly above the bottom of the tapered collar around the receiver extension. You can see how the taper extends down below the tube to meet the flat face of the receiver. It looks to me like the raw Cardinal forging you posted has the same raised tube across the face of the tapered collar. On the more familiar Cerro forging that was used for years and only recently replaced by the one with the angled collar, the tube is at the bottom of the tapered collar, which does not extend below the raised tube. Are you saying that they are both Cerro forgings, which would make the style on my Bushmaster lower an earlier version? Here's a photo for comparison: https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/27888/Takedown_Detent_Tube_Comparison_jpg-1484989.JPG That's the style of tapered reinforcement used on all of FN's M4A1s that I've seen photos of. I posted a photo of one of their M4A1s above, and you can see the collar (partially cut off) on the left. That style of forging appears to match the current Cerro forging that I also posted above (here), except that the Cerro forging has a sharp point at the bottom of the magwell fence, instead of the normal rounded one seen on the FN lowers. I wish Cerro had stuck with the normal magwell fence, because that would have made those 80% lowers perfect for cloning later FN A4s and M4A1s. 3ACR_Scout You are absolutely correct. The Cardinal @forging is more like the older Cerro than it is the Anchor Harvey. I hadn't noticed that the "tube" was one-piece and went across the reinforcing taper. What do the "lips" on your Busmaster's magwell look like? I guess that makes for another forging, although this one may have only been used on civilian ARs. As for if it is still being made, I only recently discovered the Cardinal forging. So, I am going to assume it is presently available. Since I already have two 80% lowers of the new type Cerro, I'm going to try "rounding" the bottom of that point on the magwell fence of one to make it look a little more correct, even if slightly short. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
