Retro A1 build

[S.Crockett]

The M16A1 with its forward assist came out the same time as the M16 without the forward assist - 1963.

The forward assistance wasn’t a common feature on general issue A1s until 1968-1969, after McNamara’s ammo debacle that resulted from the sudden change in propellant.

And his lower is exactly the same as an early 1972 lower,

And maybe we’re not all on the same page as to what the terms “Retro” or “Vintage” mean when attached to “AR.”

Generally, guys who build these clones want a pre-‘68/pre-Tet M16-looking rifle - what might be called an Ia Drang Valley model, circa 1965-ish.

So a really “Retro AR” would look more like:



Not a perfect Retro (the lower receiver isn't) but getting close …. and no yicky FA either:

 

[12Bravo20]

And if you go to ARCOM, Retro means anything based on the original M16 or M16A1 (all variations). But no need to argue schematics here. Call it retro or vintage, it really doesn't matter.

The use of the M16A1 included the Vietnam War and Operation Desert Storm. Vietnam vets are in their 70's or 80's now and Desert Storm vets are in their 50' and 60's now. Desert Storm was 32 years ago And the Vietnam War ended almost 50 years ago.

And while the A2 was developed in 1983/4 for the USMC, the Army didn't adopt it until 1986. The A1 was still is wide use for basic training and AIT units until at least 1990 or 1991. I was active duty and either stationed at Ft Leonardwood or assigned to reserve units for a while. I did not get issued an A2 until Jan 92 when I arrived in Germany. I am sure that some USAR and NG units had the A1 well past 1992. My point here is that the M16A1 was used from the mid 60's until the early 90's.

 

[S.Crockett]

And if you go to ARCOM, Retro means anything based on the original M16 or M16A1 (all variations). But no need to argue schematics here. Call it retro or vintage, it really doesn't matter.

Interesting point, but then we're going to have a lot of sub-variations as to what constitutes a "Retro"/"Vintage" AR, ... similar to what M1 Garand collectors go through with the early/pre-WW2 Gas Trap M1s to the post-war/1950s M1s.

 

[silicosys4]

And if you go to ARCOM, Retro means anything based on the original M16 or M16A1 (all variations). But no need to argue schematics here. Call it retro or vintage, it really doesn't matter.

The use of the M16A1 included the Vietnam War and Operation Desert Storm. Vietnam vets are in their 70's or 80's now and Desert Storm vets are in their 50' and 60's now. Desert Storm was 32 years ago And the Vietnam War ended almost 50 years ago.

And while the A2 was developed in 1983/4 for the USMC, the Army didn't adopt it until 1986. The A1 was still is wide use for basic training and AIT units until at least 1990 or 1991. I was active duty and either stationed at Ft Leonardwood or assigned to reserve units for a while. I did not get issued an A2 until Jan 92 when I arrived in Germany. I am sure that some USAR and NG units had the A1 well past 1992. My point here is that the M16A1 was used from the mid 60's until the early 90's.

Lol, dudes 100% a troll with a recent hard-on for my threads. Pay no mind.

 

[12Bravo20]

Interesting point, but then we're going to have a lot of sub-variations as to what constitutes a "Retro"/"Vintage" AR, ... similar to what M1 Garand collectors go through with the early/pre-WW2 Gas Trap M1s to the post-war/1950s M1s.

This is true. But only the hard core cloners/collectors will want all variations or be worried about the small details. Some people with zero military experience can't tell the difference between the A1 or A2 and just want something old school with a non removable carry handle. The retro bug has caught on and all parts unique to the M16, M16A1 and M16A2 are hard to find now days. The only reason A2 handguards and A2 butt stocks are easy to find is that they are used on the newer A3/4 flat top versions. All of your 20" AR rifles are made to the A3/4 specs. A2 uppers are as hard to find as true A1 receivers are. And good luck trying to find a carry handle upper without a forward assist.


And with Desert Storm Vets being in their 50's and 60's, the A2 is now starting to be considered retro. I served over there but I was assigned the M60 and never carried a rifle. We saw a mix of M16A1s and M16A2s and even a few NG units showed up with M14s.

 

[Charlie98]

But only the hard core cloners/collectors will want all variations or be worried about the small details.

Although it's nice to know the differences.... I don't really care. I'm not a collector, I'm a shooter... and minutia is not my gig. I know that if I ever get close to an -A1 build, it will not be correct, but a mish-mash of parts to approximate an -A1...

Lol, dudes 100% a troll with a recent hard-on for my threads. Pay no mind.

Sorry... what exactly in his post you quoted is not factual, or trolling?

 

[12Bravo20]

Although it's nice to know the differences.... I don't really care. I'm not a collector, I'm a shooter... and minutia is not my gig. I know that if I ever get close to an -A1 build, it will not be correct, but a mish-mash of parts to approximate an -A1...

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. What makes you happy is all that matters.

 

[bernie]

That is awesome! I am glad that you got what you wanted!

 

[lysanderxiii]

The forward assistance wasn’t a common feature on general issue A1s until 1968-1969, after McNamara’s ammo debacle that resulted from the sudden change in propellant.

Sorry, but your knowledge of the M16 program is severely lacking.

1) On the 4th of November 1963, Colt was awarded a contract to deliver 85,000 XM16E1s for the Army and Marines, and 19,000 M16s for the Air Force. Deliveries of the XM16E1s began in the first months of 1964, along with the first M16s.

2) The change to ball propellant was also made in late 1963, when in December the Army and Air Force decided to add WC846 to the cartridge drawing due to all three major ammunition suppliers objecting to the stick propellant. It was not McNamara’s idea the change propellant, but chemistry’s. Chemistry refused to allow IMR propellant to achieve the required velocity with a chamber pressure below the maximum allowed.

And the switch to ball propellant was a “debacle”, then why has 5.56mm ammunition used the same ball propellant for 60 years?

And maybe we’re not all on the same page as to what the terms “Retro” or “Vintage” mean when attached to “AR.”

Generally, guys who build these clones want a pre-‘68/pre-Tet M16-looking rifle - what might be called an Ia Drang Valley model, circa 1965-ish.

1) This guy seems perfectly happy with what he has.

2) Externally, the XM16E1, of 1964, and the M16A1 of 1968 are identical. All of the changes were internal, the new buffer, chrome plated chamber and/or bore, improved tolerances, etc. With the exception of maybe the flash hider, as the “duck-bill” was switched to the “cage-type” in 1966.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Although it's nice to know the differences.... I don't really care. I'm not a collector, I'm a shooter... and minutia is not my gig. I know that if I ever get close to an -A1 build, it will not be correct, but a mish-mash of parts to approximate an -A1...

Sorry... what exactly in his post you quoted is not factual, or trolling?

From the pictures you have shown, what you have is pretty much the same as the M16A1 we were issued back in the early 1980's, and a good number of them were actually marked "XM16E1", BTW.

 

[Charlie98]

From the pictures you have shown, what you have is pretty much the same as the M16A1 we were issued back in the early 1980's, and a good number of them were actually marked "XM16E1", BTW.

No, no... that's not my rifle in the OP. I've got an -A1 build on the 'to do' list, now that I'm seeing parts coming available at PSA. All I carried when I was in the Army were -A1's, that's why I want a psudo-clone of one.

 

[JCSC]

I like it! I built the A2. Chrome lined 1/7 barrel and very accurate. I never liked the look of the classic M16 until I got older. It is a very fun gun!

 

[gotboostvr]

Interesting point, but then we're going to have a lot of sub-variations as to what constitutes a "Retro"/"Vintage" AR, ... similar to what M1 Garand collectors go through with the early/pre-WW2 Gas Trap M1s to the post-war/1950s M1s.

Heck, my fifty shades of FDE GWOT-era themed AR gets called "retro" in some circles I'm in.

 

[CapnMac]

And now everyone want a retro rifle

LoL. I was feeling that way when Brownell's cleared out the last of their 601s, but, I just couldn't justify spending the cash wanted--then missed the boat when some "fun" money came my way. Is what it is.

Much like having memories of the triangular handguards pinching my palm, too.

 

[12Bravo20]

LoL. I was feeling that way when Brownell's cleared out the last of their 601s, but, I just couldn't justify spending the cash wanted--then missed the boat when some "fun" money came my way. Is what it is.

Much like having memories of the triangular handguards pinching my palm, too.

Yeah I do NOT miss the A1 handguards for that exact reason. I am not a fan of the A1 due to the handguards and constantly getting hit with hot brass (left hand shooter). Thought the A1 never let me down when it counted.

I scored a Fulton Armory 601 upper a few years ago that I used for a 9mm Colt SMG clone build. I was also able to snag a DPMS A2 upper from Midway before they were discontinued too. Needless to say, I have no plans on selling either upper receiver.

 

[halfmoonclip]

My rifle in basic, at Ord in 1970, was a slickside M16. Issue at my guard outfit was a spanking new Colt M16A1. The rifle I've built is like it in every detail that I can remember.
Replica stocks (and the A1 fits me; don't know who wanted those longer A2s) and triangle handguards are showing up at gunshows. I have a small stock of originals from when I was building. Perfect triangles were hard to come by then, and right handed ones were more abundant.
Lefties in basic were given the HydraMatic M16A1s, which for some reason kicked the brass more to the front.
According to The Black Rifle, the propellant change was partially due to the military avoiding a 'single source' for propellant, combined with keeping velocities up. Lack of maintenance caused trouble as well.
Moon

 

[12Bravo20]

My rifle in basic, at Ord in 1970, was a slickside M16. Issue at my guard outfit was a spanking new Colt M16A1. The rifle I've built is like it in every detail that I can remember.
Replica stocks (and the A1 fits me; don't know who wanted those longer A2s) and triangle handguards are showing up at gunshows. I have a small stock of originals from when I was building. Perfect triangles were hard to come by then, and right handed ones were more abundant.
Lefties in basic were given the HydraMatic M16A1s, which for some reason kicked the brass more to the front.
According to The Black Rifle, the propellant change was partially due to the military avoiding a 'single source' for propellant, combined with keeping velocities up. Lack of maintenance caused trouble as well.
Moon

For me it didn't matter who made the A1, I always got hot brass in the crook of my arm, neck and down my shirt.

As far as the difference in stock length between the A1 and A2, it boggles my mind that people have an issue with an extra 5/8 of an inch. Yes the A2 stock is only 5/8" longer than the A1 stock, I have used both along with the Vietnam issue flak jackets and Desert Storm era flack jackets. I had non issues with either rifle with either flack jacket. All of the A1's had the E style trap door stocks when I was in.

 

[trackskippy]

Yea, it s only 5/8", but it is also instantly noticeable if you prefer the M16/M16A1 length or shorter stocks. The A2's just dont feel or shoulder right.

I have the same issue with most of the commercial rifles and shotguns these days, and normally replace the silly recoil pads that make them too long, with a buttplate, which usually gets them real close to the proper LOP.

 

[trackskippy]

My first AR wasnt retro at the time I got it in 1974, it was NIB and cost me $225.



Back in the late 90's, Northridge International was selling USGI M16/M16A1 stock sets for $20. They have them here now, for about $100 more than I paid for them.

https://www.northridgeinc.com/category-s/143.htm

The ones I got were in pretty decent shape and usually cleaned up pretty good, or took a coat of Brownells Aluma Hyde II and looked new. I did a number of camo jobs using them.

This was one of them.



I always liked the triangular handguards. Not a real big fan of a lot of the newer, round versionsw2 that came after, but PSA has an oval version thats not bad. With the triangular handguards, they snug right up tight like a wedge as you pull the gun into your shoulder.

 

[halfmoonclip]

Sorry, 12Bravo20, but I'm not a real big guy, and the A2 length just doesn't fit me. My sergeant always wanted my nose to the charging handle, and I really couldn't do that with the longer stock. YMMV.
Oddly, the LOP on an A1 is about the same of as my vintage-style Winchesters.
Rumor had it that the Marine Marksmanship Unit wanted the longer stock. The adjustable stocks have solved that problem, especially in the age of body armor.
Moon
ETA- 12Bravo20, not sure what the difference was in the HydraMatic guns; they were a more greenish finish, but had no actual brass deflector. Bolts/extractors/ejectors should have been the same. Of course, it could have been some story they told the rookie southpaws, so they would quit grousing about the brass. Would the Army do that? Naaaaah!
M

 

[12Bravo20]

None of the A1 rifles had the Bruton bump (brass deflector) and who made the receivers did not make a difference. I never did shoot nose to charging handle with the A1 or A2. My zero would change if I zeroed without a flack jacket and then shot with one on, and that was with both A1 and A2 rifles and either flack jacket.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

Colt "Vintage" upper and furniture, commercial lower, BCM 1:7 barrel, and adjustable gas. Three prong of course. From twenty feet away, who will be able to nit-pick it?

 

[d2wing]

The forward assistance wasn’t a common feature on general issue A1s until 1968-1969, after McNamara’s ammo debacle that resulted from the sudden change in propellant.


And maybe we’re not all on the same page as to what the terms “Retro” or “Vintage” mean when attached to “AR.”

Generally, guys who build these clones want a pre-‘68/pre-Tet M16-looking rifle - what might be called an Ia Drang Valley model, circa 1965-ish.

So a really “Retro AR” would look more like:

View attachment 1142943

Not a perfect Retro (the lower receiver isn't) but getting close …. and no yicky FA either:

View attachment 1142944

I don't agree, I carried an M16 A1 with forward assist as I think most vets did. That's what I'd want, like the Colt Reissue.

 

[earlthegoat2]

View attachment 1143372
Colt "Vintage" upper and furniture, commercial lower, BCM 1:7 barrel, and adjustable gas. Three prong of course. From twenty feet away, who will be able to nit-pick it?
View attachment 1143373

I didn’t know you had any guns designed after 1900.

An adjustable FSB gas block is interesting.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

I didn’t know you had any guns designed after 1900.

An adjustable FSB gas block is interesting.

Ha ha, well, I have a tiny bit of the prepper in me. "Be Prepared". I'm actually schooled and somewhat "expert" with the AK, (being humble here, "AK" could be my middle name) much training, but I thought I'd better have an AR around since most of the world is so AR ga-ga., and they are so common. Otherwise I was quite unfamiliar with them. Don't tell anyone.

The front sight on mine is a "JP", and has a small allen head set-screw for gas adjustment. She only throws the empties about eight foot away, in a nice little pile, with absolute reliability. Of course I'll open her up a bit when the Aliens attack, if there isn't an AK around. !!!