testtest

Oops, I snapped my rifle!

Recusant said:
The pre 1968 AR 15s didn't have a chrome lined chamber, lined barrel or a forward assist which for a well-maintained rifle wasn't a problem.
Click to expand...
That’s correct Recusant. I owned two SP1 rifles and an SP1 Cabine purchased in the late 70s early 80s. None had Forward Bolt Assist though the bolt carriers had cuts out for it. All the SP1 bolt carriers had the lower rear portion removed to thrawt selective fire and the upper and lower receivers were secured with a screw head nut & bolt and not a push pin. No gate around the mag release either. Nevertheless, they were great reliable rifles and I never experienced any stoppages.
 
Acorn said:
That’s correct Recusant. I owned two SP1 rifles and an SP1 Cabine purchased in the late 70s early 80s. None had Forward Bolt Assist though the bolt carriers had cuts out for it. All the SP1 bolt carriers had the lower rear portion removed to thrawt selective fire and the upper and lower receivers were secured with a screw head nut & bolt and not a push pin. No gate around the mag release either. Nevertheless, they were great reliable rifles and I never experienced any stoppages.
Click to expand...
Stateside, for an absurdly overpriced amount ('tis the Colt reputation) you can get a really cool retro AR-15, configured exactly as the M1A1 had been...but they are in $2,300 to $2,500 range, which is a preposterous sum for a cool but simple weapon.

Part of me would love to get one and put the Rare Breed FRT in one, which legally replicates a full auto rate of fire, but I'm not going to pay that sum of money for a novelty collector item replica.
 

Attachments

  • colt-semi-auto-rifle-firearm-colt-m16a1-retro-re-issue-semi-automatic-rifle-2631273513055__271...jpg
    colt-semi-auto-rifle-firearm-colt-m16a1-retro-re-issue-semi-automatic-rifle-2631273513055__271...jpg
    35.6 KB · Views: 166
KillerFord1977 said:
I’d like one for $194.50 😁
Click to expand...
Adjusted for inflation from 1963, that's approximately $1,711.06. So it is easy to see why these were not in every household until Colt's patent expired and competition brought the price down. It was not until post 2004 that the AR truly became America's Rifle after a score of companies started making them, after 40 years on the market and with four decades of US veterans that handled the M16/M4 in combat.
 
Last edited:
TacticalPirate said:
I believe they hit civilian market in October or November of 1963 in the United States, a year before the M16 ever saw combat in Vietnam.
Click to expand...
M16's plastics with "Mattel" written on them didn't exactly instill much confidence to many people back then. Especially in Vietnam. "Made by Mattel" wasn't exactly always meant as a compliment back then either. Mattel was a huge toy company, specialized in kids plastic toys at the time. Still do? Hence, toy maker? Saying was meant as sarcasm more than anything else.
 
BobM said:
M16's plastics with "Mattel" written on them didn't exactly instill much confidence to many people back then. Especially in Vietnam. "Made by Mattel" wasn't exactly always meant as a compliment back then either. Mattel was a huge toy company, specialized in kids plastic toys at the time. Still do? Hence, toy maker? Saying was meant as sarcasm more than anything else.
Click to expand...
Yep, but the AR 15 was actually used in Malaya prior to Vietnam, and they loved it. And as you know, by the time the M1A1 version of the M16 saw action, it became a very reliable and well liked rifle.
 
BobM said:
M16's plastics with "Mattel" written on them didn't exactly instill much confidence to many people back then. Especially in Vietnam. "Made by Mattel" wasn't exactly always meant as a compliment back then either. Mattel was a huge toy company, specialized in kids plastic toys at the time. Still do? Hence, toy maker? Saying was meant as sarcasm more than anything else.
Click to expand...
Failure to function in a firefight didn't instill much confidence either. Reports coming back from GI's about the failure of brass casings to be extracted was a huge concern. A buddy or mine did his basic training in the mid-60s with a M14; however, when he arrived in Vietnam he was handed a M16 when he got off the boat. He said that the brass would expand to the point that the bolt could not budge it. They had a hard time cleaning them because they had not been issued cleaning kits with a clean rod that was made to fit the M16 barrel. There are reports that some GI's ordered cleaning kits for .22 rifles for stores back home. Besides the lack of chrome lined chambers and barrels the other issue was the gov't had used a different gun powder from that of which the rifle had been designed to shoot.
 
Recusant said:
Failure to function in a firefight didn't instill much confidence either. Reports coming back from GI's about the failure of brass casings to be extracted was a huge concern. A buddy or mine did his basic training in the mid-60s with a M14; however, when he arrived in Vietnam he was handed a M16 when he got off the boat. He said that the brass would expand to the point that the bolt could not budge it. They had a hard time cleaning them because they had not been issued cleaning kits with a clean rod that was made to fit the M16 barrel. There are reports that some GI's ordered cleaning kits for .22 rifles for stores back home. Besides the lack of chrome lined chambers and barrels the other issue was the gov't had used a different gun powder from that of which the rifle had been designed to shoot.
Click to expand...
A lot of people felt that a vindictive ordinance department at the Pentagon was trying to set the rifle up to fail after McNamara ordered it streamlined for all branches, as they did not like that it was not their idea and that they were losing control of weapon equipment decisions.

The rifle was an all-star in jungle conditions during the Malayan Insurrection in the same hemisphere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top