A1 or A2?

[Raistlin]

I've been spending all day yesterday on israyeret learning how to diffirintiate between M4 and CAR15.

CAR15:
http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/car15/car15-3.gif

M4:
http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/m4/M4-clearpic.gif

So far I've found only 2 concrete differences, the look of the rear sight and the case deflector.

But the gun below confuses me. It has A1 rear sight but A2 case deflector. The caption says it's a sawnoff CAR15:

http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/car15/sawn-off-2.jpg

Also, are there any more concrete visual differences between the models?

[Graeme]

M16A1's had case deflectors, pre A1 receivers dont.
Other visual differences are barrel(A1/early models are alot lighter, plus the M4 barrel has an m203 step) and handgaurd. Early pistol grips are different(but they are the same in your pics, later type.). It should also be noted that Isreali armalites are very mix and match, you'll probably see M4 upper assemblies on old CAR15 lowers, M4 barrels/handgaurds on old CAR15 receivers, etc.

[KalleBalleSvartSk@lle]

Late a1:s sometimes have case deflectors, though all of them should have the forward assist, that's what makes them a1:s.

[soma]

Q; how do you **** the rifle? There's the thing behind the carry handle, and if you use that, what's the other knob like thing (its almost inserted on an angle below the carry handle) do?

[platform389]

Q; how do you **** the rifle? There's the thing behind the carry handle, and if you use that, what's the other knob like thing (its almost inserted on an angle below the carry handle) do?

Pull back on the charging handle right behind the rear sight. The "knob like thing" is the forward assist to help push a difficult round completely into battery.

[thatguy96]

Go here (http://forums.firearmsmod.com/showthread.php?t=68800) for the long description (scroll down to the long post).

[REMOV]

I've been spending all day yesterday on israyeret learning how to diffirintiate between M4 and CAR15.Israeli CAR-15 is in fact M16A1 Carbine M653, M4 is M16A2 Carbine M720. The Israeli M653s ware modificated on very different ways (short barrels, the standard was 368mm, A2 sights, grip change, upper receiver etc.) but there are still M16A1s. However the "CAR-15" name is often used for the whole family of short barrel models of M16A1 and A2.

The real CAR-15 survival rifle (M608) has 254mm barrel and only 10 such rifles was ever produced.

[Raistlin]

thatguy86, gotcha. It's Colt Model 723 or 725. Which is basically M4 with A1 rear sight.


Of course all the A2 styled weapons also featured the new case deflector lump behind the ejection port and the new pistol grip, both of which were standard A2 modifications over the A1, and featured a round forward assist button instead of the teardrop button from the A1.

Do you have better pics of the 2 forward assists because I can't quite see the full difference in the profile pics?

Anyway, to summarize what I've learned - it's bloody difficult to tell which is which. Plastic can be replaced, barrel can be swapped, and even the rear sight is not s constant feature. So the only conrete difference is the deflector and maybe the shape of the forward assist. Both of which can be seen only from one side :(

[thatguy96]

The real CAR-15 survival rifle (M608) has 254mm barrel and only 10 such rifles was ever produced.
Actually the 607 is where the CAR-15 issue is generally believed to have originated, and while it was produced in greater numbers than the 608, it was also not found in any great numbers. They are quite similar, but the 608 scrapped the original retracting stock for a fixed tubular stock, and also featured the shortened pistol grip of some of the variant 607/As. The tubular stock is almost identical to what is now being offered by ACE Ltd. as the AR-15 'Boom Tube' stock.

As for the forward assist issue.
http://www.biggerhammer.net/ar15/uppers/a2_bushmaster.jpg
Bushmaster A2 style upper

http://www.biggerhammer.net/ar15/uppers/colt_a2_stripped.jpg
1983 Colt A2 style upper (which is interesting, because I though the forward assist was different on all A2 rifles, but you can clearly see the so-called 'A1' style on this reciever block)

The top one is the new style, the lower being the older style.

[REMOV]

Actually the 607 is where the CAR-15 issue is generally believed to have originated, and while it was produced in greater numbers than the 608, it was also not found in any great numbers.Could be. M608 was designed for the USAF (Survival rifle), M607 was fot the US ARMY.

M607 CAR-15
http://www.wmasg.pl/teksty/bron/9/2.jpg
http://st2.wz.cz/historie/guns/m607.jpg
http://katula04.hp.infoseek.co.jp/katula04006006.jpg
http://katula04.hp.infoseek.co.jp/katula04006004.jpg
(some of them could be fake guns, pictures are only for demonstration purposes)

[thatguy96]

The AFs survival rifle and the Army's original "Commando" were developed around the same time, so people usually go by the Colt Model numbers. The lore also states this as the orgin (giving the term "CAR-15" to the gun by Army units in the field, rather than by AF pilots).

There's actually an extremely small start-up making new M607 style carbines.
http://home.comcast.net/~luthier4/images/xm607.jpg

[Raistlin]

(which is interesting, because I though the forward assist was different on all A2 rifles, but you can clearly see the so-called 'A1' style on this reciever block)
Bah, so it's all on the deflector's shoulders.

[thatguy96]

(which is interesting, because I though the forward assist was different on all A2 rifles, but you can clearly see the so-called 'A1' style on this reciever block)
Bah, so it's all on the deflector's shoulders.
Well that, the reciever strengthening, the feed ramp modification, the rear sights, the heavier barrel profile (A2s and A2 carbines), and a few other things that define the 'A2' pattern.

[shrek]

My guess is that the top one is an old A1 for sure and the bottom is an A2

[Raistlin]

Well that, the reciever strengthening, the feed ramp modification
How can you see that on a picture?


the rear sights
What about 723 and 725?


the heavier barrel profile (A2s and A2 carbines)
http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/car15/car15-5.gif

[Raistlin]

I thought the M16A1 barral is the smoother more triangular shaped one?
Yeah, that's why it's a picture of a modified CAR15. Barrels can be swapped.

[He219]

http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/m4/M4-clearpic.gif

M4A2 to be exact. The M4A3 has the removable handle.

p-)

[Fox2]

I was under the impression that the military designation only went up to A1 officially for the M4.

Like;

M4 - Fixed handle/S-1-3 trigger
M4 - Fixed handle/S-1-F trigger
M4 - Flattop/S-1-3 trigger
M4A1 - Flattop/S-1-F trigger

Is that incorrect?

[REMOV]

M4A2 to be exact. The M4A3 has the removable handle.Ekhm... He219, there are only M4 (S-1-3) and M4A1 (S-1-A). The first one is sometimes modificated to the M4 RIS (flattop, but still S-1-3).

[Herrmannek]

This should get reward for most useless discussion ever...even ***** threads have more sense... :)

[He219]

M4A2 to be exact. The M4A3 has the removable handle.Ekhm... He219, there are only M4 (S-1-3) and M4A1 (S-1-A). The first one is sometimes modificated to the M4 RIS (flattop, but still S-1-3).
:oops:

I confused it with the civilian model uppers ...

[Raistlin]

This should get reward for most useless discussion ever...
Explain yourself, peasant.

Anyway, here's the naming according to isayeret:
Fixed loop M4 with a safe-semi-3 shot burst trigger group (Model 720) - known as M4.
Fixed loop M4 with a safe-semi-full auto trigger group - also known as M4.
Flattop M4 with a safe-semi-3 shot burst trigger group, also known as M4.
Flattop M4 with a safe-semi-full auto trigger group (Model 727) - known as M4A1.

[Tributal]

Raistlin, I would suggest that you find another source than isayeret when it comes to M16-variants. As already been staded the Israelis have a tendency to mix and match different parts to fit their particular needs. Hence an U.S. M4 and an Israeli one can be vastly different.
The naming you found applies to Israeli M4:s and seems to be accurate for U.S. ones as well; however, as soon as the rifles are issued it seems that they will somehow morph into something completely new and exciting.
Gotta love them Israelis. ;)

[Herrmannek]

This should get reward for most useless discussion ever...
Explain yourself, peasant.
Because there is no meaning diferencess between gun disscused here...

[Fox2]

If it is useless then why are you posting to it, Pole? ;)

Just pullin' yer leg, bud. :)

[Raistlin]

Tributal, you have a point - except one thing, I don't want to know how to tell difference according to the manufacturer's catalogue. That's why IDF environment is the best excercise. I bet they're not the only ones who like to mess with their guns.

[Javehn]

Railstin , on this account , I wouldn't trust to much on Isayeret . Also , there is no point asking people what they are exactly , because those are all Israeli unic solutions and not Colt factory production as is , there are too much of them , and they all have they history . For example , there are several different forms of Sawn-off M-16

There is some good explanation on Fresh forum about different types of Car-15 , Sawn off M16 , M4 and all the animals . If I can find it , I will post some of it here .

[Raistlin]

There is some good explanation on Fresh forum about different types of Car-15 , Sawn off M16 , M4 and all the animals . If I can find it , I will post some of it here .
Merci bocoup

[thatguy96]

Well that, the reciever strengthening, the feed ramp modification
How can you see that on a picture?
Yes, 'cause that was the only thing I mentioned :roll: So what if you can't see it? Still meaningful differences.



the rear sights
What about 723 and 725?
The 723 was an export gun, and the 725 was license produced in Canada (as the C8). The vast majority of A2 carbines have A2 rear sights.


Because there is no meaning diferencess between gun disscused here...
There isn't?


M4A2 to be exact. The M4A3 has the removable handle.
M4A2s were going to be part of the next generation of fielded carbines, with flat-tops, but a standard S-1-3 trigger group. The idea appeared when the plans to replace all fielded M16s with M4s were in full stride, and there is still debate over whether a number of M4s in the field used by regular Army units will eventually be upgraded to what had been decided on as A2 standard (which is for reference: 5.56x45mm; 0-1-3; flat-top receiver; KAC M4 accessory rail forearm; M68 CCO or Land Warrior-related optics). The A2 has been dropped from most literature on this plan though. The only reference I've ever seen to an M4A3 has come with some of Colt's new limited run uppers, which were full heavy (not just heavy past the sight triangle like current M4s), seen here (http://www.autoweapons.com/photosv/coltm4a3hbupp.html). Remember, Colt uses the A3 designation for rifle flat tops, while the Army uses A4, but both follow the same nomenclature for M4 carbines. However, this could lead to people labeling flat top uppers from colt, even if only carbine length, as A3 as well.

[bertfivesix]

The AFs survival rifle and the Army's original "Commando" were developed around the same time, so people usually go by the Colt Model numbers. The lore also states this as the orgin (giving the term "CAR-15" to the gun by Army units in the field, rather than by AF pilots).

There's actually an extremely small start-up making new M607 style carbines.
http://home.comcast.net/~luthier4/images/xm607.jpg

Would you happen to know the name of the company producing these new M607s?

[Tributal]

Tributal, you have a point - except one thing, I don't want to know how to tell difference according to the manufacturer's catalogue.I wasn't going that far - I was going by military nomenclature. Or to be more specific - U.S. military nomenclature.


That's why IDF environment is the best excercise. I bet they're not the only ones who like to mess with their guns.Well, I don't know anyone else who mess with their guns as much as the IDF does. ;) And from what I've seen the U.S. doesn't mess very much with their guns at all, except for adding detachable toys to'em. As you've already noted IDF will swap uppers, grips, stocks, cut barrels and god knows what else. You will rarely if ever see M16-variants modified that way in U.S. use.

Learning to tell the difference between different versions used by the IDF can rapidly become an excercise in futility. But, to each their own - enjoy! :hug:

[thatguy96]

Would you happen to know the name of the company producing these new M607s?
Total Silence (http://home.comcast.net/~luthier4). When I first saw the URL I thought it was a joke, but it appears to be legit. Of course most of the items are NFA applicable, so I'm probably not going to be seeing just how legit they are anytime soon. It would seem that the cool factor is really the only thing going for them at the moment.

[Herrmannek]

If it is useless then why are you posting to it, Pole? ;)

Just pullin' yer leg, bud. :)

I just couldn't resist :)

[pettifogger]

CAR-15 (Colt Automatic Rifle-15) originally referred to a whole family of weapons based on common components. It included a SMG (Model 607), a survival rifle (Model 608), a carbine (Model 605), a heavy assault rifle either magazine-fed or belt-fed(Model 606), the basic M16 (Model 604), and the XM16E1 (Model 602). The M16 and XM16E1 were adopted by the American military, but there was little interest in the other variants except for the CAR-15 SMG. CAR-15 means a variant, not just the survival rifle model. At the time, having a common system was en vogue, which also resulted in the Stoner 62 and Stoner 63 weapons systems. Such thinking also led to the F-111 program.

The pictured rifle is probably a cutdown Model 723, judging from the case deflector, A1 rear sight, and light barrel.
http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/car15/sawn-off-2.jpg

Not all short M16A2 versions have the A2 rear sight with both windage and elevation wheels. For example, the Model 723 had a A1 rear sight. Early Model 733 Commandos were also made with the A1 rear sight.

From the factory, the important things to distinguish between an A1 and A2 is the case deflector, the shape of the forward assist button, and the twist of the barrel. A2s will have a 1:7 barrel, which can be a heavy barrel like the Model 921, or a M4-profile barrel with the step-cut for the M203 like the Model 727. A1s will have a 1:12 barrel. Of course, barrels can be changed out and forward assist buttons can be replaced. Upper receivers can also be swapped. Colt itself has also been inconsistent, using whatever parts are at hand to assemble a rifle, not what the specifications require.

There are other important differences, between the current-issue M4/M4A1, and the earlier M16 carbines, that people have neglected to mention, such as the oval-shaped handguards with double heatshields, or the extended feed ramps.

M4A2 is a discarded designation, like M16A2 for the gas-piston M16 variant, or M16A3 for flattop M16s. M16A2 now refers to the Model 705 and M16A3 to Model 701.

[thatguy96]

M4A2 is a discarded designation, like M16A2 for the gas-piston M16 variant, or M16A3 for flattop M16s. M16A2 now refers to the Model 705 and M16A3 to Model 701.
While the gas-piston Colt Model 703 was designated M16A2 at the factory, I have never heard that M4A2 ever had anything to do with a similar carbine length project. From what I've read, the Colt/Olin gas-piston variants were all rifle length. You'll note that the 701, 703, and 705 are all stamped "M16A2" as well.

[hank]

Not trying to be a stick in the mud, because all you guys know way more about this than I do, but its at least possible that the gun in that picture is off the rack from Colt. I'd love to hear more so don't take this the wrong way, check out Colt's site here is a picture and the link.

Colt M4 Commando

http://www.colt.com/mil/images/M4Com.jpg

This picture and a lot more info can be found at:

http://www.colt.com/mil/home.asp

hank

[pettifogger]

I meant that at one point, M4A2 as well as M4E2 were considered as possible designations for configurations, but they were dropped.

I'm fairly certain that the M16A3 is the Model 701. Field Manual 3-22.9 (http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/3-22.9/c02.htm)lists the attributes of the various M16s and M4s in use.

[Raistlin]

hank, AFAIK Colt Commandos don't have A1 style rear sights.

I think it was already established with good chance that the gun in picture is model 723.

[pettifogger]

There ARE Colt 733 Commandos that do have A1 rear sights. Colt has made them with both A1 and A2 rear sights. Here's an example of a Model 733 with A1 sights.
http://world.guns.ru/assault/commando.jpg

The Israeli rifle in question is not a 733. The barrel is shorter than the 733's 11.5".

[hank]

hank, AFAIK Colt Commandos don't have A1 style rear sights.

I think it was already established with good chance that the gun in picture is model 723.

As I said I don't really know but the specs for the sites and the nomenclature for current production M4 commandos are here:http://www.colt.com/mil/M4Com_2.asp

Listed as: M16A4 target style sight adjustable for windage and elevation to 600m

Nomenclature:

RO933 : Flat top, Safe/Semi/Full Auto
RO935 : Flat top, Safe/Semi/Burst
RO733 : Fixed handle, Safe/Semi/Full Auto
RO735 : Fixed handle, Safe/Semi/Burst


hank

[Raistlin]

The Israeli rifle in question is not a 733. The barrel is shorter than the 733's 11.5".
That's why it's a sawn off (http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/car15/car15sawn.htm) 723.

And the pic doesn't work.

[thatguy96]

There ARE Colt 733 Commandos that do have A1 rear sights. Colt has made them with both A1 and A2 rear sights. Here's an example of a Model 733 with A1 sights.
All fixed loop carry handled Colt Commandos (733 and 735) both have A1 rear sights, while flat tops ones (such as the 933 pictured; 933 and 935) have A2 rear sights. To my knowledge there were never any Colt Commandos with fixed carry handles and A2 rear sights.

As for the M16A2/A3/A4 issue, it goes like this (from all the conclusions I've seen drawn (and their is a link embedded in the link I posted earlier to yet another thread where this imformation comes from).

According to the US Military's designations:

M16A2: 20" barrel, A2 style sights and barrel, A2 style FH, case deflector lump, round forward assist button (post-Colt 645), full length round handgaurds, A2 interal upgrades, S-1-3 trigger group.

M16A3: As above but with a S-1-F trigger pack.

M16A4: As A2 but with a flat top reciver and often KAC RAS handguards.

Now, as far as Colt is concerned:

M16A2: 20" barrel, A2 style sights and barrel, A2 style FH, case deflector lump, round forward assist button (post-Colt 645), full length round handgaurds, A2 interal upgrades, S-1-3 or S-1-F trigger group.

M16A3: As above but with flat top reciever.

M16A4: Does not exist in Colt factory nomenclature.

Furthermore, the rifles the US military have that are designated A3 are most likely stamped "M16A2," while the M16A4s might well be either stamped "M16A3" or whatever FN has decided to stamp on them. It is also interesting to note that the first A2 style rifle, the Colt 645 was still stamped "M16A1."

As to Colt's website, I continue to find it quite misleading. Labeling the 733/735/933/935 as "M4 Commando" is probably not much more than to try and attract people by using the very common M4 term (which they attempted to sue both HK and Bushmaster over recently if you remember). Furthermore, if you look at their picture of the M16 SAW/LMG (I forget what they call it exactly), take note of the reciever. If you look really closely you'll notice the maple leaf emblem of Diemaco (who's sold far more weapons of this config under license than Colt has ever done). Colt odd nomenclature continues to spark these debates, trying to play connect the dots between what Colt calls something and what the US Military calls the same thing.

[pettifogger]

Colt has made M733 Commandos with both A1 and A2 rear sights.
From the Isayeret sight that everyone is so fond of.
http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/commando/colt-commando.gif

Colt refers to it as a M16A4 on their website.
http://www.colt.com/mil/M16.asp

M16A4 is indeed stamped on the side.
http://www.stwing.upenn.edu/~wcchang/Colt_M16A4_2219_small.jpg
http://www.stwing.upenn.edu/~wcchang/Colt_M16A4_2220_small.jpg

[Raistlin]

All fixed loop carry handled Colt Commandos (733 and 735) both have A1 rear sights, while flat tops ones (such as the 933 pictured; 933 and 935) have A2 rear sights.
I've looked for pictures of 733 and 735 and many of the sites were airsoft ones. The only 2 non-airsoft sites show 2 different fixed loop 733s with
A2 sight (http://www.gun4u.co.kr/info/el_gun/info_m733.html) and A1 sight (http://brikolo.free.fr/Assaut%20usa.htm)

In any case, it can't be 733 or 735 on the picture in question because then there would be no point to saw it off.

[thatguy96]

My mistake, and having reread the literature, the 733 has A1 rear sights while the 735 has A2 rear sights. The 733 is far more common however, and that's one of the few pictures of a Commando with fixed A2 rear sights. Also interesting in that picture is the three-****g/tulip style FH common only to early M16A1s.

As to the "M16A4" stamping, this is really interesting, because as far as I knew Colt hasn't shipped a new M16 to the Army since 1988 when FN took over the contract, and I thought FN had also secured the production for the USMC. This, however, would make sense, with Colt trying to play catchup and reorganize its in factory designations to match that of the US military's. Colt had initially treated both S-1-3 and S-1-F A2 style rifles as A2s, not A2s and A3s which the US military ended up doing. Colt had already begun using A3 in house simply to designate all their flat top models. I had already believed I could be wrong (simply because Colt reciever stamping is a fickle thing to begin with), but I am interested that this is obviously a new Colt lower and not an overstamp, when I thought that they were no longer actively supplying rifles to anyone. That's the old Colt emblem too, which makes me believe it might well have been a refinished reciever, restamped.

[perdurabo]

ughhh i'm confused so meany variants versions jeeezzzz any one could give me link where every version is mentioned with pics/drawings coz i cant see defrence beatwin them :|

[pettifogger]

Raistlin, the picture from the Korean website is of airsoft. The markings above the trigger are where it says "Made in Japan, Tokyo Marui".

In 1998, when FN Manufacturing was issued the sole-source contract for the M16A2, Colt was contracted to make M4s, M4A1s, and M16A4s. FN Manufacturing was awarded a contract to produce M16A4s in 2000. Thus, there are both FN and Colt-made M16A4s

I am not sure why you believe there are two sets of M16 designations. Colt already three-digit and four-digit designations for internal use. The military decided M16A3 would mean one thing, then changed their mind. After all, this Army website (http://www.army.mil/fact_files_site/m16/index.html) refers to a flattop M16A3.
Here (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:erudnick%40pica.army.mil+m16a3&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=Cnt54D.3C5%40pica.army.mil&rnum=2) is a old Usenet post from a soldier at Picatinny defining the M16A3 as a flattop.

[thatguy96]

I am not sure why you believe there are two sets of M16 designations. Colt already three-digit and four-digit designations for internal use. The military decided M16A3 would mean one thing, then changed their mind. After all, this Army website (http://www.army.mil/fact_files_site/m16/index.html) refers to a flattop M16A3.
Here (http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:erudnick%40pica.army.mil+m16a3&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=Cnt54D.3C5%40pica.army.mil&rnum=2) is a old Usenet post from a soldier at Picatinny defining the M16A3 as a flattop.
Because Colt in house also has a type designation in addition to their three/four digit codes. This is mainly relevant to what they ended up stamping the reciever as for their end users, but only the US military would have ever cared about that. Prior to 2000, there was no M16A4 in Colt in-house nomeclature, while from almost all accounts by people in service, the only M16A3s there ever heard of are fixed carry handle guns with full auto capability. There is immense confusion over this issue, but I've heard from US Navy personel, about being issue M16A3s and that they were fixed carry handle and S-1-F capable guns. The Army has consistanty been almost internally confused, in great part because of Colt's pre-emptive designation (the flat top rifles being designated M16A3 by Colt before the US military at large had done anything about what would classify a rifle as an A3 or an A4).

You'll find that the US military officially has done very little changing of its mind, but finding the actual nomenclature can be hard, just look at the CAR-15 issue. Even though I used one as a source, military personel are probably the least valuable source for such information, because it is simply unimportant for them to know. Furthermore the US Army factfile still has one of the vehicles for mounting the TOW missile system as the AH-1F (as well as the ITOW Vehicle, which was an M113 based vehicle; both are in the same sentance with the Bradley IFV/CFV and the HMMWV, with the wording suggesting that all are still in service), and talks about the OH-58D being replaced by the RAH-66 Commanche. Usually websites like that are poor sources for relevant information for all but the most basic of questions.

[Raistlin]

Raistlin, the picture from the Korean website is of airsoft. The markings above the trigger are where it says "Made in Japan, Tokyo Marui".
Wow, how could you tell? It's too small.

[KalleBalleSvartSk@lle]

Raistlin, the picture from the Korean website is of airsoft. The markings above the trigger are where it says "Made in Japan, Tokyo Marui".
Wow, how could you tell? It's too small.
The page screams airsoft.

[pettifogger]

I don't think anyone disputes from the mid-90s onwards, M16A3 refers to Model 701s. However, there are examples of members of the military in the early part of the decade using M16A3 for something different.

If you can't trust a servicemember at the Picatinny Arsenal, who can you trust? Small arms are probably unimportant to them. :)

I believe the age of the Factfile reinforces my contention. When the source material was written, the M16A3 at that particular time referred to a flattop configuration.

You have referenced Duncan Long's "AR-15/M16 Sourcebook" in the past, so you probably consider it a valid source. 1992 is the copyright date. On page 59, the author states "Although technically this rifle model was classified as the M16A2E2, in fact most army personnel close to the tests generally referred to it as the 'M16A3'."

I think we can all agree that the Army and Colt designations are very confusing and can be quite meaningless due to the modularity of the AR15/M16. Submachine Gun, 5.56-mm, CAR-15 is quite a mouthful. So anyone want to discuss the differences between the Model 927 and 977? :D

[thatguy96]

Readin' my back posts, eh? Hehe, well then. Still, I've heard it from people still in the Navy that their full-auto A2 style rifles were said to be M16A3s (these being weapons issued to various security personel and boarding teams). As for the comment about the PA, they're responsible for a good part of the confusion themselves, so yes, every so often I'm loathe to believe them. Its always further compounded by the fact that they get a lot of thing initially and then tweak the hell out of it, so a lot of the time, you can never be 100% sure what they're talking about.

The M16A2E2/M16A3 thing is interesting in light of the fact that what was exported essentially as the M16A2E3 was not a flat top, but simply an A2 with an S-1-F trigger and possibly a heavy barrel (though that may be incorrect and its simply the A2 barrel which is of course heavier than the A1 barrel). However, the citation in the book does check out (yes I did check it...though I have the 2001 printing, so I was worried slightly that the pages might be off. They weren't). It would continue to appear however, that the A3 designation, whatever it meant, is dead.

[D.E. Watters]

The USN does indeed have M16A3 in inventory. According to a USN document, the SEALs began fielding them in 1992. These are NSN# 1005-01-357-5112.

FWIW: I've also seen a NSN# attributed to the designation M4E2: 1005-01-383-2835.

[thatguy96]

Do you have a link to where the body of such documentation can be found?

[D.E. Watters]

Do you have a link to where the body of such documentation can be found?

The USN document is no longer online. The M4E2 mention came from an USAF document.

Just Google the NSN I gave for each.

[thatguy96]

Thx a lot.

[Tributal]

In any case, it can't be 733 or 735 on the picture in question because then there would be no point to saw it off.I believe the chopped Israeli uppers are an inch or two shorter than the 733 and 735. So whether there's a point or not is debatable. ;)

[thatguy96]

Its still doubtful they'd chop the barrel of a brand new 733 in half when they could just chop up one of the loads of 653s they have lying around.

[Tributal]

Its still doubtful they'd chop the barrel of a brand new 733 in half when they could just chop up one of the loads of 653s they have lying around.That's a valid point though, unless they want the improved feedramps of the 733 (or am I getting **** confused?)

[thatguy96]

No, the feed-ramp improvements were after the 653 carbine, but from most reports Israeli sawed off guns have more issues with reliable functioning from the extremely short A1 gas tube than anything else. From most accounts, these weapons quickly became status symbols, but have seen relatively little front-line action.

[Javehn]

No, the feed-ramp improvements were after the 653 carbine, but from most reports Israeli sawed off guns have more issues with reliable functioning from the extremely short A1 gas tube than anything else. From most accounts, these weapons quickly became status symbols, but have seen relatively little front-line action.

Not necceserally . Indeed there was this gleech , but it was corrected . Those who weren't corrected aren't in combat issue .

If only I could find the damn explanation about it ...

[Tributal]

No, the feed-ramp improvements were after the 653 carbine...So my understanding was correct then? Small hooray for me then. ;)



..but from most reports Israeli sawed off guns have more issues with reliable functioning from the extremely short A1 gas tube than anything else.Though this might get me in trouble, if you go by the chopped gun in the picture the barrel is cut in front of the front sight post/gas block. This would mean that the gas tube shouldn't have been altered from its standard "commando"/carbine lenght.

However, the chopped barrel does result in a changed gas pressure as the bullet (and gasses) will leave the system sooner than on a standard commando/carbine. This will result in a lowered gas pressure, which in turn can/will result in reliability issues.

This post was probably an excercise in redundancy for many of you, but I figured it was worth pointing out to those readers who are not familiar with the inner workings of the M16-system (or any other gas-operated firearm for that matter.)

[Raistlin]

I believe the chopped Israeli uppers are an inch or two shorter than the 733 and 735. So whether there's a point or not is debatable. ;)
I don't really agree. According to isayeret the only reason to saw off M16s was because soldiers needed a compact assault rifle and Colt Commando wasn't available at that time. Besides, what would be the reason to mess with a gun in order to make it just a couple of centimeters shorter?

[Tributal]

I believe the chopped Israeli uppers are an inch or two shorter than the 733 and 735. So whether there's a point or not is debatable. ;)I don't really agree. According to isayeret the only reason to saw off M16s was because soldiers needed a compact assault rifle and Colt Commando wasn't available at that time. Take another look at the pictures of the chopped rifle - it has the CAR-length handguard, so obviously they had a commando/carbine length upper to begin with. They just chopped the barrel another couple of inches so the flash hider ended up almost next to the front sight post/gas block.



Besides, what would be the reason to mess with a gun in order to make it just a couple of centimeters shorter?Exactly that - to make it a couple of centimeters shorter. Since the IDF seem to be involved in mostly MOUT-type operations shorter rifles are preferred, so if you can save an inch here or there it really does make quite a difference.

[Raistlin]

Take another look at the pictures of the chopped rifle - it has the CAR-length handguard, so obviously they had a commando/carbine length upper to begin with.
By "M16s" I meant the whole family including CAR15 and M4.


Exactly that - to make it a couple of centimeters shorter.
I'm far from an expert but I think if you ask most soldiers, a couple of centimeters in a CQB won't really matter for them.

[KalleBalleSvartSk@lle]

I believe the chopped Israeli uppers are an inch or two shorter than the 733 and 735. So whether there's a point or not is debatable. ;)
I don't really agree. According to isayeret the only reason to saw off M16s was because soldiers needed a compact assault rifle and Colt Commando wasn't available at that time. Besides, what would be the reason to mess with a gun in order to make it just a couple of centimeters shorter?
Actually the xm177:s have also been named Commando.
I agree with you on the cutting issue, there's no reson to cut a 733, when it's allready as short as it is.

[thatguy96]

Yeah, but they weren't chopping them down from 11.5" to 10" or below (I've heard that some were cut all the way down to 6" or so), they were taking Colt 653s and chopping them down from 14.5". Israel eventually went and bought 733s (and perhaps some flat tops, 933s), but they were making these home brewed variants well before those models became available. Furthermore, with the inconsistant reports on reliability of the XM177E1 and E2 when those models were offered for export, they probably chose to do it themselves and at least gain the knowledge there from doing it in house. That's my theory.

As for the "Commando" name, prior to the adoption of the M4, most of Colt's carbines were referred to as Commandos (all the way up to 16" versions). When the M4 was adopted, the Commando returned to only referring to things like the 733, and has since been used to classify many sub-11.5" guns. It is also probably why Colt now likes to call the 733 (and its brethren) "M4 Commandos."

[Tributal]

Take another look at the pictures of the chopped rifle - it has the CAR-length handguard, so obviously they had a commando/carbine length upper to begin with.By "M16s" I meant the whole family including CAR15 and M4.Well, in that case I stand by my previous statement.



Exactly that - to make it a couple of centimeters shorter.I'm far from an expert but I think if you ask most soldiers, a couple of centimeters in a CQB won't really matter for them.When I did MOUT I would've like my rifle to be shorter, as short as they could make it!

If there was no need, then why did they cut it?

[Tributal]

I agree with you on the cutting issue, there's no reson to cut a 733, when it's allready as short as it is.Just go back to the first post in this thread and compare the length between the three versions - the top two being un-altered and the bottom one being a chopped IDF version. You should be able to see (even though the scale is off between the pictures) that there is quite a difference in length and that we're talking a good 3-4 inches in difference!

[Raistlin]

If there was no need, then why did they cut it?
Because there's a difference between 11.5-10=1.5'' and 14.5-10=4.5''?

[Raistlin]

Just go back to the first post in this thread and compare the length between the three versions - the top two being un-altered and the bottom one being a chopped IDF version. You should be able to see (even though the scale is off between the pictures) that there is quite a difference in length and that we're talking a good 3-4 inches in difference!
The first 2 pics are not of 733. They're of 653 (CAR15) and 720 (M4, not sure about about the model number).

That's 733:
http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/commando/colt-commando.gif

[Tributal]

If there was no need, then why did they cut it?Because there's a difference between 11.5-10=1.5'' and 14.5-10=4.5''?Thanks for proving my point then.

[Tributal]

Just go back to the first post in this thread and compare the length between the three versions - the top two being un-altered and the bottom one being a chopped IDF version. You should be able to see (even though the scale is off between the pictures) that there is quite a difference in length and that we're talking a good 3-4 inches in difference!
The first 2 pics are not of 733. They're of 653 (CAR15) and 720 (M4, not sure about about the model number).

That's 733:
http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/commando/colt-commando.gifOkay, regardless. My point was this - the IDF seem to be the kind of people who will take things to the extreme - if they can chop off another inch on a rifle they will do it, just to make the thing easier to handle. Doing it to 733 might seem pointless from an outside view but it would give them the improvements of the 733 series but the length of their "normal" cut-offs.


Now, this is getting to exhausting, can't we just get back to discussing *****es like Herrmannek suggested?

[thatguy96]

That's 733:
http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/commando/colt-commando.gif
I think we're leaning more toward it being a 735 ;)

[Raistlin]

Do you know what's the most difficult thing? To argue with such a sweet avatar.


I think we're leaning more toward it being a 735 ;)
How do you tell the difference anyway?

[Javehn]

Ok , the beggining of the end :

1)Regular M16 - Got to IDF in 68's . M16A1 ( and very later M16A2 ) , straight from Vietnam Delta Mecong . :)

2)Car-15 : Model 623/725 (some say it was our Israeli made guns from M16 that were chopped by the far side of barrels - closer to mechanism ,and some say it was Colt versions of model 623 or model 725 ) .

3)Short M16 : Car15 that was sawn off in Israel , and the length between the forward sight and the end of the barrel is minimal .

4)Sawn off M16 : M16A1 that the barrel and recievers were replaced to CAR-15 standarts , and were chopped off (in Israel) , from the barrel end side . They had some reliability problems , but I think they all were solved .

5) Colt Commando - Original Colt production that were insired by all Israeli chip offs .

[thatguy96]

Do you know what's the most difficult thing? To argue with such a sweet avatar.


I think we're leaning more toward it being a 735 ;)
How do you tell the difference anyway?
From most of the literature, it would appear that the 733 had the A1 rear sights, while the 735 had the A2 rear sights, and Colt's detachable carry handles found on both the 933 and 935 then also featured the A2 rear sights. In fact the only detachable carry handle I've seen with an A1 rear sight came from Diemaco.

[Tributal]

Do you know what's the most difficult thing? To argue with such a sweet avatar.Works like a charm, doesn't it?
:hug:

[Tributal]

2)Car-15 : Model 623/725 (some say it was our Israeli made guns from M16 that were chopped by the far side of barrels - closer to mechanism ,and some say it was Colt versions of model 623 or model 725 ) .Okay, now I have a serious question - how did they chop the barrel on the receiver end of the barrel? Neither the M16, M16A1 or the M16A2-type barrels are thick enough for you to cut the shank off, and then cut a new shank and chamber into it.

I could see you making some sort of 2-piece solution where you thread a shank onto the cut barrel and then stick it back into the receiver, however, just because it's physically possible I wouldn't wanna do it. I'd much prefer to cut the barrel off at the muzzle end - cuts down on the work needed and is much safer as well.

[Raistlin]

2)Car-15 : Model 623/725 (some say it was our Israeli made guns from M16 that were chopped by the far side of barrels - closer to mechanism ,and some say it was Colt versions of model 623 or model 725 )
OK, I'm lost. Where does 653 come in? Is this a lie?:

http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/car15/car15-2.gif

And what's the difference between 725 and 720?


4)Sawn off M16 : M16A1 that the barrel and recievers were replaced to CAR-15 standarts , and were chopped off (in Israel) , from the barrel end side.
Wow, that's new. Did they replace the stock as well?

[Tributal]

4)Sawn off M16 : M16A1 that the barrel and recievers were replaced to CAR-15 standarts , and were chopped off (in Israel) , from the barrel end side.
Wow, that's new. Did they replace the stock as well?That would probably look something like the Bushmaster Dissipator, unless they moved the front sight post/gas block back and slapped some new handguards onto it.

Maybe the uggliest AR I've ever seen - the Bushmaster Dissipator
http://www.bushmaster.com/shopping/weapons/Images/pcwa2s16d.jpg

Edited do add: Nah that's too uggly - the IDF would never field something uggly like that!

[thatguy96]

OK, I'm lost. Where does 653 come in? Is this a lie?:
I'm guessing that was a typo, since from most sources the Colt models from 622-628 have no description.


And what's the difference between 725 and 720?
Colt M720: M4 carbine with M16A2 stamping (originally called M16A2 carbine before being adopted as the M4 carbine), A2 rear sights, 14.5" stepped barrel, A2 FH, S-1-3

Colt M725: Better known as the Diemaco C8, A1 rear sights, 14.5" A2 profile barrel (no step), S-1-F

Colt M725A: Export version of the 720 w/ 14.5" A1 barrel, for UAE, S-1-F

Colt M725B: Export version of the 720 w/ 14.5" A2 barrel (as the M725, but with A2 rear sights), S-1-F

[pettifogger]

I'm curious. What do you use for sources for Colt model numbers?

I know of http://www.biggerhammer.net/ar15/variants/ which is a copy of the information available in Duncan Long's Complete AR-15/M16 Sourcebook or Jane's Infantry Weapons, which are inaccurate in several places. For example, they list the Model 602 as a M16 without forward assist. The Model 602, or as it was stamped, "Model 02", was the XM16E1 with forward assist.

There is a list in John Walter's Rifles of the World with lengthier descriptions than the one sentence for each model found in the previous sources. The August 1993 issue of Small Arms World Report also contained a detailed list written by Edward C. Ezell, C. Reed Knight, and Robert E. Roy, though it is quite dated

I consider R. Blake Steven and Edward C. Ezell's The Black Rifle a valuable sources on M16 variations. Though it does not have neatly organized model lists, the books contain numerous pictures of rifles, such as the rear sniper Model 656, with model numbers in the captions. It details changes that were made during production that aren't in the model listings, such as the the protective fence around the magazine release.

[thatguy96]

The biggerhammer reference is an copy of an older printing of the listing from Long's book (the one in my 2001 printing of the book no longer jibes completely with it), put into spreadsheet form. I've had half a mind to collect things from places like this and create one myself.

[KalleBalleSvartSk@lle]

I agree with you on the cutting issue, there's no reson to cut a 733, when it's allready as short as it is.Just go back to the first post in this thread and compare the length between the three versions - the top two being un-altered and the bottom one being a chopped IDF version. You should be able to see (even though the scale is off between the pictures) that there is quite a difference in length and that we're talking a good 3-4 inches in difference!
I belive there's a missunderstanding here.
I'm talking about the 733 aka ro733 and commando, it's barrel ends at mot 2" infront of the front sight, vutting it down 2" is hardly worth it.

And a little OT: I like the dissipator, it looks mean :)

More OT, can anyone tell me when the 653 and 655 carbines went into manufacture, I've read that they weren't around until after the Vietnam war, still they're shown in "Platoon".

[gilgoul]

yours is a M16a1 "mekusrar", sawed off barrel of a CAR15 (really ****ty).
the case deflector is found on late A1 models but not on early ones.
The cocking push button can also be an indication, it`s oval on A1`s and round on later versions

[thatguy96]

More OT, can anyone tell me when the 653 and 655 carbines went into manufacture, I've read that they weren't around until after the Vietnam war, still they're shown in "Platoon".
Which is why basing weapons knowledge from movies is ridiculous. They weren't around until after the major US pull-out which ended large-scale US involvement by 1973. However, in terms of movie props it probably would've been hard to find XM177 type guns, which nessecitated more available equipment. As for exactly when, I'm not quite sure. The US military never invested a serious interest in 653/655 carbines, and from most visual and factual accounts, the XM177E2 soldiered on until the M4 replaced it.

[Tributal]

I'm talking about the 733 aka ro733 and commando, it's barrel ends at mot 2" infront of the front sight, vutting it down 2" is hardly worth it.Okay, basing this on your user mail I'll ask this in what I presume is your native tongue:
Har du gjort lumpen?
Om du har gjort lumpen, övade du SiB?



And a little OT: I like the dissipator, it looks mean :)If you ever see one without its forward grips removed you won't.

[pettifogger]

Colt started making 653s and 655s in 1973. Just in time for the Yom Kippur War. The American involvement in Vietnam War was about over by then. The United States Army purchased some 653s for elite units in 1976.

The movie Platoon takes place in 1968, coinciding with Oliver Stone's own service in Vietnam. The main character of Chris Taylor, played by Charlie Sheen, is a surrogate for Oliver Stone. 653s were most likely used in the movie, since the movie was made in 1986. The ATF had ruled that the moderators on XM177E1s and XM177E2s were considered sound suppressors and subject to the National Firearms Act.

[KalleBalleSvartSk@lle]

I know movies aren't a good source of any facts :)
It was just that I didn't know if what I've read about 653 and 655 were true (you know internet isn't always a good source of information either)

Tributal, jo jag har gjort lumpen, strid i bebyggelse sysslade vi egentligen inte med, mer än att vi gick igenom grunderna och övade oss på att rensa våra egna kaserner.
Men min poäng är en tum på ett så kort vapen inte är lönt, det är bättre att ha de 2,54cm längre pipa och ett väl fungerande vapen.
Bättre då att korta av redan långa vapen som man har.

[Tributal]

Men min poäng är en tum på ett så kort vapen inte är lönt, det är bättre att ha de 2,54cm längre pipa och ett väl fungerande vapen.
Bättre då att korta av redan långa vapen som man har.Det jag har försökt poängtera är att oavsett hur lönlöst det kan te sig för oss så har israelerna en tendens att komma på rätt extrema lösningar. Om allt man pysslar med är SiB så kan de där 2" (vilket var vad du sa i ditt tidigare inlägg) göra vapnet mycket lättare att hantera i trånga utrymmen. Att det ur ballistisk synvinkel är obra kompenseras av det faktum att vapnen sällan används på några längre avstånd och då ytterst sällan mot personal som bär riktig militär stridsutrustning. Visst, ett M16 har ett rätt petigt gassystem jämfört med AK5, och en normallång pipa är att föredra, men det är inte omöjligt att finjustera - jag har själv mekat gassystem på AR15-karbiner.


And to athe rest of you guys who don't speak Swedish, I apologize.

[KalleBalleSvartSk@lle]

Me too...

[Tributal]

Me too...But I apologize more since I started it. ;)

[haze99]

that96guy and REMOV, I always differ to your small arms expertise. Your post are excellant! As for pettifogger, great post on the CAR-15 (plus Colt Model break down) always start at the origin of anything to get to the present product. As posted, CAR-15 is now a generic term.

Crusing through all these pages was fun, and I can see the confusion for those of you who are interested in this weapon. You gents have had a hoot of a time trying to figure out Colt's latest "Commando" series. (733 and others)

I submit this post for your approval, to my limited (and novice) research the M-16A3 rifle has a removable carrying handle and fires, S-Semi-Auto. And is to be adopted by the USAF and USN.

*the Air Force has just gone through a 6-8 year upgrade on all of its M-16's. (most of them being original Model 601's, some with green handguards!) All are to be of M-16A2 standard. I am not aware of the USAF fielding any M-16A3's, as of yet?

The M-16A4 rifle has a removable carrying handle and fires, S-Semi-3rd Burst. The US Army's 3rd & 4th I.D. fielded and used these during Operation Iraqi Freedom. The 1st Cav Div and 1st Arm Div have also fielded M-16A4's in Iraq. The M-16A4 is in use in Afghanistan and Iraq by the US Marines. The M-16A2 is still in inventory by both branches.

As for the 1986 movie, Platoon, it was flimed on location in the Phillippines. Which is where the Model-653 carbines came from. (As stated, Colt produced this weapon in 1973, therefore it was not fielded by US units in South Vietnam.) The US Army purchased a sigificant quanity of Model 653's. These were used only by the Green Berets and Ranger Battalions, along with remaining XM-177E1 and XM-177E2's. Once the
M-16A2 was issued (1987/1988 timeframe) with the new M-855 round, these were removed from service.

Now for the Model-607, I am not aware of the quanity produced. But, from photographs I have seen, it was fielded by US Navy SEAL team's to South Vietnam in the 1967/1968 time period. (BTW, the Fort Campbell Museum has one of these on display.) Don't ask me where it came from?

[pettifogger]

I submit this post for your approval, to my limited (and novice) research the M-16A3 rifle has a removable carrying handle and fires, S-Semi-Auto. And is to be adopted by the USAF and USN.

The M16A3 is definitely a M16 with a fixed carrying handle that is capable of fully-automatic fire. This is what all Field and Technical Manuals refer to. My contention was that in the military, M16A3 originally referred to a flattop configuration, and then changed it to a fixed handle configuration. thatguy96 was stating that the military M16A3 has always been the fixed-carry handle and that only Colt used M16A3 for a flattop configuration.



Now for the Model-607, I am not aware of the quanity produced. But, from photographs I have seen, it was fielded by US Navy SEAL team's to South Vietnam in the 1967/1968 time period. (BTW, the Fort Campbell Museum has one of these on display.) Don't ask me where it came from?

Only about 50 Model 607 CAR-15 SMGs were made. They were in use by Special Forces in the early 1960s. About 2500 XM177E1s and about 3000 XM177E2s were produced. The XM177E1 started to go into production in 1966.

BTW, here's a picture of the Fort Campbell display.
http://www.stwing.upenn.edu/~wcchang/M607.jpg

[haze99]

many thank you's, pettifogger!

Well, that Fort Campbell exhibt of the dog handler is new! They must have renovated the museum, since I was last there.

Do you have any info on the Special Forces testing of the M-607 in the early 60's? (BTW, I believe there is one more M-607 on display, it was/or is on display at the Ft. Bragg Special Forces Muesum. As of 1998, that is.

As for the US Army and US Navy fielding the XM-177E1 and XM-177E2, the US Air Force adopted the Colt Model 610, designating it, GAU-5A. (It is identical to the XM-177E1, but has NO forward assist.) Later, the Colt Model 630 was procured by the USAF and type classified GAU-5A/A. (same as the XM-177E2, but without foward assist)

[Hydro]

I've only ever seen two pictures of M607's, both in use by the SEALS in Vietnam. One was on a display of weapons aboard a ship, and the other in the hands of a Team 6 (I think?) member in 1968 on a raid. Interestingly I also have a photo of an XM177E1 with M607 triangular retractable stock in the hands of a regular infantry officer from 1967 I think.

[thatguy96]

As for the US Army and US Navy fielding the XM-177E1 and XM-177E2, the US Air Force adopted the Colt Model 610, designating it, GAU-5A. (It is identical to the XM-177E1, but has NO forward assist.) Later, the Colt Model 630 was procured by the USAF and type classified GAU-5A/A. (same as the XM-177E2, but without foward assist)
The Air Force adopted two E1 pattern guns, both the 610 and the 610B. Interestingly enough, the 610 appears to have been initially designated simply XM177 before being redesignated GAU-5A, and the 610B appears to have been designated GAU-5A/B (to get across its burst capability). Both were stamped "Colt AR-15" on the reciever like the original Colt production rifles. The US Army then gets the 639 as the XM177E2, still featuring the "Colt AR-15" stamping, while the Air Force gets the 649, which is for all intensive purposes the same gun sans the forward assist; stamped "Colt M16." Of course there is the matter of the Air Force's GUU-5Ps, and a good portion of their rifles still in inventory, which have only recently begun to be upgraded from pre-A1/Colt 601 standard.

- correction the GAU-5A is the 610, the GAU-5A/A is the 610B, and the GAU-5A/B were possibly surplus Army XM177E2s or 649s.

[REMOV]

I've had half a mind to collect things from places like this and create one myself.Do it, it would be very helpful ;)

[thatguy96]

You being sarcastic or not...sometimes I can't tell with you ;) I think if I did it, I'd need a lot of help anyhow. I also don't know where the best place to start and end would be, and whether for the first priority to be US military usage or Colt models...and then if to limit the list just to Colt models (because when you get into this, the issue of weapons produced by FN and Bushmaster come into the equation).

I'd start it if I knew I could post a rough copy up here and have people correct and add as is nessecary. Come to think of it, I think it'd also be nice if people around here could collect pertinant photos for such a project (probably the thing lacking in most of these 'lists').

[REMOV]

You know, English is not my mothertongue, so sometimes could be a little problems with understanding, but I'm not sarcastic, I think this is a good idea. No, no, no.. wrong, not a good idea, but a very good idea. Especially with pictures of each model and short description (a little story maybe). But, we can judge it only when it appears.

I understand it very hard to do everything at once, but try to made it partialy (20-30 minutes per day). I also can help you a little with a simple HTML code (in my opinion every informative website should be as simple as it is possible) or hosting if you want (I've got my own little server if need be). There is not such website, so your may be the first one and simply - the best. Or it could be a part of Militaryphotos info section, I sure Hood will agree to open such part.

I try to encourage you to do it.

As I said - it very good idea. And I'm pretty sure that some brainy people here (i.e. Tony Williams or D.E.Watters) also helps you a little bit. To verify some data, for instance.

So, good luck. Do it ;)
(as Yoda said, "Do it or do it not, don't try")

EDIT: Hmm... you edited you post, when I've been written mine ;)

But ideas are the same. Naturally I also help you. But as an orginator you must make a first step.

[thatguy96]

Yeah, I edit a lot, my brain's fickle like that...ever changing...always something more to say ;).

I was thinking of initially doing it in an Excel spreadsheet or something quick (well, quick enough right), to work out a viable format for bulk of the information. However, once that's done, if someone wants to put it up on the web, I'll be happy to provide them with it in whatever format I have (or if I can do it easily, whatever format they'd like) and then have them throw it up (I suck at the interweb in this regard :P, so I'd rather someone else tackle it).

Right then, so here's a good place to start: a tabled list, along the lines of what exists biggerhammer.net (just a hell of a lot more comprehensive), plus hopefully a photo (or some other graphical reference) and a short blurb (small piece of text, with history and specs that need not be in the table). What do we all think of that?

[Hydro]

I think it's an absolutely great idea. Comprehensive M16 family "encyclopaedia" would be very handy. You definitely need photos, and blurb, as has been said. I know a wee bit about the history of the weapon, you seem to have most (if not all) bases covered, I'd be glad to help out in some way?

[Aussie E]

I think it's an absolutely great idea. Comprehensive M16 family "encyclopaedia" would be very handy. You definitely need photos, and blurb, as has been said. I know a wee bit about the history of the weapon, you seem to have most (if not all) bases covered, I'd be glad to help out in some way?

A great book (although expensive $70 US) is BLACK RIFLE II. The most comprehensive book on modern M-16 and variants I have found. Covers M-16/M-4/ACR Program/Canadian versions/HK/AR-10/SR-25/Accessories etc. If your a serious collector of M-16 books or info this is for you.

BLACK RIFLE II
The M16 into the 21st Century
by Christopher R. Bartocci
408 Pages, 626 Illustrations

The Black Rifle M16 Retrospective
by R Blake Stevens and Edward C Ezell
Enhanced Second Edition, 1992
416 pages, 441 illustrations

http://www.collectorgrade.com/bookshelf4.html

Collector Grade Publications
PO Box 1046 Cobourg, Ontario K9A 4W5 Canada
http://www.collectorgrade.com/

[thatguy96]

When I get $70 then I'm definitly going to pick it up...however, even then a sortable, comprehensive list available on the interweb would do everyone a spot of good in my opinion. You can stick with Bartocci's book, but it might be nice not to have to shell out so much cash on all these books to get the basic info. Since so many questions are constantly asked about so many aspects of this topic, creating an easily accessible list would almost be a public service.

I'll start work on this over the weekend, and then post a new thread when I feel I've reached some sort of initial milestone. However, right now I know I'll need the following:

1 - People to write little historical blurbs (or help, there's a lot of them, so I'd rather not be stuck writing them all myself)
2 - People to hunt down good pictures (and pictures of things like flash hiders, pistol grips, recievers, etc that will serve as a resource in an attached glossary)
3 - People who might be good sources, or can point me in the direction of good sources for further information (I have a lot, but for something like this you can never have too much)
4 - People who are willing and ready to proof-read the info

People who can do 1 and 2 please PM me that you can, and what you'll be looking for, I'll forward your PMs to other people working in your area so you don't end up giving me the same thing 400 times over (though if that happened I'd be happy anyhow because of the interest). People who can do 3 I'd appreciate a simple PM stating that, and in that case I will more likely PM you from time to time with questions (which it would be nice to get answers back to relatively quickly...but I definitly understand how people actually have lives outside this kind of thing). People who can do 4, you can PM me stating that, but I don't really need to know now.

[D.E. Watters]

You'll get a hearty two thumbs up for The Black Rifle. I'm afraid though that I'm going to have to wait until Christmas for Black Rifle II. :(

While the following link will not have much in the way of model numbers, you may find the chronology interesting:

http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw.html

It is running close to 150 pages now.

[Aussie E]

Just had a quick glance at your link (its getting late), looks real nice and comprehensive. Good work Daniel.

[D.E. Watters]

Just had a quick glance at your link (its getting late), looks real nice and comprehensive. Good work Daniel.

I still think that there are some big gaps, particularly during the '70s, but I do find new items to fill in from time to time.

I'm also working on a 7.62mm NATO Timeline. I've finished writing up most of the M14's development history, but I have yet to start on the FN FAL.

[Raistlin]

I'm good with graphics if anyone needs my help in compiling the list...

[thatguy96]

While the following link will not have much in the way of model numbers, you may find the chronology interesting:

http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw.html
While it may not have model numbers, it does have non-model number specific test models and the like (such as the .17 cal barreled XM16E1s) which would be quite nice to be able to add to the list...even if there were only 10. Thx, I remember you mentioning this before here or elsewhere.

[haze99]

the carbines I fired had lower recievers stamped,

Colt AR-15
Sub-machine Gun
GAU-5A/A

Colt AR-15
Sub-Machine Gun
GAU-5A

They did not have forward assist.

I have not seen or fired any, stamped GAU-5A/B, I was only made aware of this designation several months back from an on-line gaming web-site.

Some of these carbine's, had been upgraded with a "M-4" barrel and had GUU-5/P stamped on them.

[thatguy96]

I have not seen or fired any, stamped GAU-5A/B, I was only made aware of this designation several months back from an on-line gaming web-site.
If it was the one for the NATO 3 for Rogue Spear...then that was written by D.E. Watters...I think we can trust that to a degree ;)

[D.E. Watters]

FWIW: According to the late Ed Ezell, the GAU-5A/B is Colt's Model 630, a XM177E1-variant.

[REMOV]

AFAIK

GAU-5A - XM177 (M610)
GAU-5A/A - XM177E2 (M630)
GAU-5A/B - XM177E2 (M629)

[D.E. Watters]

FWIW: Ezell shows the GAU-5A/A as the Model 649.

[thatguy96]

This was one of the biggest problems I have encountered so far. Damn Air Force ;)

Oh, and as I said: Update (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20464)

[REMOV]

FWIW: Ezell shows the GAU-5A/A as the Model 649.What is GAU-5/P then?

[haze99]

REMOV and that96guy, yes, you will have "fun" with the USAF designations.

To clarify with everyone, the GAU-5A is identical to the XM-177E1, but with NO forward assist. The GAU-5A/A is indentical to the XM-177E2 with NO forward assist.

As posted by pettifogger, only 3000 XM-177E2's were ordered. So not to many, could have been tranfered to the USAF to become GAU-5A/B. The USAF had already adopted the Model-610 (GAU-5A) and the Model-630 (GAU-5A/A) I believe they had more inventory, than the USA or USN? Why they would need XM-177E2's is beyond me?

I am not sure, to my (limited) understanding the GAU-5/P is a GAU-5A or GAU-5A/A with a 14.5 inch barrel. (This would have been the first upgrade by the USAF for these two weapons.) This was not done throughout the inventory, but piece meal as the weapons were serviced by CATMS.
So in some armouries, you could find all three types. Now, at some point the USAF changed from GAU to GUU. Now GUU-5/P is used, is this a new upgrade? Or just a change in nomenclature? From the little evidence I have found, this would be a GAU-5A or GAU-5A/A with a "M-4" barrel.
14.5 inch, stepped (for M-203 bracket) 1/12 for M-855 round.

GAU-5/P and or GUU-5/P are not seperate weapons from Colt, only USAF in-house mods to their current stock.

And to add to the mix, the USAF purchased from Colt or traded with another branch to get Colt Model 653's. (Some time in the early 80's) Do not ask me, what these would have been designated? I was issued one, it had the lower reciever stamped M-16A1. Plus, the CATMS didn't signifiy it any different on paperwork.

Or these (M-653's) could have been kits? USAF is known to do that!

[D.E. Watters]

I am not sure, to my (limited) understanding the GAU-5/P is a GAU-5A or GAU-5A/A with a 14.5 inch barrel. (This would have been the first upgrade by the USAF for these two weapons.) This was not done throughout the inventory, but piece meal as the weapons were serviced by CATMS.

GAU-5/P and or GUU-5/P are not seperate weapons from Colt, only USAF in-house mods to their current stock.


This is also my understanding. The differences between the GAU-5/P and GUU-5/P are the barrel itself. Whether this is rate of twist or barrel profile or both, I do not know.

[thatguy96]

It would appear to be both. I've seen a picture of a USAF Combat Controller with a GUU-5/P, and his weapon had the A2 M4 profiled barrel (it was stepped). I'm not aware of any stepped A1 profile barrels. The rifle also had a RAS handguard, but I'm not sure if this is standard.

[D.E. Watters]

The M203 mount is spec'ed to the A1's barrel diameter. Thus, an A1 barrel requires no step.

[thatguy96]

Oh, well that's good to know.

Since the other thread appears to have basically died because I couldn't link up the document, I'm going to ask my first round of questions in here...

Right now important questions that already come to mind are:
- When did the fatter carbine handgaurds start appeaing (it is true that M4 handguards are double shielded as opposed to regular carbine 'guards right?...and in fact do people dates in general for manufacture of Colt's variants?)?
- What model number was Colt's HBAR CAR-15 M2 (the belt-fed)?
- Is there a model number for any of the interim SAWs built by the USMC or the XM106?

[REMOV]

- When did the fatter carbine handgaurds start appeaing (it is true that M4 handguards are double shielded as opposed to regular carbine 'guards right?...and in fact do people dates in general for manufacture of Colt's variants?)?AFAIK it was in M720 (M4), and yes, the handguards were double aluminium shielded, with oval not circle transverse section. The ancestor, M727 "Abu Dhabi" M16A2 Carbine have also the step-cut barrel, but handguards were different. The M720 have 4-position stock, the M727 only 2-position. Besides this two models are the same.

[Raistlin]

Since the other thread appears to have basically died because I couldn't link up the document,
Email it to a.adelson@gmail.com and I'll host it.

[thatguy96]

Thanks a lot.

I'm going to have to address this short handguard issue, and the retractable stock position issue too. I didn't realize in what could be called the second generation of retractable stocks there were both 2 and 4 position versions (I only thought this was found on Israeli guns where they'd cut a few extra holes).

[Raistlin]

http://s95005072.onlinehome.us/misc/AR-15-M16_Table_7-24-04.xls

http://s95005072.onlinehome.us/misc/AR-15-M16_Table_7-24-04.htm

[thatguy96]

Thx a lot, but the second link appears to have no retained no formatting (and is therefore in my opinion unreadable). I suggest those who are interested to dl Excel table from the first link. Also, you can go to the link I posted earlier in this thread to read my comments on the thing.

[Raistlin]

Funny, I see it formatted fine. IE thing?

[thatguy96]

I'm using FireFox...so its probably a FireFox thing. If everyone else will see it formatted fine then I'm not worried...I mean I have the document right ;)

[REMOV]

Funny, I see it formatted fine. IE thing?I've got a IE 6.0, and see no formatting lines.

[bubkusjones]

It was in a readable format for me (Firefox 1.0 on Linux). It didnt have a grid, or word wrapping, but aside from that it was fine.

[bayul]

Q; how do you **** the rifle? There's the thing behind the carry handle, and if you use that, what's the other knob like thing (its almost inserted on an angle below the carry handle) do?

that's the forward assist - I assume you have never handled any of the M16 family weapons - if you ever get your hands on one and play around with it as well as the slide everything will make sense...

[big_les]

Q; how do you **** the rifle? There's the thing behind the carry handle, and if you use that, what's the other knob like thing (its almost inserted on an angle below the carry handle) do?

that's the forward assist - I assume you have never handled any of the M16 family weapons - if you ever get your hands on one and play around with it as well as the slide everything will make sense...

I remember one of the M4s on the CounterStrike PC game way back was first modelled with the forward assist as the cocking handle. Pretty amusing watching the animations for it! Made it operate more like a chainsaw than a firearm....