The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: Semi-automatics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 26, 2010, 11:40 AM   #26
Willie D
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2007
Posts: 1,149
Anyone have a source for A1 length stocks?


Not interested in the whole kit but I think I would prefer the shorter fixed stock.


Does the A1 stock use the same buffer tube as the A2?
Willie D is offline  
Old June 26, 2010, 11:41 AM   #27
amd6547
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Posts: 2,313
I believe Century is aseembling these from surplus parts kits with complete uppers...just a matter of putting together a lower and pinning it together.

I built my own retro M16a1 clone a couple years ago, when there were a lot of cheap surplus A1 uppers around. Mine is a Colt upper. I have put several hundred rounds though it, and it has worked perfectly...very accurate with M193 55gn ammo. I have fired heavier weight ammo, and did not get the keyholing the poster above mentioned.
I love the A1 configuration...you get a 20" barrel in a very light rifle. I find I prefer the A1 sights. An M16A1 was the first centerfire rifle I ever shot, at Camp Perry, so thats why I wanted one.
Here is a pic. Since I took this, I have replaced the A2 buttstock (came with the lower) with an A1, which fits me better.
__________________
The past is gone...the future may never happen.
Be Here Now.
amd6547 is offline  
Old June 26, 2010, 01:07 PM   #28
USMCGrunt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2000
Location: Somewhere in 14T NT
Posts: 730
If you are looking for a retro M-16/M-16A1 that is as close as you can get to the real deal without going Class III, there is only 1 true way to go and that is one of the surplus parts kits and a lower receiver from Nodak Spud. The lowers Century uses in these wannabe clones is an A2 lower that has a VERY different lower receiver than the A1 did by using additional reinforcing around the pivot pin and extension tube. I suppose the average Joe on the street wouldn't notice these things but for folks in the know, that stands out like a sore thumb when you know the geometry isn't correct for an A1 lower.
The parts kit and NDS lower is still far more correct than even an original Colt AR-15 ever was to the true M-16 design. When it comes to Colt, you can settle again for an A2 lower with odd sized pins which limits you to Colt only parts like hammers, triggers and disconnectors or you can go with an earlier Colt lower and use 2 screw drivers to remove the pivot pin. Even then you are still dealing with a slab side lower which is only correct (short of an Air Force mix-master clone) for a 601 or 602 series M-16 so again, that really stands out as incorrect for the original M-16 if you are trying to get as close as possible to the real thing.
No, to date I have 2 Nodak Spud lowers (an M-16A1 and a 601) and another couple on the way (this time 2 XM-16E1 lowers) and they are TOP NOTCH quality. In addition to the correct geometry, they are VERY high quality, fit together tight with no wiggle and are also finished in the earlier XM gray anodizing rather than again that modern black finish that everybody else is using (it also stands out as incorrect on an A1 and earlier design) I mean, have you ever seen any other manufacturer out there that drills the lower and includes the roll pin that was used in the early pre-A1 lowers to secure the buffer tube to the receiver? Nope, bet you haven't! This is one area where NDS does vary the design in that this hole is drilled slightly lower so to not really intersect the buffer tube and is only cosmetic but it's just another example of how Mike and Harlan go that extra distance to make things as close to the original as possible short of being Class III designs.
USMCGrunt is offline  
Old June 26, 2010, 02:35 PM   #29
MMcfpd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 23, 2006
Location: Houston, TX USA
Posts: 384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willie D
Anyone have a source for A1 length stocks?

Does the A1 stock use the same buffer tube as the A2?
I've done well with U.S. Collectors Ordnance and Arfcom's Equipment Exchange. The A1 stock uses the same buffer tube as the A2; the A2 uses a spacer that is not used with the A1.

Last edited by MMcfpd; June 26, 2010 at 03:55 PM.
MMcfpd is offline  
Old June 26, 2010, 02:53 PM   #30
5.56RifleGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 9, 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 1,212
I would think it would be 1 in 12 unless they put a new barrel on there.

I just finished my colt SP1 build. Love shooting it. Its so light.
5.56RifleGuy is offline  
Old June 26, 2010, 04:42 PM   #31
Yurko
Junior Member
 
Join Date: January 20, 2010
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 13
Quote:
I'd question whether they have 1:9 barrels, it should be a 1:12 or even a 1:14 if they were very early barrels. 1:9 barrels only became common after the adoption of 62 gr ammo by NATO and were never nilitary spec or surplus.

The listing for it says it's a brand new barrel.

From Century's literature:
The new U.S. barrel has a 1:9 twist. Barrel: 20"
Yurko is offline  
Old June 26, 2010, 06:20 PM   #32
ccapehart1017
Junior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5
m-16 and m-16a1

yeah the as a former army enlisted infantrymen the m-16
has a distinctive 3 pronged flash suppressor also had no forward assist
now the m16a1 had a different flash suppressor as u see on modern m16 and m-4 also had a forward assist
both m-16 and m-16a1 models vietnam era were select fire semi and full auto
they were also issued with 20 round magizines and supposedly facts on the ground were that u were onley supposed to fill them with 16 rounds other wise it would cause malfunctions
Attached Images
File Type: jpg m16_ar15_early.jpg (12.8 KB, 62 views)
File Type: jpg m16a1_1.jpg (14.9 KB, 59 views)
File Type: jpg m16a1_2.jpg (17.3 KB, 49 views)
ccapehart1017 is offline  
Old June 26, 2010, 06:25 PM   #33
5.56RifleGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 9, 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 1,212
From what I heard, the 16 rounds in a mag thing was a bunch of crap, but I guess everyone had different experiances.
5.56RifleGuy is offline  
Old June 26, 2010, 09:12 PM   #34
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 11,061
Quote:
From what I heard, the 16 rounds in a mag thing was a bunch of crap, but I guess everyone had different experiances.
It wasnt 16, it was 18 rounds. You fill the mags with 20 and slap them into the mag well, the first round would pop out often jamming the gun.

The same problem is with the 30 round, and even loading 20 rounds in the M-14 mag.

Always load two short of full and you didn't have any problems.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old June 26, 2010, 10:13 PM   #35
amd6547
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Posts: 2,313
My favorite mags are 20rd Colts. I load them with 20 rds, and have no problem slapping them in, bolt open or closed, and never a jam. Same with the 30's.
As far as fully detailed historical recreations of M16A1's, that was never my intention. Mine is "close enough", and the A2 lower was product-improved for a reason. NoDak makes very nice receivers indeed. Since I built my retro clone, I have picked up a used Bushmaster "post ban" HBAR shorty upper. I have swapped it out on the same lower I used for my retro AR. In fact, I have everything to build a second AR except a lower and lower parts kit.
Perhaps I will get a NoDak lower and finish my retro fully.
__________________
The past is gone...the future may never happen.
Be Here Now.
amd6547 is offline  
Old June 26, 2010, 10:17 PM   #36
5.56RifleGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 9, 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 1,212
Ill take your word for it on the 18 round thing. I wasnt alive nor was I there, and Ive never seen or used and vietnam era mags, so I have no ground to stand on, other than what I have heard.
5.56RifleGuy is offline  
Old June 26, 2010, 10:37 PM   #37
USMCGrunt
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2000
Location: Somewhere in 14T NT
Posts: 730
Not really sure if the "product improvement" was all that necessary in the A2 lower. Now while it doesn't hurt anything to have that extra metal there and I'm sure the less milling would also reduce costs compared to the A1, have you ever seen or heard of first hand accounts of an A1 lower breaking either along the extension tube or pivot pin area? I see LOTS of old A1s, 604s and even 601 and 602 lowers that were modded to A2s with the kits that are still going strong even though the older lowers were in theory weaker than the newer A2 lowers. Actually, the biggest problem I've seen as far as broken lowers go are cracked from students dry firing the hammer before we can stop them when the upper is off during disassembly. Personally I've never seen a pre-A2 lower break in any way that an A2 would have held up any better. Again, good idea in theory, doesn't hurt anything and I'm sure it's cheaper but really a true improvement I'd have to question.
USMCGrunt is offline  
Old June 27, 2010, 12:05 AM   #38
brotus2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 8, 2009
Location: Panama City Beach
Posts: 269
Good old memories.
brotus2 is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.06594 seconds with 9 queries