Finally finished it, well as finished as it will ever get. I just found a nice original vinyl-acetate coated stock for it and 2 position receiver extension, and am calling it done.

Its not 100% accurate, but it has enough vintage touches that I'm happy with it. The lower is a Colt A2-marked large pin and it has a 10.5" Olympic barrel with repro moderator.



Its a smile-maker at the range too... my son has decided that its his now.

I carried one in Thailand, USAF issue. They called it the Model GAU 5A/A.

__________________
John

I like it! I have always like the A-1 style carbines.....

How much does that one weigh?

According to my scientific method of weighing myself on the bathroom scale, its 6 lbs. Unfortunately my scale only does .5 lb increments.

Nice! I like the old original style ARs also. I bought one of the demilled Colt A1 kits, added a Colt Israeli contract overrun barrel and a McKay lower.

Me likee . Pretty impressive fireball .

Very nice! Bet it is loud as well!

__________________
Hue 68 noli me tangere

I was in HHQ of the 18th MP BDE at Long Binh in 1970. Our CG had 2 drivers (bodyguards). One of those guys showed up with what was referred to as a CAR-15. It was short and full auto only. I thought it was really neat and the best thing was that it had a 30 rd magazine which I had never seen before.

I built an XM177E2 clone about 12 years ago. I used a 12" barrel (rather than 11.5") to stay over the 16" limit, and it has the heavier A2 profile, but the grenade ring and moderator are accurate reproductions.

It's great fun to shoot, and it's done quite well in it's share of tactical rifle matches.

Mine isn't any louder than the average 16" carbine. But the fireball is much more impressive.

Very nice! That actually looks more like the Air Force’s GAU 5/A/A. It was slick-sided like yours while the XM177E1 had the A1 forward assist. I have one like yours and it is great fun. Apparently the Air Force didn’t see the need for the forward assist, at least back in the day.

__________________
Everybody could shoot

I was in the Army from ‘73-‘76 and never saw anything other than 20”
A1s. I do like however the looks of the XM177 and have a “wannabe” on an A2 upper.

Attached Images

	8BE029AD-2A02-4B13-91C4-040E04D5A2C0.jpg (42.9 KB, 27 views)
	D71A65DD-5516-46DA-B415-E767BDAE3E1F.jpg (39.4 KB, 19 views)

I also carried a GAU 5A as an USAF Security Specialist. While in Turkey in '81 I was issued an XM177E2

Vietnam 69-71. I remember when the CAR-15's started showing up. Very seldom seen in actual combat units, almost always carried by some staff weenie wearing starched & pressed camouflage jungle fatigues, or tiger stripes, and boonie hats (other items we had a hard time getting in the combat units, but all the rear echelon HQ units had plenty for themselves).

The CAR-15's had a reputation for malfunctions. As I recall the gas operating systems were not optimized for the shorter barreled carbines. At least that was the general consensus, but since we weren't allowed to play with them we really had nothing to base those opinions on. They looked cool, they looked combat, so the big shots wanted to sport around and show them off (today's adolescents would say they looked "tactical").

Having trained on the M14, then being issued the M16 in Vietnam, I was not overly impressed with the M16. Sure, it was much lighter than the M14, and the ammo weighed much less, so they were great for carrying on long patrols. But for actual shooting I always preferred the M14 and the 7.62NATO round.

Those of us who were around during the 1960's remember Matel toys, and their commercials proclaiming "You can tell it's Matel, it's swell!". That was repeated quite a bit by troops getting their first experience with the new plastic-stocked M16's. Always wondered how the M16 would stand up to use in close combat, especially after a couple of horizontal or vertical buttstrokes using that plastic buttstock mounted on an aluminum tube attached to the aluminum receiver. Glad I never had to take that test!

Well, like I said I know its not 100% accurate but close enough for me. And I prefer the slick uppers, so that's what I used on this one. And from what I have read the 610/XM177/GAU-5A was a slick upper while the 609/XM177E1 had a forward assist.

I basically used this image from another site to model mine after (less the half-fence early lower receiver).



As I was never in the military, especially during the time these were issued, I find the various designations given to them by different branches confusing unless I have some reference material handy. Its easier for me to remember them by their original model names, mine is supposed to represent a 610, I suppose I should have just said that at the start. XM177 or GAU-5A are other designations for the same from what I've read.

Yes, the moderator is definitely for looks only. A real one would be nice but prohibited here.