old school AR

[target tech]

I had been wanting one of these Colt 601 retro rifles since Brownells started making them. And like usual, I thought about it for too long, and they quit making them. So I recently started browsing GB. Found this one and bid on it. I ended up winning it for a decent price.

I thought the stock set looked a little strange, but I took a chance. It ended up that someone put a painted set of real vintage M16 furniture on the gun, I was thrilled. A nice set of vintage furniture is going for $250 and up. After watching a Forgotten Weapons video on a real 601, the color match is pretty close. I must say it looks a lot better than the original Brownells modern green plastic stock set.

I oiled and put away the Brownells steel waffle mag. I have a stash of original Adventureline aluminum follower 20 round mags that work fine, and still look correct. I also put the seat belt sling on the gun. It didn't have one, so I thought it looks better than a cotton web.

I know the clone rifle builders would nit pick this rifle to death, but I'm a shooter not a builder.

I'm not even sure the gun was ever shot. When I went to sight it in "my way" it was shooting over a foot low at 50 yards. I know the military sights them in at 25, but I'm not trying to hit a torso out to 350 yards, Just dinging a 8" steel plate at 100 yards. I haven't tried it at 200yds yet, I have a feeling an 8" plate might be tough without the A2's smaller aperture. I never knew A1's had the same garbage can lid aperture for long range.

Most of what I shoot is 55 grain so the 1:12 twist is just fine for me. I find no need to feed this with 69 or 77 grain match ammo, I have much better guns for that.

 

[Engine49guy]

Nice rifle,
My favorite is a Colt SP1 and I still shoot it better than my A2 or A4.
Rumour is that Palmetto State bought Nodak spud and has plans to start building retro rifles stamped as Harrington and Richardson...

 

[Kevin J.]

Nice “slick side” AR-15.

 

[target tech]

Nice rifle,
My favorite is a Colt SP1 and I still shoot it better than my A2 or A4.
Rumour is that Palmetto State bought Nodak spud and has plans to start building retro rifles stamped as Harrington and Richardson...

Interesting, I wonder if that has something to do with why Brownells got out of the game. I think the forgings for these things were coming from Nodak.

 

[LVSteve]

Nice to see an AR with a proper length barrel.

 

[rockquarry]

Nice to see an AR with a proper length barrel.

Certainly is, and these guns look so much better with sights they were designed for rather than optical sights.

 

[Grayfox]

A couple of years back I got to waxing nostalgic for a rifle similar to what Uncle Sam handed me back in the early 70s. That would have been a M-16A1. I looked at a couple of the reproductions, but something was off about them. Can't quite put my finger on it, but it just felt wrong. Plus they were quite expensive.
I stumbled across a Colt A2 Sporter at a good price and added the early tri-angular handguards. This serves as my retro rifle. I'm happy with it and like the A2 sights better.

Here it is with my M&P-15.

 

[target tech]

I don't like referring to A2 rifles in any configuration as retro. That would pretty much be admitting I'm retro, and I'm not quite ready for that.

 

[BB57]

I have a couple upper halves on NoDak Spud lowers.

Both the upper halves were department surplus when they switched to M4 uppers on their existing lowers. One upper is an SP1 upper the other is an M16A1 upper.

Both are in far better condition than any of the M16A1 rifles I was issued, which included an H&R M16A1, a Colt XM-16, and a Colt M16E1, all updated as close as possible to M16A1 standard. I wasn’t a big fan then, but I wish I had all three now.

 

[majick47]

601 and early SP1 my favorite ARs, Stoners masterpieces.

 

[sbrmike]

For the record, the military sighted in @ 25 yards to hit @ 250, but the point of impact @ 25 yards was about 4 inches below the aiming point on the target. Too many years ago to remember the specifics.

 

[ISCS Yoda]

Stag 15 is as close as I can get:

But I was an M-14 guy in the Army, anyway, so my fondness for the AR platform came much later.

 

[rockquarry]

When I looked for a traditional Colt AR15-A4 (20" barrel and carry handle) about seven or eight years ago , they were very hard to find. I spoke with a Colt PR guy and he said "we sell fifty 6920s for every one A4; only the old guys want the A4." Whether he was exaggerating about "fifty to one" to make a point or those were real numbers, I don't know.

Regardless, most like the short barrel guns. I also have these, but what the real or perceived advantage is over the 20" barrel is a mystery to me.

 

[.357magger]

Stag 15 is as close as I can get:

But I was an M-14 guy in the Army, anyway, so my fondness for the AR platform came much later.

Me too!!!!!

But my M4 was on SWAT duty.

OP - I think you have a great and good looking shooter.

Thanks for sharing it.

 

[6518John]

My favorite movie lines.

Sergeant Major Basil Plumley : Seen the new rifles too, the M-16.
Lt. Colonel Hal Moore : That's supposed to be a pretty good weapon.
Sergeant Major Basil Plumley : Ahh, lotsa plastic. Feels like a BB gun to me. Believe I'm gonna stick with my pistol.
Lt. Colonel Hal Moore : Think we're gonna get close enough to the enemy to use that?
Sergeant Major Basil Plumley : What do you think, sir?

 

[John_M52]

We have a bunch of M16's that we have set up with M4 hardware. Once a year we have to drag out the old furniture and account for it to the Gov. I had no idea it was worth anything. If we didn't have to account for it we probably would have tossed it. That being said an FFL buddy showed me an all original Vietnam era M16 that he was selling for an insane amount of money. Selling point was (besides full auto) all original plastic.

 

[Engine49guy]

When I looked for a traditional Colt AR15-A4 (20" barrel and carry handle) about seven or eight years ago , they were very hard to find. I spoke with a Colt PR guy and he said "we sell fifty 6920s for every one A4; only the old guys want the A4." Whether he was exaggerating about "fifty to one" to make a point or those were real numbers, I don't know.

Regardless, most like the short barrel guns. I also have these, but what the real or perceived advantage is over the 20" barrel is a mystery to me.

The advantage of the M4 carbine is its easier to manuever in and out of an Armored personnel carrier or Humvee and for building to building urban warfare or that the M4 collapsing stock can be adjusted when your wearing body armor.
The advantage of the full stock 20" version is the longer sight radius and higher velocity obtained, there is also reduced wear on the buffer / bolt but that's a whole other can of worms.

On a side note I recently converted a S&W 16" carbine into a fixed stock 20" A4 with a NM rear site carry handle and a Timney trigger pack...it's one of my favorites and something S&W never offered.

Reality is those M4 forgeries just sell better and the buyers end up dumping a ton of money into the latest do dads, wizbangs and accoutrements.

My new S&W rifle

 

[LVSteve]

We have a bunch of M16's that we have set up with M4 hardware. Once a year we have to drag out the old furniture and account for it to the Gov. I had no idea it was worth anything. If we didn't have to account for it we probably would have tossed it.

Sounds like your state (unknown) is run by the Stores Accountants Union. My late father was in that "trade" for the UK government, and his tales of inventory accounting stupidity always left me shaking my head.

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

Nice rifle OP...........I have a Colt SP-1 from 1977. Black plastic instead of green.......Looks just like yours.

 

[waffles]

There's a part of me that really misses my SP1

But I really, really miss my cheap Troy XM177 replica. That was handy as all get out, even as my eyes get less and less good with AR irons.

 

[rockquarry]

The advantage of the M4 carbine is its easier to manuever in and out of an Armored personnel carrier or Humvee and for building to building urban warfare or that the M4 collapsing stock can be adjusted when your wearing body armor.
The advantage of the full stock 20" version is the longer sight radius and higher velocity obtained, there is also reduced wear on the buffer / bolt but that's a whole other can of worms.

On a side note I recently converted a S&W 16" carbine into a fixed stock 20" A4 with a NM rear site carry handle and a Timney trigger pack...it's one of my favorites and something S&W never offered.

Reality is those M4 forgeries just sell better and the buyers end up dumping a ton of money into the latest do dads, wizbangs and accoutrements.

My new S&W rifle

Thank you for the explanation. I've chronographed loads in 16" and 20" barrels and was aware of the increased velocity capability of the longer barrels. It appears then that there is no real advantage to having a short-barreled AR for the civilian user who doesn't ride in military vehicles or search buildings. Regardless of my preference and that of others, it's still good to have choices. "Practical" often doesn't apply to the gun sports.

 

[BB57]

For the record, the military sighted in @ 25 yards to hit @ 250, but the point of impact @ 25 yards was about 4 inches below the aiming point on the target. Too many years ago to remember the specifics.

The early M16A1 sights had small apertures for both the short and long range sight. The later A1 sights mimicked the A2 sights had a large ghost ring aperture for the rear sight. The ghost ring rear sight was nice for close quarter shooting and for shooting at night, especially if it had tritium night sights. With the small short range aperture you just shot over the top of the carry handle at night.

That large rear aperture however is pretty useless for precision shooting and doesn’t let you shoot the A1 to its potential, so if it has a ghost ring aperture short range sight I normally just zero with the small long range aperture.

The US Army specified a 375m zero with the A1 and achieved that with a 25m initial zero using the “L” marked long range aperture.

The M16A1 has a nominal front sight height of 2.285” and that gives it a point of impact of 0.0” at 25m when zeroed for 375m. So zeroing to point of aim at 25m (27.25 yards) gets you very close at 375m.

Given the front and rear sight adjustments are 1 MOA and roughly 1/4” at 25m, the best you can do is get within 1 click. You then have to confirm whether it needs one click more or less at 375m (409 yards), where 1 click will move the POI 4 1/4”.

When the aperture is flipped to the unmarked short range aperture, the zero is now 250m. It will be about -.8” low at 25m and will shoot to point of aim at 42m (46 yards).

I like the old school small aperture short range sight as it gives the same level of accuracy as the long range aperture. That “short range” 250, zero is about 2” high at 100 and 200 meters and is about 3 1/2” low at 300m. At 350m it’s about 8” low and at 400m it’s about 15” low. Aiming center of mass produces solid hits on a torso sized silhouette from point blank to 350m, and at 400m holding a little high on the target gets the job done.

When you flip to the long range zero for targets over 350m, you’re now adding back the 2.6 MOA you zeroed with at 25m for a 375m zero. At 350m you are about 2” high, and at 400m you are about 3” low. At 450m you are about 10” low but holding slightly high on the target still produces good center of mass results. At 500m you are about 18” low so holding on the top of the helmet works to get a center of mass hit, although at the expense of covering almost the entire target with the front sight post.

For all practical purposes all you ever needed was the short range aperture with a reasonable 400m capability. However the long range aperture let you reach out to 450-500m.

The Colt made M16A1s and SP1s with a decent lot of M193 were generally 1.5 to 2.0 MOA capable rifles, and at 400m that’s about an 8” to 9” group. That’s still minute of torso sized silhouette and not bad for the old school small “short range” aperture, or a newer ghost ring aperture rifle zeroed for 250m with the L aperture.

—-

The M16A2 was supposed to offer better long range capability. The 8/3 rear sight offered 1/2 MOA windage adjustment and 1 MOA elevation, while the A3’s 6/3 sight offered 1/2 MOA windage and elevation adjustment.

But the accuracy of US made M855 ammo has never impressed me. US contractors don’t do a good job of making consistent bullets with the penetrator. European countries seem to do better.

Then they threw it all out the window with the M4, which shot M855 even slower than the 3,025 fps in the A2, which was itself already slower than the 3,250 fps of M193 in the A1.

——


The A2 however does make for a very nice service rifle variant with a heavier match grade 1-8” twist barrel, a free float tube under the hand guard and NM sights giving it slightly sub MOA accuracy.

With a high quality bull barrel the AR-15 is capable of truly superb accuracy.

My major beef with the A2 “service rifle” was the rule changes that allowed things like stock and hand guard weights that took the A2 “service rifle” well outside the bounds of reality for a service rifle. They should have stopped with the heavy under the hand guard barrel and free float tube.

 

[CH4]

Practicool isn’t tacticool

 

[Doug M.]

Sounds like your state (unknown) is run by the Stores Accountants Union. My late father was in that "trade" for the UK government, and his tales of inventory accounting stupidity always left me shaking my head.

*
I suspect that they have rifles from the DoD loaner program (DRMO). Yearly inventory is one of the requirements of the program.

Between my eyes and the realties of my life, the longer barrel and iron sights of little value. (I am not now nor have I ever been in the infantry.) As an LE service rifle, the most flexible set-up for most is an 11.5 barrel with a suppressor (any longer is a pain to get out and use from a vehicle; slinging up on the move is a standard tactic) and a red dot sight. With the Aimpoint, I can do all I need and far faster than with irons. I met some military shooters from HSLD assignments at carbine class with Pat Rogers and their skill levels were fantastic. Most now use RDS too.

 

[BB57]

Thank you for the explanation. I've chronographed loads in 16" and 20" barrels and was aware of the increased velocity capability of the longer barrels. It appears then that there is no real advantage to having a short-barreled AR for the civilian user who doesn't ride in military vehicles or search buildings. Regardless of my preference and that of others, it's still good to have choices. "Practical" often doesn't apply to the gun sports.

Or military acquisition.

The original M16/M16A1 and civilian marketed Colt SP1 rifle had very nice handling qualities and light weight. They weighed 6.35 pounds empty, 6.75 pounds with a loaded 20 round magazine and 7.0 pounds with a loaded 30 round magazine. They also had an overall length of 38.8”, which was within the 39” OAL and very close to the 6.6 pound limits exposed by Jeff Cooper for an ideal rifle.

With the M16A2 those same weights jumped to 7.8, 8.5, and 8.8 pounds. That was back within 2 pounds of the 10.7 pounds for an M14 with a loaded 20 round magazine. The heavier in front of the hand guards barrel was developed in response to the perception that the A1 barrels were getting bent in bayonet drills, etc.

That did happen, and I did get issued a bent barrel A1 that Was swapped out when I could not zero it. However it didn’t happened nearLy as much as the USMC thought it happened. Their armorers were using a drop gauge to identify bent barrels and if the gauge didn’t drop cleanly through the bore, the barrel was judged to be bent. The USMC found a lot of those and put it on the list just beneath more durable hand guards. However, late in the process after the TDP was developed, they actually bore scoped many of those bent barrels and found a lump of jacket material on a burr created when the gas port was drilled. Once that was removed the drop gauges dropped right through those “bent” barrels.

So while the new A2 barrel could take 9 times the force on the muzzle before the barrel bent, it was not necessary and just added extra weight. But it was too late to revert to the old barrel profile. Colt however retained the early profile on its “A2” versions of the civilian AR-15 and that wasn’t for parts commonality but rather in recognition that the A2 profile was needlessly heavy.

The M16A4 with its removable carry handle and quad rail weighed in a 10.0 pounds with a sling and 30 round magazine, so by then the military had a taken the original M16A1 at fattened it up to near M14 weight levels.

The M4 with its 14.5” barrel got the weight back down to 7.5 pounds with a 30 round magazine - lighter than the A2 and A4, but still a half pound heavier than the M16A1 and with 5.5” less barrel and a significant loss in velocity.

In “short” the M4 was a little shorter but not actually any handier than the old M16A1 due to the extra weight, and it significantly compromised the external and terminal ballistics performance.

And of course the end users often make it far heavier and far less maneuverable by adding all kinds of tactical accouterments to it, brining it back up into the A2 weight range.

Now of course we are adopting a new cartridge because the 5.56/M4 combination doesn’t get it done.

——

Colt also introduced a 16” carbine early on and IMHO the basic 16” Colt pencil narrow barrel profile carbine is hard to beat when you want a shorter, lighter AR-15. An M4gry? No. It gives up a whole lot and gives nothing of value in return.

 

[Valmet]

I built a true 601 clone about 5 years ago. Took me over a year and a half to accumulate all the parts- orig 601 BCG, sent NDS lower to Ident Markings in TX for the Colt and Armalite dual markings, then had Retro Arms Works do their magic, painted/baked on green finish with age wear, correct early selector switch and dimples in receiver etc. Sold it to a friend a few years later and wish I’d held onto it. Very neat rifles- glad you snagged a Brownells one OP.

 

[Drm50]

I’ve just had AR for a year. Don’t like them but thought I best have one.
I bought a PSA here on forum. Put military stock and buffer on it. Have only put a mag through it sighting in.
What I really wanted was the old standard pattern. My M16 was an H&R back 53 yrs ago. This PSA carbine is heavier than the old M16a1. All these AR carbines are better for door to door urban combat. I think standard pattern is better all around for most.
Colt was scalping one a few years back for around $2300. This when they had models in $700 range. Their business plan was Vets would buy them.
Then found out Colt was subbing them out. I don’t plan to hunt or Target shoot with mine. If they come out with 601 clone I’ll off mine and get one.
If price is reasonable. Colt had a good idea as far as demand but as usual jacked price out of reason.

 

[sbrmike]

BB57, I have to question your posts. I want to know the source.

1. Milspec ammuntion has never been close to 1 MOA. M16A1 ammo, M193 Ball was like 4.5 MOA and rejected @ 7.2 MOA. Springfield 30-06 and M1 Garand ammuntion was similar but not exactly that.

2. I am thinking M16A1 sights are much coarser than 1 MOA per click. I don't know what it is but highly doubt 1 MOA. The old round post 5 click version is what we used early on and then switched to the Tritium posts which were coarser yet. Same thread pitch put had to go two clicks at a time to keep the Tritium visible.

3. I carried an M16A1 all but about a month of my career in the US Army Infantry (actually Paratrooper). I had Colt's, H&R's, GM's and at least 2 XM16E1's in my travels. I was a Drill Sergeant @ Ft Benning, GA. Army Doctrine is 250meter battlesight zero, accomplished by aiming at a Canadian Bull target @ 25 meters and impacting a bit below the point of aim. 50 years is a bit long for me to remember specifics. We never Qualified beyond 300 meters and fired the entire course of fire with the Short Range aperture. We only used the Long Range aperture on our rare trips to the KD Range. I was issued and Zeroed an M16A2 about a month before I retired. I never did get a chance to Qualify with one, but did shoot AR15A2 variants in NRA Highpower 20-30 years ago.

4. While a Drill Sergeant @ Fort Benning the US Army Marksmanship Armorer and repair van would be stationed on site. I can't tell you how many bent M16A1 barrels I saw changed and then the rifle could be zeroed. The troop couldn't Zero the weapon and then a Drill Sergeant would try to Zero it. If he couldn't, off to the van, get it gauged and then most likely changed. A lot were bent during use, but venture to say that most were bent prying the wire banding off of "C" ration cases.

I have never heard the specs you posted. Not even close.

 

[rockquarry]

BB57, I have to question your posts. I want to know the source.

1. Milspec ammuntion has never been close to 1 MOA. M16A1 ammo, M193 Ball was like 4.5 MOA and rejected @ 7.2 MOA. Springfield 30-06 and M1 Garand ammuntion was similar but not exactly that.

2. I am thinking M16A1 sights are much coarser than 1 MOA per click. I don't know what it is but highly doubt 1 MOA. The old round post 5 click version is what we used early on and then switched to the Tritium posts which were coarser yet. Same thread pitch put had to go two clicks at a time to keep the Tritium visible.

3. I carried an M16A1 all but about a month of my career in the US Army Infantry (actually Paratrooper). I had Colt's, H&R's, GM's and at least 2 XM16E1's in my travels. I was a Drill Sergeant @ Ft Benning, GA. Army Doctrine is 250meter battlesight zero, accomplished by aiming at a Canadian Bull target @ 25 meters and impacting a bit below the point of aim. 50 years is a bit long for me to remember specifics. We never Qualified beyond 300 meters and fired the entire course of fire with the Short Range aperture. We only used the Long Range aperture on our rare trips to the KD Range. I was issued and Zeroed an M16A2 about a month before I retired. I never did get a chance to Qualify with one, but did shoot AR15A2 variants in NRA Highpower 20-30 years ago.

4. While a Drill Sergeant @ Fort Benning the US Army Marksmanship Armorer and repair van would be stationed on site. I can't tell you how many bent M16A1 barrels I saw changed and then the rifle could be zeroed. The troop couldn't Zero the weapon and then a Drill Sergeant would try to Zero it. If he couldn't, off to the van, get it gauged and then most likely changed. A lot were bent during use, but venture to say that most were bent prying the wire banding off of "C" ration cases.

I have never heard the specs you posted. Not even close.

I don't what Mil Spec ammo is. Is it the same as that cheap bulk stuff? Lots of people shoot this and seem happy with it. I bought about ten samples of different bulk ammo when I first became interested in ARs (an interest that really didn't last too long). None of it was very accurate in comparison with match ammo or good handloads, with good handloads being the best. I thought the bulk ammo was a waste of money, though it will go bang.

 

[JohnRippert]

Still have a couple clones. One is a surplus M16 upper that came from CDNN with a NOS butt assy and pistol grip. I put it on a RRA lower that Norrell's moly coated.

The other was a complete SP1 minus the lower receiver that I bought in the AR15 EE many years ago. I had it on a plain jane STAG Arms receiver until I got a NoDak slab side to replace it.