User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/28/2011 9:26:41 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Second one I have seen in as many days after having not seen a single one EVER before now. It's definitely a 604, since it has the small hole and sear cut. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_7_159/933309_Slabside_stripped_upper___A1_triangle_handguards_FS.html I was wondering the same thing. I didn’t think any 604 uppers had forge codes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2011 9:28:39 PM EDT
[#2]
Also, the first link has a non-counterbored lug, while the second link has a counterbored lug.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2011 10:49:17 PM EDT
[#3]
I didn’t think any 604 uppers had forge codes
Appears we stand corrected. As a rule with M-16's anything goes especially with 604's. Rebated lug on a CM code is stranger to me than a non proofed 604 coded upper receiver. Appears like there is actually a decent amount of this stuff floating around. Thinking with the M-4 M-16 military exclusive craze we are gonna see some real neat pieces in the near future. Figure when most of the earlier parts had been surplused out over the years many wouldn't touch them for pennies on the dollar. Bet that changes this go round. Shame I no longer have clearance on the depots and supply centers. Still get to a few govt auctions now and then. Might have to go back to working for the man. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 3:27:51 AM EDT
[#4]
maybe for export or replacement ?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 3:46:29 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
maybe for export or replacement ? That's a good point. Maybe an IDF upper? I know they use 604 uppers on their carbines |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 4:15:41 AM EDT
[#6]
Will look when I get home, but I'm pretty sure I have a 604 upper with forge codes on one of my builds also.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 4:53:54 AM EDT
[#7]
Never seen a slick side upper on an IDF weapon....can you elaborate?
My thought on the forge-coded 604 uppers is that they were manufactured as replacement parts...I bet none have the "square C & VP" proofs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 5:44:24 AM EDT
[#8]
The upper in that first link also has what I understand is the very early machining below the port.
Could it be a SP-1 upper with the front lug sleeved? But it doesn't loook like it to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 6:05:07 AM EDT
[#9]
Nope...I have a CH SP1 upper with the same indent under the ejection port. Both mine and the one pictured are round forge.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 6:25:34 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Never seen a slick side upper on an IDF weapon....can you elaborate? My thought on the forge-coded 604 uppers is that they were manufactured as replacement parts...I bet none have the "square C & VP" proofs. I'm thinking you are correct here. Since the AF STILL has some 601's in inventory, they may have spec'd the replacement slicksides this way so they'd fit any of the lowers they might have in inventory at that time. Now there is no need for these uppers and they are being released. I would bet they aren't stamped either. This is the only thing that makes sense to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 8:03:56 AM EDT
[#11]
If it wasn't for the gas tube in the second link and the brass deflection patterns on the first, I'd say they were 9mm uppers.
Half way down: "9mm Colt. The early models had the full dust cover and no shell deflector. Later green models added the shell deflectors. Blue label guns, are reported to utilize the same upper as late greens. Unit is a late green label - note C & M on sight assembly and case deflector. Image Courtesy Stokes" |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 8:17:19 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
If it wasn't for the gas tube in the second link and the brass deflection patterns on the first, I'd say they were 9mm uppers. Half way down: "9mm Colt. The early models had the full dust cover and no shell deflector. Later green models added the shell deflectors. Blue label guns, are reported to utilize the same upper as late greens. Unit is a late green label - note C & M on sight assembly and case deflector. Image Courtesy Stokes" That's a good thought - I wonder if they were 9mm uppers drilled for the gas tube? I know Adco has done this for people in the past. That doesn't explain the rebated front lug on one though. Hmm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 8:28:56 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
If it wasn't for the gas tube in the second link and the brass deflection patterns on the first, I'd say they were 9mm uppers. Half way down: "9mm Colt. The early models had the full dust cover and no shell deflector. Later green models added the shell deflectors. Blue label guns, are reported to utilize the same upper as late greens. Unit is a late green label - note C & M on sight assembly and case deflector. Image Courtesy Stokes" That's a good thought - I wonder if they were 9mm uppers drilled for the gas tube? I know Adco has done this for people in the past. That doesn't explain the rebated front lug on one though. Hmm. Hmmmm, did the M231 port weapons ever have rear sight holes? I just looked at a photo of one and it has the CM forge codes. I saw a couple of the M231 uppers for sale awhile back, maybe somebody is converting them |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 8:37:08 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If it wasn't for the gas tube in the second link and the brass deflection patterns on the first, I'd say they were 9mm uppers. Half way down: "9mm Colt. The early models had the full dust cover and no shell deflector. Later green models added the shell deflectors. Blue label guns, are reported to utilize the same upper as late greens. Unit is a late green label - note C & M on sight assembly and case deflector. Image Courtesy Stokes" That's a good thought - I wonder if they were 9mm uppers drilled for the gas tube? I know Adco has done this for people in the past. That doesn't explain the rebated front lug on one though. Hmm. Can you install a regular port door on a 9mm upper? Yes. The 9mm deflector and port door are a replacement for the standard port door. The first 9mm models had the standard door. I've been looking at 633 pictures, and all have the small diameter pivot pin. The only question I would also have would be the gas tube hole. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 8:43:38 AM EDT
[#15]
Check the profile below the port door on the 633 at the bottom of the picture. I know, I know, it doesn't have the C M forge code.
Also shows how the port door / deflector works. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 8:51:09 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Hmmmm, did the M231 port weapons ever have rear sight holes? I just looked at a photo of one and it has the CM forge codes. I saw a couple of the M231 uppers for sale awhile back, maybe somebody is converting them That's a thought. While not being drilled for the rear sight, they do have the raised R and arrow: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 8:52:25 AM EDT
[#17]
Everytime I see that top phot I think 'hammer drill' for some reason. I had a 635 upper not long ago, and it was CM forge code, but didn't have a rebated lug. If the OP of the original pics from the linked threads could post pics of the gas port area we could tell if it was drilled for a gas tube or broached.
ETA: I take that back - it just had a 'C' forge code. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 9:11:38 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Everytime I see that top phot I think 'hammer drill' for some reason. Yeah, I see what you mean. (Not hijacking, but...) Wasn't there someone trying to replicate that handguard a couple years ago? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 9:51:41 AM EDT
[#19]
And a silent sling for what. A-1 upper (9mm), A-2 PG and M-4 stock. Nice little SS piece I recon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 9:52:35 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: If the OP of the original pics from the linked threads could post pics of the gas port area we could tell if it was drilled for a gas tube or broached.
Let me know exactly what angle/areas you want photos of and I will try to get you better views of it (mine is the "A new project?" one). I don't have the tools to strip the upper, but I can and will post what photos I can. I'd like to know exactly what it is I've stumbled across myself, and most of you guys are FAR more experts in this than I am. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 9:56:07 AM EDT
[#21]
See if it has the cross marks where the gas tube goes into the receiver or is it just a drilled hole. Wondering if 9mm upper or replacement parts USGI upper.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 9:58:49 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted: If the OP of the original pics from the linked threads could post pics of the gas port area we could tell if it was drilled for a gas tube or broached.
Let me know exactly what angle/areas you want photos of and I will try to get you better views of it (mine is the "A new project?" one). I don't have the tools to strip the upper, but I can and will post what photos I can. I'd like to know exactly what it is I've stumbled across myself, and most of you guys are FAR more experts in this than I am. Right where the gas tube goes through the front of the carry handle. An original will have an offset cross shape, not a round hole drilled through. It'll be tough to photo with the slipring in place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 1:09:11 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: If the OP of the original pics from the linked threads could post pics of the gas port area we could tell if it was drilled for a gas tube or broached.
Let me know exactly what angle/areas you want photos of and I will try to get you better views of it (mine is the "A new project?" one). I don't have the tools to strip the upper, but I can and will post what photos I can. I'd like to know exactly what it is I've stumbled across myself, and most of you guys are FAR more experts in this than I am. Right where the gas tube goes through the front of the carry handle. An original will have an offset cross shape, not a round hole drilled through. It'll be tough to photo with the slipring in place. Here's the best I could get of it. It does appear to have the offset cross shaped hole, so I take it that rules it out of being a later 9mm upper, then? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 2:36:49 PM EDT
[#24]
Looks like a CM forge code, rebated front lug, Stamped (which surprised me) 5.56 upper. Very interesting.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 2:53:32 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Looks like a CM forge code, rebated front lug, Stamped (which surprised me) 5.56 upper. Very interesting. I wonder- and I'm just guessing here- if the oddball set-up having all the FNMI barrel and front sight parts could have meant the rifle was one of the FN ones? I thought they only made them in the A2 version, but maybe not? If so, perhaps these uppers were sold that way by Colt to FN when the original rifle was made, for sale to some other country? Of course that's all just a WAG on my part. When did FN start building AR rifles anyway? Or did they ever build complete A1 versions? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 3:25:02 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like a CM forge code, rebated front lug, Stamped (which surprised me) 5.56 upper. Very interesting. I wonder- and I'm just guessing here- if the oddball set-up having all the FNMI barrel and front sight parts could have meant the rifle was one of the FN ones? I thought they only made them in the A2 version, but maybe not? If so, perhaps these uppers were sold that way by Colt to FN when the original rifle was made, for sale to some other country? Of course that's all just a WAG on my part. ? When did FN start building AR rifles anyway? Or did they ever build complete A1 versions? The Army awarded the M16 A2 contract for $112 million to FN in 1987. Not sure when production started or if FN made any A1's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 3:57:38 PM EDT
[#27]
Why would it have a rebated front lug is my question. The AF contract idea is all I can come up with.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 4:03:07 PM EDT
[#28]
So is there something special about these? I've got one with the C M mark, no rebated lug, and black finish that I picked up at a gunshow a few months back. I was just going to use it in a 652 build.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 4:15:03 PM EDT
[#29]
OK I was right, I have one of these on my XM build.
Sorry the flash washed it out some but just got home and need to get a samich 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 4:57:58 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
So is there something special about these? I've got one with the C M mark, no rebated lug, and black finish that I picked up at a gunshow a few months back. I was just going to use it in a 652 build. A CM forge code would be mid-seventies, long after they stopped rebating the lug to fit 601 type lowers, which have a different pivot pin. My 1966 XM16E1 for example, has a rebated lug, but later ones do not. It was deemed to be a machine process that was unneeded. If yours doesn't have a rebated lug, then it's a normal CM upper and perfect for a 652 build IMO. RRiggs - the receivers are rebated on the LH side. That looks like the remains of a bushing to me. You want my opinion, that's an SP1 upper with a bushing. Jes' sayin'. ETA: Most 604 uppers do not have forge codes, so the CM thing is puzzling everyone. It doesn't surprise me that much to see CM markings - not as much as a rebated front lug. Regardless, my theory is they were made as a Colt replacement part for the AF - but may have been mounted on a barrel at the factory which would account for the proof stamp. It's likely we'll never know the absolute truth - all we have is pure conjecture. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 7:47:19 PM EDT
[#31]
RRiggs upper does look like an SP-1 except it's releaved for an auto sear.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 8:02:06 PM EDT
[#32]
Seems to me that these have to be replacement parts made to spec. (the only reason for the rebated lug is to fit the non-captive ball detent pivot pin on the slab side 01 & 02 lowers).
The AF was rebuilding the "fleet" of 601s & 02's during the early to mid 70's...coincidentally, the exact same period that we see the FA CM uppers appear on factory M16A1's. There were a couple threads going a few weeks ago that showed 01 & 02 lowers with "ANAD" stampings from 73 and 74, which is right in line with the "timeline" for the CM forge code. Methinks colt was contracted for a run of 04 uppers to replace worn/broken 01 & 02 uppers during the rebuild years after VN. See below for rebuild "stamping" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 8:38:07 PM EDT
[#33]
Side note about the M231 uppers, but in order to modify them for a rear sight, you need to do more than just drill a couple of holes. The area in the sight channel where the aperture spring usually fits is not milled out, so that would have to be done as well before mounting a rear sight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 8:41:17 PM EDT
[#34]
Methinks colt was contracted for a run of 04 uppers to replace worn/broken 01 & 02 uppers during the rebuild years after VN.
Kinda makes sense except the complete uppers floating around have FN barrels and some are and some aren't Colt proofed making them re-arsenal/re-arsenal if that is correct. Could they have been made for law enforcement or a specific govt agency? Lot of queer uppers showing up. Probably the armory re-arsenal is the best theory on the Colt proofs and I'm still sold on FN purchasing surplus parts to turn out their A-1 products as the real nice ones have like new condition much older parts in them as a general rule. With a mix of mfg's doubt if this will ever be resolved unless an armorer from the period speaks up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 8:49:50 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Methinks colt was contracted for a run of 04 uppers to replace worn/broken 01 & 02 uppers during the rebuild years after VN. Kinda makes sense except the complete uppers floating around have FN barrels and some are and some aren't Colt proofed making them re-arsenal/re-arsenal if that is correct. Could they have been made for law enforcement or a specific govt agency? Lot of queer uppers showing up. Probably the armory re-arsenal is the best theory on the Colt proofs and I'm still sold on FN purchasing surplus parts to turn out thier A-1 products as the real nice ones have like new condition much older parts in them as a general rule. With a mix of mfg's doubt if this will ever be resolved unless an armorer from the period speaks up. I'm not seeing any Colt proof marks on the ones linked... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 9:35:29 PM EDT
[#36]
So; would this be considered a "replacement" 602 upper, then? Or strictly a 604 part? Still trying to figure out what exactly to put under it- full fence, slabside, partial fence, etc? Nodak or just a cheap modern Surplus Arms and Ammo lower? Is it anything particularly "rare" or just "odd"? If it is a 602 "replacement" part, would a 602-type lower be nearest to correct for it, then, as a rebuilt 602? Everything I've been reading about the FNMI barrel seems like it should make a good shooter, anyway. But it does seem like my plans for a "correct' Vietnam-era retro build are kind of pretty well shot the more I find out what I am starting out with. So either I settle for a good shooter that is kinda retro, or I sell it/trade it and try to get something else closer to start from.
Or maybe I'm just obsessing too much, and should just put a lower, a LPK, and a buffer in it and be done with it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2011 10:32:39 PM EDT
[#37]
Not sure what it would be classified...military doesn't care about the fine minutiae like we in RBR land do.
That upper could have been put on anything...a 601, 602, 604...my suspicion is that it was designed for backward compatibility with the ball detent pivot pins found on the 01 & 02s. Theres no other good reason for the rebated lug. The fact that the indent below the ejection port is present suggests to me that the foundry was probably using an early upper as a prototype. I happen to think that it's no coincidence the AF was rebuilding the old slab side rifles during the exact time period these forge codes appear. Although I haven't seen one of these uppers with the square c and vp proof stamps in front of the ejection port, I suppose if one were to be found, Colt may have assembled complete upper groups with the same back compatibility in mind. Here's another late 1973 stamped refurb lower (has since been refurbed again); 
Personally, I like the mixmaster stuff. I'd find a SP1 lower (if you have the budget for it) or do an NDS slab side and have Ident lay out 01 or 02 markings. Add the "ANAD" and date stamps and Boom...you'd have an instant USAF refurb M16 |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2011 1:34:20 AM EDT
[#38]
Nothing new... M16 contract replacement upper.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2011 1:43:46 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
So; would this be considered a "replacement" 602 upper, then? Or strictly a 604 part? Still trying to figure out what exactly to put under it- full fence, slabside, partial fence, etc? Nodak or just a cheap modern Surplus Arms and Ammo lower? Is it anything particularly "rare" or just "odd"? If it is a 602 "replacement" part, would a 602-type lower be nearest to correct for it, then, as a rebuilt 602? Everything I've been reading about the FNMI barrel seems like it should make a good shooter, anyway. But it does seem like my plans for a "correct' Vietnam-era retro build are kind of pretty well shot the more I find out what I am starting out with. So either I settle for a good shooter that is kinda retro, or I sell it/trade it and try to get something else closer to start from. Or maybe I'm just obsessing too much, and should just put a lower, a LPK, and a buffer in it and be done with it? I've always considered it a 604 type replacement although im sure a few made there way on the 602 or even possibly the 601 (although the rebated front lug is extremely rare, this is only the second time I've heard of it on am "C M" marked upper...) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2011 2:06:16 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Methinks colt was contracted for a run of 04 uppers to replace worn/broken 01 & 02 uppers during the rebuild years after VN. Kinda makes sense except the complete uppers floating around have FN barrels and some are and some aren't Colt proofed making them re-arsenal/re-arsenal if that is correct. Could they have been made for law enforcement or a specific govt agency? Lot of queer uppers showing up. Probably the armory re-arsenal is the best theory on the Colt proofs and I'm still sold on FN purchasing surplus parts to turn out thier A-1 products as the real nice ones have like new condition much older parts in them as a general rule. With a mix of mfg's doubt if this will ever be resolved unless an armorer from the period speaks up. I'm not seeing any Colt proof marks on the ones linked... Check the first two links on this page - one of them you can see proof marks. Of course, we can't see them up close... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2011 2:09:30 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Not sure what it would be classified...military doesn't care about the fine minutiae like we in RBR land do. That upper could have been put on anything...a 601, 602, 604...my suspicion is that it was designed for backward compatibility with the ball detent pivot pins found on the 01 & 02s. Theres no other good reason for the rebated lug. The fact that the indent below the ejection port is present suggests to me that the foundry was probably using an early upper as a prototype. I happen to think that it's no coincidence the AF was rebuilding the old slab side rifles during the exact time period these forge codes appear. Although I haven't seen one of these uppers with the square c and vp proof stamps in front of the ejection port, I suppose if one were to be found, Colt may have assembled complete upper groups with the same back compatibility in mind. This is what I've ben sayin'.  Good info about the AF rebuild timeline.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2011 7:14:05 PM EDT
[#42]
I have a CM upper with no FA, no auto-sear relief, large front pin hole w/o the rebate. Can't find any colt proof marks on it, but the finish looks pretty heavy in that area.
Will try to get pics later if anyone needs proof 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2011 10:49:50 PM EDT
[#43]
Or maybe I'm just obsessing too much, and should just put a lower, a LPK, and a buffer in it and be done with it?
This. Not many true VN issue weapons were anywhere near as politically correct in parts assembly as a retroland clone. With that said a lot of your parts are post VN mfg but who really cares. Most the real VN issue stuff stayed in VN when we broke out. From 10 feet away most humans couldn't tell the difference between what has been deemed correct and what isn't. Politically correct parts keep the retro prices near and all time high when in reality the only military rifles that have all original parts didn't get used very much. Good luck on your build. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2011 1:14:11 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Seems to me that these have to be replacement parts made to spec. (the only reason for the rebated lug is to fit the non-captive ball detent pivot pin on the slab side 01 & 02 lowers). The AF was rebuilding the "fleet" of 601s & 02's during the early to mid 70's...coincidentally, the exact same period that we see the FA CM uppers appear on factory M16A1's. There were a couple threads going a few weeks ago that showed 01 & 02 lowers with "ANAD" stampings from 73 and 74, which is right in line with the "timeline" for the CM forge code. Methinks colt was contracted for a run of 04 uppers to replace worn/broken 01 & 02 uppers during the rebuild years after VN. See below for rebuild "stamping" http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h336/cafejeeper/IMGP0661.jpg My question is why would a USAF "rebuild" have an "ANAD" (Anniston Army Depot) rebuild stamp on it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2011 5:27:49 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems to me that these have to be replacement parts made to spec. (the only reason for the rebated lug is to fit the non-captive ball detent pivot pin on the slab side 01 & 02 lowers). The AF was rebuilding the "fleet" of 601s & 02's during the early to mid 70's...coincidentally, the exact same period that we see the FA CM uppers appear on factory M16A1's. There were a couple threads going a few weeks ago that showed 01 & 02 lowers with "ANAD" stampings from 73 and 74, which is right in line with the "timeline" for the CM forge code. Methinks colt was contracted for a run of 04 uppers to replace worn/broken 01 & 02 uppers during the rebuild years after VN. See below for rebuild "stamping" http://i1104.photobucket.com/albums/h336/cafejeeper/IMGP0661.jpg My question is why would a USAF "rebuild" have an "ANAD" (Anniston Army Depot) rebuild stamp on it? Military weapons typically come through the Army system, regardless of what component they're going to. The whole "M" series designation is an Army designation. The few exceptions out there (like MK 18 MOD 0 and MK 12 MOD 0 - which are Navy designations) prove the rule. Weapons going back to depot get sent back to TACOM and ANAD - get rebuilt, and then get issued back out to whomever orders them, Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps. ~Augee |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
