Seems to be info around on the upper/barrel/stock configurations but does anybody have any solid info on:
1) for a 723 w/14.5" thin barrel w/C7 type upper, would an A1 type lower be right or an A2?
2) for a 727 w/14.5" M4 style barrel w/A2 upper, A1 or A2 style lower?
3) Anyone have info or pics of the original markings on a 723 &/or 727?
4) Were these carbines bought by the military from Colt as such (723 & 727) or were they "assembled" by the military from existing lowers?
In one of the previous postings about "Blackhawk down" carbines I think Capt Richardson posted a pic of a carbine used showing the rear upper/lower receiver sections & I think it showed an A2 upper w/an A1 lower?

On questions 1 and 2, I haven't looked at the actual information I have, but this is what I can remember.  The early 700 series is often described as "transitional."  They appeared at a time when Colt as transitioning from the A1 style lower to the A2 style lower.  IIRC, weapons in the early 700 series can often be found with on or the other, regardless of what the upper style is (as generally defined by the rear sight assembly).  This can also be found in Colt's period civilian line, with AR-15A2 types having A1 lowers.  So in answer to question 4 as well, these weapons would have been supplied in either configuration directly from Colt.

Best thing to do is troll the NFA sales boards or dealer websites, they pop up from time to time.  For instance, Vahan at Autoweapons.com has a NIB 727 for sale right now, about 11 down from the top of this page:  http://www.autoweapons.com/products/products.html

727

Other M16A2 Carbine

Some 723s and M16A2 Commandos here.

My 1987-90 723 carbine was stamped "M16A2 Carbine," and had an A1 upper with a 14.5 M4-type barrel, otherwise stock.  Safe-semi-auto.  No markings indicating US government or military property.

The RO723 and 727 M16A2 carbines were commercial / export variants and were therefore often a mish-mash of parts, basically Colt was not going to simply throw out all of A1 style lowers that they had after the A2 reinforced lowers were adopted for the military's type-classified M16A2, and basically used them until they ran out so both an A1 or A2 style lower would be correct.  I have seen factory 723s on A2 lowers with .625 barrels and straight A1 (no case deflector) uppers as well as 727s with A1 style lowers.  

The rollmarks were usually the same as the commercial M16A2, though there were some that had an "M16AE2" or something similar rollmarked, I have a photo on my personal computer which is unfortunately still in Afghanistan and I don't remember what it said exactly, but it was a commercial rollmark as well.  I encountered one that was a .750 barreled RO723, A2 style lower as the weapon of a 101st soldier at Bagram AF in late 2007.  

The military's use of R653, RO723 and RO727 were done as COTS - Commercial Off The Shelf purchases, and they were never type-classified, and therefore never "adopted" as an "official" long arm of the military until 1994 with the type-classification of the M4 Carbine (RO920), though since then there have been numerous rumors and urban legends thrown around about the 723 and 727 carbines that were clearly in use, spawning dubious rumors about the first M4s having fixed carry handles (most likely late 727s) to supposed sightings of "XM4" variants in service, leading to the odd story of Bushmaster having sold the Army XM4 carbines in 1989  It does not help the confusion that since the adoption of the M4, particularly recently with the Army-wide adoption of the carbine versus the rifle, COTS carbines already in the inventory (723s and 727s) are being issued as "M4 equivalents" as there's little functional difference in the eyes of many commands.  Another addition to the confusion are the GUU-5P Air Force "mixmaster" carbines, rebuilt using COTS parts and given official USAF designations, but never having been formally adopted, simply assembled in arms rooms to few distinct standards.  

Good photographic documentation exists to confirm the use of the R653 M16A1 carbines by the 75th Ranger Regiment and NSW, while photographs of Delta operators from Somalia clearly show RO723 carbines in use as well.  The purchase of RO727s by NSW is also documented as well as supported by many photographs of Navy personnel using RO727 carbines.  Unsurprisingly what has most attracted attention to these pre-M4 carbines is that they figure prominently in many depictions of and photographs from Operation Gothic Serpent, i.e. the Blackhawk Down incident, being used by Delta, 3/75 Rangers, USAF, ect.  Interestingly, there seems to be little debate that the carbines that Delta is seen using in most period photographs are RO723s, but the identity of the carbines used by 3/75 Rangers has sparked a good bit of debate here in the past.  It doesn't help that by the time most people knew about the incident and the book was written, the M4 Carbine had already been type classified and the term was now in use, though the book often refers to them as CAR-15s, which is what they were usually referred to as prior to the adoption of the M4, when suddenly, to most non-gun service members, any carbine variation of an M16, from GUU-5P to Mk 18 became an "M4."  Another element that has added to the confusion is the sometimes unclear delineation between the use of A1 or A2 style lowers on Colt's commercial / export models in light of the fact that several photographs of 3/75 Rangers clearly show A1 style lower forgings used on the Rangers' carbines.

The leading theories as to the identity of the carbines used by 3/75 during that era are:

1.  They were simply RO727 carbines, purchased COTS and issued as is for the soldiers to use, with the S-1-F FCG - this is the theory that I believe, nothing exotic, they, like other special operations units of the era simply purchased CAR-15s COTS for their own use, whether themselves, or through as surrogate like NSWC-Crane.

2.  They were XM4s / RO720s / RO725s being field tested with the Rangers, it is possible, but I personally think that this is unlikely, while it's often difficult to pin down exactly what variants used what model number, I personally suspect that the experimental variants of the M4 never really saw operational testing to the extent of a program to field the rifles to line units permanently such as 1/75s current fielding of the SCAR, because most of the feedback that they needed could already have been gained from operational use of the RO723 and RO727 carbines.  More likely they were used as test beds like the RO720 for barrel profiling options and destructive testing, ect.  Also, it seems reasonable that the XM4 would have had a S-1-3 FCG, just like the M4, not an S-1-F.  

3.  The third theory comes in two similar variations, but the basic claim being made that the carbines carried were recycled R653 lowers, some thinking that they were simply fitted with commercial RO727 uppers as the standard ammunition was now the M855 which would not stabilize out of the R653's 1/12 barrel, hence the upgrade, or that they were XM4/RO720/RO725 uppers mated with R653 lowers because they preferred the S-1-F FCG to the S-1-3 FCG.  This to me, while possible as well seems to me like a little too much work, and a bit of a stretch, especially given that period photographs seem to show A2 style furniture (fiberlite, rather than aluminium / vinyl acetate stocks, and A2 pistol grips).  While I could see uppers being replaced because of the barrel twist, I don't necessarily see purchasing new pistol grips and fiberlite stocks and retrofitting all the R653s with them.  

As you can see, I prefer what seems to be the simplest theory and the one that seems to be the most consistent with the way I've seen the military, particularly the Army, operate.  That being said, until someone can find a photograph that actually shows the rollmark on one of the 3/75 carbines, I doubt anyone can answer this one beyond the shadow of a doubt, and even then, I could see some room for argument.  Maybe someone can see if they can get the serial numbers of one of the carbines used back then and see if Colt remembers what it left the factory as

HTH,
~Augee

BIG THANX to everyone!, the links were great & between them & the excellent info provided, especially the detailed info by augee I think I have a "factual" basis for my 723 & 727 carbines. Between the info provided & the pics in the links it appears that not only can either model be "correct" w/an A1 or A2 style lower but also there's much more variation in Colt's "A2" lower than we've (at least I've) thought! I've always been under the impression that the differences between A1 & A2 lowers was cut & dried, ie:, the front pivot pin lugs were heavier & more rounded on the A2, that both sides of the rear receiver extension area were "flatter" & fuller, more metal left for reinforcement, looking at the pics in those links showed a load of anomolies, a lower marked A1 w/"A2" style pivot pin (front) lugs, lowers marked A2 with A1 type front pivot pin lugs & "reinforced" A2 receivers that sometimes have an A1 profile on one side or the other! Seems there was a large "transitional" period in lower profiles before they went from A1 to A2 as I've known them before now! It definitely appears you can use basically any lower in any profile for either the 723 or 727 which makes building the replicas much easier, thanks to everyone who responded for all the help!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Wow, best synopsis I've seen written.  Thanks for taking the time to type all that out!  

Yep to the"A2" lower variation.  Compare them to current lowers and you'll see a difference in the pivot pin lug profile and the reinforcement around the receiver extension boss as well.

This is not true as a rule.  Weapons can be adopted without the assignment of a US Army (and likely US Navy) type designation.  The official policy on this, MIL-STD-1464A(AR), Army Nomenclature System, dated 15 May 1987, clearly states:



I don't have any official documentation on whether or not the 723 and 727 were officially adopted, but it would not necessarily have required the assignment of a type designation, especially since they were COTS purchases.


These are no dubious.  You can read the MIL-SPECs yourself.  MIL-C-70599A(AR), Carbine, 5.56mm: M4, dated 20 January 1994, makes no mention of a detachable carry handle or upper receive rail interface.  This is not mentioned in the official MIL-SPEC until Revision B, Detail Specification MIL-DTL-70599B is issued on 5 August 2009.  This is the same for the M4A1.  The XM4 and M4 MIL-SPECs also clearly state the weapons were S-1-3, so that's no up for debate either.  It is not uncommon that design changes are made and incorporated into standardized weapon systems without a change in model number or variant designator either.  The decision was clearly made at some point not to type classify the M4E2 as standard and simply incorporate the hand guard rail system into existing weapons (this is also mentioned in the MIL-DTL for both the M4 and M4A1).

Thatguy96,

Thanks for that little snippet regarding the adoption of foreign or commercial systems regarding COTS purchases.  I had never seen that one before, I'm assuming the same might apply to the use of the Glock 19s and MP7s, ect. that I have also not seen any type-classification for yet, though I don't necessarily know that they don't exist, I haven't closely looked into it.

As far as the first production run of the M4 Carbine being built with fixed carry handles or detachable carry handles, I still doubt that the first production run of true RO920 carbines had fixed carry handles.  However, let me start out by saying, you may be right - the first ones may have had fixed carry handles, I don't think so based on information I have now, but if other information appears, I'm happy to concede the point.  I still believe that Colt's specification for building the RO920 always involved the detachable carry handle, whether or not it was explicitly spelled out in the relevant MILSPEC for the M4.  

Since before the development of the M4 Carbine, Colt seems to have shown interest in the optics rail versus integral carry handle / sights, and re-used several variants of this concept since the R656 model and the ACR prototypes.  It may not have been clearly stated in the MILSPEC, but that does not necessarily mean that they did not possess them, it simply may not have been that important to the writers of the MILSPEC as fixed carry handle RO723s and 727s with fixed carry handles had been in service already.  However, you state that neither the rail nor the optics platform is spelled out until the Rev. B MILSPEC, yet clearly both were in use and standardized long before 2009.  Also, given how model-number happy Colt seems to be, I would think that even if the military had not changed the designation, I would think that Colt would have issued another model number (RO9xx - 919?) for a fixed carry handle variant of the M4, even if it was a single production run which I have not yet seen any indication of.  I still believe that this supposed "1st run of fixed carry handle M4s" were RO727s, and that the USGI M4 Carbine - RO920 was always a detachable carry handle model.  Again, I could be wrong on this as I haven't had a chance to look through every bit of information I should, I simply haven't the time to embark on dedicated research projects as much as I'd like to, but I haven't seen anything conclusive to support that.  What I have seen is a lot of retroactive sightings of RO727s and 723s that were later claimed to be XM4 or first-run or early M4s, which, in this particular semantics game is incorrect.  

From a soldier's standpoint I know good and well that an RO727, a fixed carry handle "XM4", and an RO920 M4 Carbine all do the same thing and are used the same way, and for all intents and purposes are the same damn thing.  From an amateur researcher's perspective, however, there's distinct differences between them.  

As far as any XM4s and M4s being S-1-3 FCGs, that's without a doubt, and I never saw that as a dubious one at all, nor that small changes can be made without necessarily changing the designation, for example changing the stocks from the fiberlite CAR type to the current M4 type.  I think we're in agreement there that changes in configuration don't necessarily mean changes in designation for the military, one way or another, the M4 Carbine of 1994 is definitely a different animal than the M4 Carbine of 2010.  Hell, I could only imagine the headaches that some future researcher might have digging up pictures of my own service weapon one day.

~Augee

I'm pretty sure the rule has been true for some time too and is essentially a DOD-wide understanding.  The USAF adopted the AR-15 in 1961, and no one assigned a type designator to it until a situation as described in the last sentence of the section I quoted.  As it stands the XM16 nomenclature was essentially a paper nomenclature from what I've heard.  The weapons that most often seem to be adopted under their commercial nomenclature are pistols, shotguns, and submachine guns.  It has definitely applied to the MP5s and Uzis in US military inventories for instance.


920 model number clearly specifies a detachable carry handle arrangement.  The 900 series are all detachable carry handle weapons.  The first production run would not have been of 920s, but of 720s with fixed carry handles.


And I agree that the fixed carry handle arrangement could have last for all of a day after the MIL-SPEC was written, but it seems clear to me that the original specification did not include a requirement or a provision for a detachable carry handle.  Like I said, it is not uncommon for relatively major refinements and changes to be incorporated without the assigning of a different type designator.  At some point someone decided that it was important to update the MIL-SPEC to include the relevant details.  From what I can tell, the detachable carry handle option was pretty much in service by the time the M4E1 was standardized as the M4A1.  I have no idea what the original M4E1s were though.  For all I know these could have been fixed carry handle weapons.  The early M16A1E1s are pretty different from the M16A2 right.


Colt already had a model number for these weapons: 720.  If you go to their website, you'll notice that they have listed two commercial numbers for fixed carry handle M4 types, not including the 720, 723, or 727.  They don't even list the fixed-carry handle model in the enhanced series on the website, the 778, or any of the other 720-series carbines (725, 726, 728, 729).  Colt is pretty clearly just as number happy as you suggest.  The 900-series is for detachable carry handle models.  These models generally mirror those in the 700-series, with the carbines being 920, 921, 925, 927, 977, 978, and 979.  I would assume there was a 721, even if no one has ever seen it.


And I'm willing to concede this point.  From what I've since seen, the XM4s were different enough in the tested barrel profiles that it would have been obvious.  It might later turn out that there remains some confusion on the part of those who were issued the weapons as well, but until I see something of a conclusive timeline, I'll stick with everyone else's opinions on this one.

I agree.

I have never seen any proof showing a fixed handled M4.  No pictures, no factory documentation.

All of these leads end up being a 727.

Quoted:
Quoted:
Thanks for that little snippet regarding the adoption of foreign or commercial systems regarding COTS purchases.  I had never seen that one before, I'm assuming the same might apply to the use of the Glock 19s and MP7s, ect. that I have also not seen any type-classification for yet, though I don't necessarily know that they don't exist, I haven't closely looked into it.
I'm pretty sure the rule has been true for some time too and is essentially a DOD-wide understanding.  The USAF adopted the AR-15 in 1961, and no one assigned a type designator to it until a situation as described in the last sentence of the section I quoted.  As it stands the XM16 nomenclature was essentially a paper nomenclature from what I've heard

I'm sure it has been true, I simply didn't know about it until now.  Procurement is not something I deal with professionally so most of what I know about except for little snippets I run into is from independent research on my end, also, the majority of my interest in military equipment is more about once the system itself is in use by the fighting men and women and I learn about procurement, development and adoption as a result of trying to track down how, when and why certain items made it into the service, so I'm not at all ashamed to admit that there are still gaps in my full understanding of the procurement process, supply is something that I avoid like the plague on the work side!

As far as the first production run of the M4 Carbine being built with fixed carry handles or detachable carry handles, I still doubt that the first production run of true RO920 carbines had fixed carry handles.  However, let me start out by saying, you may be right - the first ones may have had fixed carry handles, I don't think so based on information I have now, but if other information appears, I'm happy to concede the point.  I still believe that Colt's specification for building the RO920 always involved the detachable carry handle, whether or not it was explicitly spelled out in the relevant MILSPEC for the M4.
920 model number clearly specifies a detachable carry handle arrangement.  The 900 series are all detachable carry handle weapons.  The first production run would not have been of 920s, but of 720s with fixed carry handles.[/quote]

I think essentially what we disagree on here is not whether or not there should be a different model number or the 9xx series versus the 7xx series, but whether or not the 720 was in fact a production model versus an experimental or pre-production model.  I think that "true" M4 Carbines were always 920s, though we both seem to agree there was a great deal in terms of both operational variants and experimental / preproduction versions prior to the M4 Carbine becoming serially produced type-variant.

Since before the development of the M4 Carbine, Colt seems to have shown interest in the optics rail versus integral carry handle / sights, and re-used several variants of this concept since the R656 model and the ACR prototypes.  It may not have been clearly stated in the MILSPEC, but that does not necessarily mean that they did not possess them, it simply may not have been that important to the writers of the MILSPEC as fixed carry handle RO723s and 727s with fixed carry handles had been in service already.  However, you state that neither the rail nor the optics platform is spelled out until the Rev. B MILSPEC, yet clearly both were in use and standardized long before 2009.[/quote]
And I agree that the fixed carry handle arrangement could have last for all of a day after the MIL-SPEC was written, but it seems clear to me that the original specification did not include a requirement or a provision for a detachable carry handle.  Like I said, it is not uncommon for relatively major refinements and changes to be incorporated without the assigning of a different type designator.  At some point someone decided that it was important to update the MIL-SPEC to include the relevant details.  From what I can tell, the detachable carry handle option was pretty much in service by the time the M4E1 was standardized as the M4A1.  I have no idea what the original M4E1s were though.  For all I know these could have been fixed carry handle weapons.  The early M16A1E1s are pretty different from the M16A2 right.

Agreed for the most part, this simply seems to be a gap that we've collectively not yet fully filled in, but I hope we eventually can.  If we're still making discoveries about aircraft from WWII, I think it's foolish for us to expect to have all the answers now.  

Also, given how model-number happy Colt seems to be, I would think that even if the military had not changed the designation, I would think that Colt would have issued another model number (RO9xx - 919?) for a fixed carry handle variant of the M4, even if it was a single production run which I have not yet seen any indication of.[/quote]
Colt already had a model number for these weapons: 720.  If you go to their website, you'll notice that they have listed two commercial numbers for fixed carry handle M4 types, not including the 720, 723, or 727.  They don't even list the fixed-carry handle model in the enhanced series on the website, the 778, or any of the other 720-series carbines (725, 726, 728, 729).  Colt is pretty clearly just as number happy as you suggest.  The 900-series is for detachable carry handle models.  These models generally mirror those in the 700-series, with the carbines being 920, 921, 925, 927, 977, 978, and 979.  I would assume there was a 721, even if no one has ever seen it.

Again, I agree about the 720 and 9xx series, and Colt seems to have some quite interesting numbering conventions, and they also seem to change over the years, as soon as we think we've got a handle on how they're doing it, they flip it up again.  


What I have seen is a lot of retroactive sightings of RO727s and 723s that were later claimed to be XM4 or first-run or early M4s, which, in this particular semantics game is incorrect.
And I'm willing to concede this point.  From what I've since seen, the XM4s were different enough in the tested barrel profiles that it would have been obvious.  It might later turn out that there remains some confusion on the part of those who were issued the weapons as well, but until I see something of a conclusive timeline, I'll stick with everyone else's opinions on this one.

I think we had a similar discussion about this stuff a year or two back if I recall correctly, always a pleasure!

~Augee

I believe we did.  One of these days someone will find some piece of information hiding somewhere and get it all sorted out.

The fixed handled M4 rumor is easy to refute just by looking at known facts, logic, and timeline.

We know the M4 was adopted in 1994 and the M4A1 in early 1995.

I personally own two 920 uppers from mid 1994, one has a barrel date code of 54 and another with 55.  These barrels have F marked FSBs.

This dates these guns from June/July 1994.

I believe with 100% certainty these are from the first production run of M4s.  I have never seen a 920 barrel with a date earlier than 54.

These two uppers also have standard sling swivels instead of the side mount thing which came out in early 1995.  Which is also consistent with known facts.

Knowing all this, I find it hard to believe any M4 came with a fixed handle.  From the time the M4 deal was finalized, to the existence of these two uppers is only a few months.

Why would Colt produce a fixed handled M4 and then only a few month later change to a flattop?  The flattop AR15 was in existence before 1994 and came on the 6700.

Its not like the M4 was the first AR15 with a flattop, which is also a common myth.

All this coupled with no factory documentation or any photographic proof of any fixed handled US property marked carbine, it is hard to argue otherwise.

Colt has a history of producing whatever the customer wants.  That's how we ended up with the forward assist.  If we let Colt dictate what the next big thing was as far as military standards, the M16A3 would have been a gas-piston service rifle.  Why wouldn't the US Army have wanted a weapon with parts interchangeability with the standard service rifle of the time?  On a related note, the base MIL-SPEC on the M16A4 isn't issued until 5 August 2009, when it appears that the flattop configuration became the going standard across the boards officially, despite the realities that had existed for some time.


Colt didn't start producing fixed carry handle M4-types in 1994 either.  The MIL-STD for the XM4 is dated 1989.  I can easily see that Colt would produce a first run of weapons to the initial specification.  There is clear photographic evidence of fixed carry handle XM4s with the various tested barrel profiles.  The A2 upper itself as it appeared on the M16A2 dates to before 11 September 1985, when the first revision for its MIL-SPEC was issued.  Colt clearly had access to this configuration.


I'll concede that there isn't a picture readily available of an XM4 or an M4 that clearly shows the property markings with a fixed carry handle.  However, there is government documentation that pretty clearly shows or otherwise describes this configuration.

External Barrel and Handguard Temperature of the 5.56mm M4 Carbine, Final Report, dated September 1994, has a badly reproduced image (page 8) and line drawings (pages 10 and 19-20) which clearly show a fixed carry handle.

The Effect of Gender, Rifle Stock Length, and Rifle Weight on Military Marksmanship and Arm-Hand Steadiness, dated August 1997, has badly reproduced images (page 6) and a relevant note about fixed carry handle weapons.  The note, on page 5, clearly states:



Just look at TM 9-1005-319-10, up to Change 3, dated 1 May 1994.  It shows only the M4A1 as having the detachable carry handle.  In other instances where features common to both models are described, the term "M4/M4A1" is used.  This is how it appears in the 1998 edition, up to Change 6, which shows both carbines as having the detachable carry handle and flat top upper.

I don't know that I would put very much faith in the general arrangement drawings in reports and manuals.  I have the MK18 Mod 0 manual as well, and some of the drawings depict it with a carry handle as well, or with a rifle buffer or even a full A2 stock, which I'm sure we all agree is not the correct configuration.  On the other hand, while the photographs in the report are way too grainy to conclusively say either way, it appears to have a detachable carry handle.

~Augee

Yes I see that.   But like Augee said, guns used in experiments are not a representation of mass production or what was issued.

Yes I know this, but all this goes back to them tinkering with a 727 in the development of the M4 10 years prior to 1994.

None of this goes beyond 1994.

The Mk 18 is an entirely different beast in my mind.  It comes out of a program in which weapons were cobbled together from various different sources and there are a large number of configurations that were subsequently grouped under a single type designator.  I don't know why we can't trust the technical manual in this regard.  It seems pretty conclusive to me.  Otherwise, there would have been no need to change it three more times by 1998.


I can appreciate that, but it doesn't explain away the clear usage of the term "M4A1" instead of "M4/M4A1" in the TM, where both terms are present.


Why not?  Colt has clearly continued to produce the fixed carry handle option since then.  Its not like it ceased to be available or even marketed by them.  Again, that Colt has offered something new has generally not had any affect on whether or not there was a military requirement for it.  

The M16A2E4 doesn't appear until mid-1997.  I can easily see that the M4A1 was flat top from the beginning, because its intended users had need for this capability.  However, as far as the US Army was concerned, those who were intended to be issued M4 carbines probably did not, just as regular grunts did not need this capability on their service rifles.  The adoption of the M16A4 in late 1997 matches up with the issue of a further revised TM in 1998, in which all of the M4 carbines have become flat top.  With the adoption of the M16A4 it would have made sense to make this shift, since it, again, retained commonality with the standard service rifle.

I know Colt continued to make fixed handle carbine for the commercial market.  

If you look at pictures US soldiers in Bosnia in the mid to late 1990s every M4 has a flattop.

I would say it would be just as hard to tell in those pictures between an M4 and an M4A1 as it would be to find a picture of a fixed carry handle M4 with property marks.  Therefore we are both left unsatisfied.

Furthermore, seeing as I am in agreement that after 1998 (and probably after 1997), the M4 shared the flat top, any pictures from the late 1990s should have the flat top.

EDIT- I'm having trouble locating pictures of US Army soldiers in Bosnia from 1995-1998 at all, let alone those showing them with carbines.  The vast majority of them show them with rifles (M16A2s, which were the standard service rifle at the time).  I did find this one, dated 1996, which does show a flat top carbine.  Not knowing the unit, its impossible to say that this isn't an M4A1 (the picture caption says "Special Forces," which would imply to me an M4A1, but I doubt this is correct).

What about the Abu Dabi (sp?) carbines? I've seen one pic that looks like they may have actually used LMG uppers (no FA). I would really like to see whatever drawings / pics Augee was referring to of the Mk18 with fixed stock/and or carry handle. I find it interesting that some Mk18's were built by Crane with A1 lowers. I'm wondering if these were refurbished M16A1 lowers supplied to them by the Navy, NOS or what.

I'm just making a guess, but perhaps some 727's were rebarreled in the field at company armorer level, (perhaps simply because they were shot out) with what was in the pipeline at the time, the stepped M4 barrel. It's really difficult to know for sure, but there must be some Rangers out there somewhere who were operational in that theater and timeframe who could tell us. I think it's just a matter of time before the mystery is resolved, but FWIW, in Kevin Dockery's ' Weapons of the Navy Seals'  he says after describing the M16A2 carbine:

" Another version of the M16A2 carbine is seeing duty with the SEAL teams and is being much more enthusiastically received than the M16A2 rifle. The M4 carbine is another shortened version of the M16A2 but retains many of the features found on the full-sized rifle. The sights on the M4 are the same log-range adjustable sights found on the M16A2. The M4 also has the heavier barrel, fourth model flash hider, and brass deflector as the M16A2."

He goes on to describe the stepped barrel, then makes reference to the Colt model 720 as being an M4 carbine with 3-round burst and the 'Colt model 727 M4 carbine' as being full auto. THEN he says:

"As of February 1994, Special Operations Command (SOCOM) awarded a contract to Colt for production of 5,000 to 6,000 M4A1 carbines. The new model, Colt model 927, is intended specifically for Special Operations forces including the SEALs. Firing settings for the M4A1 will be full and semiautomatic, with the sights, barrel and other aspects retained from the standard M4 carbine. The major change will be in the rear sight system"
Then he says:

"The M4A1 will be equipped with the Pictinny Rail mounting located under the removable carrying handle. The carrying handle will retain the standard M16A2 rear sight but can be removed to allow different sighting devices to be mounted."

At the end of the paragraph he says: "Production of the M4A1 was planned to begin in May 1994."

Now, this is simply what what one man has written, but it seems clear to me that the 'standard' M4 carbine he was referring to had an A2 upper and the A1 was an improvement. It makes it a little confusing because some people have referred to the main difference between an M4 and M4A1 was the return to FA. What if this was not true? What if M4A1 uppers were later put on model 720's? From what I have read of both Colt's use of whatever is laying around, and the military's penchant for simple upgrades (like dropping a new upper on an old A1 lower - something that has been known to happen) it wouldn't surprise me. It also wouldn't surprise me if BOTH 3-shot burst and FA M4 models (920/927)were produced at the same time, since that seems to be the case with the 720 and 727. After reading this, I would have to contend that in testing the M4, SEALs were instrumental in the development of the flattop receiver, or at least in it's adoption. I would suspect that carry handle (A2) 'M4's' were in fact produced, but the superiority of the new carry handle system won out - perhaps there were never more than 5,000 or 6,000 ever produced, before adoption of the new system became widespread. Those uppers, which were likely tested heavily, may have been shot out or surplussed.

Here are some carry-handle M4 uppers for sale BTW:

Carry handle M4 uppers

ETA: Here is a GB auction (not mine) by same company for an 'early M4 upper' that uses a C7 A1 upper. BTW, this variant of the 723 is shown in Ekie's carbine variant guide at the top of the page.

Early C7 upper M4

Looking at their website, yes, carryhandle M4s seem to have existed. Wish I could afford one of those uppers.

I've always read the UAE carbines were 727s.  The impetuous for the stepped M4 barrel came from this contract, UAE wanted a thicker A2 profile barrel but the ability to mount an M203 on it.  So, 727s have always had the stepped M4 barrel.

Also, I remember a TV program in the mid-late 90s, on Discovery IIRC, about SEALs and one of them was being interviewed about the weapons and he clearly mentioned the "Colt 727 Carbine."  This was the big, kinda goofy guy with the mustache.

ETA:  Video I'm recollecting is from the same series as this one:  http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c4b_1198076516

I am becoming more and more convinced that the M4A1 was a flat top from the start, whatever the details are provided in the MIL-SPEC.  However, I can't find a copy of the base MIL-SPEC for it, which should be for the M4E1, which might well have simply been a full-auto M4, and changed to a flat top by the time the weapon was actually adopted (again, see the massive changes to the M16A1E1 by the time it was adopted as the M16A2).  

From what I can tell, no one thought it important enough to make the differentiation in the MIL-SPEC until 2009, when the BUIS became a standard issue item, rather than the carry handle.  It appears that since the sighting system on the carry handle was effectively the same whether or not the carry handle was fixed or not meant that no one saw a need to explain this in the MIL-SPEC.  The shift to the BUIS apparently required it to be clarified.  The move to the BUIS was formalized in MWO 9-1005-319-20-1, which came out sometime in late 2007.  There was a Preventive Maintenance Monthly (PS Magazine) article in January 2008, which can be found here (Begins page 18).  For those interested in the first part of this segment, published in February 2004, that's here (Begins page 14)

I guess I don't know what you are trying to say.  From 1995 to 1998 is a long time.  If there was a fixed handled M4 made during this time, we would see more of these in pictures and more of these uppers would be available on the commercial market.

Originally, the M4s were destined to "replace all M3 .45 caliber submachine guns and selected M9 pistols and M16 rifle series."  The details were that "Infantry personnel receiving the M4 include platoon leaders, platoon sergeants, radio-telephone operators, and mortar gunners. The pistols carried by Infantry commanders, executive officers, and operations officers will not be replaced."

This seems like a pretty limited issue to me and to places where they might not have been readily seen.  I don't see why its hard to imagine that the number of these carbines is relatively low in general, and I've never suggested there were a large number of them.  I've only suggested that they did exist.

Also, from the original M4A1 Basis of Issue Plan (BOIP):



This supports my position that the M4A1 would have had the flattop, while the regular carbines would not have had it, based on the assumption that SOF units needed the capability, while regular grunts did not.

Not sure if this will help any... In the Operator's Manual For: M16A2 Carbine, Commando, 9mm SMG & M4 Carbine (1993) it shows the following;
The only differences specifically stated between the M16A2 Carbine and M4 is single vs. double heat shield handguards, normal sling swivel vs. side sling swivel, full auto vs. burst, and 5.98lb vs. 6.18lb. It says that some models are available with a flat top upper receiver that may or may not be numbered and states the difference in sight adjustments between the two.
Dustin

If you read what Mr. Dockery says, (in my previous post) it indicates that the fixed handle M4 was in service prior to 1994. Production numbers may have been very low as the flattop was immediately deemed to be a better system.

Those would be COTS 727s

From what Morg posted, Dockery specifically mentions both.  Do you have any evidence to back up your claims?  You might not agree with my sources, but I've posted a fair amount of information to back up my position.  So far, you seem to be backing yours up with "No, that's wrong."

Yeah, but Dockery refers to both the 720 and 727 as M4s when we know they are not, they are M16A2 Carbines.  Yes, it's true they share essentially the same feature sets as the M4, but that's where the problem comes in.  It becomes an issue of semantics.  People call everything that looks like an M4 an M4 even if it's technically not.




ETA:  According to the timeline posted here the UAE ordered their 727s in 1987.  Concurrent testing and developemnt of the XM4 was ongoing until the Marine Corps dropped the program from its budget in April 1987 which essentually put the M4 in limbo for the time being as far as the military was concerned.  The next year in 1988, NAVSPECWAR began purchasing 727s.

Tonight on the outdoor chanel, American Rifleman the are discussing the Colt M4.

In an interview with Kevin Brown, VP of government Programs, Colt Defense says,

"The original contract for the M4, the first quantity built here were actually inergrel carrying handles. It wasn't until you went to the flat top and went to what was origanaly the weaver rail system that evolved into the picatiny rail system. And it was once you cut off the flat top and you had the rails on both sidesn and you could start marrying other things to it. Thats really where the M4 starts to get the momentum, the M4 then takes on a life of it's own."

That is straight from the horses mouth. pun intended

It did not give numbers or time frame. Jsut that statement.

The Black Rifle II mentions on pages 82-84 that:

"Only the XM4 prototypes and one lot of M4 carbines were produced in the fixed carrying handle configuration...  Colt introduced their new "flat top" upper receiver in 1992, and early carbines shipped with the flat-top upper receiver and were called the Colt M4A1 carbine, even though this nomenclature predated the U.S. Government's assignation of the M4A1 designation.  In 1994, when Colt began shipping two types of M4 carbines to the U.S. Government, the designations were officially altered to reflect the fact that while both carbines were built on flat-top upper receivers, the M4 retained the BURST control, while the M4A1 utilized the AUTO fire mode."

It appears that, at one point there were (and probably still are) a small number of fixed carry handle M4s floating around out there.

As much as I like this because it supports my arguments, I think Bartocci has his timeline a little confused here (or it was otherwise written in a confusing manner).  The M4 and M4A1 designations both appear in 1994.  Prior to 1994, it was the XM4.  If one lot of production M4s (M4 as understood as a government, not a commercial designation) were produced (as I believe they were), it would have had to have been during the initial deliveries in 1994.  

The government nomenclature was never altered either, only the understanding of what this meant.  As I had said previously, this is no the first case of changes being incorporated without the assignment of a new type designator.  I'm not sure what he means by " early carbines shipped with the flat-top upper receiver" either.  These should have been known as M4E1s prior to 1994.  There is, of course, the possibility that the M4E1 nomenclature was retroactively applied, similar to the XM16 nomenclature.

I think my points can be summed up as follows:

1 - The original XM4 carbine was in development prior to the appearance of the modified Weaver rail system in 1990 (the MIL-STD-1913 rail system) and had a fixed carry handle.

2 - Those in charge of the development and procurement of the M4 deemed that the original intended users had no need for the rail capability and that there was no need to provide this functionality.  Additionally, this would retain additional commonality with the standard service rifle, the M16A2.  Similarly, a specific variant, the M4A1, with this feature, and the fully-automatic fire capability, was developed for end users who did need this capability, that is to say Special Operations Forces.

3 - Experiences quickly showed the value of the rail equipped configuration, leading to the decision (unclear when), to include this capability on the basic M4 carbine.  Based on the official technical manual, I believe this change was made between 1996 and 1998.  It seems even more logical when paired up with the similar decision made for the M16A2 rifle in the mid-1990s, leading to the M16A2E4 in 1997, which was formally adopted as the M16A4 in 1998.  The regular issue carbines and service rifles would again match in configurations.

4 - No changes were made to the MIL-SPEC for the M4 carbine as a result because the change from the fixed carry handle to a detachable carry handle had no effect on the requirements for the sighting system.  The MIL-SPEC was only modified in 2009 as a result of the detachable carry handle no longer being standard issue, having been officially replaced by a BUIS in a MWO issued that year.  The MIL-SPEC for the M16A4 was similarly changed on the same date for the same reason.

Some more fuel to the fire;

When I worked in Army supply, I sometimes got bored and would look up on Fedlog and other sources about COTS weapon purchases.

There was a proper NSN for a M4 with fixed carry handle. The part number was "727".. The NSN was different then the current one that we were using for the removable carry handle.

Older listings from the JOS warehouse ( a sort of lending closest for SOCOM) listed "M16A2 carbine M4", It listed a local NSN, meaning a COTS purchased type item.

Various Army manuals, both operator and repair show the M4 as fixed handle.. The flattop M4A1 is shown as well.

Bushmaster, only had minor tools and two Vmatch rifles..


The same  FEDLOG disc still had info for XM16E1s, and Thompsons.

Was the NSN for this "fixed carry handle M4" 1005-01-376-7245?  That's the NSN for the 727.  The NSN for the M4 is 1005-01-231-0973, for the M4E1/A1 is 1005-01-382-0953, and for the M4E2 is 1005-01-383-2835.  I have a Local Stock/Local Item Control Number (LSN) for the 723 too, which is 1005-LL-L99-5287.  

Anyone interested in a in-progress excel table I'm working on of official designations broken into categories, covering the item's Army Type Designator, Federal-Approved-Item Name, Extended Modifier (if applicable), Minor Modifier (if applicable), FSN/NSN/LSN, along with minor notes, just PM me an Email address.  This is part of a number of projects I've been doing on the side to have obtuse information like this in one place.

Jeeze, missed a bit, didn't I?  

I don't know that I would necessarily take Dockery's work to be anything more than a general guideline, while I haven't read his book myself, looking at reviews of it online, ect. it seems to be more like one of those "survey" type books, often good in general information, but often failing when it comes to more specific details, and not often taken seriously as an academic source.  This is not limited just to this subject, for example a researcher wanting detailed information about specific medieval fortifications and tactics does not go to "Castles of the Middle Ages" for serious information.  While I applaud Dockery's efforts to provide a good survey of Navy SEAL weapons, often the limitation of books with such expansive subject matter is simply the lack of time the author has to devote to the minutia of individual topics.  

The same thing goes, I regret for the heresay of a Colt's employee, even a high ranking one, studying things like aircraft development, ect. I've found that company sources are often some of the worst because they're flatly believed yet often mistaken.  Simply put, not all employees, especially at an executive capacity are walking encyclopedias of the history of the company, again, particularly where it comes to minutia.   In the meantime, since the late nineties, it's been "common knowledge" that the first runs of M4s were fixed carry handle versions, so it wouldn't surprise me to hear that no one had really dug into the company records to verify this, because it's irrelevant to their current business.  Manufacturing companies are often less concerned with historical details than the average enthusiast, remember that Colt also traded the entire toolroom collection of prototypes - and much of the history contained therein to Reed Knight for the rights to the... what was that pistol called again?  Oh right, it was a commercial failure and discontinued and no one really cares what it was called... (it was marketed as the "All-American 2000," by the way).

Finally, with regards to TBR II, which is an excellent book, and the basis of probably a lot of the research that we do, and both TBR and TBR II are great references that have fueled a lot of what we do here in the Retro forum, some of the information in it is not 100% accurate and/or somewhat dated, and Chris Bartocci himself has made statements to that effect here in the Retro forum.  

Thatguy96 has posted a great deal of good information regarding BIOP and various gaps in our collective knowledge of the pre-production variants of the M4, but none of them clearly addresses the issue of whether or not the earliest production M4 Carbines did or did not have fixed carry handle uppers.  The NSNs are getting us closer to the issues at hand, and he offers a good, well reasoned argument for why he believes that the first production run of M4s were fixed carry handle variants, however, I disagree, again, based on arguments that I have already detailed, and to an extent on the fact that depsite having served with soldiers from the 82nd Airborne and 101st, ect. and other such units that would have been amongst the first to be issued the original M4s, I have yet to see any of these fabled fixed carry handle M4s, not has anyone posted any direct evidence that such a beast existed.  I have seen quite a few 727s floating around, and I have always asked to see the roll-marks, and they have always, invaraibly turned out to have been commerical/export rollmarks, rather than US Property rollmarks.  Now, this is not a very conclusive argument, as I make no claims to have seen every carbine out there, but considering the many esoteric variants that have been spotted and reported on "in the wild," including a Bushmaster manufactured lower receiver in the tech forums with an unclear provenance it interests me that no proof seems to exist for fixed carry handle M4s.  More likely, in my opinion, is that after the M4 was type classified and adopted, the RO727s in circulation continued to be in circulation and were reissued as "M4 Carbines," which is what they are, in most property books, now listed as.  Your average supply geek is not going to seperate 727s and M4s on their inventory, they're simply going to lump them together, resulting in servicemembers getting issued "M4s" which were in fact 727s, which, at the time, before anyone really knew what an M4 was would seem reasonable - "see, it's got a heavier barrel than the old CAR-15..." and it was not until true M4s with detachable carry handles showed up did anyone know there was a difference.

The same thing has happened with other pieces of equipment as well, for example, a unit requesting AN/PEQ-2As that they were authorized to carry on the MTOE, but there not being enough in the inventory, resulting in the unit being drop shipped several crates full of AN/PAQ-4Cs.  The vast majority of your soldiers would not know the difference to the point of referring to their PAQ-4 as a PEQ-2, or my personal favorite, a "PAC-2."  You might, in the future run into a bunch of people who insist that the PEQ-2A was originally shipped without an illuminator, because at the time, they hadn't known or cared that what they were being issued as a "PEQ-2" was in fact a PAQ-4C.  

It's my hope, of course, since in this case, it will be far easier to prove in the positive than in the negative, maybe if we can raise awareness, someone will come forth and be able to produce documentation of a US Property marked M4 Carbine with a fixed carry handle upper and appropriate proof marks and a '94 marked barrel with the correct features and matching feedramps and provide much more convincing evidence that such beasts existed, either that or direct production documents or company records from Colt stating that a change was being made to M4 Carbine production to include the flat top upper receiver.  Or perhaps a first draft copy of the M4 Carbine TDP, which I think we all agree will be much more detailed and accurate than the MILSPEC.  

Until then, however, I'm forced to say that while it is a possibility that some may have existed, I doubt that the fixed carry handle M4 Carbine existed as a production variant.  

~Augee

ETA: Thatguy96 - I'd love to take a look at that document you're putting together, I'll shoot you a PM with my e-mail address!

I still want to see some type of factory documentation or photo.

That still does not prove anything.  He could be refering to a 727 and being fast and loose with the terminology for a TV show.

I'm not saying a fixed handled M4 doesn't exist or was made.  I just want to see some more concrete proof other then some transitional situations going between a 727 and the real M4.

That was my complete and utter extent of information I have. That's all I've got. Everyone in this discussion knows alot more about it than I do.

Proof the earth isn't flat.

How MUCH proof does a guy need?

1. Kevin Dockery says so. (production 5,000-6,000 minimum)
2. A Colt spokesman says so.
3. People in the service with access to NSN numbers say so.
4. Other people who've seen them in service say so.
5. Pics of uppers sold by a company that specializes in Military/Police Colt resale (see above)

Personally I think a pic is worth a thousand words.

SR are you a lawyer by any chance?

They want to see a matching property marked lower to prove those aren't 727 uppers, or some sort of clear cut government documentation detailing the change in writing (I still don't understand why the manual is no a good indication of this).  I guess I don't think its unreasonable, because I'm not satisfied that the carbines pictured aren't M4A1s without being able to see the lower either hehe.

Morg, I don't need much proof, just the right proof.

Dockery is suspect for reasons I already stated, as is the Colt spokesman, now if we could get Chris Bartocci in here, I might change my tune a little bit, he's a legitimate researcher with access to far more documentation and a lot closer to Colt's than me.

The SM that posted NSNs has not yet clarified whether or not the NSN for the "fixed carry handle M4" is in fact the NSN for a 727 or not, but the part number is suspiciously "727," coincidence?  Perhaps, but it's still ambiguous right now.  

What other people who have seen them in the service?  Most of the ones who have claimed to have seen fixed carry handle M4s in the service either saw them years ago and often did not or still do not know the distinction between a 727 and an M4 Carbine, like I said, from the SM's point of view, they do the same thing and damn near look the same, is there really any difference?  Well, the answer is "not practically," but if we worried about practicality, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  

I've spoken to the folks at Fidelis Firearms and they've said that they use the term "M4" in the generic, not the specific, more people know what an M4 is, but not an RO727, so from a marketing and business standpoint, it's simply easier to call them "early M4 uppers" because for all intents and purposes, one could describe the 727 that way.  But there's no indication to prove that those uppers came off of U.S. Government production M4 Carbines.  

As far as the manuals go, you and I must have vastly different experiences with manuals, because I won't trust the drawings in them, not after I've seen drawings where you can clearly see where parts and pieces have literally been cut and pasted - this is analog we're talking about here, real scissors and glue, on to other drawings to produce things that generally resemble what they're supposed to represent.  

It's not about quantity, it's about quality.

~Augee

I was just referring to what others had posted in this thread. I guess we may never know how the lowers were marked. It's like an early CQB upper going on an existing M16A1 lower - does that NOT make it a Mk18? We're talking semantics here IMO. Property marked or not, small quantities of carry handle carbines using M4 barrels were apparently built. If they had M16A2 marked lowers, does that not make them an M4?

What I like about this kind of discussion is that sooner or later we may actually find out how the lowers were marked, which is a point of interest. It's just not a point of contention for me. It's enough for me that carryhandle carbines with M4 profile barrels apparently existed, no matter what you want to call them. I personally don't believe all these were AF franken carbines, and in fact the Colt spokesman indicated that they left the factory this way. A Colt spokesman saying the first M4s left the factory with carryhandle uppers is not good enough? I guess I don't understand that. I feel like I'm trying to cut a steak with a spoon.

Augee - do you have a link to pics of the early Mk18s you mentioned? I'd love to see pics. I'm just into 'unusual variants' of any sort. Thanks - Morg

Morg,

Early MK18s?  Did I mention those?  

To answer your question though... no, unless it was put together that way by Crane, a CQBR upper that ends up on an M16A1 lower is not a MK18.

Just like a 14.5" M4 upper on a GUU-5P lower is not an M4, no matter what the zoomies say.  

You're absolutely correct about one thing, though, this is a semantic argument,  it is the definition of "academic," to 99.999% of the world, whether a carry handled carbine with a notched barrel is called an "M4" by one guy or a "727" or "XM4" or whatever else is irrelevant, but to a very few of us, for inscrutable reasons of our own enjoy discussing the small details and figuring out the semantic details.  I'm not foolish enough to think that everyone else cares, I'm just glad that here in the retro forum there are other people that do.

~Augee

We're here for your Augee.    

Not talking about the drawings.  I agree the drawings could easily be wrong.  The TM on this website only lists the M4A1 as having the detachable carry handle.  It clearly references features that are common using the term "M4/M4A1" and uses the separate designations for features that are not common.  The detachable carry handle is listed only as M4A1.