User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 1:02:34 AM EDT
It is built from a Colt M16A1 parts kit, with a Nodak Spud NDS-16A1 lower receiver, and a Colt AR-15 fire control group:
Without magazine or sling, it weighs 7 lbs. 1.7 oz. But according to this page from a U.S. Army marksmanship manual, an M16A1 without magazine or sling weighs 6.35 lbs. (6 lbs., 5.6 oz). So my rifle weighs 12.1 oz. more than an M16A1. 12.1 oz. is 1 oz. more than a fully loaded 20-round USGI magazine weighs. Where is that extra weight coming from? I understand that the M16A1 lower receiver has extra material milled out of it, but certainly not anything even remotely approaching ¾ lb. worth. Plus it gains some, if not all, of that weight back by having an auto-sear. An entire AR-15 lower receiver weighs less than 9 oz., so you obviously can't mill away 12.1 oz. from it. For people who have rifles similar to mine: how much do they weigh? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 1:20:19 AM EDT
[#1]
Maybe your scale is off.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 1:22:55 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe your scale is off. It definitely isn't. Not only have I tested the scale with known weights (such as a cup of water), but I've also used it to weigh packages for which I intend to print out USPS shipping labels, and when they weigh the packages at the post office, the weights are always correct, right down to a tenth of an ounce. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 1:27:14 AM EDT
[#3]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 1:37:31 AM EDT
[#4]
Sounds like you have a good scale then. Maybe there is something in the trapdoor of the buttstock?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 1:45:50 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryThere's nothing in the buttstock, not even the cleaning kit. The barrel is not Colt; it is the barrel that came with the unissued M16A1 parts kits that were available about 6 years ago, which is, according to what people were saying at the time: 1:9 twist, 5.56 chambered, non chrome lined, and made by Citadel They are made to the same dimensions as Colt M16A1 barrels though, so it shouldn't affect the weight by any significant amount. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 1:52:32 AM EDT
[#6]
Do you have any other full size retro rifles you can weigh to compare it to?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 1:55:27 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you have any other full size retro rifles you can weigh to compare it to? No. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 2:31:52 AM EDT
[#8]
If it's too heavy for you, I'm sure your girl could carry it for you
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 2:46:54 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If it's too heavy for you, I'm sure your girl could carry it for you How's the weather out there this morning, in deep, deep left field? This is a technical question, i.e., what accounts for the weight difference between my rifle and an M16A1? If my rifle were 12.1 oz. lighter than an M16A1, the thread title would be: Why is my rifle so light? Then I suppose your reply would be: "If it's too light for you, I'm sure your girl could carry it for you", which would be an equally asinine reply. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 3:18:58 AM EDT
[#10]
I hate (but secretly love) to state the obvious - but you've got the answer right before you.
Take it apart and weigh the parts. Some of your parts are heavier than GI parts, or it would weigh what a 196x M16A1 did. Maybe your screws are fat or made of denser metal, or something along those lines. You want the answers, break it down and give us YOUR measurements, then those who have piecemeal components may choose to weigh theirs and compare. But you are the supplicant, so don't just expect us all to weigh our rifles - you gotta give to get. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 3:47:24 AM EDT
[#11]
Mine is six pounds eight ounces. My problem was I drooled on it.??
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 3:50:35 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hate (but secretly love) to state the obvious - but you've got the answer right before you. Take it apart and weigh the parts. Some of your parts are heavier than GI parts, or it would weigh what a 196x M16A1 did. Maybe your screws are fat or made of denser metal, or something along those lines. You want the answers, break it down and give us YOUR measurements, then those who have piecemeal components may choose to weigh theirs and compare. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hate (but secretly love) to state the obvious - but you've got the answer right before you. Take it apart and weigh the parts. Some of your parts are heavier than GI parts, or it would weigh what a 196x M16A1 did. Maybe your screws are fat or made of denser metal, or something along those lines. You want the answers, break it down and give us YOUR measurements, then those who have piecemeal components may choose to weigh theirs and compare. All of the parts are GI with the exception of the barrel (which has the GI dimensions/profile), the lower receiver, and the fire control group (which is commercial Colt). Also, the GI parts (which were all from a single, unissued M16A1) were made in the late '70s from what I've read, not the '60s. But you are the supplicant, so don't just expect us all to weigh our rifles - you gotta give to get. I already did give the weight of my rifle. If someone doesn't want to weigh theirs, why would they want to do the much more tedious job of weighing each piece separately? Also, I don't expect anything, nor am I a supplicant in this context. If you don't want to weigh your rifle, then don't, and that's an actual case of stating the obvious. If others have rifles that weigh about the same as mine, my conclusion would be that the Army manual is wrong, or there were different versions of the M16A1 with significantly different weights. I can already see that the Army manual is wrong on at least one thing though, which is: It gives the weight of the M16A1 as 6.35 lbs. and the weight of the M1 sling as 0.40 lbs. Then it says that the M16A1 with sling and loaded 20-round magazine weighs 6.75 lbs. If that were true, it would mean that the loaded 20-round magazine weighs absolutely nothing. Also, it gives the weight of the M16A1 with sling and loaded 30-round magazine as 7.06 lbs., and if that were true it would mean that the loaded 30-round magazine only weighs 0.31 lbs., when in fact it weighs more than 3 times that much (about 1 lb.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 3:56:26 AM EDT
[#13]
Think you're going to find the barrel isn't as close to original LW spec as you believe it is. Most the LW profiles I've seen aren't. The mfgs all mean well. All supposedly used a milspec drawing. I just wonder where they got the drawings because they don't measure the same as my Colt barrels.
Never actually used a Citadel. Those were in the white originally with the kits. Wonder who and what it was coated with? My Colts are 6.5 lbs on my scales less mag which scales aren't the best. Close enough. My Brownells 20" barrel is a little lighter (thinner under HG's) at 6.25 lbs both with A-2 style receivers but everything else is M-16 Colt unless possibly GM or H&R furniture. Have more than 1. Measure length of the step from chamber to where it thins under HG's. Guessing it's more meat in this taper area on your barrel. Most I've seen use 0.980 blanks, Taper varies from mfg to mfg. What is thickness of barrel under HG's? Should be 0.670 in. What is measurement of barrel from FSB forward? 0.580 in.? How much step at FSB? All relevant to added weight. Measurement under HG's going off memory but FSB forward is actual Colt LW with calipers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 3:57:25 AM EDT
[#14]
You say GI, but I don't believe you - I think you sourced what you might have thought were GI parts, but didn't know what was what when you got it.
Weigh the upper and lower separately, for starters - we can go from there, when we find where you're heavy. ETA: I bet a lot of it's in the barrel.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 4:15:57 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You say GI, but I don't believe you - I think you sourced what you might have thought were GI parts, but didn't know what was what when you got it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
You say GI, but I don't believe you - I think you sourced what you might have thought were GI parts, but didn't know what was what when you got it. Is that a joke? Plenty of people here are familiar with the M16A1 parts kits that were available about 6 years ago. They were rifles that were sold to Israel in the late 1970s, put in storage, never used, then in 2010, imported back to retailers in the United States, after destroying the lower receivers and, for whatever reason, the barrels and handguards. Lots of people here bought them, and they sold out quickly. They were 100% USGI (they even included the auto-sear and the rest of the M16 fire control group), with the exception of the barrel. They threw in used handguards, which were also USGI, but everything else was in unused condition. Weigh the upper and lower separately, for starters - we can go from there, when we find where you're heavy. That's a good idea. Quoted:
Think you're going to find the barrel isn't as close to original LW spec as you believe it is. Most the LW profiles I've seen aren't. The mfgs all mean well. All supposedly used a milspec drawing. I just wonder where they got the drawings because they don't measure the same as my Colt barrels. Never actually used a Citadel. Those were in the white originally with the kits. Wonder who and what it was coated with? My Colts are 6.5 lbs on my scales less mag which scales aren't the best. Close enough. My Brownells 20" barrel is a little lighter (thinner under HG's) at 6.25 lbs both with A-2 style receivers but everything else is M-16 Colt unless possibly GM or H&R furniture. Have more than 1. Measure length of the step from chamber to where it thins under HG's. Guessing it's more meat in this taper area on your barrel. Most I've seen use 0.980 blanks, Taper varies from mfg to mfg. What is thickness of barrel under HG's? Should be 0.670 in. What is measurement of barrel from FSB forward? 0.580 in.? How much step at FSB? All relevant to added weight. Measurement under HG's going off memory but FSB forward is actual Colt LW with calipers. Very interesting. I bought mine from GunThings.com, and unlike some of the other sellers which had the same kits, GunThings had the in-the-white Citadel barrels parkerized before selling their kits, and they installed the FSB as well. The parkerizing was a very good match for the original Colt parkerizing, such as on the flash hider. I'll check those diameters on the barrel later and report back. I'll also weigh the upper and lower separately. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 4:23:56 AM EDT
[#16]
Never really weighed any type E stocks but type D's depending on sub contract mfg easily vary a few ozs. Don't remember any differing more than 1/4 lb but way back when, we tried to build them as light and inexpensive as possible and would actually use the lightest surplus components on hand. Don't remember anyone building for less than $400 or lighter than 6 lbs without using a Cav lower.
Without weighing your barrel (heaviest component) or a Colt probably not going to get anywhere. All mine are assembled and not pulling apart. I've weighed lots of carriers and bolts and never really saw much difference between chrome or parked ( grains / 0.00 / hundredths of oz.) when talking USGI M-16 so not much difference in this area IMO. Aluminum upper or lower isn't going to be much either. Start coating and weight is going up over anodizing. Difference is more than likely in barrel, stock or both. Some HG's are heavier also but figure an oz or two at most. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 4:53:41 AM EDT
[#17]
My money is on the barrel being the culprit too. Densest metal part to start with, so...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 5:15:07 AM EDT
[#18]
The barrel dimensions are:
- 0.980" at the breech end - 0.880" length of the taper (approximately; hard to measure that precisely) - The thin part under the handguards tapers from 0.670" at the breech end to 0.600" just before the FSB - 0.625" for the thicker area that the FSB mounts to - 0.566" forward of the FSB, and then it tapers up to 0.600" just before the flash hider 0.980" --> 0.670" --> 0.600" --> 0.625" --> 0.566" --> 0.600" |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 5:56:32 AM EDT
[#19]
Buy some titanium internals maybe?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 8:42:09 AM EDT
[#20]
Where is the balance point. We can compare there. Also what buffer and bolt? BCG weight can add a bit. Im guessing you have a few ounces here and there one some of the newer parts adding up
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 9:08:18 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where is the balance point. We can compare there. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where is the balance point. We can compare there. If I remove the magazine, I can balance it on my finger across the bottom of the magazine well, all the way toward the front of it (front meaning toward the muzzle). Also what buffer and bolt? BCG weight can add a bit. Im guessing you have a few ounces here and there one some of the newer parts adding up Everything is late '70s USGI M16A1, except the barrel, FCG, and lower receiver. I gave the dimensions of the barrel in my previous post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 9:33:18 AM EDT
[#22]
According to my cheap plastic postal scale (10lbs max weight, purchased at the post office), mine weighs 7lbs, 4oz. It's a complete, as assembled factory Colt upper receiver group with CH receiver, C MP Chrome Bore barrel, C carrier, MPC bolt and USGI hand guards. The lower is a NDS 16A1 with aftermarket LPK, USGI pistol grip and Type E stock.
Separately, the upper weighs 4lbs, 6oz and the lower weighs 2lbs, 12oz. The discrepancy is likely due to the cheap scale, as it's hard to find a balance point with the shape of the complete rifle and assemblies. The scale seems to match with the official scale at the post office when weighing small, regularly shaped boxes.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 10:01:08 AM EDT
[#23]
My rifle is a us gi colt upper from the mid 70 lower is a spikes tactical . With sling cleaning kit and empty 20 round mag . 7lb 13 ounces .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 10:16:30 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My rifle is a us gi colt upper from the mid 70 lower is a spikes tactical . With sling cleaning kit and empty 20 round mag . 7lb 13 ounces . I just weighed an upper i have. Slick side a1 upper receiver, no carrier /bolt/CH. Barrel is C MP C, with hg's and frt sight. WEIGHT....3lbs 8oz. Next, I weighed slick side upper rec, no carrier or bolt, Citadel barrel, in the white, set of hg's, frt sighrbase, hg caps, barrel nut.....same parts as the assembled upper.WEIGHT.........3lbs, 7oz. Conclusion.....my Citadel is the same weight as the C MP C, within the weight variation of the two handguard sets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 10:19:37 AM EDT
[#25]
What about the buffer? Does it weigh the same as a milspec buffer...
That and the sling could account for the weight difference and maybe a cleaning kit in the stock... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 10:21:50 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Without magazine or sling, it weighs 7 lbs. 1.7 oz. But according to this page from a U.S. Army marksmanship manual, an M16A1 without magazine or sling weighs 6.35 lbs. (6 lbs., 5.6 oz). So my rifle weighs 12.1 oz. more than an M16A1. 12.1 oz. is 1 oz. more than a fully loaded 20-round USGI magazine weighs. Where is that extra weight coming from? I understand that the M16A1 lower receiver has extra material milled out of it, but certainly not anything even remotely approaching ¾ lb. worth. Plus it gains some, if not all, of that weight back by having an auto-sear. An entire AR-15 lower receiver weighs less than 9 oz., so you obviously can't mill away 12.1 oz. from it. For people who have rifles similar to mine: how much do they weigh? The Army Marksmanship Manual is incorrect. For that matter, all of the documentation on the M16A1 seems to be incorrect. Colt CM101 lists it as 7 lbs. A colt pocket manual lists it at 7.4 lbs. The US Army manuals I have list it at 6.5 lbs. It's all over the place. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 10:48:35 AM EDT
[#27]
Can you post a picture with the hand guards removed, Id bet the barrel is a little fat.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 1:09:52 PM EDT
[#28]
Also a nds lower has more meat on it due to it not having a auto sear.little things in lower,barrel and stock add up. Here a while back i found some bugs making mud nest in side the handguards and stocks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 1:19:33 PM EDT
[#29]
I just weighed my late 603 clone, NDS lower, all else Colt's with a black cotton USGI sling 7lbs 5oz exactly.
With out the sling 7lbs 0.6oz. I think the Army manual was incorrect, possibly carrying over numbers from early Armalites? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 1:51:24 PM EDT
[#30]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xezh9QaL2OM[/youtube]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 1:53:38 PM EDT
[#31]
OP, my rifle is exactly like yours - gunthings kit bought in 2011, finished citadel barrel, NDS lower, etc except I just changed my birdcage fh to 3 prong. Mine weighs 7.0lbs on my bathroom scale.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 2:04:03 PM EDT
[#32]
I put on a scale a clone M16A1 rifle and it weighs 7lb 1.6oz, without sling and magazine.
The upper, without BCG and charging handle weighs 3lb 8.8oz. The barrel is a Citadel, like the OP's. Harlan NoDak Spud LLC |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 2:07:38 PM EDT
[#33]
I put on a scale a clone M16A1 rifle and it weighs 7lb 1.6oz, without sling and magazine.
The upper, without BCG and charging handle weighs 3lb 8.8oz. The barrel is a Citadel, like the OP's. Mike weighed the prototype rifle pictured on our website, and the rifle weighs 6lb 11.2oz. Harlan NoDak Spud LLC |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 2:13:25 PM EDT
[#34]
I think my 604 clone weighs 6.4 pounds (6 pounds, 7 ounces) without mag or sling. It doesn't have a forward assist so less metal on upper, and no steel FA assembly, so there is a little less weight. My 604 also has a three prong flash hider, which I believe is lighter than an A1 birdcage. My stock is a Type D, which is also significantly lighter than a Type E trapdoor stock. All the little things add up.
Maybe some weight is in the barrel. My 653 build has a Delton Pencil barrel, and it is a bit thicker, not much. It looks identical to the naked eye, but is several thousandths larger in diameter. It probably adds a few ounces to the build over an actual Colt pencil. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 2:49:38 PM EDT
[#35]
Semi auto bolt, and buffer ? That's gotta be 1/2 lb. current buffers are heavier.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 2:56:39 PM EDT
[#36]
My M16A1 clone with sling & empty 20 rd mag is 7lb 8.5 ounces.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 2:58:33 PM EDT
[#37]
Reading comprehension, oh how I miss the'.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 4:20:17 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Think you're going to find the barrel isn't as close to original LW spec as you believe it is. Most the LW profiles I've seen aren't. The mfgs all mean well. All supposedly used a milspec drawing. I just wonder where they got the drawings because they don't measure the same as my Colt barrels. Never actually used a Citadel. Those were in the white originally with the kits. Wonder who and what it was coated with? My Colts are 6.5 lbs on my scales less mag which scales aren't the best. Close enough. My Brownells 20" barrel is a little lighter (thinner under HG's) at 6.25 lbs both with A-2 style receivers but everything else is M-16 Colt unless possibly GM or H&R furniture. Have more than 1. Measure length of the step from chamber to where it thins under HG's. Guessing it's more meat in this taper area on your barrel. Most I've seen use 0.980 blanks, Taper varies from mfg to mfg. What is thickness of barrel under HG's? Should be 0.670 in. What is measurement of barrel from FSB forward? 0.580 in.? How much step at FSB? All relevant to added weight. Measurement under HG's going off memory but FSB forward is actual Colt LW with calipers. I agree - the barrel isn't likely cut to the exact same profile as an Original Military or Colt barrel Most of the weight in the remainder of the parts isn't that negotiable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 4:27:15 PM EDT
[#39]
I believe that you're good to go as the data in the manual is most likely flawed.
Nice rig... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 4:59:20 PM EDT
[#40]
By the way, my rifle now weighs less than it did before. I recently changed the GI handguards to a different set of GI handguards, and apparently they are 0.9 oz. lighter, so the new weight without magazine or sling is 7 lbs., 0.8 oz.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
According to my cheap plastic postal scale (10lbs max weight, purchased at the post office), mine weighs 7lbs, 4oz. It's a complete, as assembled factory Colt upper receiver group with CH receiver, C MP Chrome Bore barrel, C carrier, MPC bolt and USGI hand guards. The lower is a NDS 16A1 with aftermarket LPK, USGI pistol grip and Type E stock. Separately, the upper weighs 4lbs, 6oz and the lower weighs 2lbs, 12oz. The discrepancy is likely due to the cheap scale, as it's hard to find a balance point with the shape of the complete rifle and assemblies. The scale seems to match with the official scale at the post office when weighing small, regularly shaped boxes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
According to my cheap plastic postal scale (10lbs max weight, purchased at the post office), mine weighs 7lbs, 4oz. It's a complete, as assembled factory Colt upper receiver group with CH receiver, C MP Chrome Bore barrel, C carrier, MPC bolt and USGI hand guards. The lower is a NDS 16A1 with aftermarket LPK, USGI pistol grip and Type E stock. Separately, the upper weighs 4lbs, 6oz and the lower weighs 2lbs, 12oz. The discrepancy is likely due to the cheap scale, as it's hard to find a balance point with the shape of the complete rifle and assemblies. The scale seems to match with the official scale at the post office when weighing small, regularly shaped boxes. To weigh the complete rifle, just stand it on the scale vertically on its buttstock. It will easily stand up on its own, at least mine does. I don't know what would account for yours weighing 7¼ lbs., especially since yours is more GI than mine (i.e., you have a GI barrel and I have a Citadel barrel). That's 15.2 oz. heavier than the Army's claimed weight for an M16A1 (which according to some recent posts on this thread, is incorrect; but there have been people saying they have 6½-lb. and under rifles). Did you weigh the complete rifle with an empty buttstock, no magazine, and no sling? By the way, your upper weighs almost exactly the same as mine. Mine, complete (including BCG and charging handle, but no sling), weighs 4 lbs., 6.1 oz. My complete lower weighs 2 lbs., 10.8 oz., which is only 1.2 oz. lighter than yours, and could be explained by weight variation among the plastic furniture. Quoted:
Quoted:
My rifle is a us gi colt upper from the mid 70 lower is a spikes tactical . With sling cleaning kit and empty 20 round mag . 7lb 13 ounces . I just weighed an upper i have. Slick side a1 upper receiver, no carrier /bolt/CH. Barrel is C MP C, with hg's and frt sight. WEIGHT....3lbs 8oz. Next, I weighed slick side upper rec, no carrier or bolt, Citadel barrel, in the white, set of hg's, frt sighrbase, hg caps, barrel nut.....same parts as the assembled upper.WEIGHT.........3lbs, 7oz. Conclusion.....my Citadel is the same weight as the C MP C, within the weight variation of the two handguard sets. Very interesting. I had a feeling that my Citadel barrel couldn't weigh ¾ lb. more than a GI barrel. My upper, without sling, BCG, or charging handle, and with everything else, weighs 3 lbs. 9.4 oz. I would say that the extra 2.4 oz. compared to your Citadel barrel upper could be explained by mine having a forward assist, along with the handguard weight variation. I would like to know how the 6½-lb. and under rifles got so light. That's more than the difference of an ounce or two. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 5:09:14 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I put on a scale a clone M16A1 rifle and it weighs 7lb 1.6oz, without sling and magazine. The upper, without BCG and charging handle weighs 3lb 8.8oz. The barrel is a Citadel, like the OP's. Harlan NoDak Spud LLC Thanks. That's almost exactly what mine weighed before, until I swapped to a different pair of GI handguards. It now weighs 7 lbs. 0.8 oz. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 5:21:56 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think my 604 clone weighs 6.4 pounds (6 pounds, 7 ounces) without mag or sling. It doesn't have a forward assist so less metal on upper, and no steel FA assembly, so there is a little less weight. My 604 also has a three prong flash hider, which I believe is lighter than an A1 birdcage. My stock is a Type D, which is also significantly lighter than a Type E trapdoor stock. All the little things add up. Did early M16A1s have a type D buttstock? Do you know about what one weighs? My type E trapdoor stock weighs 15.3 oz. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 6:38:51 PM EDT
[#43]
I just weighed 5 different GI handguard halves, and they ranged in weight from 4.4 oz. to 5.6 oz., a 1.2 oz. difference just for one half of a handguard. Based on that small sample size, you could have a 2.4 oz. difference in weight from one rifle to another just from the handguards alone.
Quoted:
The Army Marksmanship Manual is incorrect. For that matter, all of the documentation on the M16A1 seems to be incorrect. Colt CM101 lists it as 7 lbs. A colt pocket manual lists it at 7.4 lbs. The US Army manuals I have list it at 6.5 lbs. It's all over the place. Based on what my rifle weighs, and the weight of several others mentioned in this thread, 7 lbs. from the CM101 manual (I assume that is without magazine or sling?) sounds about right for the most recent version of the M16A1. But a few people have mentioned they have or have had M16A1-style rifles that weigh 6.5 lbs. or less. Maybe that's a case of favorable weight variations on all of the furniture, plus a type D stock rather than a type E. I think there are some people here who own actual NFA M16A1s. It would be interesting to see what those weigh. Quoted:
Also a nds lower has more meat on it due to it not having a auto sear.little things in lower,barrel and stock add up. Here a while back i found some bugs making mud nest in side the handguards and stocks. Yes, but I'm willing to bet that the auto-sear itself weighs as much or more than the small amount of aluminum that gets removed to make room for it. The auto-sear is steel, which is about 3 times denser than aluminum. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 7:16:16 PM EDT
[#44]
About people's claim to having a rifle that weighs "this amount" or that amount. We have no idea of how accurate their particular scale is. You said that yours are accurate, comparing its' results to the Post Office, so we'll assume yours are correct. I would have little faith in most cheapo home scales.........so, when someone says theirs weighed this or that I would take that with a grain of salt. Many others might just be parroting what they've read or head, Ex: I read that a manual says an M16A1 weighs a certain amount. I have an M16A1 so therefore it MUST weigh the same.
That is why I weighed my assembled A1 upper and then compared it to what the Citadel barrel/upper sans carrier and bolt and other parts. I can't say that my scale is accurate, but it is repeatable, and to weigh each set of parts gives us an accurate comparison of the Citadel barreled upper to the Colt C MP C barreled upper. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 8:03:39 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
About people's claim to having a rifle that weighs "this amount" or that amount. We have no idea of how accurate their particular scale is. You said that yours are accurate, comparing its' results to the Post Office, so we'll assume yours are correct. I would have little faith in most cheapo home scales.........so, when someone says theirs weighed this or that I would take that with a grain of salt. Many others might just be parroting what they've read or head, Ex: I read that a manual says an M16A1 weighs a certain amount. I have an M16A1 so therefore it MUST weigh the same. That is why I weighed my assembled A1 upper and then compared it to what the Citadel barrel/upper sans carrier and bolt and other parts. I can't say that my scale is accurate, but it is repeatable, and to weigh each set of parts gives us an accurate comparison of the Citadel barreled upper to the Colt C MP C barreled upper. Quote HistoryQuoted:
About people's claim to having a rifle that weighs "this amount" or that amount. We have no idea of how accurate their particular scale is. You said that yours are accurate, comparing its' results to the Post Office, so we'll assume yours are correct. I would have little faith in most cheapo home scales.........so, when someone says theirs weighed this or that I would take that with a grain of salt. Many others might just be parroting what they've read or head, Ex: I read that a manual says an M16A1 weighs a certain amount. I have an M16A1 so therefore it MUST weigh the same. That is why I weighed my assembled A1 upper and then compared it to what the Citadel barrel/upper sans carrier and bolt and other parts. I can't say that my scale is accurate, but it is repeatable, and to weigh each set of parts gives us an accurate comparison of the Citadel barreled upper to the Colt C MP C barreled upper. The weight of my upper is in line with the weight of your uppers, taking into account that yours are both slick-sides and mine has a forward assist (along with hanguard weight variation), so I would say that your scales are plenty accurate for this purpose. Not necessarily accurate enough for weighing e.g., gun powder, but most modern digital scales are plenty accurate down to at least 1/10th of an ounce (which is the U.S. Postal standard). Also, HarlandNDS said: Mike weighed the prototype rifle pictured on our website, and the rifle weighs 6lb 11.2oz. I assume he's talking about this one: http://www.nodakspud.com/images/NDS-15L.JPG http://www.nodakspud.com/images/NDS-15N.JPG And it is hard to imagine one being significantly lighter than that particular one, especially since his reproduction prototype handguards don't even have the aluminum heat shields that GI handguards have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 8:10:35 PM EDT
[#46]
The prototype barrels were super skinny and light
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 8:29:03 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The prototype barrels were super skinny and light Assuming HarlandNDS's prototype replica has a standard GI M16/M16A1 profile, then I could see the real prototype rifles being signifcantly lighter than his. Weren't they said to weigh about 6 pounds? If so, that's 11.2 oz. lighter than NDS's. Assuming 4150 steel alloy, you'd have to remove about 2.5 cubic inches of steel from a barrel to lose 11.2 oz. ETA: For example, the thin part of a GI-profile barrel under the handguards tapers from 0.67" to 0.60", giving an average diameter of 0.635". That section is about 11" long. An 11" long, 0.635" diameter 4150 steel pipe with a wall thickness of 0.206" (resulting in a .223" bore) weighs 0.864 pounds. You obviously can't lose 11.2 oz. (0.7 lbs.) from that section alone, because your wall would be extremely thin. If you add another ~6.5" to work with (up to about where the flash hider is), then the starting weight of that 17.5" section is 1.375 lbs. (less actually, because it is significantly thinner than .635" forward of the FSB). To lose 11.2 oz. from a 17.5" section of said pipe, you would need to shave it down to 0.473" diameter, which would leave a 0.125" (1/8") wall thickness. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 10:12:21 PM EDT
[#48]
The manuals are notorious for the weights not being accurate/correct.
Molded products are going to have density variations, barrel profile on a repro barrel (or even use of a different grade of steel) is going to affect weight, use of a different buffer or a different bolt carrier cut all will affect weight. Some guns have forward assists, some don't. Sportmans Guide, etc. who sold those kits can all say what they want about "original USGI parts" but that doesn't mean that they didn't substiture buffers, etc, or even that all parts are the exact same throughout an entire production run of many years of USGI parts. Don't overthink a ham sandwich as they say. 
Sven Manticore Arms |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 10:46:20 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The manuals are notorious for the weights not being accurate/correct. Molded products are going to have density variations, barrel profile on a repro barrel (or even use of a different grade of steel) is going to affect weight, use of a different buffer or a different bolt carrier cut all will affect weight. Some guns have forward assists, some don't. Quote HistoryQuoted:
The manuals are notorious for the weights not being accurate/correct. Molded products are going to have density variations, barrel profile on a repro barrel (or even use of a different grade of steel) is going to affect weight, use of a different buffer or a different bolt carrier cut all will affect weight. Some guns have forward assists, some don't. All M16A1s have a forward-assist. It's been confirmed by "Stoner25mkiv" that the difference in weight between a GI Colt barrel and a Citadel barrel is negligible or non-existent. The handguards definitely have some weight variation, which I've confirmed for myself (up to 1.2 oz. difference for one half, among the 5 halves that I weighed), and I assume similar variation would be found among the buttstocks and pistol grips. Sportmans Guide, etc. who sold those kits can all say what they want about "original USGI parts" but that doesn't mean that they didn't substiture buffers, etc, or even that all parts are the exact same throughout an entire production run of many years of USGI parts. There was no need for anyone to substitute parts in this case, because they had shipments of unissued M16A1s from Israel that had been broken down into parts kits. They even included the complete M16A1 fire control group (auto-sear and all). Everything was in unused condition, except for the handguards (they had to add barrels and handguards to the kits because for unknown reasons, those were destroyed along with the original lower receivers). As far as I know, this was a unique situation; it wasn't the typical case of people selling parts kits cobbled together from used/surplus GI parts and whatever else they can find. On top of that, it isn't hard to distinguish vintage Colt parts from modern aftermarket parts, especially in the case of the steel parts. The phosphate finish on vintage Colt steel parts looks nothing like the finish on modern aftermarket parts, which is often black oxide, or, if phosphated (AKA: parkerized), they are a different color and overall quality compared to Colt's. In any event, it is looking more and more like ~7 lbs. is the typical weight of an M16A1, which is what my rifle weighs, and is the weight given by the Colt M16A1 manual (CM101). |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/17/2016 11:00:46 PM EDT
[#50]
|
|
|
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.
