gotta get duals to see the night!

Glitch

Glitch

Following

All for them to sit in safes, unused except for staged photos for IG / Forums.  

Attached File


Sweet burn!!

Attached File

Attached File

This. And from my understanding; when these rifles are serviced the armorer will use what ever upper receiver theyre being supplied with, generally speaking contract uppers. So who cares what forge upper or what generation of colt? Just go shoot the fucking things and enjoy them.

Amen....

The way I enjoy them is through appreciating the amount of time, effort and resources expended in order to research, acquire, and assemble these rifles into the most accurate replications possible. So yes, I do care about the forge mark and what generation of part is being used.

Bingo.

That's cool but that's the way YOU enjoy cloning. I enjoy having the best of the best and if having a very expensive "C" marked Colt upper receiver ( not necessarily the best)  keeps me from having funds for the best clone "perfect" optic (IMHO) or laser or  whatever then I am.opting for things that improve performance.

At some point it becomes a value judgement that one cannot make for another. IOW...we are all posers in thid thread

Perfectly ok you feel that way. Please see your self to the non clone threads and enjoy shooting sir.

Is Rhinowso96 Greg Gutfeld?  

Nope.

are you really trying to say he should leave the thread because he doesn't have the "right" colt upper

Yet all the guys using psa lowers weren’t shit on

Oh I expect some screeching when I post my finished product.  

Those psa ones looks better than my Aeros

That’s never been the rules of the thread. The block ii chart clearly states any milspec flat top upper is acceptable.

SOCOM guys run bcm and noveske upper receiver groups all the time. Seals straight up bought DD V11 pro upper receiver groups. So plenty of bcm, noveske, and DD upper receivers running around. But that’s beside the point

I'm not sure how you got any of that out of my post. What I'm saying is if you have an issue with clones then go elsewhere. I'm not sure why any of you are coming here posting guns that are not clone correct and then you get butt hurt when your told it's not correct. Plenty of other non clone threads out there for you to post your pictures in.

I'll see myself out and stick to the mk18 thread. They get it there. Enjoy.

Actually a lot of us came away with the same impression. I have been in this thread since day one and no one here has a clone correct rifle. Its an aspiration not something set in concrete. The rifle is fielded in so many configurations with such wide latitude that there is no one "correct clone". Btw...I had a pretty dame close clone of a mk18.

ETA....I was building my clone before this thread started. My RIS is from  Jan 2011. This thread started in july 2011. I dont need you to tell me my LMT upper RECEIVER sucks because its not a "C" marked Colt.

The Mk18 was so much easier. Had a DD mk18 upper over run on an LMT factory SBR lower. Optics of the day and viola..close approximation mk 18.

These are demonstrably false declarative statements once removed from the individual interpretation of "cloning" that you are currently projecting. That doesn't make you wrong per se, only right in the context of your own opinion.

It's been well established there are numerous different approaches to building clone rifles—not any one of which is inherently the correct method. The underlying purpose, inspiration, and end state objectives for each remain the sole determination of the person behind the trigger. However, there are certain trends we can collectively observe and categorize into well defined overarching themes. The Reptile House Blog provides a solid introduction to some of the prevailing "build doctrines." Yet even these profiles only encompass a fractional proportion of the greater cloning community.

The existential question at the heart of this matter will always be "what is a clone exactly?" I have my own particular views of course, as do you I'm sure. It's a subject worth exploring further in another time and setting. Meanwhile, we can all appreciate the rifles posted here for whichever reasons exist that brought you in the first place.

The game is much more refined than what it was 8 years ago. Back then, all anyone cared about was that the form-factor of the weapons looked the same (what I call the 10-foot test, i.e., you can tell what it is from 10 feet away, but small details would be different as you picked it up and examined it).

Now, with the quality of the clones out there, most people aren't interested in seeing clones with non-spec upper receivers, barrels, muzzle devices, etc . . .

As with anything, do what you want and build what you want. People just shouldn't be surprised when others aren't interested in seeing their builds that lack the finer details.

You just agreed with me surrounded by a whole bunch of nothing. I literarily have been here cloning the rifle since day one...actually my cloning efforts predate this thread.

That doesn't make my opinion more valuable its just a way of defending it from being less valuable. Telling someone to go elsewhere because they don't have a c marked colt upper is asinine.

Can we get some more pictures of some sick as rifles in this thread and less back and forth about who has the bigger.... um rifle?

Lol...right on. Let me post a pic of my non c marked upper and see who wouldn't want it as their clone.

Oh the horror...that's not a C marked upper its LMT!!!!

Is there a more correct reticle for the Vortex Razor?

Jm-1

VMR-2

Well then. Since you're asking me to be frank with you, the real asinine part would be suggesting that those qualities that make a clone *specifically* a clone don't even matter. In reality, I didn't agree with anything you said. Rather I politely informed you that while entitled to your own opinion, that opinion was provably wrong when examined from a different perspective. You might have inferred that had you actually read the linked article... or my post even for that matter.

Seniority here doesn't count for much outside of social circles if that's all you really care about. Because certainly it would appear that building a period correct clone rifle with appropriate mfg's parts is not at the top of your priorities. I'm not implying there's anything wrong with that. Conversely, there's nothing wrong with pointing that out either.

EDITED: To be emphatically clear; I am not advocating in favor of, nor supporting anyone who is instructing you to leave this thread over a forge marking. I entered the conversation responding to someone that remarked such details were insignificant. For me and likeminded individuals those details ARE important, especially given the overall context and purpose of this discussion topic.

Ops Core Carbons are dope as hell. Great option for a helmet.

Pic thread and whatnot.









First and foremost, I hate all of you for putting this damn bug in my head.  Cloning is not for the weak.  I started off with a PSA M4A1 lower and had it... enhanced.  I'm calling it a Phony lower, flame suit on.

As for the parts, the upper is a rebuild of a Colt M4 SOCOM upper, completely spec.  The lower has mostly Colt parts, but I did have to sprinkle in some parts from a Geissele Mil-Spec parts kit.  Frankly I ran out of time, patience, and money waiting for a few springs and detents that no one will ever know isn't from Colt. I deviated with the redi-catch magazine catch because I plan to use this gun, and I run all my guns the essentially same way.  I also deviated with the DD QD swivel and the grip, but there is a lot of leeway there so whatever.  I hope this is worthy of this thread.

I don't think it's really a Sopmod block 2 optic anyway.  Could be wrong.  I think the "in the wild" ones were VMR

There isn't a period correct SOPMOD BLK II  M4A1 as there is essentially no endpoint or governing body. Kind of my point.q

Yes for you and other like minded individuals. I never denied that. What I said was this thread has roots and I was part of that hence the history comment by me. If you want to go.to.the nth degree god bless you but to suggest someone not participate in the thread because they dont specifically have a c marked upper is....crazy.

How about posting a picture....yes this is a picture thread...instead of a diatribe.

I feel like you would be able to build a period correct clone. For example finding an AF forged colt upper for an older recce/Mk12 build. Or using a keyhole colt upper since that forging was most common for a period of time. Let's say you wanted to do a 1.5 PR clone, then you'd probably use a SU231 with a SU233 since those were the early SOPMOD Block 2 accessories during the phased replacement right?

I don't think he suggested NOT to participate in this thread because he didn't have a C marked upper.. he was saying that there were non clone threads to enjoy if he didn't understand the value of wanting a period correct upper or a C marked upper. Some of us go to great lengths to have an as-close-to-the-issued-clone as possible.. because well.. this is a clone thread..

Kalmar, please show him what a clone is. Since this is a pic thread however..

Nice but needs a 4 prong, delete that a2 square angle grip and put a colt or something, and a keyhole upper would be more clone correct.  Also elcan is missing UID

I 100% agree with this.

Is everyone done complaining on the internet yet?

Hopefully the rest of my parts will be here today, in the meantime here’s what I got,

Having been one of the guys replacing those pretty colt marked parts with contract parts in the ME, i agree that folks need to not get so wrapped around the axle on "clone correct" forge marks.

I'd venture a guess that there's as many, if not more contract parts on .mil guns as there are original factory parts these days, especially on the guns of units that have actually deployed and seen real use on their gear.

I'm still DoD and don't give two shits about the forge marks on builds.

Never had a gun sent back for service because the forge mark was incorrect or because the forge mark make it malfunction.

Some people need to pull the corncobs outta their asses on this subject and get this thread back on topic.

So a NIB 2013 SOCOMII would be ? percent correct?
I’ve just browsed the last 10 pages or so and as is usual, I am confused.

Thanks.

Ah yes. The thread where we see AFSOC running DD uppers with silencerco flash hiders

There are most definitely historical trends, technological shifts, and specific organizational doctrines that can be visually identified, and therefore replicated, throughout the ongoing employment of the M4A1 SOPMOD Block II program; i.e. SF guns are often configured differently than Regiment's, that are different from Raider's, that are different from AFSOC, with each of these varying even further dependent on timeline—But that's besides the point, rather to your point specifically... It's myopic and represents just one approach to cloning: Yours. I'm trying to get you to step back and view this hobby from another perspective. Again, the Reptile House article lays a basic framework we can use for reference. It would greatly benefit your understanding to read it. So when you say something like:

"The Cloner" looks at that statement as patently false. They are replicating an extremely specific example of something with exact known values. The equipment list is uniquely itemized and there is no permissible deviation outside of that which is legally unavoidable. "Correct" is achieved when their rifle mirrors every last detail in perfect sameness.

"The Purist" also views this comment with the scorn of disapproval. USMC marked rear BUIS on a FSP? SF4P/SOCOM RC with a KAC ambi-safety? Pics or it didn't happen. Yes, these items are all used, but not by the same organizations on the same rifles. There are defined institutional guidelines which must be observed if you intend to satisfy this type of cloner.

"The Equalizer" takes the previous notion in yet another direction. That square forge marked Colt receiver is unacceptable to them because their clone was most frequently observed with an AF stamp. It can't mount an EOTech XPS because only the 553 was available during that period or that particular unit never received them, etc.

These examples could go on, but the takeaway point here is that there are numerous different approaches to cloning and each of them will vary in what they consider "Clone Correct." There is not one sole arbiter that can decree with authority exactly what that criteria is for everyone. By the same measure, you are in no position to assertively declare that "no one here has a clone correct rifle." If you meant to say that nobody possess a pre-sample M4A1 machine gun, that much is obvious. However, using that as carte blanche excuse to ignore literally every other aspect of the clone is what many others including myself disagree with. Of course we are all entitled to our own interpretations. Just you may not have realized how strongly you are projecting yours on to others, that is what I am drawing your attention towards. It cuts both ways.

Yes, how about some period-correct, organizationally accurate, "Equalizer" clones. Albiet with some glaring mistakes (to me at least), can you spot these errors? Hint: The LA-5 substitute is a freebie.

SF Rifle - Mid 2010's

Click To View Spoiler

MARSOC Rifle - Late 2000's

Click To View Spoiler

SF Rifle - Mid 2010's to Current

Click To View Spoiler

Aside from the noted discrepancies and minor personal gripes, I would absolutely consider the above to be categorically "clone correct." The amount of time, energy and expense dedicated to researching and tracking down the requisite components necessary to make them period/unit accurate is no joke. That's why I do take issue when you essentially say that nothing is correct because everything is. I fundamentally disagree. Because my take on cloning is different from yours. That's okay. We can both co-exist in this thread.

All correct points

How dare I post that "inspired" build in here

Nice engraving

Where can I have mine sent for engraving? Any recommendations?

BUT THATS NOT CLONE CORRECT!!!!

Are you asking about the pony on the PSA m4a1 lower or the eotech engraving?

Eotech engraving....