AR Sponsor
Posted: 1/28/2019 10:47:21 PM EDT
| Question for any of the prototype subject matter experts out there. I’m wrapping up my clone of what I think #5 would look like. I know the lip of the buffer tube is raw, but I don’t know if the rest is gray, with a round end and a tightening hole. Has anyone seen a prototype buffer tube? Can you share your knowledge if so? |
|
Quoted:
Question for any of the prototype subject matter experts out there. I’m wrapping up my clone of what I think #5 would look like. I know the lip of the buffer tube is raw, but I don’t know if the rest is gray, with a round end and a tightening hole. Has anyone seen a prototype buffer tube? Can you share your knowledge if so? Attached File Attached File |
|
My pics of #13 for reference. The glass made it a little difficult, but I tried to use different lighting/angles, etc. Hope these help.
Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File |
|
Thanks. I had this from an earlier string on prototypes...
“I just went and checked for you, so here are your answers: the butt plate is rubber. The exposed part of the buffer tube in bare aluminum, without anodizing. The edge of the stock, underneath the exposed buffer tube, is beveled, which makes it look like it us a different color. The butt stock is much thinner than a type "A" stock.” I did not write down who shared it, but wish I did... I noticed that many of the prototypes have an aged yellowing to them. At first I thought it was a preservative of some type. Look at the lower in the one picture you shared. There seems to be the same yellowing as the exposed tube. |
| Just like virtually every other prototype part - most anything could be correct. I am sure some of the prototype buffer tubes showed bare metal on the exposed part, either by design OR from wear. I have seen half a dozen different safety selectors on prototypes, and at least two different sight wheels. Look at all of the different hand guards and slip rings (or lack thereof) that you see on these prototypes. By their very nature "prototypes" are just that - a vehicle for testing different parts and configurations of parts. |
|
From my collection of photos: XAR15 - Grey #1 - Worn Gold/ Silver #2 - Gold #3 Gold #4 Gold #6 Grey #7 - Gold #8 Gold #11 Grey/Silver #22 Silver #27 Black Most reasonable answer is that they were either anodized and left un-dyed or, they were left un-dyed and sprayed with moly dry lube which has worn away over the last 60 years. I know for a fact that, at least on the buffer I examined, the cap was black anodized and the body was gold, and that both had been sprayed with grey dry lube. The dry lube on most of the buffer body had been worn away from recoil spring but the cap was still mostly coated aside from the lands where it contacted the buffer tube. As an aside, the prototypes are actually pretty consistent in how they were built. They were all built exactly the same way originally, and many were modified as needed but, the only ones to exhibit drastic changes are #2, #3, and #4. There rest are either as built, or have some variation of fire control, flash hider, and charging handle. |
|
This is all very helpful, thank you. Does anyone have any thoughts on if the tube mounting would be like the 601 with a round end a hole?
Since I have all of your attention, thoughts on the one piece hand guard. Is it all one size like the NDS copy or is it more cone shaped like the AR10? |
| My guess is that it would be like the 601, but it’s really just a guess. As far as the handguards, the NDS ones have a slight taper. The conical forearm of the protos was definitely tapered. If you want a 1 piece, John Thomas will make you one from NDS handguards. |
|
Quoted:
This is all very helpful, thank you. Does anyone have any thoughts on if the tube mounting would be like the 601 with a round end a hole? Since I have all of your attention, thoughts on the one piece hand guard. Is it all one size like the NDS copy or is it more cone shaped like the AR10? |
|
Good lord, that is a beaut! What is your barrel profile and twist? Also why #5? Too many #1's?
Also, was that water dip slightly transparent, so that the color of the handguard would come through? After seeing yours, I will likely do my stock and handguard this way. |
|
Quoted:
Good lord, that is a beaut! What is your barrel profile and twist? Also why #5? Too many #1's? Also, was that water dip slightly transparent, so that the color of the handguard would come through? After seeing yours, I will likely do my stock and handguard this way. I chose 1:12 originally I believe (I’ll have to check the paperwork) assuming I would be shooting it. Hindsight I would have done 1:14 if I did it over. John Thomas did the re-profile of it. I’ll include the historic measurements someone shared at the end here. Water dip is transparent except the braid. Pre color before the dip, dip is bright, so then you have to add a dust of a little color on top of it before the clear. “Quoting the December 1958 report from Aberdeen: "The barrel has 8 flutes 9-1/2 inches long at the rear of the front sight shoulder. The barrel has a diameter of 0.593 inch (rifle number 18) at the front sight position and a diameter of 0.560 inch at the muzzle. A 6 inch length starting 3/4 inch from the muzzle muzzle has a diameter of 0.472 inch." So, basically, you have a .560 muzzle diameter for 3/4, it steps down to .472 for 6 inches, the steps up to .593 under the FSB.” |
Thank you very much for the info! Side note: the bipod collar and flash hider would both technically be considered "modifications" if you compare to the original configuration with bare muzzle, etc. #5 would have started out that way. You're right, we have no idea where it is, what it looks like, but given your upper, those improvements would be "modifications" assuming that is the upper for your #5  . Very sweet build.Would you happen to have the name/brand and part number of the hydro dip pattern? The pictures still work for me in the other thread, I just haven't gone back and looked if you have the info in the other thread yet. |
|
It’s on page 2 of the old thread with a picture:
“The WTP-182 pattern...“ https://www.ar15.com/forums/ar-15/Making-a-prototype-stock--dip-pictures/123-693409/&page=2 |
|
Quoted:
Side note: the bipod collar and flash hider would both technically be considered "modifications" if you compare to the original configuration with bare muzzle, etc. #5 would have started out that way. You're right, we have no idea where it is, what it looks like, but given your upper, those improvements would be "modifications" assuming that is the upper for your #5 
|
The reason I asked about your barrel is because I was wondering if you might have come across more research for a twist rate. I would think they all had the same twist rate until they really started changing stuff up, but there are conflicting reports. The Black Rifle says #2 had a 1/12 twist, and that #3 had a 1/14 twist. Guns and Ammo cited #4 as having a 1/18 twist  . I was wondering if anybody has found an official report? Also, interesting to note the barrel profile difference between #2 and #3. It would seem that at least #2 and #4 retained their original barrels, so why the difference in twist (unless they’re wrong)?Attached File Attached File Attached File |
|
I don’t have any additional data on the barrels other then what you posted. I’m dusting off my memory on the prototype and need to review all my data sources. I should note that John Brace made my bi-pod collar and did the machine work on the raw FSB casting (original group buy). John Thomas did the barrel, mounted the FSB, made the handguard one piece, “L” marked sight wheel, large pad door and parkerized everything. Upper is an original NDS machining, the full round chrome BCG is a Colt with a solid retainer pin, narrow band MP bolt and a large head firing pin. I can’t remember where I got the flash hinder, but it needed me to do finish work on it before I had it parkerized. The sling swivel is fram an M1. |
|
Quoted:
The reason I asked about your barrel is because I was wondering if you might have come across more research for a twist rate. I would think they all had the same twist rate until they really started changing stuff up, but there are conflicting reports. The Black Rifle says #2 had a 1/12 twist, and that #3 had a 1/14 twist. Guns and Ammo cited #4 as having a 1/18 twist . I was wondering if anybody has found an official report? Also, interesting to note the barrel profile difference between #2 and #3. It would seem that at least #2 and #4 retained their original barrels, so why the difference in twist (unless they’re wrong)? Basically, it's a test between the AR-15 and the Winchester Light Rifle. It's the same report the barrel dimensions 5437 had, came from. It extensively covers the unmodified AR-15 #18. The barrel twist is 1/14 with 4 grooves. Tons of other great info as well; lists the distance between the bolt face and the gas port as 12.5 inches. Also has left, right, top, bottom, and exploded views of the rifle, with a ruler for scale. It also explains in detail, how the original fire control group functions. Unfortunately, I have no info on #3. It clearly has a different barrel so, it may have a different twist but, without documents or the rifle to measure, there's no way to know. |
|
Quoted: Yes. "US Army Development and Proof Services Aberdeen Proving Ground Maryland 19 December 1958 - 57th Report on Ordnance Project TS2-2015" Basically, it's a test between the AR-15 and the Winchester Light Rifle. It's the same report the barrel dimensions 5437 had, came from. It extensively covers the unmodified AR-15 #18. The barrel twist is 1/14 with 4 grooves. Tons of other great info as well; lists the distance between the bolt face and the gas port as 12.5 inches. Also has left, right, top, bottom, and exploded views of the rifle, with a ruler for scale. It also explains in detail, how the original fire control group functions. Unfortunately, I have no info on #3. It clearly has a different barrel so, it may have a different twist but, without documents or the rifle to measure, there's no way to know. |
|
Quoted: I’ve read that one. Don’t know how I missed that. Or, maybe I didn’t but, again it would conflict with the other things I’ve shown. That’s helpful, forgot that it existed! Guns and Ammo is just wrong, period. Their claim of 1/18 is utter nonsense. |
|
Quoted: I think, simply, TBR is wrong. As great as it is, it does have some incorrect and outdated information. The original fluted barrels are more than likely 1/14 and the replacement barrel on #3 could very well be 1/12. The author may have just gotten his info mixed up. Guns and Ammo is just wrong, period. Their claim of 1/18 is utter nonsense. |
|
It would be nice to see a new book covering the early development. There's a whole slew of new information but it's scattered between books, articles, scans, and collections. We know where many of the rifles are now and could get some amazing photographs as well. By the way, @5437, I found #5 listed in the report. On July 28th 1958, at 10:27AM the muzzle end of the barrel was blown out during rain tests. There is a photo. At the time of the rupture, it did not have a flash hider installed. |
|
Dam! You shot my theory all to hell! Ok, so my #5 would be after they replaced the barrel with a 1:12 non-flutted version, LOL. Is there a way for me to get that information and picture?
On your book comment, I had thought a couple of times about gathering up all the data we have shared on here and making a Prototype reference thread that could be pinned. I just have not had the time. |
|
Quoted:
Dam! You shot my theory all to hell! Ok, so my #5 would be after they replaced the barrel with a 1:12 non-flutted version, LOL. Is there a way for me to get that information and picture?
On your book comment, I had thought a couple of times about gathering up all the data we have shared on here and making a Prototype reference thread that could be pinned. I just have not had the time. Attached File Attached File |
|
Quoted:
Ahh... the ‘ol rain in the bore debacle. Classic. But that’s a good theory to go with @5437 @57Octane, is that the same report as mentioned above? Comparing the AR to the Winchester Light Rifle? The quality of the photos isn't super but, I took a few snippets: 
And, the info concerning #5's test: 
Something interesting I noticed, is that both rifles can chamber and fire, and were tested with both .222 Remington Special and .224 E2 Winchester. |
|
Quoted:
Something interesting I noticed, is that both rifles can chamber and fire, and were tested with both .222 Remington Special and .224 E2 Winchester. Attached File Attached File Attached File Attached File |
|
Quoted:
Great data guys! Thanks for sharing. I’m going to have to search the archives and put all the links with prototype data in one thread. It is so spread out, but there is more out there then you think. |
Based off the data in this thread I have started making what I hope will resemble a prototype buffer tube. I have made clone 601 tubes in the past, so I will leverage much of what I learned doing them. First a clean modern black tube gets stripped, then since I don’t aluminum weld or have a metal lathe , I’m going to use JB weld, a copper ring as a mold and my wood lathe, files and sand paper to make the end full round. Next time I will file, sand and drill the hole for tightening it.
|
|
Quoted:
The one I took apart and examined had a buffer tube that was coated with dry lube, and it had the mounting holes and round end. Quoted:
Quoted:
Does anyone have any thoughts on if the tube mounting would be like the 601 with a round end and a hole? |
|
Quoted:
Have you ever had an “ah shit!” moment? I drilled the hole in the wrong dam spot... Clearly I forgot the old adage measure twice to drill once. One inch is from the end of the tube, not the collar. Guess I’m back to the drawing board. |
|
Quoted: A little bit more info as to why that is. I don’t know if I believe that the AR-15s were chambered for the .224 but then again, I know nothing about reloading and the parameters that would make them interchangeable. (I understand .223 vs 5.56, but a very surface level understanding.). The first two pictures are from the end of the Winchester Light Rifle Manual. The others are just from TBR but are relevant here. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/463351/6791B00C-4909-4E6A-A8FB-43FF1030F0C9_jpeg-828029.JPG https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/463351/8D499517-22AC-4540-A347-BD54A54B104D_jpeg-828030.JPGhttps://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/463351/9B7D15BF-1044-421A-95C9-324117A955A8_jpeg-828031.JPG https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/463351/6D758C9D-A3C9-46CC-BCC7-AAF0C8CF23B7_jpeg-828032.JPG So the 224 Winchester E-5 cartridge was based on the .25 Remington, one of the Remington family of cartridges in .25, .30 and .32 designed for the Model 8 and 81 semi-auto rifles and 14 pump gun back around 1906 or thereabouts, that were pretty much rimmed versions of the 25-35 and 30-30. Fast forward all that to relatively recently where we have various attempts to get more steam out of the AR-15, including the various Valkyrie and 6mm Rat and .22 PDK cartridges, and the 6.8 SPC. The 6.8 is based on the .30 Remington which was also the basis of the 6mm HAGAR cartridge that some of the high power guys have had an on again, off again relationship, depending on the availability of brass. And then the HAGAR spawned this: .22 Beast Full circle, or near enough. |
Ok, since my holes are off by 1/2, this one is now my prof of concept and test bed. We have a local gun show this weekend and I will pick up a couple more tubes to get one right. Since it was a little dark, I tried wiping a little off for a mock up. I’ll try the Perma-Slik tomorrow...
|
|
I don’t know if any of you are following along, but knowing these threads end up in the searchable archives for future reference, I like to try to make sure they are as correct as they can be for the moment in time they were created.
Here is a picture of one I believe to be correct (on right), with the mismeasured one (center) and what I started with (left). I did not polish the tube this time after stripping, but did spin it on a green scotch pad to make it uniform. 
|
|
Quoted:
I don’t know if any of you are following along, but knowing these threads end up in the searchable archives for future reference, I like to try to make sure they are as correct as they can be for the moment in time they were created. Here is a picture of one I believe to be correct (on right), with the mismeasured one (center) and what I started with (left). I did not polish the tube this time after stripping, but did spin it on a green scotch pad to make it uniform. https://i.postimg.cc/Xqxp0P5F/D26-BFA78-D9-DC-44-E9-90-A1-4-FB28-C4-DAADE.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/zvqV6Ny8/74-AB4-FC7-061-F-4-B40-826-A-87-E11-D7-B3030.jpg 
You and others on here never cease to amaze me with their talent and artistry and it gets displayed and shared freely! 
|
|
Another member measured their 601 tube for me a few years back, lost track of who shared, but the data is in an archived thread. Here is what he shared with us:
“I just measured a spare tube and the holes measure .311" and .310". They are centered 1.007" from the threaded end of the tube. ...So if you use a 5/16" bit and center the holes (directly opposite one another) an inch from the end of the tube, it will pass muster.” On the mistake tube, I measured 1 inch from the lip, not the end. So the one you see in the center of the picture has the 5/16 hole 1 1/2 inches in instead of 1 inch in from the end that the right one has. |
|
Quoted:
Figured I’d share a couple preview pictures of my lower assembled with anyone paying attention. I’ll have better ones when I do the build thread. https://i.postimg.cc/nLh8c1m9/629-A0543-409-C-496-C-BD19-2-EC52-B9-DD77-B.jpg https://i.postimg.cc/qvLVTFNd/1367335-F-B722-40-D7-8-B44-A165-F5-C464-F4.jpg |
| That one is my fault, JT shortened it and I did not ask him to remove it before it was parked. There are other issues I will be cleaning up next go around on it as well. Funny all the tiny details you pick up after the fact and most of the time looking at pictures not the rifle... |
AR Sponsor