AR Sponsor
Posted: 11/27/2010 6:06:14 PM EDT
|
One of my Dutch buddies (who has a nice fleet of AR10's) mentioned the other day that he had an old AR15. I figured he was talking about some SP1 that had made its way to the Netherlands. Then he asked if I could help him find the correct green paint so that his buttstock could be touched up a little. I demanded photos. Turns out he has a Colt 601 and did not realize it completely. In some European countries a 601 or 602 is particularly prized because it is marked .223 rather than 5.56mm and therefore is not technically a military caliber. In some countries like the Netherlands and Germany a properly licensed citizen can own a Colt 601/602 that has been lightly converted to semi-auto. (sear gone, hammer/trigger cut).
Eric, my Dutch friend, wishes to ask this forum what aspects of his Colt 601 are non-original. When he sent me the photos he did not know what parts needed to be photographed, other than the obvious stamps and forging marks. I think he needs to get you guys a better photo of the sight wheel. What else? Edit: More photos added to show the sight wheel and the various elements of the bolt carrier assembly. Is the firing pin original? Also, Eric said that the selector stop was there when he found the rifle. He also mentioned that there are a number of these rifles alive and well in the Netherlands. 
Added photos below 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Isn't the selector wrong. Maybe swapped for a modern semi-auto selector? Yes the selector is wrong. Not necessarily,it's a late SN and could have had the no dimple selector.I am VERY sure Olgunner wants to look at this barrel.Looks like the very thin one mentioned in an earlier post. |
|
I would imagine the "silver disc" near the selector is some type of raised selector stop to prevent someone from installing a sear and flipping the selector to auto.
Ask your buddy if he can get me a left side 601 handguard!!  Very nice rifle!
ETA: Beat by 58 seconds! |
|
A photo showing the original fat head firing pin and machined, chromed firing pin retaining pin would confirm those parts. Otherwise the bolt carrier group appears to be all original.
I like the serial number. What editing program allows one to do that so convincingly? Beautiful rifle! I might not even repaint the stock. |
|
Stock is either a B,C,or even a D.Hard to tell from that pic,but it does appear the base color is black in the left side view.Can you ask him if the furniture is later black stuff painted green or if they are original brown fiberglass.
Site wheel has no numbers from what's shown so it also appears to be good.No R and arrow also screams 601. |
|
Another observation,,,this is a real nice pic of an obvious "many circle" mag button,so anyone who needs to know take note.Best pic of one I've seen in a long time,and I own some.
ETA,you can also tell it's an early bend gas tube in there. ETA 2,H,,Bro,,you can re-assure your buddy he has a killer 601 there.Damn,I wish the US would allow such a simple "semi" converted rifle like this allowed in ALL states. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Isn't the selector wrong. Maybe swapped for a modern semi-auto selector? Yes the selector is wrong. Not necessarily,it's a late SN and could have had the no dimple selector.I am VERY sure Olgunner wants to look at this barrel.Looks like the very thin one mentioned in an earlier post. Didn't notice that SN.Your probably right.The ones I've seen were way below 10,000.I think the lowest one we had was like 4,000. |
|
I forwarded the Owner all the various questions asked so far. Apparently, any potential incorrect parts are small ones that show up often. I think olgunner is in the boondocks and will be out of touch for awhile and we might have to wait for his opinion.
I hope to also get some photos of Colt 601 SN000017X which came to a German collector via some Malaysian police dept. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
ETA: Ask your friend what the shiny button or pin is just below and forward of the selector on the left side? I'm guessing it's a selector block they require so no one will be tempted to just stick some FA parts back in the thing. I'm wondering if the .gov secures it inside with a safety wire type deal - maybe with a blob of lead stamped with an inspection number to prevent people messing with it? I'd like to see pics of the internals to verify what/how they did. (Not that our congresscritters would ever go for such a thing...  )
|
|
I would be surprised if the Dutch government ever required a permanent selector block. I have seen no such modification to the old AR10's. From what its citizens tell me, once a person has done all the paperwork for a semi-auto license they are trusted by the government enough to own a lightly converted rifle. That means, 1) get a black rifle, 2) remove the auto sear and pin, 3) emasculate the hammer and trigger, 4) have fun at the range. I know this applies to M16 style rifles as well as the original Dutch AR10. These Dutch guys also seem to own a lot of other converted rifles and I do not know what has to be done to them.
|
| That is one nice rifle. Your friend is very lucky. Looks about as right as you can get. I'd sure be tempted to change a few parts in that one. Would pprobably change it's value $5-10K. Wonder what the paperwork says on a de-stroked fully to semi assault rifle? |
|
Is anyone besides me disgusted that (no offense) someone from Germany or the Netherlands can buy this rifle but that an American cannot?
OP that's an great rifle, wonderful piece of history. Glad that someone somewhere can own it without taking a damn torch to it first. |
|
Quoted:
Is anyone besides me disgusted that (no offense) someone from Germany or the Netherlands can buy this rifle but that an American cannot? OP that's an great rifle, wonderful piece of history. Glad that someone somewhere can own it without taking a damn torch to it first. YES  
|
|
Wow. To start with, that's a beautiful rifle. I'm sure attitudes are different overseas, but if it were here in the States, there's no way I'd touch up the furniture. I think it looks great.
The selector stop is unfortunate in that it alters the rifle externally, but hey––if our government would let us get away with such a modification to convert a machine gun, I'd do it, too! Full disclaimer: I am no expert. Almost everything I know about these old rifles was learned from people right here on this board. All I can add is to compare this to my rifles and to photos I've collected... Charging handle, rear sight, all the major parts look correct. Judging from the proof marks on the upper, I see no sign of refinishing. The early-bend gas tube looks nice and shiny––I assume it would be stainless by this point in the production run. Type B stock and handguards look great. From what I can tell, the sling swivels look uncoated. BCG looks right––although you might want to compare the bolt itself against others from later 601's. Most of my 01 parts are earlier, and the "P" on this bolt looks different than any of mine––stamped at an angle and a bit different "typeface", I think. Also, the lug on this extractor is either a different design, or is showing some unusual wear (again, compared to mine––which are not definitive by any means). Takedown and pivot pins look right. Bolt release is right. As already pointed out, the selector switch has been changed but that could be "easily" corrected. (All you need to do is find and neuter an original...maybe that's easier to do over there than over here?) I'm curious about the mag release assembly. The many-circles button is right for a later sample, but I'd like to compare the lever to other late 01's. First, how long is the threaded stud? As you can see in the pic below, the stud on my 3-digit 01 (left) is much shorter than a later example. Judging from the pic of the mag button on this one, it could be a "short" stud, although maybe not as short as the one below. 
And then the left side of the assembly changed through the years (and even through the early production run from what I can tell). Notice the difference in the way the stud "comes through" the lever in the two pics below. The first pic is my 3-digit gun and the second is from a 4-digit sample. This 5-digit gun is even a bit different.  
The barrel is very interesting. The "C-in square" above the chamber and the VP under the FSB tell us it's a Colt (I'm guessing there would be a "C" on the rim of the barrel extension, too), but that sideways "M" looks more like the early Winchester mark. Colt did a sideways M, too (Ekie says it's one of the most common marks, typically accompanied by a sideways "S"), but the few good photos I've seen of the Colt "sideways M" shows it to be a narrower typeface. I don't recall seeing this "fat" sideways M and VP combination before. However, Colt did use an upright M & VP combination on some 602's––but those, of course, were 1-12 twist and I'd expect some sort of "12" stamp someplace to signify the difference. Are there any other stamps or rollmarks anywhere on the barrel? Barrel markings, though, are something I don't think we have any real handle on yet (there's no telling how many stamp variations there are out there), so I'd love to have more info on this one. Can he tell if this is a 1-12 or 1-14 twist? Considering the S/N, it's hard to say if this should be a 1-14 or if they would have already started switching to the 1-12s. Finally, there's no shot of the buffer or buffer tube…have you confirmed this has a no-flats tube and Edgewater buffer? Frankly, I'd be thrilled to own that rifle the way it is. Nice to know some governments trust their citizens to be responsible with converted relics like this. |
|
Quoted:
Wow. To start with, that's a beautiful rifle. I'm sure attitudes are different overseas, but if it were here in the States, there's no way I'd touch up the furniture. I think it looks great. The selector stop is unfortunate in that it alters the rifle externally, but hey––if our government would let us get away with such a modification to convert a machine gun, I'd do it, too! Full disclaimer: I am no expert. Almost everything I know about these old rifles was learned from people right here on this board. All I can add is to compare this to my rifles and to photos I've collected... Charging handle, rear sight, all the major parts look correct. Judging from the proof marks on the upper, I see no sign of refinishing. The early-bend gas tube looks nice and shiny––I assume it would be stainless by this point in the production run.Type B stock and handguards look great. From what I can tell, the sling swivels look uncoated. BCG looks right––although you might want to compare the bolt itself against others from later 601's. Most of my 01 parts are earlier, and the "P" on this bolt looks different than any of mine––stamped at an angle and a bit different "typeface", I think. Also, the lug on this extractor is either a different design, or is showing some unusual wear (again, compared to mine––which are not definitive by any means). Takedown and pivot pins look right. Bolt release is right. As already pointed out, the selector switch has been changed but that could be "easily" corrected. (All you need to do is find and neuter an original...maybe that's easier to do over there than over here?) I'm curious about the mag release assembly. The many-circles button is right for a later sample, but I'd like to compare the lever to other late 01's. First, how long is the threaded stud? As you can see in the pic below, the stud on my 3-digit 01 (left) is much shorter than a later example. Judging from the pic of the mag button on this one, it could be a "short" stud, although maybe not as short as the one below. http://i616.photobucket.com/albums/tt247/OlGunner/MRstuds.jpg And then the left side of the assembly changed through the years (and even through the early production run from what I can tell). Notice the difference in the way the stud "comes through" the lever in the two pics below. The first pic is my 3-digit gun and the second is from a 4-digit sample. This 5-digit gun is even a bit different. http://i616.photobucket.com/albums/tt247/OlGunner/01lever.jpg http://i616.photobucket.com/albums/tt247/OlGunner/01lever2.jpg The barrel is very interesting. The "C-in square" above the chamber and the VP under the FSB tell us it's a Colt (I'm guessing there would be a "C" on the rim of the barrel extension, too), but that sideways "M" looks more like the early Winchester mark. Colt did a sideways M, too (Ekie says it's one of the most common marks, typically accompanied by a sideways "S"), but the few good photos I've seen of the Colt "sideways M" shows it to be a narrower typeface. I don't recall seeing this "fat" sideways M and VP combination before. However, Colt did use an upright M & VP combination on some 602's––but those, of course, were 1-12 twist and I'd expect some sort of "12" stamp someplace to signify the difference. Are there any other stamps or rollmarks anywhere on the barrel? Barrel markings, though, are something I don't think we have any real handle on yet (there's no telling how many stamp variations there are out there), so I'd love to have more info on this one. Can he tell if this is a 1-12 or 1-14 twist? Considering the S/N, it's hard to say if this should be a 1-14 or if they would have already started switching to the 1-12s. Finally, there's no shot of the buffer or buffer tube…have you confirmed this has a no-flats tube and Edgewater buffer? Frankly, I'd be thrilled to own that rifle the way it is. Nice to know some governments trust their citizens to be responsible with converted relics like this. Hey Gunner,this is not correct.The early-bend gas tube looks nice and shiny––I assume it would be stainless by this point in the production run.As shown in the black rifle book 1,the stainless steel early bends came out in 67,,then the new late bends were 69. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
...The early-bend gas tube looks nice and shiny––I assume it would be stainless by this point in the production run... Hey Gunner,this is not correct.The early-bend gas tube looks nice and shiny––I assume it would be stainless by this point in the production run.As shown in the black rifle book 1,the stainless steel early bends came out in 67,,then the new late bends were 69. Thank you, sir––I appreciate the correction! |
|
Here are the remaining photos that have been requested. From reading the comments I gather that Eric's rifle is in need of the correct selector, which is not necessarily the dimpled kind. However, since the dimpled one is sexy, why not install it. All that hubub about the gas tubes means what: is it correct?
One final note. Eric is pretty surprised at how the arfcom community appreciates and embraces these old Colts. It has inspired him to dig a little into the rifle's history. He has found a 1968 test report stating that an AR15 with this serial number was used by the Dutch state arms manufacturere (Artillerie Inrichtingen) to test three lots of Dutch-manufactured .223 ammo. I have requested a pdf which should be interesting even in the Dutch language. I am hoping for plenty of illustrations. Just imagine how jazzed the Dutch would be if one of the arfcom fellas happened to have the AR10 used the Aberdeen tests. The serial number is (sometimes) on the upper so the kit would still bear evidence. 
|
|
HH,the gas tube is most likely correct,the way to tell is to put a magnet on it.If the magnet sticks then it is the 1st pattern carbon steel which is what you want on anything before 1967.If the magnet does not stick,then it's the 2nd pattern stainless steel.THAT RIFLE IS A TRUE KEEPER LIKE Olgunners, Tgus' and Tullahomas are my Friend.Tell Eric we all envy his wonderfully HISTORIC piece!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I KNOW I would love it if he would translate the Dutch test report for us and make available to us.... ETA,Tell him DO NOT replace that mag button for a new one,,,,,,,,,,,period.......... |
AR Sponsor