AR Sponsor
Posted: 11/10/2007 5:58:10 PM EDT
| Ekie's tacked thread at the top of this forum discusses the differences in handguards. Given the number of SP1's vs. M16's, I'd put my money on them being off military rifles. To my knowledge there would be no way to tell. The shiny vs. matt has been discussed before and most agreed they get shiny with age/use. |
Yeah but questionable I agree they would become shiny with use, but what are the chances that that the entire length and every square inch of the handguards would experience the same amount of wear to be uniformly shiny like that? I still believe it's a difference in either the material or process of making them at the time. |
I agree with that line of reasoning. Since 1970, I've seen/cleaned <sigh> literally hundreds of M16/AR-15's, and the only matte finish handguards/stocks I've seen were civilian. In fact, my DPMS has a matte stock (hard to tell on the round carbine handguards). Ekie admits his research into handguards is incomplete. I applaud his efforts, but my question was more in line of "should I sand off the matte and buff it shiny, or leave it matte as representative of its period?"... One of these handguards will be cut in half for an XM-607 clone...just trying to figure out which...  Edit - Both sets seem to be "Type E"; later shape corner w/drain holes...and I can't agree with the "shiny being matte worn off" theory; as my matte guards have the matte finish under where the end caps fit...and no wear... 
|
AR Sponsor