SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Mason's Rifle Room    Have you seen this? Troy GAU-5/A/A
Page 1 2 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Have you seen this? Troy GAU-5/A/A Login/Join 
Member
Picture of beltfed21
posted
Copy of the Air Force special op slab side AR CAR. Pretty cool and a lot cheaper than the originals!

GAU


"On the other side of fear you will always find freedom"
 
Posts: 1932 | Location: Illinois - Not Chicago | Registered: January 08, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Fighting the good fight
Picture of RogueJSK
posted Hide Post
We had a discussion on these when they were first announced, but it's been pruned.

I dig the retro carbine look.

 
Posts: 18053 | Location: Northwest Arkansas | Registered: January 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of SP20
posted Hide Post
I carried one of those back in the day. Just heard about this coming out, it's on the cover of shotgun I think. I'm late to the party but I think I want one, course then I'd have to get the Smith and Wesson I carried to go along with it.


Rob
 
Posts: 445 | Location: Eagle County, Co | Registered: March 09, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Wreckless
posted Hide Post
It's cheaper to build one yourself. The parts are out there. Just google retro AR build.


La Dolce Vita
 
Posts: 208 | Location: SW Florida & SNJ | Registered: July 26, 2015Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of billnchristy
posted Hide Post
I think mine totaled in the 8s. It's not a direct replica, a2 upper, modern lower, and I just had to have triangle hand guards.

I like it though.


------------------------------------
My books on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/William-...id=1383531982&sr=8-1
email if you'd like auto'd copies.
 
Posts: 17729 | Location: Lawrenceville GA | Registered: April 15, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
"Member"
Picture of cas
posted Hide Post
Love the look. Don't like shooting them (the short sight radius). I already knew that from past experience, but built a quasi clone anyway. Which I didn't like shooting. lol So I parted it out.


_____________________________________________________
Sliced bread, the greatest thing since the 1911.

 
Posts: 14212 | Location: A little box of pine on the 7:29 | Registered: May 17, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Peace through
superior firepower
Picture of parabellum
posted Hide Post
Full fence lowers?
 
Posts: 77409 | Registered: January 20, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of beltfed21
posted Hide Post
I've got two Colt SP1's. A CAR and a rifle, so I'm not looking for one. I missed the earlier thread I guess. I didn't see any on it and thought I'd share for those that might be interested.


"On the other side of fear you will always find freedom"
 
Posts: 1932 | Location: Illinois - Not Chicago | Registered: January 08, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of beltfed21
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by parabellum:
Full fence lowers?



Para, it looks like it is in the online pic's. They must be using a standard lower and non assist upper.


"On the other side of fear you will always find freedom"
 
Posts: 1932 | Location: Illinois - Not Chicago | Registered: January 08, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Husband, Father, Aggie,
all around good guy!
posted Hide Post
I am also late to all these, they do look real good.

Their XM177E2 also looks like it was highly thought through.

Now when are the Colt models going to be ready?
I understand that at NRA they announced they would be producing Retro Nam vintage AR's. Haven't we heard that before though?

Trying not to want!!!

HK Ag
 
Posts: 2066 | Location: Tomball, Texas | Registered: August 09, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Rail-less
and
Tail-less
Picture of Dusty78
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by parabellum:
Full fence lowers?


Yes

https://youtu.be/zKMTq71scYI


_______________________________________________
Use thumb-size bullets to create fist-size holes.
 
Posts: 11106 | Location: Charlotte, NC | Registered: May 07, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
They look cool (which is always the most important factor), but doesn't a 12.5" barrel lose a lot of velocity? Would M193 fragment?
 
Posts: 11929 | Location: Eastern Iowa | Registered: May 21, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Sigforum K9 handler
Picture of jljones
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sigmund:
They look cool (which is always the most important factor), but doesn't a 12.5" barrel lose a lot of velocity? Would M193 fragment?


At what distance? At 100 yards, you likely won't see or know the difference. Inside of a house, you really won't.


_______________________________________________________________________
www.opspectraining.com

"Make it a shooting, and not a gunfight" LSP552 02/19/2011

"There are only two reasons why a proven technique doesn't work under stress: the shooter isn't adequately trained in it's application, or he/she doesn't really believe it will work because he/she is programmed for failure to begin with." BG


 
Posts: 29725 | Location: Logical | Registered: September 12, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sigmund:
They look cool (which is always the most important factor), but doesn't a 12.5" barrel lose a lot of velocity?


The whole short barrel, long muzzle device thing has never made any sense whatsoever to me except for civilians who want device and barrel to reach 16", but no more. I would be curious to know how effective the XM177 device is for muzzle flash reduction as compared with something like the A2.

As for the velocity question, these are some I measured with M193 ammunition:

18": 3152 feet per second / 1193 ft-lb
16": 3039 fps / 1128 ft-lb
11.5": 2752 fps / 925 ft-lb

The online articles I could find with a brief search indicate the XM177E2 had a 11.5 inch barrel. If that’s true, velocity loss between 16 inches and 11.5 is almost 300 fps. Moreover, the standard M16 rifle of the day had a 20 inch barrel. If that had been included in the above series, I suspect its velocity would have been at least 3225 fps, and therefore close to 500 fps faster than from 11.5". With 3225 fps MV the 55 grain bullet energy would have been 1270 ft-lb, or 37% greater than from 11.5"—hardly insignificant.

Anecdotally there have been reports of complaints from military personnel even about the loss of wounding effectiveness by reducing the barrel length of the M4 to 14.5 inches. Knowing the truth of the matter is difficult of course because as I’ve pointed out before to my knowledge no scientifically valid studies have been conducted since the late 1940s of actual (not test medium) shootings for any cartridge—handgun or rifle. What we do know is that the 5.56mm NATO cartridge depends on high velocity to achieve its impressive wounding effects. Reduce it significantly and can any sensible person believe that it does not affect those effects?

I do understand wanting a more compact rifle for certain activities, but what puzzles me about the XM177 was the purpose of the long flash hider. Was there some advantage to it rather than using a longer barrel with shorter muzzle device?




“Most men … can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it … would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions … which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their lives.”
— Leo Tolstoy
 
Posts: 36529 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Fighting the good fight
Picture of RogueJSK
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sigfreund:
I do understand wanting a more compact rifle for certain activities, but what puzzles me about the XM177 was the purpose of the long flash hider. Was there some advantage to it rather than using a longer barrel with shorter muzzle device?


The XM177's muzzle device was a moderator that served two purposes: it acted as a flash hider and also had internal baffles that acted as a suppressor to some extent, reducing the short barrel's loud muzzle report.

Although the difference isn't as noticeable as it would be with a "real" suppressor/silencer, original XM177 moderators are still regulated by the ATF as suppressors.

Modern replica moderators are just long flash hiders, without the baffles or suppressive effect.
 
Posts: 18053 | Location: Northwest Arkansas | Registered: January 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by RogueJSK:
The XM177's muzzle device was a moderator that served two purposes: it acted as a flash hider and also had internal baffles that acted as a suppressor to some extent, reducing the short barrel's loud muzzle report.


Thanks. I did run across a partial explanation after I posted the above.




“Most men … can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it … would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions … which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their lives.”
— Leo Tolstoy
 
Posts: 36529 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of MG34_Dan
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by sigfreund:
... but what puzzles me about the XM177 was the purpose of the long flash hider...


The 'long flash hider' is known as a moderator. It's purpose was to 'moderate' the short barrel muzzle blast sound signature to make it sound more like that of a regular M16A1. The theory for doing this was to not let the enemy know a special operations group was present. Since most Vietnam enemy confrontations were held at distances of less than 50 yards, the loss of muzzle velocity from a short barrel was considered irrelevant.

This is what's inside a moderator:


“Elections have consequences, and at the end of the day, I won.”
– Barack Hussein Obama, January 23, 2009
 
Posts: 1654 | Location: Austin Texas USA | Registered: February 03, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Freethinker
Picture of sigfreund
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by MG34_Dan:
[T]he loss of muzzle velocity from a short barrel was considered irrelevant.


Now we’re getting to some meat of something I’ve long wondered about. Do you have links to any studies at the time that actually addressed the question of barrel length? Not to seem like a challenge, but specifically who “considered” the question and decided it was irrelevant?

During the period I was in Vietnam the Army knew much about interior and exterior ballistics of small arms, but not so much it seemed to me about the question of their wounding effects. Many erroneous beliefs were widely held, and even when I attempted to obtain some information about handgun wound ballistics during a visit to the Ballistics Research Laboratory in the late 1970s things seemed pretty vague. I specifically remember a discussion in 1972 with another soldier who scoffed at the information then just being reported that the M16’s wounding effects were due to its bullets’ tumbling upon striking a fleshy target—something that’s of course common knowledge today even among nonspecialists.

If the Army (or other services) actually conducted a valid study of the effects of reducing barrel length of the XM177E2 to 11.5 inches, that’s something I’d be very interested in reading.

Thanks for those great photos of the moderators, BTW.




“Most men … can seldom accept the simplest and most obvious truth if it … would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions … which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabrics of their lives.”
— Leo Tolstoy
 
Posts: 36529 | Location: 10,150 Feet Above Sea Level in Colorado | Registered: April 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Sigless in
Indiana
Picture of IndianaBoy
posted Hide Post
It always baffled me that when they found the need to add a moderator to an 11.5 inch barrel, why not just make it 16" and have all the velocity advantage. A 16" sounds pretty close to a 20".
 
Posts: 12603 | Location: The Edge of the Ozarks | Registered: December 04, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The only thing I miss about my days in the USAF:
My GAU-5.


End of Earth: 2 Miles
Upper Peninsula: 4 Miles
 
Posts: 4735 | Location: Marquette MI | Registered: July 08, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Mason's Rifle Room    Have you seen this? Troy GAU-5/A/A

© SIGforum 2017