M16A1 Style Rifle

Discussion in 'DIY Projects' started by Jeehs, Mar 2, 2011.

  1. Jeehs

    Jeehs New Member

    132
    0
    0
    Ok, I have been toying around with the idea of getting an AR platform rifle for a little while now, So one day I was bored flipping through a Magzine and I saw a M16A1 kit. Originally, I was aiming for one with a rail system, but I know a normal forend, (Or Triangle one in this case) would suit me better, and also porbbaly bring my dad back a few years... (He was a US Army Sapper in the Early '70s Luckily, Never saw action though)

    So after a bit of thinking/planning/schemeing I've found the parts I need to complete the kit, But I have run into a few headaches, and I know you guys are expirenced in this kind of stuff so, Please forgive my inexpirence in the following qestions.

    ----First of all, This is the kit I found,M16A1 Kit, Sportsmans Guide
    Does anyone know of any problems with this kit?


    ----Second, I was reading through the parts list and it includes everything but the Trigger Disconnector. My question is, With a Trigger Disconnector installed will this convert it from Full-Auto to Semi-auto? Or will I have to buy a whole new internal parts kit for the lower?

    ----Third, It says that A-the barrel doesnt have grooves drilled for the sight, and that B-the barrel is Unfinished.

    A- Would drilling the grooves require speicalized tools? Or would a hobby gunsmith be able to drill the grooves?

    I have a teacher that is a hobby gunsmith and I know hes good at doing stuff like this, but If it requires speical machines. He may not be able to do it.

    Luckily I know I could buy a Gas block with a rail system and Mount a Detachable front sight to it if speical machinery/skills are required.

    B- Would a Finishing Spray such as Brownells AlumaHyde,Be a viable solution to this problem?


    Now, I will ask what you think about the overall Idea of a 15 Year old doing something like this, do you think I am getting way over my head? or that this is possible if I have acess to the right resources?

    I have researched all laws and regs for it and I know I cannot own the Lower reciever, but I think my Mom wouldnt mind (If I do attempt this, Im trying to keep my dad in the dark till Im done), and I have several FFL Dealers that I know wouldnt mind transfering it.


    If you see anything I missed please let me know, I know this sounds like a complex thing for a kid, and it is all still a BIG Maybe, and the feed back I recieve will probbaly be the final deciding factor for me.

    Thank You,
    Josh

    P.S. I do have the means to support this, I knew it would cost some major $$$. I have some work lined up so if I do decide to go for it, I'll have a head start. Once again Thanks.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2011
  2. dunerunner

    dunerunner New Member

    8,411
    3
    0

  3. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    15
    38
    answers in bold. the kit is general a bad buy due to the unfinished barrel. the cost of finishing it outweighs the price of piecing together one. but i think you need to consult mom and dad first. if your dad quashes it then you gotta wait 3 years.
     
  4. Ploofy

    Ploofy New Member

    1,197
    0
    0
    Also, the M16A1 was a piece of crap. Get the A2 or A3 instead. Unless you're planning on being an MP in an Airforce base, as that was what the A1 was designed for.
     
  5. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    15
    38
    totally wrong.

    on lots of levels. please list any real proof not someones repitition of interweb myth.
     
  6. Sniper03

    Sniper03 Supporting Member Supporter

    7,667
    67
    48
    Jeehs,

    Let me give you my two cents! Sounds like to me you are getting ready to be fleeced to the bone! I would stay as far away from that deal as I could! Just go to a reputable source and buy your parts from them. The guys here will give you good advise. But something is wrong with that deal! I have seen too many guys here on the forum fall victim to some scumbag trying to sell crap and make a dollar anyway they can! Sucking in particularly the new guys which does not set a very positive taste for our sport and industry.
    Run My Friend!

    03
     
  7. Jeehs

    Jeehs New Member

    132
    0
    0
    Actually,

    "The Army insisted on the inclusion of a forward assist to help push the bolt into battery in the event that a cartridge failed to seat in the chamber through fouling or corrosion. Colt had argued the rifle was a self-cleaning design, requiring little or no maintenance. Colt, Eugene Stoner, and the U.S. Air Force believed that a forward assist needlessly complicated the rifle, adding about $4.50 to its procurement cost with no real benefit. As a result, the design was split into two variants: the Air Force's M16 without the forward assist, and for the other service branches, the XM16E1 with the forward assist. The Army immediately began to issue the XM16E1 (re-named M16A1 on its adoption) to infantry units.
     
  8. Ploofy

    Ploofy New Member

    1,197
    0
    0
    "During immediately following years, a number of negative reports apears from Vietnam. M16A1 rifles, issued to US troops in the Vietnam, severely jammed in combat, resulting in numerous casualties."

    "After several dramatic reports in US press and Congressional investigation of the troubles, several actions were taken to remedy the problems."

    Unless you're using the NATO round designed for the A1, it's going to screw up. During Vietnam the VC rarely even picked up the A1, relying much more on their reliable and accurate Soviet Era and Chinese weapons. On top of that, the A1 was designed to be a quick firing close range gun, as the reports that were used to design it indicated that hits in combat were mostly luck, and that up to 2/3 of the soldiers that didn't have full auto weapons didn't even fire. The A1 has never been "rugged" anyways; the barrel and stock were reported to have been broken against trees and the like. The Army's A2 and Navy's A3 were much much better.
     
  9. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    15
    38
    the us government issued these weapons without cleaning kits and without manuals on their care and use. dont clean an ak or sks it will jam just as much as any other rifle. this wasnt a fault of the weapon itself but a failure of the politicians issuing the weapon without out the tools or training to care for it. the govt also deviated to a very dirty gunpowder than what was used in testing again not a failure of the weapon.

    steps were taken cleaning kits were issued and training manuals printed and issued and the rifle powder was changed resulting in an over nite disappearences of problems in reliability.

    the a1 will fire just fine with a variety of ammo in fact it is far more accurate with the ammo that works the worst in it heavy 68 grain bullets than an ak47 with tuned match grade ammo.

    the early issue buttstock was a brittle plastic and all were replaced with a more durable stock material making the a1 a very sturdy weapon. many m16a1 were abused by soldiers using them as crowbars to open things or levers resulting in bent barrels and "earning" a flimsy reputation. take an ak 47 or sks or any rifle and use it as a pry bar it will bend as well.

    reports of "flimsyness" were from people abusing the weapon that would bend or break any weapon if used the same way. the plastic is actually a better material than wood for a combat rifle. take an ak47 and start using it as a sustained fire weapon the wood prevents efficient heat dissipation and the weapon will soon start smoking and catch fire or rounds will start cooking off inside the magazine. it takes far far far longer for an m16a1 to reach a non functional point due to heat than an ak47.

    VC didnt often use the m16a1 because they didnt have reliable access to ammo for it. the same reason most us troops didnt use ak or sks. or even in ww2 and ww1 you almost never see soldiers using battlefield pickups as a main weapon lack of ammo supplies

    as for the short range thing that is purely a matter of lack of rifle marksmanship training. even today very little real time is spent on rifle training in all branches except for the marines.

    these are not faults of the weapon itself but of US policy.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2011
  10. jeepcreep927

    jeepcreep927 New Member

    1,105
    0
    0

    Agreed.

    I am not sure how one would come to the conclusion that the M16A1 is any less of a rifle than the A2 or A3 versions. There is absolutely no difference in mechanics of the rifles.