XM177-inspired build

[creedal]

So I caught the vintage bug. Put this together from bits I have. Dont have range report yet. But it looks pretty cool.

Not the highest quality, but decent parts:

DPMS chrome lined 1/9 11.5' barrel with pinned/welded "moderator" lookalike. A1 Carry handle upper. Anderson lower. Nitrided bcg. Spikes T1 buffer. Milspec tube. Core billet handle. Old Colt double shielded shiny fatties. N marked fiberlite. A1 Viet Nam era grip.

Very handy size.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[ClassIIIGunsmith]

the upper makes it look Canadian C8ish

[Renegade04]

the upper makes it look Canadian C8ish

The upper is an A1E1 (C7) type upper which would have never been used on an XM177 of any sort. Although it is a nice build, I would refer to this build as a XM177-inspired build and not a clone. It is more indicative of a model that Bushmaster built years ago. My XM177E2 clone is not totally correct, but fairly close.

[creedal]

Good call, I am new to the group and the lingo. I wish I could edit the name of the thread to XM177 Inspired Build.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[GRA556]

The upper is an A1E1 (C7) type upper which would have never been used on an XM177 of any sort.

For an XM177 maybe not but I would not go so far to say they didn't exist to an absolute extent. There is no telling what may still lurk in the USAF archives. If I recall correctly Colt USA did actually market a model with that type upper, although very limited. If the military authorized the use of experimental weapons there's no telling what was used from the late 60(s) through the early 90(s) in the regular components, which may still apply somewhat in NG units throughout the country. Some may have been screwed together and sold to foreign militaries also.

[GRA556]

So I caught the vintage bug. Put this together from bits I have. Dont have range report yet. But it looks pretty cool.

Not the highest quality, but decent parts:

DPMS chrome lined 1/9 11.5' barrel with pinned/welded "moderator" lookalike. A1 Carry handle upper. Anderson lower. Nitrided bcg. Spikes T1 buffer. Milspec tube. Core billet handle. Old Colt double shielded shiny fatties. N marked fiberlite. A1 Viet Nam era grip.

Very handy size.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

Nice build. I like the way you put it together. Let us know how your range days go.

[ClassIIIGunsmith]

The upper is an A1E1 (C7) type upper

IMG_2761.JPG
A1E1's were also used on C8A1's before the Elcan Sight.

[GRA556]

I've also read/heard the Diemaco upper was used on both C7 and C8 models.

[Renegade04]

For an XM177 maybe not but I would not go so far to say they didn't exist to an absolute extent. There is no telling what may still lurk in the USAF archives. If I recall correctly Colt USA did actually market a model with that type upper, although very limited. If the military authorized the use of experimental weapons there's no telling what was used from the late 60(s) through the early 90(s) in the regular components, which may still apply somewhat in NG units throughout the country. Some may have been screwed together and sold to foreign militaries also.

Never said that these uppers did not exist. What I am saying is that there was never any XM177made with an A1E1 type upper. The Model 653 was not made with them either. Colt first introduced them on the late Model 723 and late 733. The A1E1 upper was part of the M16A2 series development. The late 723 and late 733 were the only two Colt carbines to have these uppers. Most of these types of uppers were used on the Canadian C7 rifles and carbines. On my late 723 clone, I have one of the Colt A1E1 uppers.



Colt no-forge code upper


Colt proof mark


As far as what may be in USAF archives, that is unknown. I can state what was made with what based on the time they were made. If anyone has an XM177 outfitted with an A1E1 type upper receiver, it did not come that way from Colt since that upper receiver did not exist at that time. It was not until the late 1970s that this upper began to appear on the models I mentioned.

[GRA556]

I don't necessarily agree with that. That's fine if you wish to stick with your position. I'll stick with my statement.