XM177-inspired build

[militarymoron]

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

Just go to 'go advanced' when editing and you can change the title. i just did it for you.

[GRA556]

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.

It's really no big deal. You're well understood regardless.

Pretty much here, a "clone" is an assembly of all, if not mostly all, authentic parts scavenged from the original weapon(s) you're building.

A "retro" is one built with parts that gives a close resemblance of the original model that inspired the build, not necessarily using 100% authentic parts from an original.

That's the way I understand it anyways.

[Junkie]

It's really no big deal. You're well understood regardless.

Pretty much here, a "clone" is an assembly of all, if not mostly all, authentic parts scavenged from the original weapon(s) you're building.

A "retro" is one built with parts that gives a close resemblance of the original model that inspired the build, not necessarily using 100% authentic parts from an original.

That's the way I understand it anyways.

I don't think a clone needs to be made of authentic parts, but everyone can have their own opinion.

The retro AR I'm currently putting together certainly isn't a clone, though, and is mostly a way to get something that looks retro without much thought to authenticity. I'm using an NDS601 lower with a slickside upper, 607 stock, A1 grip/handguard, rifle gassed 16.5". I readily admit that it doesn't represent anything that was made at the time. I consider it retro, though, even though it doesn't exactly have a close resemblance to any specific model.

[creedal]

So since it is not a clone, today's mods of XM177 inspired build make retro inspired with subtle modern enhancements Spikes Jolly Roger lower, Spikes heavy buffer, Spikes qd endplate, Jard trigger.





Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

[GRA556]

I don't think a clone needs to be made of authentic parts, but everyone can have their own opinion.

I agree. That's not my definition. I'm said that because I get the impression that's what "clone" VS "retro" translates to on this particular website, although I've never seen an official definition of either one here in this site.

Regardless, sounds like your build is going to be really cool. Sounds like a Dissipator (???) and at my age those are my focus from now on. Please post photos when you're done.

I finished my "retro"-inspired rifle. I'm not calling it a clone on here because only about 30% of it is Colt parts both old and new but from the photos it will look pretty close to a somewhat original M16A1. I just got to get my photos right.

[Renegade04]

I don't think a clone needs to be made of authentic parts, but everyone can have their own opinion.

The retro AR I'm currently putting together certainly isn't a clone, though, and is mostly a way to get something that looks retro without much thought to authenticity. I'm using an NDS601 lower with a slickside upper, 607 stock, A1 grip/handguard, rifle gassed 16.5". I readily admit that it doesn't represent anything that was made at the time. I consider it retro, though, even though it doesn't exactly have a close resemblance to any specific model.

I agree that clones do not HAVE to be made from authentic parts. There are different levels to cloning and correctness. Some guys go all out and want as many original parts as they can that are correct to the original model. They even go as far as to have a lower engraved with the original markings. Others, like myself, want to make it as correct as possible using as many original parts as possible, but will use reproduction parts when necessary all the while maintaining as much correctness as possible. Then, there are those that want the correct look, but are not concerned about original parts. They still want it to look authentic.

There are the guys who want a retro look, but not model specific. What they build is not a clone, but a retro-inspired build, like creedal's XM177-inspired build and like the build you are working on. Just bear in mind that there are clones (correct reproduction/facsimile of a specific original model) and varying levels of correctness. Then, there are retro-inspired builds which may or may nor resemble a specific original model. I have seen some innovative retro-inspired builds over the years. There are a lot of guys with big imaginations and they take the time and energy to make everything look good and work well.

[ABNAK]

I agree that clones do not HAVE to be made from authentic parts. There are different levels to cloning and correctness. Some guys go all out and want as many original parts as they can that are correct to the original model. They even go as far as to have a lower engraved with the original markings. Others, like myself, want to make it as correct as possible using as many original parts as possible, but will use reproduction parts when necessary all the while maintaining as much correctness as possible. Then, there are those that want the correct look, but are not concerned about original parts. They still want it to look authentic.

There are the guys who want a retro look, but not model specific. What they build is not a clone, but a retro-inspired build, like creedal's XM177-inspired build and like the build you are working on. Just bear in mind that there are clones (correct reproduction/facsimile of a specific original model) and varying levels of correctness. Then, there are retro-inspired builds which may or may nor resemble a specific original model. I have seen some innovative retro-inspired builds over the years. There are a lot of guys with big imaginations and they take the time and energy to make everything look good and work well.

The only thing I changed when building an M16A1 clone (or retro gun, whichever you please) was to make it with a 1:7 twist so I can take advantage of the newer, better ammo. That is why I so greatly wish that Troy would make their retro XM177 series with 1:7 twist barrels. Hell, you can't see the barrel twist rate so aesthetically there is no difference but functionally there is.

[SteyrAUG]

The only thing I changed when building an M16A1 clone (or retro gun, whichever you please) was to make it with a 1:7 twist so I can take advantage of the newer, better ammo. That is why I so greatly wish that Troy would make their retro XM177 series with 1:7 twist barrels. Hell, you can't see the barrel twist rate so aesthetically there is no difference but functionally there is.

Wonder what the twist rate will be on the Colt reproductions.

[Junkie]

I agree. That's not my definition. I'm said that because I get the impression that's what "clone" VS "retro" translates to on this particular website, although I've never seen an official definition of either one here in this site.

Regardless, sounds like your build is going to be really cool. Sounds like a Dissipator (???) and at my age those are my focus from now on. Please post photos when you're done.

I finished my "retro"-inspired rifle. I'm not calling it a clone on here because only about 30% of it is Colt parts both old and new but from the photos it will look pretty close to a somewhat original M16A1. I just got to get my photos right.

Yeah, I'm basically trying to get as close as I can to modern AR functionality in a retro-appearing rifle. I'll post pictures when it's together.

[ClassIIIGunsmith]

love how this became a thread for what we classify as retro, clone, original, and vintage....