Different types of A1 forearms?

[ClassIIIGunsmith]

Is there more than one type of the A1 triangular grip? I see online the pictures of some have a nice shiny glaze to them but looking at others they look like they were sanded or were not given a smooth texture. Now I own a 1976 SP1 and it has the smooth glaze texture ones. So what I'm asking is all cosmetic concern. My other question is if I buy one with that sanded look can I fix it with some clp being rubbed on it? I rub my SP1 down from time to time to keep it looking nice. If there is a difference is it because of the fact that Hydra and others made M16's at the same time as Colt did for the vietnam war effort or is it a difference in year of manufacture? Also could it be that the old school parts are weathered from use in the field or could it be oxidation of the fiberlite? Sorry for the million questions.

[Renegade04]

I have seen A1 handguards with dull to shiny finishes. Many of the early A1 handguards seem to have a sheen to them just like the early A1 buttstocks and pistol grips. The M16A1s I used back in the late '70s had a slight sheen to them. My 1977 SP1 and my M16A1 clone (w/ USGI M16A1 upper assembly) have handguards with moderate sheens. Some of the newer reproductions have dull finishes. In most cases, the shiny glaze look on the A1 handguards comes from a lot of use. Over time, the oils from the hands works into the polymer and gives it that high sheen look. You can take some type of lubricant and work into the handguards to give them a better sheen. You could even apply the lubricant with a Scotchbrite pad to help smooth out the surface a little bit. When I bought my USGI M16A1 upper assembly several years ago, it had been painted very lightly with black paint to make it look better. I used some Gun Scrubber to get all of the paint off and get it back down to its base finish. I then took some gun oil and rubbed it into the handguards to bring out the sheen in them again.

ETA: I put in an inquiry on another website forum that has a lot of guys who are well versed in all things regarding vintage M16s/AR15s. I will let you know if they come up with any thing to add or correct.

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m8/jamesrea_2006/Weapons%202014/Retro%20ARs/020_zpse5e73095.jpg (http://s100.photobucket.com/user/jamesrea_2006/media/Weapons%202014/Retro%20ARs/020_zpse5e73095.jpg.html)

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m8/jamesrea_2006/Weapons%202014/Retro%20ARs/021_zps3731b46d.jpg (http://s100.photobucket.com/user/jamesrea_2006/media/Weapons%202014/Retro%20ARs/021_zps3731b46d.jpg.html)

[Renegade04]

Here are some quotes, thus far, from my inquiry.


"Early ones were shiny from the get go. They did change the material somewhat I understand, as was mentioned. This was debated a lot in the early days of the forum, but the consensus is that early were shiny. I can tell you the ones off my XM16E1 are shiny - think about it, if it were just wear from your hands, then you'd see wear patterns similar to 601 handguards, but the entire thing is shiny. You can also see this in the real deal thread."


"+1 I agree

There are pics around of early XM16E1's fresh from the factory that show a distinct shine or glare from light source even in BW photos. The dull matte guards came out sometime 66-67 era. They can wear down shiney too. Then it seems like another change in composition happened around 69 but I can't confirm."


"To my knowledge:

The later ones are more dull/won't get as mottling. I think once M16A1 production started and the Type E stock was developed, they started using a slightly different material for the furniture which doesn't have the mottling of the earlier stuff. Hence why you don't see mottled Type E stocks or later PGs/HGs as much or to the severity of earlier furniture. Every NOS set I've seen for sale (L and R marked) has been dull charcoal/black. "


"My 74 SP1 came with the older shiny blacker versions. My buds 78 version was the dull, rougher feeling, gray ones. Since I got mine in 78, this was one of the main reasons why I've pondered over the yrs whether mine was actually new, when I bought(from a LGS), as such. At the time, the prices on them had gone up and avail was somewhat scarce. So I think someone at the LBS sold theirs then to capitalize on it."

ETA: Here are two more responses.


"In a comparison between my 601 Handguards, the "No Drainholes" I have, and the later handguards, The earlier ones (all shiny) appear to be made of a harder material, and it is thinner, while the later flat versions are thicker and have a bit more give. Not that they give a lot, but they aren't quite as "crispy" as the earlier ones.

I'd speculate there was probably a spec change to the composition of the fibrelite used that happened around the time that drainholes were introduced to the handguards."


"I know that I can take an "old" pair and hit them with 320/400/600/800 paper and remove scratches, etc, and have them come out like a mirror. I also know that I can take "newer" ones and do the same and they stay dull/matte."

And another one.


"Page 15 of the M16 review panel says they changed the makeup of the hand guard material in 1965 to add tensile strength and increase supply. This was probably the change we see as shiny and dull. It also opened it up as an additional material, so the old could still be used if the manufacturer desired. Probably why we see the some later ones that are mottled too."

I will post more as I get them.

[ClassIIIGunsmith]

Glad I sturred this pot thank renegade04

[Renegade04]

You are welcome.

[LRRPF52]

They started out with Bakelite, a phenolic resin, then slowly started to introduce glass nylon into the mixture as time went on, until they were much more glass nylon, and no more signs of Bakelite were there.

http://www.gunco.net/gallery/data/500/medium/601HG_006.jpg

For the earlier furniture that we frequently call "mottled", those are transitional materials with a lot of the phenolic resin/Bakelite still present, but with a significant mix of black nylon.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y236/Iron_Airship/602p.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y236/Iron_Airship/602i.jpg

There isn't really such a thing as "A1" handguards per se, as there are many different variations of material and manufacture of the triangular handguard sets from 1959-1970's. The same applies to the pistol grips and buttstocks. When you also factor in the USAF Colt 604 production, that technically removes any "A1" specific handguard, since they were shared by all military production rifles, with the US Army and Marines receiving Colt RO603's (type classified as the M16A1), and the USAF receiving RO604's, (M16). The main difference being the absence of the Malfunction Assist Forward device that Stoner proclaimed to be counter to logic, and the Air Force agreed.

From a collector's perspective, the early and transitional handguards are sought after more.

[SteyrAUG]

Were Semi Auto AR-15 rifles with red bakelite furniture ever offered for sale to the public?

[LRRPF52]

Were Semi Auto AR-15 rifles with red bakelite furniture ever offered for sale to the public?

To the best of my knowledge, and other historical enthusiasts, no. The SP-1 was developed in 1963, released in January of 1964, well after the original batch of green-painted Bakelite handguards had been used on the Colt 601's.

They did, however, have early transitional phenolic resin and glass nylon black handguards on the early Colt SP-1's for civilians sale. Those early SP-1's have the extension tube roll pin intersection on the lower receiver, slickside bolt carrier with chromed bolt, Type D stocks, 3 prong flash hiders, dimpled pins and safeties, the early bolt catch with angled bottom with serration on the bottom, triangular charge handles, non chromed barrels, and cast FSB's.

They are a find if you come across one.

[ClassIIIGunsmith]

LRRPF52, Noticing your other post is that an early sp1 you spoke about and took pictures of or is it a clone because you didn't show the magwell area on the lower; Just curious?