PDA

View Full Version : M4/CQBR Clone, too soon to be retro?



albatrossarmament
09-28-15, 09:59
So I picked up a Colt lower cheap and you know how new lowers are, they suddenly sprout into builds. I can appreciate the attention to detail serious "clone" builders can bring to the table. Care to answer a few questions? My plan is to build the Colt lower as an early M4 config with CAR plastic stock. Since the 10.5" CQBR upper would be bolted on... would the M4 lower be correct without the CQD sling mount? Would an A1 grip work, or am I stuck with the A2 grip? Did all CQBR uppers have the KAC NT4? Keep in mind we are talking about a converted M4 and not a dedicated Mk18. Thanks guys, this should be a fun thread!

Anthony.L
09-28-15, 10:36
Well depends on what direction you want to go. MK18 MOD 0 or CQBR? Sounds like the latter from your thread title, but then you say "early M4 config with CAR stock" so little confused on the intention.

If CQBR then some bad news, DD has discontinued the MK18 RIS rail and now they are getting very hard to find, and when you do people want a premium. The best bet is find a DD complete MK18 upper, then try and piece one together yourself.

The original suppressor and king of the clone builds is in fact the KAC QDSS-NT4. However the later model CQBR were issued with the Surefire SOCOM-56RC suppressor. You can get one "cheap" right now at Arms Unlimited.

https://www.armsunlimited.com/SureFire-Fast-Attach-Rifle-Sound-Suppressor-p/socom556-rc.htm

A1 or A2 pistol grips are both appropriate.

CQD sling mount front/rear is the standard issue for clone builds. Of course you can deviate if you want. That is what I have on mine.

That should be enough to get you rolling. I follow closely as I have several Colt clone builds in the works/completed. Also you can always scan the 1000+ page thread on MK18 builds over on ARFCOM.

albatrossarmament
09-28-15, 10:54
Let me clarify. This will be a CQBR upper with RAS handguard, fixed front sight..early model.

So it will look like a Mk18Mod0, but those were built on M16A1 (or earlier) lowers. And I dont want to confuse it with the Mk18 platform as there are some differences.

Anthony.L
09-28-15, 11:55
No issues using the M4 lower on a MK18 MOD 0. My MK18 MOD 0 clone is built a Colt M4 Carbine marked lower from a LE6920. For the early MK18 you definitely want the KAC suppressor to be accurate. Next to the PEQ-2A it will be my most expensive component of the build.

Renegade04
09-29-15, 11:04
Let me clarify. This will be a CQBR upper with RAS handguard, fixed front sight..early model.

So it will look like a Mk18Mod0, but those were built on M16A1 (or earlier) lowers. And I dont want to confuse it with the Mk18 platform as there are some differences.

It sounds like this is what you are wanting to build.

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m8/jamesrea_2006/jamesrea2011A/Mk18%20CQBR/011_zpsapucryf3.jpg (http://s100.photobucket.com/user/jamesrea_2006/media/jamesrea2011A/Mk18%20CQBR/011_zpsapucryf3.jpg.html)

http://i100.photobucket.com/albums/m8/jamesrea_2006/jamesrea2011A/Mk18%20CQBR/001_zpsipx8hmgg.jpg (http://s100.photobucket.com/user/jamesrea_2006/media/jamesrea2011A/Mk18%20CQBR/001_zpsipx8hmgg.jpg.html)

This is a Mk18 Mod 0 clone that I built back in 2010. Although not 100% correct, it is more than close enough for me. As far as this type of AR being a vintage/retro model, it is not. Even the A2 has still not been recognized as being vintage/retro by many in the retro community.

Here is a link that may help you with the specs on the Mk18 versions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_Quarters_Battle_Receiver

Anthony.L
09-29-15, 12:05
This is a Mk18 Mod 0 clone that I built back in 2010. Although not 100% correct, it is more than close enough for me.

Great clone build, and pretty darn close. Looks like you used a LMT 10.5" upper, probably stripped without hand guard and then you added the KAC RAS.

Surefire light isn't the right model, LMT is Gen2 not Gen1, A2 flash hider instead of NT4, and used a DPMS lower instead of a Colt lower. Otherwise spot on.

Renegade04
09-29-15, 14:58
Great clone build, and pretty darn close. Looks like you used a LMT 10.5" upper, probably stripped without hand guard and then you added the KAC RAS.

Surefire light isn't the right model, LMT is Gen2 not Gen1, A2 flash hider instead of NT4, and used a DPMS lower instead of a Colt lower. Otherwise spot on.

Here are the specs on the build.

Upper Receiver:
LMT 10.5” upper
Colt Side Sling Swivel
LMT Detachable Tactical Rear Sight
LMT Standard Full-Auto Bolt Carrier Group
LMT Charging Handle
KAC M4 RAS w/ VFG
Surefire Weaponlight
Aimpoint Comp M2 4MOA
Wilcox Ind. M68 Mount (p/n: 13600G01)

Lower Receiver:
Nodal Spud NDS-16A1 lower receiver (Registered SBR)
DPMS LPK with original M16 safety selector (modified)
LMT SOPMOD stock
VLTOR Mil-Spec buffer tube, buffer, and spring
A2 Pistol Grip

elephant
09-29-15, 23:07
Here are the specs on the build.

Upper Receiver:
LMT 10.5” upper
Colt Side Sling Swivel
LMT Detachable Tactical Rear Sight
LMT Standard Full-Auto Bolt Carrier Group
LMT Charging Handle
KAC M4 RAS w/ VFG
Surefire Weaponlight
Aimpoint Comp M2 4MOA
Wilcox Ind. M68 Mount (p/n: 13600G01)

Lower Receiver:
DPMS lower receiver (Registered SBR) and LPK
LMT SOPMOD stock
VLTOR Mil-Spec buffer tube, buffer, and spring
A2 Pistol Grip

The DPMS lower was used because that is what I had a tax stamp for already. It is from my very first personally owned AR (2004).

those Surefire M951 weapon lights are damn near $400 in like new condition on ebay

bad aim
09-30-15, 09:00
those Surefire M951 weapon lights are damn near $400 in like new condition on ebay

Wouldn't the correct light be the M961 or 962, the 9V lights, for the CQBR?

Anthony.L
09-30-15, 10:13
those Surefire M951 weapon lights are damn near $400 in like new condition on ebay

I've purchased three M951's brand new in the box on eBay for less than $100 each.


Wouldn't the correct light be the M961 or 962, the 9V lights, for the CQBR?

Correct. Here is my M961XM07 that I got off eBay for around $100 brand new. However the push button tail cap cost me more than the light...

http://i.imgur.com/26EG9Km.jpg

Ryno12
09-30-15, 10:37
I've purchased three M951's brand new in the box on eBay for less than $100 each.



Correct. Here is my M961XM07 that I got off eBay for around $100 brand new. However the push button tail cap cost me more than the light...

http://i.imgur.com/26EG9Km.jpg

And you know that they're not fake?

Anthony.L
09-30-15, 10:38
And you know that they're not fake?

Correct, they are not fake. I know the difference, but thanks for asking!

Split66
09-30-15, 12:02
Grant at G&R has the correct barrel for $269. It's a Colt 10.3" barrel. http://www.gandrtactical.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=SP64049

It sounds like you are going for the early SF/ODA CQBR (not mk18) clone, so some of the stuff will be different than the original mk18mod0 or CQBR block 1.5/2.


Your lower as a stand in for a 727 lower/M4 lower correct for the time period
Car Stock with Rubber pad zip tied for good measure
H2 or H3 buffer
Standard End Plate

Colt upper, AF marked if possible
Colt 10.3" barrel
Colt or USGI contract BCG
KAC RAS
NT4 Suppressor mount/Suppressor OR BE Meyers 249 Flash hider
PEQ2 or time period correct visible/IR laser



Aimpoint Comp M in QRP mount

or Eotech 511, Eotech 553.
Matech buis


Various lights, the famous pics typically have the Surefire "ganster grip" M900


Also note the block 1.5 PR (phased replacment) with SU231 and later PEQ IR laser

http://www.americanspecialops.com/images/photos/special-forces/7th-special-forces-group.jpg

With waffle stock and C MORE sight

http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff502/augeekim/REYESCQBR.jpg

PR with BE meyers and ACOG

http://i.imgur.com/Ae0jn.jpg

Anthony.L
09-30-15, 12:08
Grant at G&R has the correct barrel for $269. It's a Colt 10.3" barrel. http://www.gandrtactical.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=SP64049

G&R Tactical is good to go for Colt clone build parts. I got my 10.3" Colt barrel from them plus a several Colt LPK's to go with Colt stripped lowers I got off GunBroker. I would also watch GunBroker, sometimes you can find parts slightly cheaper listed on there. I've bought thousands worth of Colt parts over the past 3 years for clone builds.

albatrossarmament
09-30-15, 12:09
Thanks Split, that's the direction I am going! So you would you say a cut Colt carry handle would be a no-go?

Split66
09-30-15, 12:19
All of the CAG/ODA/SF/Army CQBRs I've seen in photos have had Matechs or possibly KAC Buis. If you check out Oliver North's book "American Heroes in Special Operations" you can glimpse a few other ODA CQBRs here and there.

Ryno12
09-30-15, 12:22
Grant at G&R has the correct barrel for $269. It's a Colt 10.3" barrel. http://www.gandrtactical.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=SP64049

For the exception of the can & lower, all the major components were sourced from Grant.
There's a few part that aren't original Colt like safety selector, CH, stock, and grip but those go on all my builds. It's not an exact clone but it wasn't intended to be.

http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/09/30/62cbd96c82e7be0d98a9f38e6c473f95.jpg
http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/09/30/cd07dead5bded6886ae5ed26f1e65e4f.jpg

Split66
09-30-15, 12:42
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/696/21817662685_8c797202b0_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/zeXe12)IMG_4868 (https://flic.kr/p/zeXe12) by splittiebus 66 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/96653819@N04/), on Flickr



I based mine around Kyle Defoor's mk18 or an early SEAL mk18 in general. It's all Colt. It has the incorrect suppressor though, no PEQ2, an incorrect FM cover for the Surefire, a RAS instead of a RIS, and no select fire. Well sometimes....



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBXN-UwDors

cloned gun


http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/KD-AFG.jpg

elephant
09-30-15, 13:16
I've purchased three M951's brand new in the box on eBay for less than $100 each.



Correct. Here is my M961XM07 that I got off eBay for around $100 brand new. However the push button tail cap cost me more than the light...

http://i.imgur.com/26EG9Km.jpg


These are either NOS or NIB:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Surefire-M951-Weapon-light-SW01-flatly-switch-Tail-cap-old-gen-vintage-mount-nsw-/221898108832?hash=item33aa286fa0

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Surefire-M951-Weapon-light-SW01-switch-Tail-cap-old-gen-oldschool-vintage-sw02-/221898111075?hash=item33aa287863

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Surefire-M961-with-SW02-Tail-for-CQBR-MK18-LBT-Eagle-Industries-not-M951-/221893892069?hash=item33a9e817e5

Renegade04
09-30-15, 13:37
Here is a little bit of info.

Upper and lower receivers: The lower receiver is a standard M4A1 lower receiver sometimes modified with the addition of a CQD RSM sling adapter plate. However, many CQBR rifles also use surplus M16A1 lower receivers. Internally, the CQBR also takes advantage of a larger gas port and modified bolt carrier and buffer assembly. The gas port has been opened to 0.070 in (1.8 mm). A number of Lewis Machine & Tool 10.5" (266.7 mm) upper receivers have also been reported to have been purchased for the CQBR program. These upper receivers feature a gas system optimized for short barrel use.

Sights: Initially, detachable carrying handles cut down so that only the rear sight assembly was used. However, most of these have been replaced with the similar, commercially-made Lewis Machine & Tool adjustable rear sight. Also used are several types of reflex and magnified optics, most commonly seen is the Aimpoint CompM2 in a Wilcox Industries Corp. Picatinny (MIL-STD-1913) mount.

albatrossarmament
10-02-15, 10:44
Again guys, thanks for your help. In regards to the BE Meyers being used...I am guessing these were not suppressor compatible? And if not, they must have been dedicated short barrels, preferring the compactness over noise discipline? This is a very interesting direction, and I was always assuming I would use the KAC NT4, but the BE Meyers gives me another possible option depending on exactly which variant (of the CQBR) I end up with.

Anthony.L
10-02-15, 11:18
Correct, no suppressor option to my knowledge for the BE Meyers muzzle device. I would go with the NT4 and the QDSS suppressor, which is what I did personally.

Split66
10-02-15, 18:52
There is an adapter that they made for a bit that would allow the use of an NT4 with the BE meyers. IIRC one of the guys in the mk18 thread on TOS has one. I remember reading that Surefire mounts were licensed from them at some point too.

Anthony.L
10-02-15, 19:51
I remember reading that Surefire mounts were licensed from them at some point too.

Surefire licensed the technology from BE Meyers for their flash hider. You can not attach a Surefire suppressor to the BE Meyer flash hider.

I would go with a NT4 and QDSS can, or a Surefire 3 prong and SOCOM 5.56 can.

ClearedHot
10-05-15, 12:18
There was a NT4 compatible BE Meyers flash hider in use on the Mk18 Mod 0 guns. Most of them were marked "Prototype". I had one and sold it a while ago.
http://i62.tinypic.com/2lxezp4.jpg
http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff502/augeekim/9ACD88EC-B2C3-41C3-B386-79155F499087-852-000000EAE1759AA6_zpsea551695.jpg
http://i1239.photobucket.com/albums/ff502/augeekim/88C5E235-3924-41A7-A3ED-7A37BEC44BF7-852-000000EB4D46BECE_zps43fd38f4.jpg

Anthony.L
10-05-15, 14:02
There was a NT4 compatible BE Meyers flash hider in use on the Mk18 Mod 0 guns. Most of them were marked "Prototype". I had one and sold it a while ago.

Now that is cool! First I've seen one of those, and I follow the 1000+ page MK18 thread over on AR15 religiously. Maybe I will come across one for sale some day.

albatrossarmament
10-06-15, 09:03
Very, very neat. I'm guessing these didn't see much action/use in the hands of those in the field. Guys, I've got parts arriving for this build almost daily. On the charging handle, can I roll with stock or do I need to drop the dime on the PRI unit?

vandal5
10-06-15, 10:12
Very, very neat. I'm guessing these didn't see much action/use in the hands of those in the field. Guys, I've got parts arriving for this build almost daily. On the charging handle, can I roll with stock or do I need to drop the dime on the PRI unit?
They do offer their latches separately if you did not want the whole thing.

http://www.precisionreflex.com/Detail.aspx?PROD=186698&CAT=4293

Sent from my PIP-BOY 3000 using Tapatalk

Combat_Diver
10-06-15, 10:32
http://i38.servimg.com/u/f38/16/48/54/01/img_0113.jpg (http://www.servimg.com/view/16485401/1081)

CD

Anthony.L
10-06-15, 11:51
On the charging handle, can I roll with stock or do I need to drop the dime on the PRI unit?

The PRI M84 Gas Buster is the clone correct choice.


They do offer their latches separately if you did not want the whole thing.

The latch is not the real purpose for the PRI Gas Buster, the name says it all. The M84 is designed to put less gas in the operators face when shooting suppressed. The latch won't provide this function.

albatrossarmament
10-06-15, 19:05
What I have together so far....

Chopped carry handle may or may not go on this build depending on the direction it goes...

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/660/21818167080_11701d59e9_c.jpg

Anthony.L
10-06-15, 23:00
I knew when you first posted this thread and said "you got a cheap Colt" lower this was going to be the case. There is no such thing as a cheap stripped Colt lower, and that comes from someone who has bought four of them personally. Those "Competition" lowers are not produced by Colt, they licensed copies by a 3rd party company. Flip it over and I bet it has another company name from either Texas or Oregon engraved on the other side. That is who Colt licensed to make these "Competition" rifles which are just garbage, horrible quality. There has been a huge quantity of these flooded on the market lately. My guess is they have given up on making the copies and dumping all inventory on hand. Too many people thought they were real Colt parts/rifles, it was VERY misleading.

albatrossarmament
10-07-15, 06:52
I actually have three of these lowers and two are registered SBR's. I have not found one issue with them. Maybe if you can post exactly what is out of spec with them I will have my machinist confirm and post here. Otherwise let's keep the brand bashing to a minimum and the thread on topic. Anyone who thinks these are real Colt rifles simply haven't found Google yet.

ClassIIIGunsmith
10-07-15, 09:45
Even the A2 has still not been recognized as being vintage/retro by many in the retro community.


The reason why the A2 isn't a Vintage rifle yet is because you can still buy one brand new unlike the SP1 and other discontinued AR's. Also my feelings for the A2 is more of a hateful relationship because of my ownership of a Colt Delta Elite Sporter II MSR which was a POS back in '87 when I bought it. I feel like the A2 and all of its features were shoved down my throat. The A2 compensator was the worst thing ever about the gun aside from the hand guards, stock, and pistol grip. OP just build a GOV contract rifle like a defense force contacted gun. Clides Armory is selling some right now. Just to give you a good idea.

albatrossarmament
10-07-15, 14:43
OP just build a GOV contract rifle like a defense force contacted gun. Clides Armory is selling some right now. Just to give you a good idea.

I honestly have no idea what this has to do with a M4/CQBR clone

ClassIIIGunsmith
10-07-15, 17:13
I honestly have no idea what this has to do with a M4/CQBR clone

He said a cheap build option. I gave one.

albatrossarmament
10-07-15, 17:19
He said a cheap build option. I gave one.

Who did? I am the OP and I certainly didn't. Anyone who thinks a M4/CQBR will be a cheap build option is living in a fantasy world.

Anthony.L
10-07-15, 17:23
Anyone who thinks a M4/CQBR will be a cheap build option is living in a fantasy world.

This. Nothing cheap about doing clone builds.

Renegade04
10-07-15, 18:38
This. Nothing cheap about doing clone builds.

Amen to that. I have nearly $3800 into my Mk12 Mod 0 clone. Probably close to $2100 in my Mk18 clone. Even my retro clones range between $800-$1500 depending on the clone and how correct it is. To build a correct clone, or even one that is really close to all correct, it will cost you some good money, not to mention the time to research and gather the correct parts.

Anthony.L
10-07-15, 22:41
Amen to that. I have nearly $3800 into my Mk12 Mod 0 clone. Probably close to $2100 in my Mk18 clone. Even my retro clones range between $800-$1500 depending on the clone and how correct it is. To build a correct clone, or even one that is really close to all correct, it will cost you some good money, not to mention the time to research and gather the correct parts.

Right there with you. I have a completed 100% authentic Colt M4A1 Block 1 which was not cheap. I have everything to build a completely authentic clone Colt MK18 MOD 0 waiting to assemble. And I have about 70% of the parts for a Colt MK12 MOD 0 build. Then I also have a HK 416 clone build going with all the parts, just need the barrel work done. After all of those are done I'm taking a break from the clone world for a while!

albatrossarmament
10-09-15, 12:33
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/609/21302182878_05e7f676b9.jpg

Can we discuss this rifle? Maybe there are other, better pics floating out there of this CQBR?

Anthony.L
10-09-15, 15:36
https://farm1.staticflickr.com/609/21302182878_05e7f676b9.jpg

Can we discuss this rifle? Maybe there are other, better pics floating out there of this CQBR?

At first glance without blowing up the image that looks like a MK18 MOD 0 config. Was there something specific you saw in the image that interest you?

albatrossarmament
10-09-15, 19:47
I do not believe it is a Mk18. Can anyone tell if that is a RIS, or RAS rail? The Car15 stock makes me believe it is a M4/CQBR...LMT sight, looks like an M4 reciever as well, not A1.


If the rail is a RIS, one could argue the stock was changed out and it is a MK18...But I think it is a M4/CQBR

Anthony.L
10-09-15, 20:33
To me, from here, that looks like a KAC RAS and not a DD RIS. The stocks in the field were highly variable, operators could switch them out.

albatrossarmament
10-09-15, 22:00
I had to google DD RIS just to see what you were saying. The DD RIS is a block 2 rail.

What I am asking is if anyone knows if this is a KAC RIS, or KAC RAS. Everything about this rifle lends me to believe it is a M4 with CQBR upper.

steyrman13
10-09-15, 22:45
I had to google DD RIS just to see what you were saying. The DD RIS is a block 2 rail.

What I am asking is if anyone knows if this is a KAC RIS, or KAC RAS. Everything about this rifle lends me to believe it is a M4 with CQBR upper.

That is a KAC RAS


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Renegade04
10-10-15, 12:19
I do not believe it is a Mk18. Can anyone tell if that is a RIS, or RAS rail? The Car15 stock makes me believe it is a M4/CQBR...LMT sight, looks like an M4 reciever as well, not A1.


If the rail is a RIS, one could argue the stock was changed out and it is a MK18...But I think it is a M4/CQBR


The M4 carbine and M16 are not ideally suited for all missions, so it was proposed that the modularity of the M16 series would allow a user to replace the upper receiver of an existing weapon with one more suitable to the task. One of two proposed special mission receivers that were planned for inclusion into the SOPMOD Block II kit, the CQBR has taken off on its own. Like the proposed Special Purpose Receiver, the Close Quarters Battle Receiver has been more or less taken on by the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division (often referred to as NSWC-Crane or just "Crane") as its own project following the CQBR's removal from the SOPMOD program. Just as the Special Purpose Receiver morphed into the Special Purpose Rifle, and was type-classified as Mk 12 Mod 0/1, the complete CQBR-equipped carbine has been type-classified as the Mk 18 Mod 0.

The purpose of the CQBR remains to provide operators with a weapon of submachine gun size, but firing a rifle cartridge, for scenarios such as VIP protection, urban warfare, and other close quarters battle (CQB) situations. The CQBR is designed to provide improvement over previous AR-15/M16-type weapons in this category. The CQBR is usually issued as a complete weapon system, and not just an upper receiver. The CQBR was once only available to Naval Special Warfare units, but the Mk 18 Mod 0 has become general issue for Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure (VBSS) missions and, as of 2006, for NCIS agents deploying to active combat zones.[citation needed] The Mk 18 is also used by the Coast Guard's Tactical Law Enforcement Teams, Maritime Safety and Security Teams, and Maritime Security Response Team and the United States Navy's Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Operators. It is also used by Marine Force Recon's CQB operators, and is in most cases the standard weapons of choice for said operators.

The short 10.3 in (262 mm) barrel length requires special modifications to reliably function. The gas port is opened from 0.062 to 0.070 in (1.6 to 1.8 mm). A one-piece McFarland gas ring replaces the three-piece gas ring set. The standard four-coil extractor spring is replaced with a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) five-coil spring. An O-ring surrounds the extractor spring. The standard M4 flash hider has been replaced with the M4QD flash hider for suppressor compatibility.

albatrossarmament
10-10-15, 20:07
Rengade, some of that info is outdated and no longer applies (ie..mcfarland gas rings).

Renegade04
10-10-15, 22:12
Rengade, some of that info is outdated and no longer applies (ie..mcfarland gas rings).

What I put in "bold" is what I was placing emphasis on.

albatrossarmament
10-10-15, 22:14
Ahh ok gotcha. Who type classified that? Because the mil has separate NSN's for the two?

Renegade04
10-10-15, 22:16
Ahh ok gotcha. Who type classified that? Because the mil has separate NSN's for the two?

Naval Surface Warfare Center, Crane Division

albatrossarmament
04-25-17, 14:51
Been a while, waiting for the Form 1 to arrive, but I've made progress. Got rid of most of the PSA parts and went with Colt. Below is a current build list, I'm now thinking about optics...

Mk18/CQBR build

RAS hand guard
KAC forward grip and panel covers
10.3” Colt 6920 barrel chopped by Adco
Colt upper
Colt bolt/carrier assy
Colt LPK
PRI gas-buster charging handle
Surefire 952 weapon light with IR filter
Chopped A2 rear sight
KAC NT4 suppressor mount
CQD rear sling mount
CQD sling
CAR stock
4 Pos receiver extension
H2 buffer
Colt/BI lower on form1
Colt A2 grip



Future mods:
Optic/mount
UID tag
Modify selector and remove “tic”


http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g261/waffenmacht/IMG_4372.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g261/waffenmacht/IMG_4392.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g261/waffenmacht/FullSizeRender.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g261/waffenmacht/IMG_4376.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g261/waffenmacht/IMG_4378.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g261/waffenmacht/IMG_4382.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g261/waffenmacht/IMG_4386_1.jpg

Renegade04
04-25-17, 20:30
Nice build. I will say to not worry about removing the tic from the selector since you have it on an A2 lower. If you had the correct A1 full-fence lower, I would say to get a M16 no-tic selector and remove the center fin from it. That is what I have done with my Mk18 Mod 0. I have a Nodak Spud NDS-16A1 lower on mine.

albatrossarmament
04-26-17, 07:36
Thanks Renegade. As you know, these "clone" builds can take time but are an excellent way to learn the details of how a particular model was developed.

You are right, on the true Mk18 Mod0 and A1 forging would be used. However, on the CQBR (which I must admit is the direction I am going at this point) was built on M4A1 donor lowers (which would be A2 forgings)

As for the "tic" vs "no tic" discussion, it is my understanding that even the A2/M4 lowers that were military issue did not have the tic marks on the selector, later they were marked " burst/auto/semi/safe" on the opposite side but never had the corresponding tic mark on the selector. This was a change submitted by Chris Bartocci at Colt that for whatever reason, was only partially approved (ie the markings on the lower but not on the selector). So even a CQBR clone (built on an M4A1 lower) would not have the tic mark on the selector.

Am I wrong or am I missing something?

ClassIIIGunsmith
04-26-17, 07:38
thats an old colt lower it's not marked colt defense

amd5007
04-26-17, 08:40
waiting for the Form 1 to arrive, but I've made progress.

Don't mean to be "that" guy, but if you're waiting for your Form 1, shouldn't you at least have the upper removed from the lower?

albatrossarmament
04-26-17, 08:55
Don't mean to be "that" guy, but if you're waiting for your Form 1, shouldn't you at least have the upper removed from the lower?

Haha, what I meant to say was, "Its been a while BECAUSE I was waiting on the Form 1 to arrive"... This was my 11th stamp.

Renegade04
04-26-17, 18:01
Thanks Renegade. As you know, these "clone" builds can take time but are an excellent way to learn the details of how a particular model was developed.

You are right, on the true Mk18 Mod0 and A1 forging would be used. However, on the CQBR (which I must admit is the direction I am going at this point) was built on M4A1 donor lowers (which would be A2 forgings)

As for the "tic" vs "no tic" discussion, it is my understanding that even the A2/M4 lowers that were military issue did not have the tic marks on the selector, later they were marked " burst/auto/semi/safe" on the opposite side but never had the corresponding tic mark on the selector. This was a change submitted by Chris Bartocci at Colt that for whatever reason, was only partially approved (ie the markings on the lower but not on the selector). So even a CQBR clone (built on an M4A1 lower) would not have the tic mark on the selector.

Am I wrong or am I missing something?

From all that I have seen, M16A2s, M4s, and some earlier M4A1s had selectors with a tic mark on them. This coincided with the markings on the right side of the receiver. These and the tic on the selector were primarily for the benefit of the left-handed shooters. Most of the later M4A1s has ambi-selectors them. Typically, if it had an A2 lower, it had a selector with a tic mark. Now, Colt has been renowned for using whatever parts they have on hand in order to complete production. There may very well have been some M16A2s and M4s with no-tic selectors. Whether it had a tic or not made no difference in function. The sear made the difference between a weapon firing full-auto or 3-round burst.

I have seen Mk18 CQBRs (all Blocks) and M4 and M4A1 SOPMODs (all Blocks), with M4 (BURST) and M4A1 (AUTO) lowers, with and without ambi-selectors. All the ones I have seen without ambi-selectors had selectors with a tic mark. The Mk18 CQBRs built on M16A1 lowers will have had a no-tic selector.

albatrossarmament
04-26-17, 18:23
From all that I have seen, M16A2s, M4s, and some earlier M4A1s had selectors with a tic mark on them. This coincided with the markings on the right side of the receiver. These and the tic on the selector were primarily for the benefit of the left-handed shooters. Most of the later M4A1s has ambi-selectors them. Typically, if it had an A2 lower, it had a selector with a tic mark. Now, Colt has been renowned for using whatever parts they have on hand in order to complete production. There may very well have been some M16A2s and M4s with no-tic selectors. Whether it had a tic or not made no difference in function. The sear made the difference between a weapon firing full-auto or 3-round burst.

I have seen Mk18 CQBRs (all Blocks) and M4 and M4A1 SOPMODs (all Blocks), with M4 (BURST) and M4A1 (AUTO) lowers, with and without ambi-selectors. All the ones I have seen without ambi-selectors had selectors with a tic mark. The Mk18 CQBRs built on M16A1 lowers will have had a no-tic selector.

Having reviewed many pics since my last post, I must agree. Tic selectors are common on the M4 lowers...I must have misunderstood Chris' statement. This is good news, less work for me! Thanks for the input renegade, its much appreciated.

GRA556
04-26-17, 20:20
My 6920 does not have the ambi selector, purchased in 2012.

My AR15A4 does, purchased in 11-2016.

Flankenstein
04-27-17, 15:57
I honestly have no idea what this has to do with a M4/CQBR clone

Look at ClassIIIGunsmith's post history. He most certainly has a screw loose.

ClassIIIGunsmith
04-27-17, 19:10
Look at ClassIIIGunsmith's post history. He most certainly has a screw loose.

that was posted 18 months ago....

Flankenstein
04-28-17, 16:42
that was posted 18 months ago....

Well... This thread showed up for me under "new posts" and I did not check post dates for each individual post. Have you gained some sort of infinite wisdom in the past 18 months?

I'd rather not bicker with you in this dude's thread. I'd prefer you just not comment on topics you know nothing about.

Renegade04
04-28-17, 19:26
Well... This thread showed up for me under "new posts" and I did not check post dates for each individual post. Have you gained some sort of infinite wisdom in the past 18 months?

I'd rather not bicker with you in this dude's thread. I'd prefer you just not comment on topics you know nothing about.

I believe that he has learned a few things over the past 18 months and that he is a bit more aware of more things now than he was back then.

albatrossarmament
04-29-17, 15:46
UID plate came in.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e21/albatrossarmament/FullSizeRender%205_zpsfiwingmi.jpg

CPM
05-30-17, 15:17
Putting that surefire switch on the grip is a surefire way to have an ND with that light at the wrong moment. Most of us put it on the top rail or used the clicky tail cap. I reserved the grip for my PEQ15 switch, as it wouldn't compromise my safety.

Renegade04
05-31-17, 13:24
Putting that surefire switch on the grip is a surefire way to have an ND with that light at the wrong moment. Most of us put it on the top rail or used the clicky tail cap. I reserved the grip for my PEQ15 switch, as it wouldn't compromise my safety.

Not necessarily. I have the pressure switch on several of my ARs located on the VFG. I have to intentionally squeeze the pressure switch with my fingers to activate the light. I have never had an issue activating the light while shooting with the VFG gripped.

CPM
05-31-17, 23:27
Not necessarily. I have the pressure switch on several of my ARs located on the VFG. I have to intentionally squeeze the pressure switch with my fingers to activate the light. I have never had an issue activating the light while shooting with the VFG gripped.

I am unsure of your experience in the modern era of tape switches(I see your time in Recon), but my experience both stateside and in Iraq is that when you have gloves on and you're slamming into doors and armoires wearing NODs with people in the same building who want to kill you, the foregrip gets squeezed quite hard when you don't mean to. That was what my team figured out and most of us ditched the tape for the clicky tail cap.

I also have enormous hands. Yuuuuge.

albatrossarmament
06-02-17, 06:16
I am unsure of your experience in the modern era of tape switches(I see your time in Recon), but my experience both stateside and in Iraq is that when you have gloves on and you're slamming into doors and armoires wearing NODs with people in the same building who want to kill you, the foregrip gets squeezed quite hard when you don't mean to. That was what my team figured out and most of us ditched the tape for the clicky tail cap.

I also have enormous hands. Yuuuuge.


This is not an issue as the build in question is a clone rifle and will NEVER be deployed in a defensive/offensive manner. I have a stack of other rifles purpose built for that. The SF light doesn't even have batteries installed. Stating that building a clone in this configuration "is a surefire way to have an ND with that light at the wrong moment" is going a bit far considering the purpose of this build. That being said, should I find that most CQBR's of this era had the tape switch in a different position I might consider changing it out of historical correctness.

CPM
06-02-17, 09:12
This is not an issue as the build in question is a clone rifle and will NEVER be deployed in a defensive/offensive manner. I have a stack of other rifles purpose built for that. The SF light doesn't even have batteries installed. Stating that building a clone in this configuration "is a surefire way to have an ND with that light at the wrong moment" is going a bit far considering the purpose of this build. That being said, should I find that most CQBR's of this era had the tape switch in a different position I might consider changing it out of historical correctness.

Hey brother, I'm not insulting your build- there's no way I could have known that your build of a combat firearm modeled after a weapon I carried in combat would never once be used in a defensive manner. I'm a sample size of one, in a Recon platoon of 36- super small. I was just trying to contribute to the thread. It's a beautiful gun, now you just need an EOTech on it!

albatrossarmament
06-02-17, 09:55
Hey brother, I'm not insulting your build- there's no way I could have known that your build of a combat firearm modeled after a weapon I carried in combat would never once be used in a defensive manner. I'm a sample size of one, in a Recon platoon of 36- super small. I was just trying to contribute to the thread. It's a beautiful gun, now you just need an EOTech on it!

Totally understood. Thanks for your service and passing along your experience.