I would maybe drop 1800 on a Colt marked and endorsed XM-177E2 but $2500 GTFOH
I would like to know more about Brownells making their XM-177 more accurate
I would maybe drop 1800 on a Colt marked and endorsed XM-177E2 but $2500 GTFOH
I would like to know more about Brownells making their XM-177 more accurate
The price of these retro Colts is more than I can afford, but it’s really great to see them recognize the popularity of their vintage rifles and offer them like this. It seems like better business sense than they’ve show in the past. I was talking about the Colt Python with a friend a couple years ago and discussing how they could have capitalized on the Python’s role in the Walking Dead and brought it back, but Colt didn’t seem to be interested.
My understanding is that the Heavy buffer came out of the XM4 program, along with the 'M4 feed ramps' as a means of addressing reliability issues with the XM177E2 (and subsequent shorty AR-15s). In fact, I believe the first heavy carbine buffer weights were developed for Colt's 9mm SMG - but these would be much too heavy for a 5.56mm carbine.
So a standard carbine buffer would be clone correct, but you would likely see benefits from using a Heavy or an H2 in it and there's no technical reason (that I'm aware of) not to.
Last edited by MountainRaven; 10-07-19 at 13:26.
" Nil desperandum - Never Despair. That is a motto for you and me. All are not dead; and where there is a spark of patriotic fire, we will rekindle it. "
- Samuel Adams -
Bartocci had a video claiming that with the carbine buffer (all steel weights, no tungsten weights) and non-M4 feed ramps, there were feeding issues. Said that Colt solved the problem in the XM4 with a combination of the M4 feed ramps and the addition of a tungsten weight, and those two things fixed the problem, but either modification alone would have solved the problem. I dunno one way or another if he is correct, just food for thought.
RLTW
“What’s New” button, but without GD: https://www.m4carbine.net/search.php...new&exclude=60 , courtesy of ST911.
Disclosure: I am affiliated PRN with a tactical training center, but I speak only for myself. I have no idea what we sell, other than CLP and training. I receive no income from sale of hard goods.
Brownells retros are not more accurate compared to the Colt offerings.
Chris Bartocci and I do not agree on this.
The Colt offering is worth it just for the lower alone. You can't get a more correct lower than the Colt offering.
I took my Colt retros and rebuilt them with correct late 1960s vintage parts.
I had an entire mint condition XM177E2 part set with real moderator awaiting just a project like this.
Also had a mint condition 1968 M16A1 kit that I used to rebuild mine.
Last edited by scottryan; 10-16-19 at 11:39.
"Not every thing on Earth requires an aftermarket upgrade." demigod/markm
Last edited by the AR-15 Junkie; 10-17-19 at 07:31.
Chris had good ideas at Colt but him and I don't agree on the retro authenticity project.
Last edited by scottryan; 10-23-19 at 11:34.
"Not every thing on Earth requires an aftermarket upgrade." demigod/markm
Bookmarks