G&R Tactical
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35

Thread: Colt XM-177E2 AR15

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    11,815
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    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

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    ID
    Posts
    99
    Feedback Score
    0
    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.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    SWMT
    Posts
    7,457
    Feedback Score
    32 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by OH58D View Post
    On a side note regarding the XM177E2, what type of carbine buffer is run in it? Standard weight or heavier? The reason for asking is I am looking a building one myself....
    Quote Originally Posted by JediGuy View Post
    I’m pretty sure it’s a regular carbine buffer.
    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 14:26.
    " Political tags — such as [...], communist, democrat, [...], fascist, liberal, conservative, [...] — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort. "
    - Robert Heinlein -

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,961
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by MountainRaven View Post
    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.
    Same way I feel about a 1:7 twist barrel on any A1 rifle or carbine XM177 clone.....why not? You can't see either the buffer or the barrel twist
    Last edited by ABNAK; 10-07-19 at 19:14.
    11C2P '83-'87
    Airborne Infantry

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    Lowcountry, SC.
    Posts
    1,693
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    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

    “That is why there isn't an AK chart.” -SteyrAUG
    “They eat tide pods also so what's your point?” Retrorevolver77

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Free State of Nebraska
    Posts
    5,302
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefly View Post

    I would like to know more about Brownells making their XM-177 more accurate


    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 12:39.
    "Not every thing on Earth requires an aftermarket upgrade." demigod/markm

  7. #27
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,738
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by scottryan View Post
    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.
    How in the world did you score a mint condition moderator...pretty nice.?

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    69
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by scottryan View Post
    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.
    Chris Bartocci reminds me of a man still madly in love with is ex-wife (Colt, he worked there 2 years) yet he still hates her guts (Colt for firing him).

    I bought one of the US Ordnance built M16A1 retros, I absoloutely love it. No matter what Bartocci says.
    Last edited by the AR-15 Junkie; 10-17-19 at 08:31.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Free State of Nebraska
    Posts
    5,302
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    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 12:34.
    "Not every thing on Earth requires an aftermarket upgrade." demigod/markm

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    The Free State of Nebraska
    Posts
    5,302
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by TomMcC View Post
    How in the world did you score a mint condition moderator...pretty nice.?
    They are around if you spend some time looking at various ad boards.
    "Not every thing on Earth requires an aftermarket upgrade." demigod/markm

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •