Why a Retro?

[The Cat]

Ya had to go there, didn't you...?

LOL yeah - I went there. And parked.


karlb - That reminds me of what Kelsey Grammer said in 'Down Periscope' - "She may not be the youngest girl atthe ball, but she'll still turn a head or two."

[markm]

Retro like A1 style? Some would call the A2 rifle retro I suppose. I just put together a 20" A2 on an FNMI barrel and Colt A2 upper.

I was able to shoot a 2" 100 yard 5 shot group with the thing...

A retro car can't perform like a modern vehicle. But on the AR, not many of the modern ammenities actually add anything to the weapons performance.

[The Cat]

Actually, yeah - A2's are being considered Retro nowadays

[marswallace]

edited! ops..

[marswallace]

Hi guys (first message )

why retro? because it looks so special forces...

Today we need to attach to our rifles flashlights, dots, grips, infrared lasers... Troy just released a GPS stock for AR15... and a railed coffee machine is on its way

Soldiers needs tons of equipments... But give a SF operator a knife and he won't need anything else.
So that it is, for me... retro rifles look SF.

Nowdays I can barely imagine someone in the jungle without a camelback... so maximum respect!!

[Sleeper362]

The older designs/rifles have more contributed to the creation of more worm food than any JJ raygun M4 ever will. The first AR I ever shot at a target with purpose was an A1. People who add parts without need tend to loose sight of the purpose. Kind of like the mechanics I met who had over 40K worth of tools and tool boxes but couldn't time a motor with a wrench and their ears. Back before we felt the need to "improve" the AR-15 platform, there was no talk of different buffers, or carriers, or concern about the length of the gas tube. People shot them more than they modified them and they shot VERY well and looked a whole lot better than these god awful dissipator rifles I see on here (talking about fixing something that ain't broken).

Most people who look down or don't understand vintage ARs probably have shot at nothing more than paper whole lives and would blow a fuse if asked to depend solely on their iron sights. Screw them, I love these rifles just as much as I love the JJ ray gun ninja rifles everyone thinks they need.

[rob_s]

The older designs/rifles have more contributed to the creation of more worm food than any JJ raygun M4 ever will. The first AR I ever shot at a target with purpose was an A1. People who add parts without need tend to loose sight of the purpose. Kind of like the mechanics I met who had over 40K worth of tools and tool boxes but couldn't time a motor with a wrench and their ears. Back before we felt the need to "improve" the AR-15 platform, there was no talk of different buffers, or carriers, or concern about the length of the gas tube. People shot them more than they modified them and they shot VERY well.

Most people who look down or don't understand vintage ARs probably have shot at nothing more than paper whole lives and would blow a fuse if asked to depend solely on their iron sights. Screw them, I love these rifles just as much as I love the JJ ray gun ninja rifles everyone thinks they need.

adding parts without purpose = stupid
forgoing parts in spite of added effectiveness = stupid

There is a happy medium. Many have not found it, and never will find it, because they lack the ability to simply be honest with themselves and remove themselves from the equation when attempting to make an evaluation.

[Sleeper362]

adding parts without purpose = stupid
forgoing parts in spite of added effectiveness = stupid

There is a happy medium. Many have not found it, and never will find it, because they lack the ability to simply be honest with themselves and remove themselves from the equation when attempting to make an evaluation.

True. I have what could be considered a retro A2 that will remain that way, I had many people at the range ask me what my plans for it were and I would usually reply "shooting it". I did just finish my DMR, it has an ACOG. I was trained with an A2 and I was upgraded to an ACOG equipped A4 when I got in country, so I stick with what I know. I also have a Galil to remind me of the IDF chick I dated when I was over in Israel. One thing I will not do is add parts that add no usefulness to me. I would rather go without a small degree of capability to avoid a large degree of encumbrance.

[Todd.K]

adding parts without purpose = stupid
forgoing parts in spite of added effectiveness = stupid

Unless the parts added without purpose make the gun unreliable it is far more stupid to forgo the parts (or modern training to learn how to use them) that add effectiveness.

Now if you just want to make something that is aesthetically pleasing or historically correct I get that. I don't get why your taste should be a factor in what goes on a modern combat weapon. I like the history so I hope this doesn't become the bash anything new subforum.



Also the A2 is retro, get over it. You can't just draw a line in the sand and say everything from this point forward shall forever be called "new" and only something proceeding it can be "old". Time doesn't stop when you draw that line, the A2 is going on three decades old.

[markm]

Also the A2 is retro, get over it. You can't just draw a line in the sand and say everything from this point forward shall forever be called "new" and only something proceeding it can be "old". Time doesn't stop when you draw that line, the A2 is going on three decades old.

Who's in charge of the line?

To me.. if you put together a fighting gun that's under 4MOA, semi auto, reliable, made of good parts, and light and sling capable... it's status on the internuts is irrelevant.... And the Smelly bad guy you shoot in the face isn't going to be any less dead if your gun is an A2.