Sarge, would you be willing to share a photo of your faux XM177E2?
Printable View
Sarge, would you be willing to share a photo of your faux XM177E2?
I'd like to see it too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarge
Make that three.
And I will show you mine.
Not an XM177E2 but a Colt 651 clone.
I have posted these photos before. The CAR-15 stock was found in a salvage dump, still had a rack number. It did require some internal restoration which took a very long time.
I then installed it on a semi auto Colt AR-15 lower. Any of this CAR-15 or XM177 parts or stocks that are original are very difficult to find (always were)Attachment 83776Attachment 83777Attachment 83778
Here is my CAR 15. Along with some of its stable mates. All are select fire but 3 and one of those (CAR) is registered as a short bbl'd rifle. I also registered the CAR flash hider as a suppressor to make the feds happy.
Sarge
Nice looking little piece. Specially neat because of where it came from originally. The rest are looking mighty fine too...
Sarge, thank you so much for sharing with us. Your XM177E2 is very much the plan for this little gem:
http://www.milsurps.com/images/impor...2818d82a-1.jpg
Colt 6001 carbine above compared to my faux Colt Commando/XM177E2. I have a really nice coated aluminum two position stock ready for when I do the paperwork and shuck out the $200.00.
I got the impression, some years ago, that the "muzzle device" had a lot more to do with maintaining a pressure curve that would enable the gas system to function without over-stressing any components.
Basically, it was supposed to "extend" the "dwell-time" of the gas pressure within the bolt. With such a short barrel and with the port so close to the functional muzzle, the impulse WITHOUT the "device" would have been a very short "spike". Even with a "proper" barrel that was the same overall length of the 177 with "device", it is unlikely that the pressure curve would have been acceptable. Just look at the long-term dramas with the M-4 and the latest "big thing"; "special" ammo for it and the introduction of a whole NEW range of "universal" M-16A2 /3), M-4 / SAW ammo, that is supposed to work equally well in "diverse" systems.
At least the designers of the XM-177 series went to a LOT of effort to make THEIR toy work with the STANDARD ammo of the time (M-193), instead of generating a requirement for "special" ammo..
With the "device", and its complex internal "chambers", the pressure curve at the port would have been "smoothed" and extended.
Merely extending a plain barrel to the same overall length probably did not produce the desired reliability. As I said, it's all about "dwell time".
As for "significantly quieter" than a "naked" barrel? Only in the fevered imagination of some ATF drone.
Only ever played with ONE. And as any statistician will tell you: "A sample of 'one' isn't much of a sample".
However, the "sample" I played with functioned quite nicely in both "economy" and "fun" modes, but it was LOUD!
This is what I have come to understand as well. However, once they figured out that different buffer weights could achieve the same thing the "moderator" was no longer in use.
While at training some years back I was able to come in contact with a Treasury Department agent's 11.5 Colt Commando M16. I was amazed at how well it shot and since we were all there at an armors course I got to dissect it. It used an H2 buffer which allowed it to function with the short 11.5" barrel and no "moderator". Oh yeah, it was loud and could have doubled as a flame thrower! :D
I've run an H2 buffer for some time and they're great on the shorter barrels. You can feel the dwell time increase and things slow down.