Retro Fulton/Anderson 604/SP1 clone Range Report - WOW!

Alright, I finally got to sight in the 604 at the 50 yard indoor range. I used 2007 Federal/Lake City M193 with LC headstamp with the Nato cross in a circle. A recap, the major components are Fulton 604 upper with Colt A1 Rear sight, Anderson Lower with Stag LPK, AIM Surplus Nickel Boron BCG, original 1965 vintage M16 furniture, and an AR15Sport.com $199 1/9 twist pencil barrel.

I only sighted at 25 yards, using a Standard M16A1 25 yard sight in target. for 250 yards zero, the POI should be 22 cm below the POA at 25 yards (where the X is). With my eyes and the bad lighting in the indoor range, I have trouble with the 50 yard targets there I'll do 100 and 200 at an outdoor range, either Lincoln, CA or Spenceville DF&G range another time.

First the weapon:

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...aa2dfdqm-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...spo7irky-1.jpg

Here is the target. The squares are MOA (or about 1/4" at 25 yards.) The group were fired using the iron sights, with the weapon in the sled. I did hold it with the butt against my shoulder, and a standard grip on the handguards. Obviously, that would give me a tight group, but the AR15Sport.com 1/9 barrel gave me this: ONE HOLE at 25 yards!!!!! I may suck, but that barrel is AWESOME!!!!

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...zgzdihlf-1.jpg

Looks good, and the ragged hole is NO surprise to me. A friend had an AR SP1 thirty years back and it would also shoot ragged little holes at 25 with M193. Then about a 1" at 100.

I love this retro so much, I am selling my flat top M4gery and building a Colt 653 Retro Carbine clone!

It will look like this when I am done.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...54sryjzh-1.jpg

Now I have:
Colt early 603 Upper
Anderson lower
Colt Fiberite Stype CAR15 stock
CAR15 handguards
M16A1 BCG
16" Del-ton Pencil barrel
gas tube.
A1 Pistol grip
Charging handle

That should make for a very handy carbine, small, trim, and rather lightweight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sentryduty

That should make for a very handy carbine, small, trim, and rather lightweight.

---

Should go under 6 pounds. The slick side 604 rifle is 6 pounds 3 ounces, IIRC.

I will be looking forward to seeing that completed, personally I think there is way too much junk hanging off the majority of modern AR builds and have always appreciated the functionality of the original configuration guns. Your retro carbine should be a refreshing example to look at.

Given your location can you use a 14.5" barrel with a pinned/tigged extended flash hider?
Schuster Extended A1 Flash Hider 1/2-28 Thread AR-15 Matte
Makes for a great look.

I totally agree. The AR15 platform as Eugene Stoner and his team intended, was a light weight, handy, assault rifle, with a lot of firepower for 200 meters and less. The original 601 and 602 were proven in Vietnam, and even when the XM16E1 came along in 1964, it was a great weapon. The foulup that jinxed it was no cleaning gear, poor powder choice (they switched from the powder Stoner's team used in the early production, tho use the same powdwer as the M14 and M60 to save money!), and no chrome lining as Stoner wanted, because McNamara again wanted to save money. The M16A1 I had in 1974 was an awesome weapon. I look at these 9 pound M4s with all manner of junk, and it defeats the purpose of the whole platform.

---------- Post added at 05:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:03 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HOOKED ON HISTORY

Given your location can you use a 14.5" barrel with a pinned/tigged extended flash hider?
Schuster Extended A1 Flash Hider 1/2-28 Thread AR-15 Matte
Makes for a great look.

---

I just went with a 16" barrel. I like the 150-200 fps more that the extra 1.5 inch of barrel gives.

Unfortunately, the world is full of Armchair Commando Mall Ninja "Operators" who murder the AR15 PLATFORM....If they had ever huped a weapon for a living, they would never put all the cr*p on their ARs that they do. While these pictures are exagerated, I shot with a guy in Mississippi who's M4gery weighted over 9 pounds!

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...stroyera-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...memgeq3c-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imarangemaster

I shot with a guy in Mississippi who's M4gery weighted over 9 pounds!

---

I honestly skimmed over the the important word "with" the first time I read your post and thought you were awfully passionate about lightweight carbines, it was clear on the second read though.

It isn't hard to stack one of these guns up to "pig" weight class with the amount of junk on the market and the ready availability of picatinny rail on every flat surface.

A proper optic is the limit to my interest in clamping stuff on my rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sentryduty

I honestly skimmed over the the important word "with" the first time I read your post and thought you were awfully passionate about lightweight carbines, it was clear on the second read though.

It isn't hard to stack one of these guns up to "pig" weight class with the amount of junk on the market and the ready availability of picatinny rail on every flat surface.

A proper optic is the limit to my interest in clamping stuff on my rifle.

---

Haha! I would have to be pretty passionate to shoot someone for murdering the AR15 platform! LOL!

Personally, if I had to carry a weapon that heavy (9+ pounds), it would be my HK G3 clone (US made PTR91) with a 3x9 Redfield Revenge scope with BDC. That setup tips the scale at 9 pounds, IIRC, but will do 600-800 meters

I agree with the optic. On the flat top M4gery I am going to replace with the 653, I have a Bushnell TRS-32 red dot. The whole weapon still goes at about 6.7 pounds.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...xwg3jwpy-1.jpg

"A proper optic is the limit to my interest in clamping stuff on my rifle "
I only made it to quad rail optic and light before I saw the light.
Optic only now much happier and saved $ for other projects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sentryduty

small, trim, and rather lightweight.

---

Exactly the profile our C8 was when they first came out(I was issued #950). Those were delicious and we should have issued them exclusively. There was never any need of up-heavying them...or the solid buttstock for us...to illustrate, we've gone to the collapsible now. That's what we should have had initially too...

I agree with the collapsable stocks for military issue weapons. When wearing hard armor with SAPI plates in it, it is so bulky you need to shorten then stock for good sight picture/target acquisition.

There was always more to that also, the females in all the services flourished and of course you have to qualify them as well on range. I'd always take a few C8 lowers to the range so we could change them up and then the girls(and a few small guys) could get close enough to use the weapon properly. I was the only one did this, people thought me strange...that was back in the mid '90s. Now of course, the weapon comes that way... All we ever had to adopt was the C8...(CAR 15) for general service. All these adaptions haven't helped us. We took a sweet little weapon and monstered it. The original C8 was perfect...and would have served all arms well. I'll be interested to see what Darren will say about that thought...not sure if he got to handle the original C8...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

I'll be interested to see what Darren will say about that thought...not sure if he got to handle the original C8...

---

A temporary replacement Warrant Officer's we got on tour had one, we actually ridiculed him about it, showing up to war with a dinky pencil barreled, "Fat Strat" gun. Joking aside I did have the chance to handle it but not fire it, it was a nicely balanced gun.

My own opinion, well as a personal weapon I would like to have one, and may set out to build a clone yet, as a main line war fighting gun I have to highlight a few shortcomings.

The "pencil" barrel is handy and light weight but does have some compatibility issues with the M203 grenade launcher, and apparently they can suffer during sustained fire (but I have no experience/observations with a C8 in that situation).

Otherwise, my only concern is the barrel length, which came about after reading the (2004?) trails and evaluation report on the C7A2 upgrade. The question everyone was asking was "Why did we not just go to Carbines?".

I too wondered the same.

I recognize I am going to sound like one of those mystery men that claim to have seen "secret" documents and never offer evidence, but I did at one time have a copy of of the .pdf file on my DND computer and it was an UNCLAS document, but I lost it due to inadequate data backups on my own part. I still cannot find it open source, but to paraphrase it I recall the following:

When testing the 20" C7A1 Barrel against the the 15.7" C8 barrel the main concern was the drop in velocity and effect on terminal ballistic performance of the 5.56 C77 round.

The document set a certain velocity threshold where the 5.56 upon striking an enemy would not effectively kill/incapacitate, I cannot recall that number, but it was somewhere around the speed when a 5.56 round would no longer tumble when striking the medium. For simplicity, the document considered the tumble effect extremely important to effectiveness.

The 20" barrel would support velocities above that threshold to a maximum of 400m (round figures) the carbine length barrel (only 4.3" shorter) was found to only achieve the same out to 150m, after that the performance became very unreliable.

From the army standpoint of the infantry section in battle needing a 400m effective range, I think this was the main design decision to maintain the 20" rifle length barrel when the C7A2 was rolled out. I would be daft to think that cost did not play a factor as well, but I think performance was the main driver in the 20" barrel.

All that said, I did carry C8A3 overseas for a month or so, and while the 1kg C79A1 Elcan sight, heavy barrel and M203 mounting sleeve did bog the Carbine down, it was a lightweight change coming from a C7A2 with M203A1, C79A1 sight, PAQ-4 Lazer, Tri-ad rail, PRR switch, and whatever other do-dads where mandated to hang off of it.

I think the CAR-15/C8 et all Carbines are a really nice package and it leads me to draw parallels with the M1 Carbine, if I take the ballistic testing at face value, I would have to grudgingly concede that a 20" barrel is required to make the 5.56mm a battlefield performer.


Reference C77 Ball - from General Dynamics
Ball C77
SCA_5.56_BallC77The NATO qualified 5.56 X 45 mm Ball cartridge. It is equivalent to the SS109 and M855 cartridges. Its projectile comprises a hardened steel penetrator and lead core in a gilding metal jacket. The maximum chamber pressure is well below the maximum NATO limit, ensuring that the ammunition in safe to use. The C77 cartridge functions properly in all NATO nominated weapons.
Nominal Muzzle Velocity : 910 m/s
Nominal Bullet Weight : 4 g. (62 grains)
Muzzle Energy : 1,500 joules (minimum)
Accuracy: 20 cm maximum standard deviation at 550 m.
Penetration
1020 steel plate (Hardness = 50/70 Rb; thickness = 3 mm) at 570 m

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sentryduty

I would have to grudgingly concede that a 20" barrel is required to make the 5.56mm a battlefield performer.

---

Perhaps, but as pointed out by others, "Why didn't we just get the C8's for issue?" Our new bullet played a problem and still does. The old M193 CAR 15s didn't have the troubles we created for ourselves...The M203s could be modded to fit the carbines, but the barrel for the M4 takes the M203 and didn't have the odd mod we undertook for our C8A(2?). That would be the barrel heavy on the front...If we'd used a lead core bullet we could have used a heavier bullet for better stopping without the problems we went through with the C77...on and on... Remember all the ammo was designed without shooting one man. They had NO idea what would happen until Afghanistan. The original C8 would have run right along side all of your carbines and rifles without missing a beat. I take it he didn't field it? Traded for a new one? I'd have taken it out, told you guys to fugg-off...but then I'm old...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Remember all the ammo was designed without shooting one man. They had NO idea what would happen until Afghanistan.

---

I can't argue that, I only have the technical knowledge found in the report (plus the internet, pfft, is it reliable, who knows?), and aside from that it is all practical application and observations. Now I could be off the mark but I think our C77 is essentially the same as XM855, and my reading on the transition from M109 and M193 in the US service makes sense on paper for it's intent. The results of this evolution are somewhat outside my knowledge. All that said, I did see some wound reporting on the old 55gr 5.56m fired from a basic Vietnam era M16, the scenario allegedly involved some South East Asian policemen and an AD, at 50 yards? The round struck the upper right leg and made a horrific mess. I'm no surgeon but I think it would have been very difficult to save the leg. I certainly do not underestimate the capability of the 5.56mm round in any scenario, its a little guy, but the velocity does invoke a physics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

The original C8 would have run right along side all of your carbines and rifles without missing a beat. I take it he didn't field it? Traded for a new one?

---

I agree, functionally the original C8 has really no difference from the newer guns, we are really splitting hairs with talk of barrel weight, a flat top upper does add some flexibility. But as we all know, having a jammy optic does nothing to enhance the lethality of the platform, it's all bullet and barrel, everything else is just ergonomics and cycling mechanics.

The WO in the story did field it, I don't know if it ever got used in anger... you know, our community is small enough that if I elaborate any further a crafty person could put names to places, and folks could get sensitive. I'll follow up offside with a little story, via PM, perhaps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sentryduty

The WO in the story did field it,

---

I know they were made for that and copied from the existing carbines that were proven, so...I carried them and loved them... There are guys here that carried them in RVN too...and could give testimony, I just didn't hear anything bad about them.

The catastrophic failures in Iraq were the early M4s and they were the new barrels failing from what sounded to be almost continuous firing before they detonated...don't remember what they thought was the failure there. And yes, the C77/M855 are SUPPOSED to be close. The SS 109 was better than anything I think we've come up with...

PM stories any time...one for one...

I built an A1 using the AR15 SPORT 1-12 chromelined barrel. I fed it 55gr winchester fmj over top 25 grains of WIN748. I cleaned the barrel before zeroing.
My first 3 25 yard shots went into the same hole! It was a nice 3 leafed clover. And that was shot off my belly using an ALACE LARGE pack for my rest.
I could not have been happier. That rifle is zeroed and verified at 300 now.
I dont generally tell this story because of disbelief. So you can imagine how cool it was to see someone with the exact same situation!!
My A2 with Delton 1/9 HBAR that i built for Perry did not produce that but still did very well. I am guessing the 55gr really does well with 1/12.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MikieG

I built an A1 using the AR15 SPORT 1-12 chromelined barrel. I fed it 55gr winchester fmj over top 25 grains of WIN748. I cleaned the barrel before zeroing.
My first 3 25 yard shots went into the same hole! It was a nice 3 leafed clover. And that was shot off my belly using an ALACE LARGE pack for my rest.
I could not have been happier. That rifle is zeroed and verified at 300 now.
I dont generally tell this story because of disbelief. So you can imagine how cool it was to see someone with the exact same situation!!
My A2 with Delton 1/9 HBAR that i built for Perry did not produce that but still did very well. I am guessing the 55gr really does well with 1/12.

---

I have never heard a single bad word about the AR15Sport.com "pencil barrels," whether 1/12 or 1/9. To get that one hole group with factory Fedreal Lake City M193 just floored me... I am glad your results were the same.

I am extreemly happy with both my A1 and my A2. Those DelTon barrels are the shiznit. My reload does perform better than the bulk packed 55gr federal found at walmart. Usually $37/100. Those that say chrome lined barrels are not good shooters are crazy!