STAR M16A3 and M4A1 Update

[nightfire6]

Well Star has updated its website

 

http://www.starairsoft.com/product_detail.php?productid=253

 

 

http://www.starairsoft.com/product_detail.php?productid=252

[no1rc3ur]

what is "Decent Lower Receiver?"

 

looks good though.

 

 

$360 is price more than CA and G&P

[mrblah]

i definitely like what star has done. Definitely, interesting.

[sturgis]

what is "Decent Lower Receiver?"

 

looks good though.

$360 is price more than CA and G&P

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

yeah, was gonna ask the same thing lol

[AK74M545]

hell yes, this looks good.

[DarkLite]

Interesting, but I'm not terribly fond of STAR's QC (or lack thereof).

[Chrissyg]

They look fantastic, along with the working bolt catch and hot swap springs...but Im still not sure about (as Darklite says) their QC.

[Lithium Jack]

Ah ffs, after the FNC I would have assumed that they'd at least be good enough to do a version with the S-1-3 group

[PlasticMag]

That would be an M16A2 or M16A4.

 

I was under the impression that the M16A3 had a non-flattop receiver, was full auto, and was entered service at the same time as the M16A2.

[Lithium Jack]

Yeah, but I'm just saying - they already have their 3-burst mechanism, why not implement it in a less niche weapon than the FNC

[evilliboba]

I was under the impression that the M16A3 had a non-flattop receiver, was full auto, and was entered service at the same time as the M16A2.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And you would be correct.

[sekiryu]

That would be incorrect, actually. The M16A3 does have a flattop receiver.

 

The M16A3 and M16A4 are practically the same, except the A3 is auto, and the A4 is burst.

[evilliboba]

M16A3

 

The M16A3 was a fully-automatic variant of the M16A2 adopted in small numbers around the time of the introduction of the M16A2, primarily by the U.S. Navy for use by the SEALs. It features a Safe-Semi-Auto (S-1-F) trigger group like that of the M16A1.

 

Some confusion continues to exist regarding the M16A3. It is often described as the fully-automatic version of the M16A4. Descriptions of the M16A3 that claim that it shares the M16A4's Picatinny rail are incorrect. This misunderstanding most likely stems from the usage of the A2 and A3 designations by civilian manufacturers to differentiate between A2-style fixed carry handles and Picatinny rail versions.

[sekiryu]

Which is from Wikipedia, where everything should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

 

Xray image of M16A3 reciever from world.guns.ru.

 

M16A3 "flat top" upper receiver with the Picatinny rail and the removable carrying handle

 

1994. Adoption of the latest variations of the M16 breed. Those include: M16A3and M16A4 rifles, with "flat top" receivers, that had a Picatinny accessory rails in the place of the integral carrying handle. The rail can be used to mount detachable carrying handle with iron rear sights, or various sighting devices (Night/IR, optics etc). The M16A4 otherwise is similar to M16A2, while M16A3 has a full-auto capability instead of the 3-rounds burst.

 

M16A3 and M4A1 include integral M1913 Picatinny Rail optics mounting platforms.

 

The M16A3 is just an M16A2 with a Picatinny-Weaver rail on top of the receiver, under the removable carrying handle, and a full-auto option instead of the 3-round burst. It is not in any US Army or Marine Corps inventories, but you Canadians may know it as the Diemaco C7.

 

The M16A3, which replace the M16A2 in 1994, is basically an M16A2 with full-automatic capability and optional M4A1-style Rail Interface System (RIS). The M16A3 and the M16A4 are identical to the M16A2, but both have the modular upper receiver. The M16A3 is capable of fully automatic fire, like the M16A1, while the M16A4 uses the M16A2's three-round burst mechanism.

 

Look at the Systema M16A3. It has a flattop receiver, and Systema sure as hell knows their M16 weapons, and wouldn't ever make a mistake like that.

[nightfire6]

what is "Decent Lower Receiver?"

 

looks good though.

$360 is price more than CA and G&P

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually the price would be lower on the retailers. For some strange reason star always puts a high price on their products, but the retailers sell it for less. dunno why.

 

Well the QC is not bad for a company trying to make some new innovations. Look at CA, they made nothing but clones and it took them years just to make good AEGs and yet they still have QC problems like bad wiring, gear problems, bad seal causing low fps, etc. I however am not saying that all CA guns suck, same reason as not all STAR guns suck.

[That_One_Person]

Which is from Wikipedia, where everything should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

 

Xray image of M16A3 reciever from world.guns.ru.

The M16A3, which replace the M16A2 in 1994, is basically an M16A2 with full-automatic capability and optional M4A1-style Rail Interface System (RIS). The M16A3 and the M16A4 are identical to the M16A2, but both have the modular upper receiver. The M16A3 is capable of fully automatic fire, like the M16A1, while the M16A4 uses the M16A2's three-round burst mechanism.

 

Look at the Systema M16A3. It has a flattop receiver, and Systema sure as hell knows their M16 weapons, and wouldn't ever make a mistake like that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The Diemaco C7 was based off the M16A1, not the M16A2 or "M16A3" as you say. The C7A1 featured a rail not of 1913 spec but of a spec I don't know (I call it "The Canadian Rail"). The C7A2 was made to upgrade to 1913 rails and all that other tacticool stuff. What you tihnk the M16A3 is Jag, is really the M16A4 with a different trigger group.

 

RO901 : Flat top, Safe/Semi/Full Auto = M16A4 with full auto instead of burst

RO905 : Flat top, Safe/Semi/Burst = M16A4 as the Army and Marines know it

RO701 : Fixed handle, Safe/Semi/Full Auto = M16A3

RO705 : Fixed handle, Safe/Semi/Burst = M16A2

 

So yeah, please check Colt's website next time

 

http://www.colt.com/mil/M16.asp

[sekiryu]

RO901 : Flat top, Safe/Semi/Full Auto = M16A4 with full auto instead of burst

RO905 : Flat top, Safe/Semi/Burst = M16A4 as the Army and Marines know it

RO701 : Fixed handle, Safe/Semi/Full Auto = M16A3

RO705 : Fixed handle, Safe/Semi/Burst = M16A2

 

So yeah, please check Colt's website next time

 

http://www.colt.com/mil/M16.asp

 

The Colt website says nothing about the M16A3. Nor does it have the designations next to the RO901, etc., so I'm wondering where exactly you got those from. Actually, those designations are all options for the M16A4 alone, and those model numbers do not equal M16A2, A3, and A4.

 

The Diemaco C7 is not based on the M16A1, but the A2. There's also the C7A1, which based on the M16A3.

 

Also, from military photos.net:

 

A1 - Old M16 with A1 sights, etc. Full auto select fire.

 

A2 - Newer M16, with new sights that include both elevation and windage. 3-round burst select fire.

 

A3 - M16A2 with full-auto select fire, flattop rail receiver, and most in the military inventory are fitted with the rail interface system.

 

A4 - Same as A3, but with 3-round burst select fire.

[That_One_Person]

The Colt website says nothing about the M16A3. Nor does it have the designations next to the RO901, etc., so I'm wondering where exactly you got those from.

 

The Diemaco C7 is not based on the M16A1, but the A2. There's also the C7A1, which based on the M16A3.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How do you explain the A1 sights on the C7? And yet how do you explain the non 1913 rail on the C7A1 (1913 is found on the M16A4) to mount an Elcan huh?

 

"The C7 for all intents and purposes is much like earlier M16A1E1s, rather than final product M16A2s" Quoted from Wiki but meh. Does anyone have anything to prove me wrong about the M16A3 huh? Why people think an A3 has a 1913 rail is because AR15 manufactuers misleading them when choosing a type of upper receiver.

 

EDIT: The model numbers I gave for the Colt rifles are what you would want for a rifle like those that I specified. Yeah, i've spent a lot of time on Arfcom.

[sekiryu]

Does anyone have anything to prove me wrong about the M16A3 huh?

 

World.guns.ru is all I need. They actually know what they're writing about, unlike Wiki.

 

The C7 rifle is a slightly modified copy of the Colt M16A2 assault rifle, licence-built by Diemaco company of Canada.

 

And yet how do you explain the non 1913 rail on the C7A1 (1913 is found on the M16A4) to mount an Elcan huh?

 

Are you implying that an Elcan can't be mounted on a 1913 rail? That's really wrong....

[That_One_Person]

I was saying the first C7A1's had weaver rails not of the same spec as 1913 rails for mounting Canadian optics such as the Elcan. If the C7 is such a close copy of the M16A2, then why does it have an upper receiver of the M16A1 type, as all other Diemaco fixed carry handle AR-15's.

[sekiryu]

Maybe because the only A1 part is the upper receiver

 

What do you mean by "Canadian optics such as the Elcan". The Elcan isn't only used by Canada...

[nightfire6]

Alrite you two, this is the Star M16a3 and M4a1, not a real steel debate, lets stay on topic please.

[no1rc3ur]

i was gonna say the same thing.

 

i hope the price would be lower.

because it would be very interesting, more power to us

[That_One_Person]

Sorry nightfire, I get a bit crazy late at night. I wonder if the M4 has any internal parts that can be swapped for mainstream TM V2 GB parts since Star likes to make their own gearboxes.

 

PS: I know other countries use Elcans, just that Canadians like them, a lot.

[nightfire6]

i was gonna say the same thing.

 

i hope the price would be lower.

because it would be very interesting, more power to us

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The retailers always have Star products at a lower price compared the the price on the star website, e.g. Star M6 Laser/Flashlight says $80 on the Star website, but on a HK website costs $60. The prices are nearly always lower.

 

 

Star will probably have compatibility with V2 gearbox parts, because the gearbox picture looked somewhat similar to a v2 except with a quick swap spring mechanism. I don't see a reason why they should not since it saves money.