Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Military Surplus
M1 Carbine Shopping
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Sanford" data-source="post: 2254388" data-attributes="member: 27733"><p>As I understand it, early Universals were built using "mostly" USGI parts with the remainder of the parts reproduction to closely mimic the military design. Later models departed from that with redesign, and suffered as a result. The AO is a decent gun, but it's a far cry from milspec at this point. Fulton Armory and James River Armory both make milspec reproductions but even though they're built to the original design they use largely reproduction parts, including receivers, and so aren't generally allowed in military rifle matches if that's what you're interested in.</p><p></p><p>Unfortunately commercial reproduction parts have been available for these so long that they're sometimes difficult to spot by other than a trained eye, and I don't have that - thus why I asked the original question in the thread. At a minimum the receiver would have to be USGI for the rifle to be considered USGI, IMHO. General consensus I read from the folks who at least seem to know what they're talking about is the worst USGI is better than the best reproduction. Don't know how much of that is fact and how much is snobbery, but it seems to be a pretty prevalent opinion even from those who own both.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Sanford, post: 2254388, member: 27733"] As I understand it, early Universals were built using "mostly" USGI parts with the remainder of the parts reproduction to closely mimic the military design. Later models departed from that with redesign, and suffered as a result. The AO is a decent gun, but it's a far cry from milspec at this point. Fulton Armory and James River Armory both make milspec reproductions but even though they're built to the original design they use largely reproduction parts, including receivers, and so aren't generally allowed in military rifle matches if that's what you're interested in. Unfortunately commercial reproduction parts have been available for these so long that they're sometimes difficult to spot by other than a trained eye, and I don't have that - thus why I asked the original question in the thread. At a minimum the receiver would have to be USGI for the rifle to be considered USGI, IMHO. General consensus I read from the folks who at least seem to know what they're talking about is the worst USGI is better than the best reproduction. Don't know how much of that is fact and how much is snobbery, but it seems to be a pretty prevalent opinion even from those who own both. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Military Surplus
M1 Carbine Shopping
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom