Monkey configuration AR15

Ghrit,

The line has to be drawn somewhere, and standards exist for a reason.

This configuration was selected due to it's lower cost and it's availability. It couples that value with some high end parts. It can be changed up, modified, and accessorized until it needs a tripod and a dedicated gun crew to work it. If someone wants to do that, I purpose they do so only after they purchased a Monkey configuration AR15. To do so otherwise is not the point of this proposal.

Rather, the point is to standardize on a Tier 1 AR15 with furniture, light, red dot optic, and sling, ALL from reputable manufactures. That is why the configuration was written as such. It does allow for some movement within the standards, but not so much that someone could show up with a no name, gun show part build, that is dipped in air soft knock off furniture, with a free light that they got from supporting the NRA, a do it themselves para cord single point sling, and some questionable Chinese made red dot scope, that can't keep its zero, each duct taped to the weapon at the point that they thought it would be the coolest place to put them.

I tossed the standards out based on what Melbo and I have each purchased and discussed. While I would advocate working within the framework purposed, I believe it could be firmed up some. For instance, the Trijicon Reflex was selected because it is a good optic that does not need batteries which both of us have. There are better red dots out their from both EOTech and Aimpoint. I don't believe I listed those as options for similar replacement. We could do this with the entire list if it would help people swallow this idea.

Phishi

 

OK ....I'll swing on out of this conversation. Lol

-Jason

 

Ghrit,

I agree with most of what you have countered with. Concerning the Chart, if a particular model or make does not appear, can it be sourced using the same criteria? This would be useful, especially concerning builds like mine. I believe I have a Tier 1 AR, but can I prove it? I'm currently out of town but will attempt this when I get back.

Concerning furniture, I'm not opposed to another option than MagPul, but I am currently unaware of a similar priced offering that presents the same quality and modularity. If one can be found, I'm not against including it in this template. Currently I'm just not sure it exists.

I agree concerning light, optic, and sling. I also thing you make a great point with going further than just naming a company, but also naming a product line. Glad we could discuss this and move this idea forward.

ColtCarbine,

I did not take your original post as an attack, but rather as some honest questions which should be addressed. I'm sorry that due to travel I could not address them before now and more so that you chose to edit your post.

I am specifically interested in hearing why you think that the 6920 is not the best bang for your buck. Also what your conclusion is for a KISS carbine, and weather or not you would build or purchase a Monkey configuration AR to have as a spare.

Finally, the weapon that Melbo purchased was done so because he could buy it off the shelf with the MOE furniture and up grade it to the Monkey configuration with minimal time, effort, and funds. The Monkey configuration I own is not a Colt, but a built Noveske. The hand guard is a mid-length MOE and the stock is a MOE as well. The grip is a Tango Down Battlegrip which I like over the MOE option. The BUIS is a Troy industries flip up chosen because I was not sure the plastic MOE option would hold a zero. The MOE BUIS was brand new at the time of this build and had an unproven track record at the time. I have not heard of any problems since, and now believe the MOE option is good to go.

The light and mount where purchased before the Mount-n-slot options was available, as is my homemade front sling mount. I may chose to upgrade to the standards as funds allow. While I do have a Trijicon reflex on board, it is because I already own it and it fits my needs currently. By no means is it the best option out there for a red dot, it is simply the best option for me at this time. Finally the 2 point sling I have was made by a company called Emdom. I would have listed it as a possible option, however, the company no longer makes this and I did not feel right offering up a part that could only be obtained through occasional private sales.

Jason,

I meant no disrespect with my request, nor was it aimed at only you. We tend to have thread drift quite often here. It is something I find that degrades a thread and makes it hard to follow. I am sorry that you have chosen to bow out, as I believe you might have something to contribute. May I ask your thoughts on the Monkey configuration? Would you consider building or purchasing one as a second AR to complement your first?

Phishi

 

LOL. I feel like I've got too many irons in the fire to tackle that one just yet. But it's coming, just need to nail this one down first.

Phishi

 

[/QUOTE]
I don't mind a wander, in fact some of my favorite threads have some magnificent wanders. But since you object, I will do my best to comply with the request. I came back to this thread to remove my part of the wander, only to find it had already been done, so be it.

An AR or AK is not in the cards for me for some time to come, due to too many other things that require my hard earned cash, nor do I have any of the depth of knowledge the rest of you gentlemen (and ladies) show in these weapons. And for that very reason, when finances improve to the point that such a weapon is possible, I will be doing a great deal of researching to determine the best bang for my buck, which of course, means I will be consulting Monkeys. Whatever the best determined configuration is, would be the logical choice, based upon all the knowledge I lack. (and you folks have)

So, I will keep watching this thread as it progresses, to determine what that best configuration should be, and why.

 

Kellory,

A wander can be a good thing, LOL, I just wish it would occur in a separate thread. It makes my head hurt trying to follow multiple divergences in the same thread. Kinda like when an author tries to keep too many parts of the story happen in the same chapter. Sorry if I'm coming off as a hard bugger concerning this. I don't mean too. Thank you for your respect concerning my request.

As for the removal of the wander, that was not I. Out of respect for you I would not do that unless it had been decided that it was offensive. Thank you for attempting to come back and do so, although it was not needed in my opinion.

Finally, I understand the financial constraints. It has taken me 5 years to get the two builds I have up to this point and they are far from being complete. I have a third one that is not even off the drawing board, consisting of only a stripped lower receiver of questionable make. I had grand schemes of 3 identical rifles with free floated rails and plenty of bells and whistles. The reality of my own situation has me leaning heavily towards this configuration for all three. Maybe after completing these builds I'll attempt a super accurate free floated tack driver, but currently the Monkey configuration has attracted the interest of my mind as well as my pocket book.

Good luck with your future creation, let us know how they turn out.

Phishi

 

Speaking from my limited experience in attempting to agree on a "standard" configuration for a group's firearms the easiest thing to do is compromise. If everyone can settle on a basic platform and caliber you're ahead of the game.

The AR platform is the most personalised firearm available which is why it works for so many folks. It can be configured as a short barreled lightweight CQB carbine, as a heavy barreled squad level automatic (I will NOT get into how to go full auto so don't ask) or as an accurized medium range rifle.

All manner of optics can be mounted from a cheap red dot to high magnification optics, night vision and thermal imaging sights depedning on mission needs and operator (I hate that word-it's so mall ninja) requirements.

IMHO it's best to standarise the platform, caliber, magazine and ammo reserves for long and side arms then train regularly with other folks in your group and switch firearms to simulate the "battlefield pick up" (which is something the Appleseed folks do from time to time).

I've been through this before, just my $.02, and worth what you paid for it.

 

NotSoSneaky,

That is one way to approach this problem and if you find that it works for you than so be it. Melbo and I are taking a different track. Others will chose as they see fit. While there is nothing wrong with your approach, and it seems to have worked for you in the past, I would encourage you to consider the Monkey Configuration, as it sets a standard that can be matched by others if it is held to. I believe that you would not be disappointed with these results and that the potential benefits outweigh the perceived loss of individuality concerning an AR15.

The choice is up to you.

Phishi

 

No disrespect at all. That's why I lol'd. My next build is going to be Vietnam era ar so I'm going to be useless.

-Jason

 

Nothin "wrong" with the Monkey Spec build, I have some parts kickin' around.
Methinks it's time for another build.

And maybe a meet & greet in my A/O. (Thread here. )

 

Along with that thought is the fact that some may have the first generation Colts. No forward assist(this mod caused by poor choice in ammo by the GOV), no brass deflector, sights that take a bit more to adjust, A1 stocks, A1 grips, A1 pistol grip. Still it has the basics of a COLT with the chrome lined barrel.

So does that kick it out of the Monkey List?

 

Without the forward assist and shell defelector?

 

A more modern interpretation with new features. Maybe a light version.

-Jason

 

Hk user,

I believe the Chart holds up a 6920, not a Civilian AR15 rifle. I would have to research what exactly the specs are on your question to give an honest answer.

Anyone else have an idea concerning this?

Phishi

 

Add a Colt Carbine to that list.

 

Having done a bit of checking on the subject my research indicates the SP1 and its brother, the Carbine , are clones of the M16 of the day. The variations are in the Auto/Semi Auto controls. Even though the upper receiver did not have the forward assist in the SP1 it did have the correct part in the carrier as the forward assist teeth were cut. The carrier is of the semi auto only design as are the fire/safe selector controls. From my memory the SP1 and the M16 parts are alike in the point of staked parts, both in the Carbine stock attachment and the bolt assembly. Of course the pivot and take down pins were different then and a conversion could now be made to the .25 standard. Barrel is chrome lined and carries the inspection etching as well as the Colt stamp. I have not checked the bolt but I will and I expect to find the correct etching as the M16 carried. Flash suppressor is of the closed cage design. Bayonet attachment is in place as is correct for preban ARs.
Modifications: A dual magazine carrier of the first model sold.

 

Does it have M4 feed ramps? Is the barrel and bolt MPI tested? Compare your model with the Colt 6920 listed on the Chart and see how it compares. Otherwise it probably is an apple to oranges comparison.

Phishi

 

Being from the 1970s I doubt the M4 was even considered.

Yes it is MPI Tested.