Talk:Colt Commando

Untitled

The Colt Commando is definietly not a submachine gun. Even though today most categories are blend (such as distinction between LMG and SAW) there is some-what an arbitary criteria to differ between extra-small bullpup\carbine assult rifle to SMGs: "SMG uses 9mm round." MathKnight 10:17, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

I'd like to help. I'm new. I jumped in a little to quick, so I undid my changes and offer my apologies. I would like to contribute within the community spirit.

The Colt Commando is definately an assault rifle, regardless of the fact the Air Force marked their GAU-5's submachineguns. It meets the three classic criteria (select-fire, intermediate round, and high-capacity box-magazine) set by the German STG-44. To be a submachinegun, it would have to fire a pistol round. Colt offers such a weapon, the Colt Model RO635/RO639, which they label "9mm Submachine Gun" here: http://www.colt.com/mil/SMG.asp

Also, the article calling the Commando (Models 733, 933, 935) the same as the CAR-15 and XM-177 isn't quite accurate. As far as I can tell, Colt only marked the Model 609 XM-177E1 "Property of US Gov't / Commando Cal 5.56mm". The current Commando carbines differ markedly to the old 609, most distinctly in the lack of the large muzzle suppressor, less so in the sighting system and telescoping stock.

The CAR-15 moniker has been applied to almost every short-barreled version of the M16, starting with the Colt Model 607, which looks much different than the modern Commando and almost exactly like a shortened M16A1. It had a 10" barrel, triangular foregrip, and simpler telescoping stock.

The XM-177 introduced the blade-style telescoping stock; round, ribbed, forgrips; and the distinctive long muzzle device which was an attempt at reducing the deafening blast of the short barrel and increasing reliability.

Colt Model	Army Designation	Air Force Designation	Barrel	Muzzle device	Forward Assist?
610	XM-177	GAU-5	10"	3.5" suppressor	No
609	XM-177E1		10"	3.5" suppressor	Yes
629	XM-177E2		11.5"	4.5" suppressor	Yes
630		GAU-5/A	11.5"	4.5" suppressor	No
649		GAU-5/A/A	14"	M16A1-style flashhider	No
(field upgrade)		GAU-5/P	14.5" M4 barrel	M16A1-style flashhider	No

There are other short M16's which could be included in a page covering the history of carbines which led to the M4 Carbine, but this is the end of the XM-177 series.

I will try to find some external images which will illustrate the difference; I doubt they will be able to be included directly in the final page.

This is only some of the information I have. I would be glad to know how I should contribute this to the current stub.

CAR-15 issue

"It started off with Colt names, Model 607 and CAR-15 Submachine Gun. Calling it a submachine gun was new trend in sub-machine gun naming, as a previous SMGs were all chambered for pistol, rather than rifle ammunition. Classifying very short assault rifles as SMG's has been common practice in a number of firearm books, though it is not universally accepted. In anycase, it soon got another name- Commando. By the time the contract for rifles was signed by the Army in 1966, CAR-15 SMG, or just CAR-15 was as close to official nomenclature as it had. CAR-15 would be printed on some early production models, and as well as in some field manuals. It would soon be getting more names, though new firearms were not identical to the initial models. In early 1967 the type got a type classification- XM177 and XM177E1 submachine guns;soon more variants would get even more names using Air Force nomenclature ('GAU prefix'). The term CAR-15 Assault Rifle was also used for a version that the Air Force did not accept."

First off, to my knowledge CAR-15 was not stamped onto any of these guns with the possible exception of the Model 607. For the most part these guns were either property marked or marked with their model number as was common for Colt weapons for commerical/export purposes of this period. There are important distinctions between the XM177, XM177E1, XM177E2, and the GAU series, and CAR-15 was never used officially as far as I've found in official literature by the USAF. That CAR-15 appeared on the contract only indicates that it had to be used in place of an official designation. AR-15 was for limited purchase 601s, but never for CAR-15 carbine models. The later guns in this series were stamped with SMG, Commando, or with their designation and a property mark. The USAF never adopted the 608 at all, only 10 are believed to be in existance total.

Well I will make an attempt at a more correct version, then we can talk about what issues remain. This is a good idea, since I made some mistakes in that draft (e.g. it was CAR-15 Survival Rifle not Assault). Ve3 23:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Where are we getting this info on "early field manuals"? I've never heard of about this all. I also disagree that things are ever too specific. Its called accuracy. People should learn the basics of at least the designated variants so this whole CAR-15 can become common knowledge unlike what it is now. For instance, you made a mistake by saying the original "CAR-15s" were type classified in 1967. This isn't true. The XM177 and XM177E1 were developments on the 607, but were not the same gun. thatguy96 20:12, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a difference between using a name when talking about a family and using it to mean a specific version. Things are too specific when someone doesn't want to talk about a specific model, but a selection. If someone is trying to talk about a family, and they are too specific, then it is also innaccurate. Also, goverment type classifications are important, as are company designations, but both are only one level of accuracy and level of detail.

I didn't say ""CAR-15s" were type classified in 1967", and I specifically noted they were not identical:

However, it would soon be getting more names, though new firearms were not identical to the initial models. In early 1967 the type got a type classification

Its not totally clear even in your statement, as some might take 'CAR-15s '(plural) to mean 'commando derivatives being worked on at the time'.

I do like your idea of using Colt numbers for specific variants, but it is important to recognize the status of CAR-15 as a reference for the whole family (which is not covered by any single later type classification), and, for a time, a dominant name of the initial developmental military type. Its possible to be clear about specific models without going against common usage of general terms. Ve3 05:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not know of a case where it was ever the developmental military type. CAR-15 was the name applied to the whole family, there were CAR-15 rifles, CAR-15 HBARs, and so on. The common usage of CAR-15 is a gross misnomer and is incorrect. Colt has generally stuck to calling to calling their carbine models Commando (even export M4s which are all stamped M4 Commando), which is a far better term for all of this. I still don't have an information on these "early field manuals" you mention and I would think these would have simply been Colt factory manuals supplied with the weapons and not official Army documents. If they were I would have assumed that there would have been enough of them printed for there to be evidence of them at this level. CAR-15 is a term in common usage, not an official term for anyone except Colt Firearms as far as I've seen. The only weapon in this pattern to be adopted by any service by its commerical nomenclature was the AR-15 by the USAF.

The CAR-15 SMG was developmental military type (as in a "type" of "firearm" in "development" for the "military") in 1966:as in it was a work in progress for the goverment, and is what lead to the XM177 models in 67.

Describing the SMG model of the CAR-15 as simply CAR-15 is common practice whether we like it or not. Its not a misnomer any more then describing them all with 'XM177'- in both cases what was a more specific name is meant to refer to the whole family. Its important to note that the CAR-15 name comes from the CAR-15 program, and that there were other variants (such as the HBAR), but those are usually noted as such.

The use of the CAR-15 smg with goverment is also clear. It (CAR-15 smg) may have orginated with Colt- but the Commando designation is not official either. As for the manuals, they were printed by rock island IIRC. Ve3 17:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Rock Island and other government arsenals postwar began to work quite closely with private industry. The fact they were printing manuals for a non-standard weapon with the manufacturer's moniker means nothing to me. It doesn't change the fact that this is not a government type standardization and is only part of the weapon's complete name as it came down from Colt. RIA didn't create the name, Colt did. I don't really understand what you're getting at, and I see us fighting about nothing really, except for the most important fact that the CAR-15, in part or in whole, was never an official US military designation. It was simply using the manufacturer's moniker for a non-standard weapon system, which is not uncommon at all. The US Army prints operator manuals for the AK-47, does this make AK-47 an official US designation? thatguy96 12:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I did not think we were 'fighting', it is just a discussion about this firearm family. The naming of these just brings up a lot issues, especially with CAR-15 The choice of CAR-15 smg for a manual, is just a instance of use, not a type classification. It has significance to the early naming of the family, if only as a example of naming. Its may not be a 'official' name, it was just used to some degree by people involved with it (e.g. goverment officials, troops, colt ppl). 'Colt Commando' is not a government standardization either, and the later type classications can bring up naming issues too. Ve3 19:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

XM177E2 "grenade ring"

If you think the grenade ring was for launching rifle grandes. Then you need to explain the following statements:

How are you going to launch a rifle grenade over the moderator which has a larger diameter than 22mm?

Rifle grenades were phased out 10 years before the adoption of the XM177E2. We had the M79 to launch grenades.

The XM177E2 and XM148 both appeared in the spring of 1967.

Well I could easily have it mistaken, and I had the time-frame mistaken, but there is the simple fact of the matter that the stop is cupped, like most common rifle grenade rings on weapon barrels, so there is an equal need to explain this design if there was never any intention of a dual purpose. Just becaues the United States had phased out rifle grenades in regular army use by this point does not mean that rifles grenades were not an option by the intended users of the XM177 series. A rifle grenade offers a different set of advantages that low-velocity 40mm grenades from an M79, XM148 or M203 do not, just as those grenades offer advantages not possible with a rifle grenade. -- Thatguy96 17:05, 21 January 2006

Regarding wikify tag

This article contains much good information but the style of writing seems somewhat informal. I removed two instances of the phrase, ...a slew of..., but I also notice the word, moniker, for name, and other examples of informal usage. If there are editors actively working on this page maybe one would like to try to wikify the language. I would work on it myself but I have little knowledge on the topic and may mess things up. Thnx==killing sparrows 04:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)