User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/7/2016 2:49:49 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Mod's please remove link if against CoC. I can't get into Pbucket otherwise I would just post a pic. Anybody ever heard of a Navy Seal's MK4 Mod 0 stock ? From Vietnam ? Any info or straight dope on these would be appreciated. I've never seen these, nor heard of them. I assume every new item gets the Mod 0 designation, I've just never heard of the this with the M16 in VN. At the very least it's a heads up to someone who has. http://www.e-sarcoinc.com/vietnam-issue-mk4-mod-0-buttstock-set.aspx Interesting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2016 2:53:26 PM EDT
[#2]
The question is, is it real? Why not just make your own? I'm guessing that's what they did. There is no damn way I'd pay that much for that. I don't trust the vendor. I've never heard of a stock being marked like that either. Why not just stamp 'Extremely Rare Unobtanium' on it?
 I'm not buying it. FWIW, the drain hole buttstock screw came out of that program (Team 2 testing) so any stocks modified to drain water were likely modified at company level. Just my .02 Calling Coldblue, calling Coldblue.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2016 3:02:40 PM EDT
[#3]
Real ? I dunno. First I have ever seen of one. I haven't had any luck with SArco in 40 years. I wonder if the drain hole warrants the MK4 MOD 0 designation. That would be funny.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2016 4:40:30 PM EDT
[#4]
They used M16A1 stocks, type without trapdoor, preference for shorter length of pull. Nothing earth shattering about it. These rifles were pretty much built to order, with resources readily available, especially with the mod 0.
I think Sarcomis simply trying to sell surplus furniture by putting a spin on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/7/2016 4:41:37 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Real ? I dunno. First I have ever seen of one. I haven't had any luck with SArco in 40 years. I wonder if the drain hole warrants the MK4 MOD 0 designation. That would be funny. Yes - that's the only difference. You can see the hole behind the swivel at the bottom, toe of the stock. I highly doubt the originals were marked, as I said. I've heard enough about Sarco that I would not trust it without documentation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2016 9:31:35 AM EDT
[#6]
Thanks fellas, I agree with you guys about Sarco. I've tried 3-4 times to order from them since like 1979 and each time was a disaster.
I spoke to another member by email who says he saw some of the same stocks at Knob Creek. He too had never seen them before. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2016 2:42:42 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They used M16A1 stocks, type without trapdoor, preference for shorter length of pull. Nothing earth shattering about it. These rifles were pretty much built to order, with resources readily available, especially with the mod 0. I think Sarcomis simply trying to sell surplus furniture by putting a spin on it. +1 on calling it a "marketing scheme" |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2016 3:19:06 PM EDT
[#8]
Have no idea w/ the stock set, but I've ordered 2 of the 16" 1911 bbls from them, no issues.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/8/2016 11:30:27 PM EDT
[#9]
Yeah, I seen them at the Creek too. Just didn't look right.
The markings looked like they were etched. I'd think if they marked them at all, it would have been with an electro pencil. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 7:43:26 AM EDT
[#10]
I agree 100% with Morg...funny, he doesn't show a photo of the "hole"...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/9/2016 10:44:00 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree 100% with Morg...funny, he doesn't show a photo of the "hole"... Colonel - If you look closely, it looks like a 1/4" hole just behind the sling swivel... but who knows? The labeling is what screams 'fake' to me. BTW - how is the book coming? Can't wait to read it! |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 12:32:30 AM EDT
[#12]
Last night, after a google search i emailed the udt navy seal meusem about the markings and drain hole and they replied back to me that the stocks were marked. The stock that i received from Sarco has a very old plastic name tag on the right side with the name"Neumann " I must confess that I am a total computer dummy at posting pictures but if anyone is interested, send me an email address and i will email some pictures of the stock.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 1:46:56 AM EDT
[#13]
pic of stock on sarco's site
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 2:05:40 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Last night, after a google search i emailed the udt navy seal meusem about the markings and drain hole and they replied back to me that the stocks were marked. The stock that i received from Sarco has a very old plastic name tag on the right side with the name"Neumann " I must confess that I am a total computer dummy at posting pictures but if anyone is interested, send me an email address and i will email some pictures of the stock. I can post the pics you so kindly sent in the morning. Apparently, we were wrong! Thanks for sharing the info. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 3:04:20 AM EDT
[#15]
Thanks Morg. On youtube there is a video titled weaponology navy seals. which shows a seal rising from the water with a mk4 mod0 in the first 10 seconds, and from what I can tell, it seems to be a partial fence. But i could be wrong.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 8:15:54 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Colonel - If you look closely, it looks like a 1/4" hole just behind the sling swivel... but who knows? The labeling is what screams 'fake' to me. BTW - how is the book coming? Can't wait to read it! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I agree 100% with Morg...funny, he doesn't show a photo of the "hole"... Colonel - If you look closely, it looks like a 1/4" hole just behind the sling swivel... but who knows? The labeling is what screams 'fake' to me. BTW - how is the book coming? Can't wait to read it! Yes, I see something there...but if I had taken the photo, I think I would be highlighting that unique feature...just saying...It also seems strange to me that the Navy (Crane ?) would take the time to etch the stock which would take more time than drilling that little hole...unless there were other mod's to the weapon and the stock was just a convenient place to Mark & Mod it... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 9:44:28 AM EDT
[#17]
I saw one of them there the other day but didn't look closely at it.
The markings looked almost like the were placed in the stock with a hot stamp pressed into it from what I remember. Almost like a brand. I didn't ask them how much as I wasn't real interested and I guess I'm glad I didn't. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 9:56:04 AM EDT
[#18]
Enhanced and enlarged markings
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 10:59:58 AM EDT
[#19]
Here are the pics member accurange sent me the other day. I have to change my opinion now that the UDT/Navy SEAL museum has weighed in and said that they were, indeed marked. A very clear shot of the hole and ownership marking. Cool stuff. Thanks accurange!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 12:35:43 PM EDT
[#20]
how effective would that be as a drain hole since that's mostly foam down there? guess as effective as a tiny hole in the stock screw.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/10/2016 1:02:48 PM EDT
[#21]
That looks like child's play to fake "reproduce".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2016 8:20:43 AM EDT
[#22]
Anyone know what a Navy Mk3 and a Mk 5 were...? I am very much aware what a Mk11 Mod 0 was (is)...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2016 8:28:12 AM EDT
[#23]
found this on-line in just a few minutes...
"...Mk 4 Mod 0 The Mk 4 Mod 0 was a variant of the M16A1 produced for the U.S. Navy SEALs during the conflict in Vietnam and adopted in April 1970. It differed from the basic M16A1 primarily in being optimized for maritime operations and coming equipped with a sound suppressor. Most of the operating parts of the rifle were coated in Kal-Guard, a quarter-inch hole was drilled through the stock and buffer tube for drainage, and an O-ring was added to the end of the buffer assembly. The weapon could reportedly be carried to the depth of 200 feet (60 m) without damage. The initial Mk 2 Mod 0 Blast Suppressor was based on the U.S. Army's Human Engineering Lab's (HEL) M4 noise suppressor. The HEL M4 vented gas directly from the action, requiring a modified bolt carrier. A gas deflector was added to the charging handle to prevent gas from contacting the user. Thus, the HEL M4 suppressor was permanently mounted though it allowed normal semi-automatic and automatic operation. If the HEL M4 suppressor were removed, the weapon would have to be manually loaded after each single shot. On the other hand, the Mk 2 Mod 0 blast suppressor was considered an integral part of the Mk 4 Mod 0 rifle, but it would function normally if the suppressor were removed. The Mk 2 Mod 0 blast suppressor also drained water much more quickly and did not require any modification to the bolt carrier or to the charging handle. In the late 1970s, the Mk 2 Mod 0 blast suppressor was replaced by the Mk 2 blast suppressor made by Knight's Armament Company (KAC). The KAC suppressor can be fully submerged and water will drain out in less than eight seconds. It will operate without degradation even if the M16A1 is fired at the maximum rate of fire. The U.S. Army replaced the HEL M4 with the much simpler Studies in Operational Negation of Insurgency and Counter-Subversion (SIONICS) MAW-A1 noise and flash suppressor...." |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2016 3:58:08 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
found this on-line in just a few minutes... "...Mk 4 Mod 0 The Mk 4 Mod 0 was a variant of the M16A1 produced for the U.S. Navy SEALs during the conflict in Vietnam and adopted in April 1970. It differed from the basic M16A1 primarily in being optimized for maritime operations and coming equipped with a sound suppressor. Most of the operating parts of the rifle were coated in Kal-Guard, a quarter-inch hole was drilled through the stock and buffer tube for drainage, and an O-ring was added to the end of the buffer assembly. The weapon could reportedly be carried to the depth of 200 feet (60 m) without damage. The initial Mk 2 Mod 0 Blast Suppressor was based on the U.S. Army's Human Engineering Lab's (HEL) M4 noise suppressor. The HEL M4 vented gas directly from the action, requiring a modified bolt carrier. A gas deflector was added to the charging handle to prevent gas from contacting the user. Thus, the HEL M4 suppressor was permanently mounted though it allowed normal semi-automatic and automatic operation. If the HEL M4 suppressor were removed, the weapon would have to be manually loaded after each single shot. On the other hand, the Mk 2 Mod 0 blast suppressor was considered an integral part of the Mk 4 Mod 0 rifle, but it would function normally if the suppressor were removed. The Mk 2 Mod 0 blast suppressor also drained water much more quickly and did not require any modification to the bolt carrier or to the charging handle. In the late 1970s, the Mk 2 Mod 0 blast suppressor was replaced by the Mk 2 blast suppressor made by Knight's Armament Company (KAC). The KAC suppressor can be fully submerged and water will drain out in less than eight seconds. It will operate without degradation even if the M16A1 is fired at the maximum rate of fire. The U.S. Army replaced the HEL M4 with the much simpler Studies in Operational Negation of Insurgency and Counter-Subversion (SIONICS) MAW-A1 noise and flash suppressor...." Well, hot damn. Boys and girls, we've all just been given a whole new variant to reproduce! Now where's my long 1/4" drill bit? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2016 5:22:28 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, hot damn. Boys and girls, we've all just been given a whole new variant to reproduce! Now where's my long 1/4" drill bit? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
found this on-line in just a few minutes... "...Mk 4 Mod 0 The Mk 4 Mod 0 was a variant of the M16A1 produced for the U.S. Navy SEALs during the conflict in Vietnam and adopted in April 1970. It differed from the basic M16A1 primarily in being optimized for maritime operations and coming equipped with a sound suppressor. Most of the operating parts of the rifle were coated in Kal-Guard, a quarter-inch hole was drilled through the stock and buffer tube for drainage, and an O-ring was added to the end of the buffer assembly. The weapon could reportedly be carried to the depth of 200 feet (60 m) without damage. The initial Mk 2 Mod 0 Blast Suppressor was based on the U.S. Army's Human Engineering Lab's (HEL) M4 noise suppressor. The HEL M4 vented gas directly from the action, requiring a modified bolt carrier. A gas deflector was added to the charging handle to prevent gas from contacting the user. Thus, the HEL M4 suppressor was permanently mounted though it allowed normal semi-automatic and automatic operation. If the HEL M4 suppressor were removed, the weapon would have to be manually loaded after each single shot. On the other hand, the Mk 2 Mod 0 blast suppressor was considered an integral part of the Mk 4 Mod 0 rifle, but it would function normally if the suppressor were removed. The Mk 2 Mod 0 blast suppressor also drained water much more quickly and did not require any modification to the bolt carrier or to the charging handle. In the late 1970s, the Mk 2 Mod 0 blast suppressor was replaced by the Mk 2 blast suppressor made by Knight's Armament Company (KAC). The KAC suppressor can be fully submerged and water will drain out in less than eight seconds. It will operate without degradation even if the M16A1 is fired at the maximum rate of fire. The U.S. Army replaced the HEL M4 with the much simpler Studies in Operational Negation of Insurgency and Counter-Subversion (SIONICS) MAW-A1 noise and flash suppressor...." Well, hot damn. Boys and girls, we've all just been given a whole new variant to reproduce! Now where's my long 1/4" drill bit? I've wanted to build one for years. If the 'Hearing protection act' is passed, you can bet I'll be building an HEL M4... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2016 5:38:15 PM EDT
[#26]
Can we start a group build thread??
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've wanted to build one for years. If the 'Hearing protection act' is passed, you can bet I'll be building an HEL M4... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
found this on-line in just a few minutes... "...Mk 4 Mod 0 The Mk 4 Mod 0 was a variant of the M16A1 produced for the U.S. Navy SEALs during the conflict in Vietnam and adopted in April 1970. It differed from the basic M16A1 primarily in being optimized for maritime operations and coming equipped with a sound suppressor. Most of the operating parts of the rifle were coated in Kal-Guard, a quarter-inch hole was drilled through the stock and buffer tube for drainage, and an O-ring was added to the end of the buffer assembly. The weapon could reportedly be carried to the depth of 200 feet (60 m) without damage. The initial Mk 2 Mod 0 Blast Suppressor was based on the U.S. Army's Human Engineering Lab's (HEL) M4 noise suppressor. The HEL M4 vented gas directly from the action, requiring a modified bolt carrier. A gas deflector was added to the charging handle to prevent gas from contacting the user. Thus, the HEL M4 suppressor was permanently mounted though it allowed normal semi-automatic and automatic operation. If the HEL M4 suppressor were removed, the weapon would have to be manually loaded after each single shot. On the other hand, the Mk 2 Mod 0 blast suppressor was considered an integral part of the Mk 4 Mod 0 rifle, but it would function normally if the suppressor were removed. The Mk 2 Mod 0 blast suppressor also drained water much more quickly and did not require any modification to the bolt carrier or to the charging handle. In the late 1970s, the Mk 2 Mod 0 blast suppressor was replaced by the Mk 2 blast suppressor made by Knight's Armament Company (KAC). The KAC suppressor can be fully submerged and water will drain out in less than eight seconds. It will operate without degradation even if the M16A1 is fired at the maximum rate of fire. The U.S. Army replaced the HEL M4 with the much simpler Studies in Operational Negation of Insurgency and Counter-Subversion (SIONICS) MAW-A1 noise and flash suppressor...." Well, hot damn. Boys and girls, we've all just been given a whole new variant to reproduce! Now where's my long 1/4" drill bit? I've wanted to build one for years. If the 'Hearing protection act' is passed, you can bet I'll be building an HEL M4... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2016 5:56:56 PM EDT
[#27]
If you WERE to build a MkIV Mod 0, you would need to replicate one of these: basically a spring metal clip with a rubber skirt. I don't think the retro member who owns this will mind me sharing his pics...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2016 7:14:37 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anyone know what a Navy Mk3 and a Mk 5 were...? I am very much aware what a Mk11 Mod 0 was (is)... Yessir, I have a Mk3 mod 0, it's a Ontario made dive knife issued to NSW and dive units in the Navy and Recon/MARSOC in the Corps. Thanks once again, Retroheads, I learned about a new variant today. 
Not my pic: 
Mk4 Mod 0 pics: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/12/2016 9:11:06 AM EDT
[#29]
Wow, very cool stuff. Thanks Coldblue for the info, and Morg for the pics, and that's a killer stock Accurange. Having the SEAL's name on it is nice.
 But strange since I would think they would want
their stuff sans markings, at least in country. Last thing I need is new build, but look forward to those who are going to clone one. I guess ya learn something new everyday. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2016 5:00:21 AM EDT
[#30]
Lots of the pictures above aren't Mk4 Mod 0s, except for the KAC article and maybe the museum pic. The whole concept was proposed in 1969 and the weapon was adopted in 1970 by NSW. Most of those pics are not SEAL or UDT.
One of the more interesting legacies of this variant is that many of the guns that remained in inventories into the '90s and '00s ended up donating their stocks to 727 carbines. I recall a picture on the internet of a SEAL in a helo with an ACOG equipped 727 with a Mk4 Mod 0 stock. If I can find it, I'll post it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2016 10:34:00 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lots of the pictures above aren't Mk4 Mod 0s, except for the KAC article and maybe the museum pic. The whole concept was proposed in 1969 and the weapon was adopted in 1970 by NSW. Most of those pics are not SEAL or UDT. One of the more interesting legacies of this variant is that many of the guns that remained in inventories into the '90s and '00s ended up donating their stocks to 727 carbines. I recall a picture on the internet of a SEAL in a helo with an ACOG equipped 727 with a Mk4 Mod 0 stock. If I can find it, I'll post it. You mean this pic? How do you know it's a Mk4? One of my favorite setups: A2 upper, M4 barrel and fixed stock. Works slick as snot, especially with the field expedient GP sling... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2016 8:09:28 AM EDT
[#32]
That's the picture. Source was Frogman at TacticalForums.com many, many years ago.
I mis-remembered the exact quote, so here it is as follows: "The A1 stock thing started in the mid-late eighties and originated with a bunch of us snipers who prefered the better cheekweld of the A1 stock. We had some A1 stocks laying around as replacement parts for the Mk 4 (SEAL type M16A1) and- voila! The trend caught on. Most SEAL snipers prefer their M4's this way, although it has also caught on with quite a few of the other Team members." That post was dated November 2000. So the stock in that photograph may not actually have been from a Mk4, but it was procured with the Mk4 in mind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/15/2016 10:35:41 AM EDT
[#33]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2016 10:28:26 AM EDT
[#34]
Something else I just noticed: The wiki description implies that the Mk4 Mod 0 used a standard 603 charging handle. The mention of the modified charging handle is in relation to rifles fitted with the HEL M4, but the paragraph goes on to say "did not require any modification to the bolt carrier or to the charging handle".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/16/2016 11:19:22 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Something else I just noticed: The wiki description implies that the Mk4 Mod 0 used a standard 603 charging handle. The mention of the modified charging handle is in relation to rifles fitted with the HEL M4, but the paragraph goes on to say "did not require any modification to the bolt carrier or to the charging handle". I understand that even on HEL equipped Mk4s the wiper on the charging handle was rarely used and is quite rare. Of more importance is the salt-water resistant moly-coat. I believe Cal-guard is still in business, but our favorite anodizer offers a USN specwar finish that should be comparable - or really any moly coat is likely basically the same thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/21/2016 10:43:30 AM EDT
[#36]
My understanding is the same.
I wonder whether 603s procured after 1970 were also coated and drilled for drain holes? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2016 12:59:40 PM EDT
[#37]
Any pics on the modified bolt carrier?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2016 6:00:16 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Any pics on the modified bolt carrier? I read a description years ago - apparently it had another gas port in it like an LMT enhanced BC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/22/2016 7:42:41 PM EDT
[#39]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/23/2016 2:58:36 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
found this on-line in just a few minutes... "...Mk 4 Mod 0 The Mk 4 Mod 0 was a variant of the M16A1 produced for the U.S. Navy SEALs during the conflict in Vietnam and adopted in April 1970. It differed from the basic M16A1 primarily in being optimized for maritime operations and coming equipped with a sound suppressor. Most of the operating parts of the rifle were coated in Kal-Guard, a quarter-inch hole was drilled through the stock and buffer tube for drainage, and an O-ring was added to the end of the buffer assembly. The weapon could reportedly be carried to the depth of 200 feet (60 m) without damage. The initial Mk 2 Mod 0 Blast Suppressor was based on the U.S. Army's Human Engineering Lab's (HEL) M4 noise suppressor. The HEL M4 vented gas directly from the action, requiring a modified bolt carrier. A gas deflector was added to the charging handle to prevent gas from contacting the user. Thus, the HEL M4 suppressor was permanently mounted though it allowed normal semi-automatic and automatic operation. If the HEL M4 suppressor were removed, the weapon would have to be manually loaded after each single shot. On the other hand, the Mk 2 Mod 0 blast suppressor was considered an integral part of the Mk 4 Mod 0 rifle, but it would function normally if the suppressor were removed. The Mk 2 Mod 0 blast suppressor also drained water much more quickly and did not require any modification to the bolt carrier or to the charging handle. In the late 1970s, the Mk 2 Mod 0 blast suppressor was replaced by the Mk 2 blast suppressor made by Knight's Armament Company (KAC). The KAC suppressor can be fully submerged and water will drain out in less than eight seconds. It will operate without degradation even if the M16A1 is fired at the maximum rate of fire. The U.S. Army replaced the HEL M4 with the much simpler Studies in Operational Negation of Insurgency and Counter-Subversion (SIONICS) MAW-A1 noise and flash suppressor...." Kal-Guard is still being made in the original formula by the original company. KG Coatings They have expanded their line since the 1960's |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
