With all the good stuff- free float forearms, electronic sights, improved collapsing stocks, flat top receivers and so on, with which to build a modern and improved AR, what is the attraction of a retro? What is their charm? I don’t ask to argue why a modern or retro is better than the other, I ask for insight as to which retro folks like and why? What is it about a retro that you find so appealing?
Why do people restore muscle cars from the 1960s? The cars of today are much better and more advanced. Why restore WW2 aircraft? Why do people collect stamps? 
Gun ownership is not all about tactical applications. Some folks collect vintage ARs and there is nothing wrong with that. I fancy WW2 rifles.
Once upon a time, the AR was a simple, lightweight system. I carried a M16A1 and a CAR 15 in the Army. I still have my first AR 15 I bought in 1976 in its original configuration. I still have a bunch of CAR parts from my old unit and someday I intend to build me one… like I used to carry.
While it’s not my bag, some people are collectors and enjoy replicas and such. I don’t get it, I find it sometimes creepy, but so long as they don’t try to beat me over the head with some kind of KISS-is-better nonsense it’s no sweat off my balls.
FWIW, these are the same kinds of people that will obsess over building replicas of current issue guns as well. Hence all the “what pistol grip is correct for a RECCE?” or “what scope reticule do I need for a DMR replica?”
I get the collector and restoration thing. I love original Garands, although I am no “Correctness Nazi”. P-51D Mustangs don’t just fly, they own the skies. There is something about seeing an old Willys Jeep on the trail that warms my heart. So it makes sense to me there are folks who feel the same about retros. I’d just like to hear why
One of my childhood occupations was restoring old aircraft as an apprentice to my father and for several years a Cadet in the Confederate Air Force. People devote lifetimes and fortunes to it. I have been pals with men who owned and flew warbirds, a colossally expensive and time consuming hobby. It gets in your blood. I love my M1 rifles and '03 Springfields. They are the only exceptions to my rule “never love something that can’t love you back.” Can’t be explained.
I went through the retro phase a few years ago. I like building rifles. My hobby isn’t so much shooting, but tinkering. I guess it’s just like restoring old cars, I like building/customizing guns.
I don’t currently have a retro AR, but have been considering an M16 A2 clone or something similiar to what I was issued in the Army (M16 A1 w/round handguards).
Let’s take a look at this picture of a few of my ARs:
On the right is my M-4gery. SOPMOD stock, Colt upper, KAS rail system, M-68 and Matech BUIS are a few features on this one. If I sold this rifle today, I could order up every piece again tomorrow and put another one together just like it. No big deal.
On the left is my 601 made out of original parts with the exception of the lower, FCG, buffer, magazine and trigger guard. Everything else came off an original 601 made in the early 60’s. If I sold that rifle today, where would I find an original 1:14" twist barrel or an upper that didn’t have the directional arrows on the rear sight windage knob? Loosing that rifle is loosing a piece of history that can not be easily replaced if at all. Retro rifles are a part of the history of the M-16 design and it’s the appreciation of that history is what drives on a lot of our desires to save that history for future generations. Sorry if you can’t appreciate that.
Damn lucky to grow up like that. I love old WWII aircraft. That’s why I got into aviation
Hold on now, it isn’t that I can’t appreciate it. My favorite AR was the A2 flat top and I’m still getting used to the idea it’s considered a retro. I guess they would call it the A4 these days. Like I said earlier, I get collecting & restoring. I’m just trying to get folks to tell their stories about their retros and why they chose them.
Nice ARS!
Good question, Mr Wolf.
I’m going down the Retro Road sometime in the near future, and it’ll be an A1-style AR.
Why?
I got into the black rifle world when A1’s were common as dirt and A2’s were just coming on the market. A2’s were the latest and greatest, what with the new sights and semi-heavy barrel and round CAR-like handguards. I ended up with a good A2, and sold my A1.
Next for me came the A2 carbine, then the M4-style flattop, then rails, then BUIS, optics, new furniture, etc etc etc. Now the A2 configuration is old-hat just like the A1 was back ~1990.
I absolutely love my M4 carbine. It is perfect for my needs and I cannot think of anything that needs to be changed or added to it.
But nowadays, when I pick up an SP-1, feel the triangles and how light the gun is, its balance, just the gun’s feel… well, I miss it, and that’s why I want another.
I have a set of triangle handguards new-in-wrapper and a few 20-rounder mags grouped together… it won’t be long before it grows into a complete rifle 
ETA: I know how you feel about A2’s being considered Retro - it’s like hearing '80s music on Oldies stations…
Ya had to go there, didn’t you…?
It is fun for me to check out the older guns. I Like the history behind the older guns too. I don’t have they money or desire to build a completely correct gun but did a retroish SBR.
I’ve never used a toward assist in anything but training or drills and I already have a pair of M4 AimPoints and didn’t want to buy another one so an A1/2 upper made sense to me.
For me the A2 came first. If I’d used a 10.5" or 11.5" bbl on it instead of the 14.5" I might not have sold it.
Then the SP1
After my father died when I was 17-1/2 I completely lost interest in aviation. I wanted to follow in my Uncle’s footsteps which was to be a Marine and a college professor. Neither of those worked out. I was so poor in college, I didn’t do much more than study and whatever was necessary to survive. I attended Columbia University for three years and New York City is very expensive. I had not one dime left for fun. After that, career and family. Guns require a lot less commitment than aircraft. You can lock your guns in the safe and leave them alone for a year then take them shooting. Can’t do that with an aircraft. They need ongoing care, insurance, a hangar, license fees, inspections, lots of money for a young guy with college debt, a mortgage and cetera.
Love that rifle on the left.
A good friend of mine, who swore he had no interests in ARs until he met, recently put together a clone of the M16A1 he was issued in Viet Nam in '67. I had already put together a real nice BCM middy for him, so his primary AR being settled, he is now venturing out, and building a collection.
Me too. There is something about picking up a 1903, M38 swede, K98, Ljungman, or my favorite, one of the various Enfield No 1 or No 4 models. Especially when they are relatively cheap. I have a few slightly more expensive “correct ones” (all original 1917 Australian No 1 Mk III) and a supposedly real No 5 jungle carbine but most are just fun shooters of the period.
My serious rifles are just that. The rest are for fun (and 5th string backup ;-0 )
Chad
I, for one, am glad that some people build/collect/ and shoot retro rifles. I love seeing and shooting them myself. Unfortunately I don’t have the resources to get one for myself but perhaps someday… My current financial priority is obtaining a backup rifle possibly a SBR, and another G19. While I love the latest, greatest tech, I also have a great appreciation for historical rifles so I can remember where we came from. I’d love to eventually have a collection of every service rifle from the 1903 Springfield up to the M4, but I fear I’ll need to hit the lotto before that dream becomes a reality. At least I have a few friends that together we can put a “shoot through the century” afternoon together at the range. 
[QUOTE=Iraq Ninja;1009455]I fancy WW2 rifles. QUOTE]
And Sub Guns. I think you said you had a chance to to carry a Sterling in the Sand Box.
I like them for the history, and because I’m not much into tacticool shit. I’ve long wondered why guys who like retro ARs catch fire, while guys who like Garands, M14s, etc. don’t.
I also take personal pleasure in shooting faster and more accurately with plain jane iron sights than guys with optics and free floated this and that. I shoot as well with my modern, free floated HB carbine with ACOG as I do with my Colt 603 clone (at least to 100 yards).
I’m a firm believer that 95% of performance comes from the shooter, not the equipment.
If you want to have the “best” AR, you have to rebuild it every few months, anyway, it gets old. My “modern” AR is at least 3 years out of date. The only Magpul product I have is the grip! I still use USGI magazines!!!
I’m kind of twisted that way as well.
I once spent a couple years getting reasonably good at shooting the Colt 1851 Navy revolver. No real reason except to get an idea of what kind of skill set it took, and to test some things I’ve heard as per the b.s. potential.
Since I learned my BRM on an M16A1, I am not that curious about them, but I can definitely see why others might.
Double post
My first hands-on experience with the M16 was the Hydra-matic M16a1 I was issued in basic. I shot it more accurately than any A2 I was issued after it. After I had put together a couple M4 type carbines, I decided to get back to basics and put together a 604 type slickside 20 incher. It’s a fun gun, but it gets more attention at the range than anything else I bring along. Really, what’s the difference between that rifle and all the ones you see on the boards running a flattop, rail, back-up sights only, while “saving up for the optic” that they will never buy. I’d rather have an A1 upper than Troy back-up sights with no optic. Just my 2 cents.