You said a Clone of an M16A1. You didn't say it had to be good quality.

Yeah it's a hit or miss with them.

My L1A1 was built by them, but in my research most said if the receiver is IMBEL you're generally okay. So that's what I made sure I went with.

There are M16A1 parts kit around, buy a Nodak receiver and you're good to go. (If you care that much about an A1 style lower) In the future I'd like to buy two of their receivers, one to build an M16A1 clone and the other an XM177E2.

A clone of a 2 tone deagle with wood grips and chambered in 22lr with 20 round capacity. GSG may be able to do it they have a decent 22 1911 out, btw who else wants to see 1911s without billboards or front serrations?

33mm cartridge length, only chambered by guns chambered for other magnum cartridges, how exactly is it not a magnum?

:eek: Well now I want to see a .50 GI handgun with a double stack magazine and a .50 GI submachine gun. :cool:

Also magnum has no real definition, its marketing hype, so describe what you call a "magnum"

+1 on what Predator said. For a time I wanted to get an A1 and I did my research on what I needed to get one, or rather, build one myself since no one offers one. There are full A1 parts kits less the lower receiver floating around for 5-600 bucks, though they come with a barrel that has no finish and needs to be modified to fit the front sight, and the lower parts kits have full auto parts (they are legal to buy apparently but not legal to have with a receiver or to install them into a receiver) so those need to be thrown away and replaced, and if you can't find someone to do the barrel, it needs to be replaced too. Overall after buying all the parts and assembling the whole thing, it'll come out to around 800 dollars, depending upon whether you buy a different A1 barrel for a certain price or have your smith finish and put the sight post on the barrels they come with and how much a smith will charge for that. Even so, someone should just make an A1 replica as it has to be a desirable gun, cheap to make and it would save hardcore M16 fans all the time of doing all the aforementioned work to get an A1.

I honestly don't know how I feel about the Century guns. There are a lot of horror stories, but a lot of satisfied customers too. I don't think I'll ever buy one of their guns though because their customer service, if you read it on their website, sucks. You basically get no warranty.

Anyhow, speaking of true A1 clones, I'm still waiting for someone to make a true 1911A1 clone, but I don't think it's gonna happen for a while. The SIG 221 also intrigues me, but I don't think they could make it without compromising the grip size. In addition, I appreciate what front cocking serrations are and their function, but aesthetically speaking I prefer the front of my gun to be smooth.

I also want to see the Jericho 941F come back (no rails and all steel for the love of God). Though heavy, they have a very nice grip, the trigger and sights are exceptional, and with a frame mounted lever you can easily access your safety/decocker, and you can choose between using the lever as both a decocker or safety for cocked and locked, so you have more than one carry mode.

EDIT: Oh yeah, a 5 inch revolver barrel is about pointless. An extra inch isn't going to make the gun more accurate, at least not within reasonable target or combat distances. One more inch of rifling will help the bullet retain accuracy over great distances, but if you think it'll make the gun a more accurate shooter when you're shooting at your local range at 7, 10 or even 25 yards, it won't, it'll just make the gun bulkier and heavier. It's up to the person shooting the gun to make hits. As for aesthetic appeal, there's nothing wrong with a 4 or 6 inch barrel's look, so, again, 5 inch barrels are about pointless.

DOUBLE EDIT: A heavier barrel alone (on a carbine especially) will not instantly make a gun more accurate and dial down groups by noticeable amounts. You're thinking in very simple terms and not accounting for the additional weight, your own ability to wield and shoot the gun in the first place, and most importantly that the extra degree of accuracy is practically invisible unless you plan to shoot the gun at several hundred yard excess. Heavier barrels are revered more so because they don't overheat as fast, and the accuracy thing is secondary, and again, only when you plan to shoot a gun father than typical or effective range like with a bolt action rifle. A longer or heavier barrel will not make one a better shooter, it just means your rifle MAY shift less when firing or your pistol bullet MAY come off half an inch less at 150 yards, the difference for traditional purposes is inconsequential.

Call me crazy, but I'm thinking of a carbine chambered for .357 Mag and fed by a box magazine, in either a Cx4-style layout (using the 9-round .357 Desert Eagle magazines), or in a conventional layout, using proprietary mags.

That would be cool, but don't rimmed revolver cartridges like the .357 have problems with ejector when used in automatic weapons?

Its harder to make a reliable 357, coonan 1911-ish magnums have a sweet rep though.

I'm pretty sure Coonan recently started production again