Jump to content

Mattel-made M16 magazines during Vietnam?


Capt.Confederacy
 Share

Recommended Posts

US Victory Museum

As the old saying goes, "Pictures are worth a thousand words!" Or at least they use to be.

attachicon.gifM16mattelM16.jpg

 

This image is photoshopped. I know the guy who originally did it. It's been floating around on the I-net for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US Victory Museum


This is a rifle, serial number 00017, at auction by RIA, a respected auction
house.


It is a Colt mfg Sporter model produced for the commercial market, hence the
SP1 model name. Serial No. 17 would make it a 1964 production gun.

It's clearly stated that the stock is made by Mattel. Far too many veterans
have said to have seen these parts to be easily discounted.


By that standard UFOs are real, because far more people claim to have
seen a UFO, to have been kidnapped by a UFO, or to have been given an

anal probe by little green men flying in UFOs.

These gullible veterans are repeating the same urban legend that was told to
them by other soldiers and is still being repeated ad nauseum.

Mattel produced a child's toy, the Marauder. It never produced parts, nor
competed for contracts for parts, nor ever had anything to do with either
civilian contracts, nor military contracts for any maker of AR15/M16 rifles.

As far as what was photographed in the auction brochure, it may as well have
stated the parts were made by Spacely Space Sprockets. That isn't proof of
anything other than a vivid imagination.

As far as the letters written to various contractors, Armalite went out of
business ...


It's an SP1, you only need to write one letter to Colt.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. It said SP1 on the serial number. ?

2. UFOs ? "Gullible veterans"? Space Sprocketts? I won't dignify that with an answer.

3. Did you read any of the previous posts?

 

I'm not repeating a story, I'm recounting something I saw and held in my hands. I think if someone did post a picture of a Mattel handguard, pistol grip or stock it really wouldn't matter.

 

Incidentally, Serial number 1 through 23 was manufactured in 1963.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't have a dog in this fight but I'd like to point out a couple of things:

 

1. I've attached (hopefully) a slightly better picture of the RIA catalog page on the gun they claimed had a Mattel stock. They also claimed that it had provenance to Sutherland and Wilson and that it was described, by serial number, in their book.

 

2. The gun in the auction is SP00017 and is NOT in the Wilson book. SNs SP00011 and SP00013 are pictured and described.

 

3. The Wilson book never mentions any connection to Mattel.

 

4. RIA is often "creative" with their catalog descriptions but don't guarantee them. Only the title of a lot is guaranteed to be accurate.

 

5. Wilson is a convicted felon on firearms/fraud charges.

 

6. Citing unnamed veterans as having seen such a thing is unreliable, at best. How many veterans remember using Plainfield M1 Carbines on D-Day?

post-403-0-54740900-1455153037.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

This image is photoshopped. I know the guy who originally did it. It's been floating around on the I-net for years.

Hmmmm, so we should take your word that the image is photoshopped because you "know the guy who originally did it", presumably because he told you so? Yet, we should not believe vets who say they actually held these weapons? How ironic.

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manchu Warrior

 

This image is photoshopped. I know the guy who originally did it. It's been floating around on the I-net for years.

 

The fact that the photo is obviously not legit is why I added the "Or at least they use to be" part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The fact that the photo is obviously not legit is why I added the "Or at least they use to be" part.

Well, it isn't obvious to many of us. You might have clarified this a bit when you posted it.

 

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth I too could of sworn I seen something with MATTEL on it on an M16 that another guy in my Basic Platoon had at Ft Benning in Jan-Mar 1980, could of sworn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manchu Warrior

Well, it isn't obvious to many of us. You might have clarified this a bit when you posted it.

 

Steve

 

I didn't realize it was such a big deal. If it is try Googling it yourself and you can see that this debate has been going on for a long time and I seriously doubt that it will change much by me showing one photo.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I didn't realize it was such a big deal. If it is try Googling it yourself and you can see that this debate has been going on for a long time and I seriously doubt that it will change much by me showing one photo.

 

The specific issue in question isn't a "big deal", and that's my point. The point is that many of us here scout these threads for the purpose of learning something that we normally wouldn't if we only kept to our areas of specialty . We don't know those things which are "obvious" to those of you who specialize in a particular field. While it is true that we can google any topic, we like to take the opinions published here as something which are self explaining, even if not accurate. Your post of the picture of the weapon receiver with the markings did not make it clear that it is photoshopped. For those of us who come upon this thread, a seemingly legitimate picture without a note that it is actually not legitimate is very misleading, and thus contrary to the mission of this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I don't have a big interest in this but it is clear that this is a topic that has been discussed ad infinitum across the internet for years. You would think that with all that interest there would be one decent picture of a Mattel logo on a handguard somewhere in the universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, thanks for making the effort to post a larger format of the Mattel document, but now we're down to just a small portion of the whole document and have lost most of it. What is the course of your pic? Maybe There is a larger format pic of the document on another forum or site?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is another copy of the same catalog page but it is still fuzzy. This is from the Sep 2012 Rock Island auction. I no longer deep their catalogs so I grabbed these from the AR15 site where this same issue has been discussed. You should be able to read the whole description on this.

 

post-403-0-79267800-1455200498.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

439th Signal Battalion

Speaking of the SP1 model mentioned earlier (which may or may not factor in to the "mattel" subject of this thread) I know of two veterans that served in the 199th Infantry who stated that early in their tours, they traded in their "slick-side" rifles for later model M16's that had the forward assist. I had always assumed that either Air Force and early SF personnel utilized these and that very few of these SP1 models used in theater, much less in a regular infantry unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is another copy of the same catalog page but it is still fuzzy. This is from the Sep 2012 Rock Island auction. I no longer deep their catalogs so I grabbed these from the AR15 site where this same issue has been discussed. You should be able to read the whole description on this.

 

Kwill,

That's the same site I found it on. After reading your analysis of it, I'm not too sure it can be used as proof. I appreciate the honest discussion. I wish I had kept in touch with some of my buddies from basic, because I showed it to them and we got a laugh out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manchu Warrior

The specific issue in question isn't a "big deal", and that's my point. The point is that many of us here scout these threads for the purpose of learning something that we normally wouldn't if we only kept to our areas of specialty . We don't know those things which are "obvious" to those of you who specialize in a particular field. While it is true that we can google any topic, we like to take the opinions published here as something which are self explaining, even if not accurate. Your post of the picture of the weapon receiver with the markings did not make it clear that it is photoshopped. For those of us who come upon this thread, a seemingly legitimate picture without a note that it is actually not legitimate is very misleading, and thus contrary to the mission of this forum.

Let me make it clear the only in depth knowledge I have of an M16 rifle is because I happened to carry one for the better part of 8 plus years as a Grunt. That may make me somewhat of an expert on taking it apart and putting it back together and firing it but not much else. I honestly also couldn't tell you who manufactured the ones that I was issued. It could have been Colt or Mattel or even Hasbro for all I know. And the only one I personally own at the moment, or for that matter any moment in time, happens to be made of hard rubber. As for the photo, I found it on line and thought it was interesting enough to add to the thread. As for how legitimate it was I had no idea if it was photo shopped, simply because my knowledge of photography is also rather limited. Or if someone may have engraved there own weapon as a a joke. But than again for all I know the photo could have been real but I did have my doubts. Simply because the rumors were still swirling around about Mattel when I was in the Army. What I heard was actually a little different. There was talk that the M16 was modeled after a toy that Mattel had made and I heard nothing about the possibility that the toy company made the weapon itself. And that was 30 plus years after the M16 was first introduced into service within the US Military.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it possible both sides are correct? No proof that Mattel ever made parts for the M16, but that people have seen the marking on some handguards? I can imagine a grunt sitting in the jungles of Vietnam, disgusted with the performance of his new plastic rifle and taking a pen knife or other sharp object and putting the Mattel name on the handguard to emphasize that he'd been issued a toy to fight a war. Other grunts sitting around talking about it and some of them follow suit.

Then, years later, someone takes apart their issued rifle and sees the word Mattel on his handguard. Maybe not a good explanation but plausible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it so hard for people to believe that Mattel might have made some parts for the M16?...its logical that they were one of the biggest producers of plastic items in the country at the time and would be sub contracted to make certain parts, not the whole rifle but hand guards sounds plausible to me...maybe at the time they were testing stronger plastic or something and had a small contract til Colt could get the orders made or whatever reason, im not basing this on any facts or personal knowledge nor do i want to start fighting about it but its not that far fetched and jeez we have a veteran that saw it with his own two eyes!.....mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a one penchant that is common in any artifact collecting community which is to support claims that are not supported by material evidence. We deal in artifacts, hardware if you will, and without evidence, meaning a verifiable example of the hardware, there is no proof. It is simple as that! The opposite penchant is support of claims that have been demonstrably proven as false, but claims that continue in literature and folklore as true. There are lots of examples of these untenable positions in the firearms and accessory collecting world, some more absurd than others, but they continue unabated. With all due respect to the "credentials" of those who maintain positions contrary to proof, or lack of proof, in this instance with the alleged Mattel M16 products, hearsay just does not count. I firmly believe in and require material evidence when told of the existence of some "unicorn" collectible, not fervent declarations. If there is no actual hardware, then where is the paper trail showing contracts, R and D, experimental and preproduction prototypes, working models, authorizations, progress reports, committee reports, and even production stats, etc, etc and all the other supporting documents that will be part of the chain of events directed towards producing the hardware. Then there are the fakes and forgeries…….anyway my $.02 worth based on more than 60 years of collecting MGs, and related equipment, and for much of that time being in the business of MG gunsmithing and dealing…...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has to be proof somewhere out there. Some day someone will do the proper research and find it, because it's there. As I stated before, I have long been amused by all the statements and articles that say it never happened ( I even saw an article in The American Rifleman to that effect.). As I said, it was under the heat shield of the handguard. On my A1 style AR handguards, the heat shield isn't removable. This particular handguard was in really bad shape and the heat shield would fall out. It's not readily visible. I have said all I'm going to about this, and I have no malice toward anyone, but the myth here is that they weren't made. It's obviously entrenched and still being perpetrated. I would have hoped for a better discussion with the esteemed and informed members that we have in this forum instead of some of the comments that have been posted. You can tell me anything, but you cannot tell me what I have seen or experienced.

Incidentally, never seen Bigfoot or a UFO, but I did enjoy The Jetsons. Out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully someone has a beat up old, trashed, hand guard, that can be disassembled for inspection. That would be great! Also real "hit or miss". But, it's a start. SKIP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...