Interesting /416\

[running-man]

At least I thought it was an interesting one.  Have a look:












OK aside from it being a para and not having the original stock, the part that made me excited is:



11th year /416\, several years earlier than any of the previous known examples.  No Chinese characters, with stamp on the right side of the S/N.   

[armedhippie]

/416\'s will usually fall in the 18 and 17 mill and 1.8 and 1.7 mill ranges correct? With /\ always to the left of the s/n With gray bolts and late features. ( least that's what I've noticed when looking for PS rifles)

[Loose}{Cannon]

Until you realize its a 17 not a 11.     

[running-man]

Yup definitely a 7 there.  Dang, you win some you lose some! 

Nope, I'm back in the '11' camp.  Just doesn't match the other /416\ 17's  The lack of Chinese characters and the stamp to the right of the S/N are pretty hard to argue against.

[running-man]

It is an odd duck though.

Earlier 1.7 mil /416\:


Later 1.7 mil /416\:


Why such a big difference with the lack of Chinese chars?  Scrubbed?  Those 7's are radically different too.  And how did the /416\ stamp get so far to the right on the receiver, it's a good couple inches off where it's supposed to be?   

I think I'm leaning back in the 11 camp.  It's just not a stylized 7 like these two show.

[running-man]

And what's up with the short lug & lightened bolt carrier?  Other 1.7 mil /416\s I've got have pressed and pinned barrels and non-lightened carriers.  Damn these darned things for making me question my sanity! 

[Loose}{Cannon]

Laff...  Placement of markings, fonts,and components are one thing, but thats a 7 no doubt about it.  At least that's what I see.

[running-man]

It's the spitting image of the number one on the left, with just a little something extra to the upper left.  Might be a 7.  That 7 sure has an upright foot on it if so, even the early ghosts had a bit of cant to them:

[Loose}{Cannon]

 

When in doubt... Throw it out?