I can say, with 100% confidence, that if I ever got a terminal illness and had a make -a-wish request, it would be to meet Jonathan Ferguson and get a tour of the Royal Armouries arsenal. The amount of history in that room astounds me
My day at the NFC (without Jonathan sadly) was one of the best days of my life. Any gun you could hope to fanboi over is there, I touched Hiram Maxim's prototype machine gun (no trigger, just pull the bolt back and let go and it'll run), Lahti and Solothurn 20mm's, an AK captured at the Battle of Ia Drang (We Were Soldiers battle), an HK417 all beaten up because the SBS used it in Afghanistan, Dreyse and Chassepot needle riflles, the list goes on; heaven...
Well let's see it would've cost £46,000,000 to adopt the M16A2 rather than the £92,000,000 it cost us to have H&K 'fix' the SA80 so yes yes we should've adopted the M16A2
The most complicated things to explain in the world: 1. Quantum physics 2. The history and variations of the M-16 rifle 3. The offside rule ...but very nicely done sir!
I think the number 2 can be interchanged with the AK as well. Both have endless copies and variants. Thought I do believe the AK just edges out the AR as they had some fundamental changes early that made the early AKs unable to interchange parts with later AKMs. I’m pretty sure the M16 bolt carrier group can be used universally with almost any AR.
@@PolymurExcel Oh boy, the early AKs are a thing unto themselves. There were the very early AKs that were stamped receiver guns but the Russians couldn't quite get the welding processes for the side rails right. The next ones to go out were the milled receiver guns (which fixed the welded rail problem by not having welded rails from 1951 until around 1957 when the Russians got the stampings right and the stamped receiver AKM was accepted into service in 1959 and has existed since in its present form. And then the AK-74 came along, then the 74M, then the various Eastern Bloc variants...yadda yadda yadda. Some parts from the early guns will fit AKMs and some won't. For the most part, trigger groups exchange. Some gas pistons will and some won't depending on the diameter. Early barrels from milled guns will not fit later stamped guns because the trunions are different. The AK had a solid 10+ years of field testing and iterative development to make it as good as it is.
@@robertmajors1737the irony is that it seems the U.S. is somewhat better at it than our allies in some ways….I’m not going to mention China and Russia. That’s an entirely different level.
One feature you forgot to mention of the A2 configuration -- and one that most people seem always to overlook -- is the slight reinforcing at the rear of the lower receiver, where the buttstock attaches. This was added because of the way infantrymen are taught to break their fall forward during a three to five second forward rush. This is for advancing under fire, but not such heavy fire that you have to low or high crawl behind cover. You bounce up, rush forward as fast as you can in under five seconds, and you throw yourself down flat again (hopefully behind cover). You break your fall by extending the rifle butt out in front of you so it hits the ground first. You use your arms like a shock absorber to slow your fall down, and you roll to one side when you hit the ground. You do this holding the rifle by the front handguard and by the wrist of the stock. That puts quite a bit of stress on the receiver where the stock attaches, so the A2 upgrade adds additional metal in this area to strengthen it.
That’s field manual type stuff. Doesn’t happen in actual combat and is frankly a ridiculous way of breaking your bound. Had to do it in EIB (expert infantryman’s course) and it is just an all around bad idea
@@ViktoriousDead That is exactly how I was taught to do it at Fort Benning back in 1996. Probably not every soldier does it that way, but that _is_ what the army teaches you -- or it was at the time the M16A2 was designed. And they felt the need to reinforce the receiver on the A2, because enough soldiers _did_ do it that way to bend or crack lower receivers from time to time. They certainly didn't add the material to reinforce the receiver against the savage recoil of the 5.56mm round.
That's a lengthy explanation of "I'm up, he's seen me, I'm down" which you only want to do when doing pairs fire and manoeuvre. The rolling and special way of falling bit is rather odd/contrived.
Yeah we went away from training that. Some old heads still do reading straight out of old field manuals. But the way we do it now is to brace yourself with your offhand as you get down. The ol "point, post, sprawl." Same movement when you get down to the front leaning rest, push up position, but one handed, and you lower yourself to the ground without bashing your face in with your rifle.
I met two flavors of Army Brit in the service; the young woodland DPM guys with battle bowlers and L85A1s, and the maybe-middle-aged guys with "long" hair, big moustaches, and spray-tan AR platform carbines. The former said "smaller, lighter" about their rifles, and the latter said "they rattle because we work them to bits" about their carbines. For what it's worth, at that time, mine was an iron-sighted Colt M16A2-- never fired in anger, as far as I know-- and it was ubiquitous in American hands. Seeing AR-anything in the hands of the British Army just blew my mind, and I'm glad y'all have shown me more about the history of that odd-to-me relationship. Thank you!
This type of rifle, made by Diemaco, was my service rifle in the Dutch army in 1997. Although the rear sight wasn't easy to adjust for windage or elevation, with some decent training we all could easily hit the chest size target a 300 meters. Privately I owned a accurized AR15 A2 for target shooting. With match ammo I won matches at 600 meters. Never had any stoppages or problems with the Diemaco C7 or AR15. Its a reliable and accurate system.
Also the long barrel guns that use the Stoner Gas system seems to be more reliable than short barrel ones. Its because the Stoner Gas system does better, relatively speaking, with longer gas tube than a shorter one.
Used the C7 in the CAF. Its better than the M16 imo. Diemaco is Colt Canada now. You could buy semi-auto C7 clones from Colt Canada before Trudeau’s AR-15 ban.
Units within the UK who have the choice of what weapons they carry and employ started acquiring AR-15s soon after it went into production from 1959-1963, namely the SAS, followed by the SBS. SAS used them in Borneo, for example. The Colt Commando variants also became very popular in SAS and SBS, with carbine variants still in service there to this day.
You'll find this is the case almost throughout the West. While the standard soldier used the SA80 or AUG or G36, the special forces used an AR variant, maybe piston driven... so why would you go to the expense of fielding a 'national' rifle when you could have just saved money and adopted the essentially royalty free AR? unless for some reason you did not want to be seen a vassal state of he US... in the same way the old Eastern Bloc looks like satellite states of the USSR with the AK variants.
As I mention in the video, I'm researching this at the moment. The 715 is just one of the spinoffs of that. First issue was 1964, although the earliest example in our collection (and likely acquired for T&E purposes) was made in 1959.
The M16a1 also had a fair amount of service with the Royal Marines. One of the most memorable foot patrols I saw as a school kid in Northern Ireland was Royal Marines with 2 M16’s, 3 gpmg’s, a Bren and a L42a1 sniper rifle. Not exactly normal, always wondered what they were up to.
I was an NSW Armorer in the U.S. Navy for 20 years. The units I worked with never used the standard infantry M16. We only ever had the M4 and Mk18 for assaulters, and the Mk11 and Mk12 for the snipers. The configurable upper/lower nature and the AR/M4/M16 makes it a great choice. I build my own rifles (including AR pistol and SBR) and primarily choose Aero Precision receivers and freefloat handguards. It's no small thing to be able to have options of caliber by buying different barrels for the AR15 from 5.56, 300 Blackout, and 300 HAM'R. Suppressed subsonic 300 Blackout is ridiculously awesome. Having a 30 caliber barrel option in a soft (low recoil) shooting platform with a short barrel is what I would have wanted while was in service.
I learned some new things today. I did not know the 715 went to the British. I bought an "M16A2" back in the 1990s from a dealer who described it as an "export" version and it turned out to be a Model 715. I still have it. I did appreciate that it did not come with the burst feature. I did source a genuine Colt A2 sighted upper to make it more US-like. I don't think I ever checked to see if the rifle has multiple serial numbers stamped on it.
If its a transferable full auto lower, they are worth about 50k if not more, very few hit the states so they can fetch a premium in the collectors market from the right person
The birdcage flash suppressor is held in place with a crush washer. If it's been removed and reinstalled without a new crush washer, often it'll end up misaligned, as in the video.
Or, some of us over clock on purpose. My guns are used for competition so I clock mine to about 1:30ish for a .1 second per magazine advantage. Most of the good to great shooters do the same, (I’m slightly below good myself).
@@jonisawesome69the A2 flash hider being closed on the bottom acts as a sort of compensator. Depending on the shooter, the rifle can recoil up and slightly left or right. Timing the flash hider to a 1:30 or 11:30 position can mitigate the vertical and slight horizontal movement. Much like the slant flash hider on the AKM is offset rather than redirecting gases straight vertical to the 12:00 position
I trained on the A2 when I went to basic back in '99, and I never had an issue with the rifle, so I don't know what the problems other people had. I consistently scored high sharpshooter each time I went to the range. Granted, I was more keen on machine guns and explosives, but I could handle the rifle just fine. Sadly, I never got to use any of the M4 variants before I left in '07. The M16A2 will always have a special place in my heart.
My father primarily used an A1 when he was in the infantry in 1967-68 while serving in Vietnam. I don't know the details of all the variations, but apparently the chamber wasn't chrome plated. Maybe that wasn't an issue in testing or in dry environments but in the humidity of southeast Asia, it proved to be a terrible problem causing the rifle to fail exactly when you needed it most. If I remember correctly, rust in the chamber would interrupt the cycle and the empty shell would fail to eject. However, US GIs became quite fastidious about cleaning the rifle (probably a good idea anyway) and eventually chrome plated chambers became standard.
I was a couple of years older but we never used anything but SA80 until we reached unit. Admittedly at unit there were different variants available, mostly mission specific choices, surprised that during basic only a couple of years later you were using a completely different and not in wide issue weapon. That said, I've assumed you were UK, and that's probably my mistake
@@kev3d the chrome plated barrel was actually added upon the adoption of the A1. It was one of the major quality of life features they added when they swapped variants. If they were in Vietnam long enough or at the right time, then they would have been there to witness the switch in service rifle models.
@@PolymurExcel chrome lining of the chamber and barrel solved only part of the problem. McNut (McNamara) and his sycophants elected to go with ball powder as a propellant versus the stick powder Stoner used in development. Jungle humidity caused the ball powder to bloat expanding the brass casings in the chamber preventing extraction upon the round being fired; didn't matter if the chamber was chrome lined or not.
This is very fascinating. Even though it’s on the more technical side, it’s great to see more modern weapons discussed. This is probably my favourite video yet. Thank you!
I carried the A2 in service with the 506th and the 327th Airborne Infantry, great rifle we loved it. Simple sturdy dependable , was great in -40F Korean winters.
@@garymitchell5899 Yes the war ended a long time ago. The US still has a massive presence on the peninsula. The 101st has had Regiments rotate in and out of there for a long time.
@@asdf456ghj at night up near Imjin Gak maybe -20C at night back in 1991 up in the mountains in the northern region with all that Siberian wind maybe -40C it was COLD! Even the KATUSAs had never seen anything like it, so not -40F but COLD.. it was a long time ago. It was probably -40C not -40F.
Please make sure someone posts a video of that Cody Firearms Museum symposium presentation! 🙏🏼 sounds like an awesome project! Between this video and Henry's 9hole reviews Falkland pick one video I'm very excited to hear about this presentation, especially to learn more about the earliest "acquisitions" of UK used AR patterns and the accompanying back stories! Thanks for all the hard work! 👍
In the eighties, as an ex RAF Armourer, there was more than a suggestion that these, or a derivation of it, 'may' be issued to us for left handers, as the incomming SA80 was impractical for said left handers! Don't know how the other armed services left handers faired, but this weapon must have been preferential to the SA80. Luckily, with my secondary role and rank, I was armed with a 9mm Browning. In earlier years having to proof test fire an LMG was awkward enough!
@@MichaelGallagher97 I think most people signing on to British Army have never fired a weapon before so training them all to operate one right-handed from scratch is not so much of an issue.
I'm surprised there was no mention of one of the more significant differences between A1s and A2s - the twist rate of the rifling. It was increased from 1:12 in the A1 to 1:7 in the A2 to accommodate the new, heavier SS109/M855 ammunition. Firing ammunition in the 'wrong' barrel will result in improper stabilization of the bullet and decreased accuracy, especially past 100m.
The 1:7 is for the M856 due to it oddly long length, just fun fact. It matches the twist on the Minimi/M249. And just in case, remember that National Match shooters use 1:7.7 barrels to stabilize 80, 90, and 100 grain bullets out to 600 yards just fine so the much lighter and shorter 62 LAP round doesnt need all that twist.
I'm a Former US Marine from the 90's and this is the weapon I was issued. This rifle is dead accurate at 500 yards and even further. The recoil was basically nothing. Easy to clean and maintain. 4 years in the Marine Corps with 4th award Expert using the M16A2.... Ooh-Rah
Funny story about the mix-match stuff - the first M16A2 I qualified on was a mix of A1 and A2 bits, with an A1 (possibly pre-A1) lower with the AUTO marking X’d over by hand and BURST hand stamped under it. The lower was almost entirely in the white, while the upper was a likely Reagan-era A2 with a bit more of its finish remaining, giving the gun a nice two-tone aesthetic. The rifle itself operated primarily as a bolt-action, cycling maybe every third round on its own. Even the primary purchasers of M16s kitbash them together; they just give the wrecked rifles to boot camp kids to thrash.
Issued the A1 model in Vietnam more than a half-century ago, while on Navy active duty -- first with the Seabees in the Mekong Delta and later at Cam Ranh Bay. Very easy to carry and accurate to shoot (fortunately, I never shot it except on the training range or "by the pond out back"). Liked the fact that I could carry extra ammo when out on a trek with a couple other guys in a jeep (were on our own in the Mekong, traveling about).
I was in the Marines and had an M4 with semi/burst, we were taught never to use burst unless we were literally being attacked by human waves. The only time we ever shot burst was when we're getting rid of leftover ammo after a range. The recon/marsoc marines had special full auto m4's but again they usually only used semi auto.
In Belize 1978 i was issued an early pattern AR15 3 prong flash hider , triangle handguards , no forwards assist , and A1 sights , well worn and rattled like hell but reliable and accurate and above all light to patrol with
They were also used on VCPs in NI during the mid-1970s to early 1980s. Presumably because the full-auto capability was a useful option and more effective than throwing a Sterling SMG at a departing vehicle if it crashed the checkpoint.
We did a tour of Belize at short notice in 1982,issued with AR 15,found it a nice weapon, light,reliable, easy to clean,perfect for the jungle and unlike the SLR,it had an automatic setting, which was fun to fire a few burst down the range,on the rare occasions we got to Airport camp!
My service rifle for 10 years was the Canadian made Diemaco C7A1, a licensed built version of the Colt M-16A2 . The rumour was that the Diemacos had better barrels than their American brothers. Either way, I loved that rifle. Accurate, easy to shoot and maintain.
I've heard the c7 has a 'sqeeze barrel', increasing the accuracy. Also, the machining quality of Diemaco/Colt Canada is said to be better than Colt US.
@@rayjames6096 It isn't nonsense. The machining, round powder, and barrel are made to finer tolerances and in better quality. The former Diemaco and now Colt Canada products are chosen well ahead of the US M4 variants by the likes of the SAS.
@@geographyinaction7814 The M-4 is designed to specific tolerances to operate under all conditions and environments. They're all the same tolerances. Issuing weapons before an assignment don't involve specific manufacturing factories and operators are not given their choice, and its doubtful they even give that a thought.
Whilst the SLR was our mainstay rifle, I served during the late 1970s to mid 1980's and during tours in Northern Ireland and Belize we carried the M16. The light weight of weapon and ammo was a benefit, but I only really trusted my SLR and always opted to carry it given the choice.
We had them issued to us in Belize, many of us preferred to have the SLR in our hands. Not it bothered me much as I would normally end up with the L4 LMG, oh the fun being a REME gun fitter with the artillery.
I used the M16A2 in the Infantry and never had a problem with it or with the three round burst. Sometimes I think people create a problem where a problem doesn't exist.
Same story here. My first rifle issued to me out of Basic was an A2. The only time I ever had an issue with the burst function was the first time I fired it on burst with a BFA and blanks. I just had to tighten the BFA more, and it ran just fine. I heard people bitch about burst was to say if you only triggered off one or two rounds, you would only get one round on the next trigger pull, but I always just told them to use burst was it was intended and hold down the trigger till all three rounds are fired, and then release. The kinds of people who've complained about the burst function are the kinds of people who have either a) never used it in a stressful situation, or b) just want something to complain about. My only gripe with my A2 was the weight, but over the years I've come to love it so much that my personal AR15 is a clone of the A2, and I regularly argue with people about it vs the M4. I miss my old girl, and I would trade my M4A1 for my old M16A2 any day
The 3-round burst was a solution looking for a problem. Burst firing at range is stupid, and burst firing at close range (vs. full auto) is also stupid. It was the worst of all worlds.
I love this rifle over anything. I have used it during my time in service with the US Army as a Paratrooper and Infantryman. I had no issues with it in combat from Panama to Iraq. As an Infantryman always clean your weapon, clean and check magazines, and clean ammunition. They run well under all conditions because it's a closed action with the dust cover for the bolt and very fast to reload under combat conditions. Very easy to maintain under all conditions as far as cleaning and oiling. The gas system is over pressured for reliable cycle and the chamber and bore is chrome lined for better resistance from rust. The bolt and trigger components are heavily chromed and Phosphated to further reduce corrosion resistance. It's been in service with the US for over 50 years now. Elite units in other countries use the M4 variant use the M16 system as their primary weapon.
3:45 there is no controversy among us in the USMC regarding burst fire. Even many of our M4's are burst only. We almost never use anything but semi-auto. Full-auto is unnecessary, we have a Squad Automatic Weapon for that purpose. And I always get bothered when people say full-auto is good for "covering fire" because the truth of the matter is (I know from personal experience) that slower, well-aimed, single shots are nearly always more effective for covering fire. Unless you're trying to suppress a whole area in which case we have a weapons system for that purpose in the squad (SAW.) The burst is a good "oh shit" mode that won't burn through your whole magazine at the worst possible time. If someone is unloading full-auto at me and the rounds are sort of all over the place, I may be willing to roll the dice and take a couple of quick snap shots back at you or risk taking a peek at where your movers are going while you try to pin me. The odds of one of those inaccurate full-auto rounds happening to hit exactly where I pop my head out are pretty slim. But slow, deliberately accurate shots are way scarier. I won't risk popping out under that because I KNOW you've got me dialed in.
The story of the first contact at Khe Sahn comes to mind. A mortar squad was doing night patrol out front when it bumped into high level (field grade) NVA personnel doing recon on the Marine's position. Everyone (the Marines, that is) lit up full auto. Back at the base they heard a god-awful racket for a few seconds then silence for as long as it takes to change magazines then more shooting (hopefully on semiauto this time).
One knows one is old when one’s service rifle is classified as a curio or relic in the US or in museum collections. Well actually the Colt SP1, the semiautomatic civilian version is C&R but it still hurts. Not at all too nerdy, I enjoyed this episode. I was aware of the Diemaco carbines in service with the SAS etc but I was not aware of these.
I've always liked A1 features over the A2 "improvements". One of my favorite light and handy AR-15s that I put together many years ago consisted of an A1 upper, a 16 inch A1 profile barrel with mid-length gas. I used an old surplus M16A1 stock and pistol grip, but the mid-length hand-guards were of the oval A2 profile.
My favorite current rifle is what would Stoner do lower with an A1 16 inch carbine upper. It's either sporting the large round hand guards or the Magpul SL carbine gas also
I have a rifle that I assembled from a complete Model *719* kit (everything except the lower receiver) on a semi auto lower. The 719 is basically the same rifle as the model 715….except it has a Safe-Semi-Burst fire control group instead of Safe-Semi-Auto. The latter feature is largely irrelevant to me of course because obviously I did not put any of the fire control components from that kit in the lower, but the 719 is yet another interesting variation of AR-pattern weapon.
Very interesting. I was in the US Army from 79 to 83. I shot the A1 a lot and then I worked at a machine gun company afterwards. I've shot every version and I like the round stock A1 version shorty from the Vietnam war best. 💪 Regards from the Midwest USA. My famy is originally from England being that my last name is Smallwood. ♥️
I was the last series (2052) through Parris Island (May-Aug 85) that trained with the M16A1. The barrels of our weapon were silver at this point from being continuous cleaned. During my 30 years' service, I carried the A2, the M4, the 1911 and the M9. The A4s were certainly in service; however, due to my rank I never carried one.
The heavier barrel profile on the M16A2 is by far the worst feature. At a first one may think it would aid with the gun staying cool, but in reality it does not, as most of the heat gathers in the rear half of the barrel, making the added weight on the front half wasted for the purpose. The actual intent of the new barrel profile was that armorers thought soldiers were gradually bending them through bayonet drills and using the rifles for prying, as they could not get straightness gauges to go in some of them. In reality, these barrels were not bent, the gauges just stopped on tiny (and insignificant) burrs protruding from gas port. A mistaken belief is that this gov't barrel profile is necessary for mounting the M203 grenade launcher, as the barrel has a step for it, but this is just to bring the diameter down so that the M203 can fit, and it designed to fit on the old thinner pencil profile to begin with. Overall, the new barrel profile does nothing but add useless weight, the M16A1 with its thin pencil profile heats up at the same rate and has the same inherent precision, it mounts the M203, and it wasn't bending.
Henry at 9 Hole Reviews has an interesting take on this - worth watching his video. I am allergic to unnecessary weight on firearms, so I tend to agree with the critics of the 'government' profile, but I respect his position as a veteran and experienced shooter.
The burst is also pretty bad, having an unintuitive setup which will not reset itself until 3 rounds have cycled, with the possibility of discharging 2 or even 1 round while the cam is engaged, which then gets 'counted' for the next burst trigger pull, leading to possibilities of firing only 2 or even 1 round the next time you pulled the trigger on burst. This has occasionally been reported as malfunctions by people who didn't know better, but it's just an awkward quirk of an awkward feature. This would be less bad if the burst mechanism didn't also make the triggerpull noticeably worse in semi-auto, which is what you'd be using like +90% of the time, affecting precision and practical rate of fire. Burst is a waste of time and ammunition when used in a situation where you'd normally use semi-auto, and it's simply inadequate for situations where you really want full-auto (which do still come up), like for breaking contact. The M16A4 still has the gov't profile and the burst. The M4A1 drops the burst but still keeps the gov't profile (just shorter). These aspects can be improved on.
Karl at Inrange has tested the AR15/M16 with the pencil barrel and they do indeed suffer with wandering zero once you have put rounds through it and heated it up. The A2 profile was 100% to prevent that problem. Modern metallurgy may have reached the stage where a pencil barrel can handle rapid fire but the metallurgy of the early 80s when the A2 was adopted was not able to create a heat resistant pencil barrel. A2 barrels are not step cut for grenade launchers as they mount the same way as full length delta ring hand guards . Shorter M4 barrels have that feature because the M203 is longer than the carbine length front sight post so it must clamp around something. Previous Colt carbines that the 203 was designed to mate with have thinner profile barrels.
The irony is that the M16a2 is still far lighter than most service rifles around, especially in the 1980s, but people got so used to the M16a1 being so much lighter that they forgot just how heavy service rifles used to be. Not saying the M16a2 was an improvement or necessary, but it shows just how expectations can change. For a British Squaddie who spent a lifetime schlepping an SLR at about ten pounds fully-loaded with another several pounds of 7.62mm on his pack, a M16a2 has its charms.
If you want to see these weapons, they are in the NFC - a separate part of the Royal Armouries. It is not open to the general public, but you can arrange a visit if you are carrying out research!
I used the M16A2, A4 and M4 during my Army career there's absolutely nothing wrong with the rifle. I never scored less than Expert in 15+ years. I carried the A2 in Bosnia and the M4 during two tours in Iraq. The M4 did everything I asked of it as a Scout and Infantryman
@@lionheartx-ray4135 yeah, apparently I found this out recently, those aluminum stanmags were actually supposed to be disposable. They were never meant to be used for years on end.
The rifle I was issued at my duty station was the A2 variant. (I prefer the round handguard of the A2.) We had two weapons in my unit that were the weapons of firepower support, the M60 and the 90mm recoilless rifle. Both of which weren't the best weapon to lug around on foot. (My unit was part of the 7th ID (Light).)
I always found the story of the birdcage flash suppressor funny. The original M16 had this three pronged thing. If it is true, supposedly they swapped it out because service-members kept warping them. They were apparently using the prongs to pry apart the metal mesh wires that tied supply crates together because it worked better their crowbars. The bird cage didn’t help as apparently the service members would in response, shove the entire barrel under the wires and tear them apart like a crowbar. Now they were bending the barrel which was worse than what they did before. If this true, all I gotta say is freakin grunts.
Honestly, we're in an age where we're starting to see the pinnacle of perfection from M16-pattern platforms. Between the ability to find piston-driven platforms, and now even complete internal bolt/buffer systems (Sig MXC, Palmetto State JAKL, etc.), you can't find a better system. Lately, the US DoD has been seeking replace these great systems, not with a good updated version, but with a completely new system based on the Sig MXC Spear. Granted, it's familiar, but it is HUGE with an insane new 6.8mm round built on the .308 chassis. They always love justifying these moves by saying that our guys had bad experiences in Afghanistan, as if the M4 is the reason we lost. I served in Afghanistan and used the M4, as well as the MK18 mod 0, and the MK12 SPR version. We never losses a tactical engagement during the entirety of Afghanistan, and the US military as a whole was not losing tactical engagements, with regular army using the M4 and the USMC using the M16A4/A5. So, the loss in Afghanistan wasn't coming from an ineffective platform or ineffective round. We always had the tactical advantage.
The m16/ar15 are fine weapons if you keep up with the maintenance. I have owned multiple versions. While the L1a1 I acquired in the 90’s was a fine rifle .The ar15 a2 is a lot more pleasant for a day at the range and make a fine varmint and home defense weapon when using the .55 gr m193 the m855 is a lousy round and the m262 .77 gr hpbtm is phenomenal .( yes , I live in America in a free state so it legal ) .
2:54 I trained with the M-16 (no bloody A1 or A2) in the USAF in the early '80s. The Air Force never adopted the A1 and switched to the A2 when it came out. My unit didn't receive it until I already left the service. The case deflector would have been a welcome addition. I got a blister on the back of my neck from hot brass while firing prone.
The model 604 was issued in limited numbers to units deploying to S ARMAGH. Close Observation Platoons elsewhere in the Province also had limited numbers of the 604, but at some point they were withdrawn. The furniture/hand guard was the same as the Vietnam era rifles.
The XM177/CAR-15 was the first introduction of the rounded ribbed forend from memory, mid 1960's for a short barrelled (10" & 11.5" versions) collapsible stock variant for use by special forces.
The A2 was/is one hell of a service rifle imo. I grew up with on during my career in the Corps. Never had the chance to use the A4 but qualified with the M4 walking out with my 7th award expert.
I could happily work at the Royal Armouries, I have the interest, the enthusiasm, the willingness to learn, the attention to detail - where it could all break down is on money and how much I am prepared to pay them.....
We used to shoot competition against the Royal Marines in the Marine Corps matches and in Quantico at the Interservice matches in the 90s. We had open sight M16s, and they had their bullpup with a scope. We mopped the floor with them... and they had scopes. Their badasses thru and thru but their level of marksmanship isnt what our is in the U.S. This is most likely due to our hunting and sporting history...which is diminishing im sorry to say.
American here. I actually used to own a civilian model Colt AR-15 (the LE6920). Sadly, financial difficulties compelled me to sell it, with the hope of getting another one once I had recovered. Well, little did I know that, in that brief interim, Colt would suddenly decide to stop selling them to the civilian market due to political pressures! I have literally shed tears over this set of circumstances. In other words, right after I had to sell mine, they went from being the proverbial "dime a dozen", to nearly unobtainable collectors' items!😥 Btw, do you have any videos about AK-47s in the works?
That is not accurate. Civilian Colt AR-15s are not 'unobtainable collectors items'. Colt paused sales for a fairly short period and then resumed commercial rifle sales in 2020. You can buy a Colt CR6920 today from all major retailers which is considered to be almost exactly the same rifle as the LE6920, just with slightly different markings. Just stay away from the outsourced Colt 'Expanse' models. It was not 'political pressure' that stopped their commercial sales, it was an oversaturated AR-15 market and military contracts taking precedent. Everyone who said it was 'political pressures' was purely speculating because Colt released a vague statement once. In truth the Colt AR-15s have always had an inflated price for comparatively basic features and aren't exactly competitive with other companies these days. They mostly sell for the brand recognition and the appeal of having a certain rollmark on your lower receiver and 'C' marks on the BCG. At the time they chose to pause sales rather than drop prices to compete.
@@solwindp78-1 , Just looked it up to confirm, and I stand corrected! Apparently, they resumed sales to the civilian market only 9 months after suspending it. I heard it via the news when they announced that they'd be stopping civilian sales, but the coverage of their resumption of civilian sales must have been more "quiet". Anyway, thank you for sharing the correct information with me!
@@gunsnchoses8309 , They most certainly did suspend sales of their AR-15s to civilians. I simply wasn't aware of the fact that they had resumed civilian sales a mere 9 months later!
@@andreweden9405 The quiet part Colt tried not to mention was Colt had enough surplus inventory they could stop producing rifles and still fulfill orders. Pre-CoVID they were overpriced for what you got and post-CoVID everyone is selling ARs at sticker price.
Great video, I appreciate all the details! In America, legal M16s cost over $30,000 and A2s are around $50,000. I plan on buying an A1 and using it for an early M4 (A2) parts kit I’ve had for years. God bless!
The round handguards were interchangeable with the A1, and I had an M16A1 in my reserve unit in the early 1990s with the A2 handguard. Second, a controlled 3-round burst with all three rounds on target inside 200m is very doable. 3rd the M4 carbines that I had, and I had several, all had 3-round burst.
Interesting to hear this for me, as it reinforces the opinions I heard of MOD officials when I visited the Nottingham MOD production center in 2002 (I was a US government employee who was visiting & meeting with staff in the nearby MOD Pattern Room, then @ Nottingham). My British counterparts expressed, not so seriously, that it made little sense to have British military shoulder arms made by HK, a German company, when the tried & true M16A2, made by a long-standing close ally, the US, was available & ready.
The M16a2 is an excellent rifle, but the MOD wanted a bullpup configured rifle for dismounted close combat. The bullpup is the only way to maintain optimal terminal ballistics in a short rifle. The French, Austrians, Israelis and many other Armies came to the same conclusions.
H&K was then owned by BAE, British Aerospace - their ordnance division - so they were keeping the funds for the refurbishment "in-house" so to speak. I do agree with you, for what it is worth, that the Brits might have been better off adopting the M-16 than the SA80, but "not invented here" syndrome is real and since the SLR (FN FAL) was a foreign design, maybe the MOD thought it was time for a homegrown design.
We had an Armalite in our armoury; not entirely sure how it got there, but it was an original Colt-made one with the early three-prong flash hider and original buffer. Literally everything on it was bent. Barrel was bent, front sight was slanted, the push pins were U-shaped, most of the finish was gone, the teeth in the handguard were badly broken, the bottom of the pistol grip was worn off and the stock was cracked. Gas tube was bent, etc. It was used only for familiarisation. "And this lads, is an Armalite." Rattle, rattle. I remember when I was at Warminster once a Para showed me his 715 with an M203, the Paras actually had L85A1s at the time but they also had some 715s with M203s fitted. I think the history of the Armalite in British service is definitely worthy of some study, mainly the enormous list of excuses given for not generally adopting it. The thing that always makes me laugh is that the A2 upgrade was justified as being more cost-effective than general adoption of the L119A1 because that would require re-training. Every front-line unit has Armalite experience and my regiment was about as rear-line as possible and we had a crappy old one.
The Armalite as in the AR15 or the AR-18? The latter had a very boxy looking steel upper receiver with a charging handle protruding through the ejection port.
@@steven-k. Ah, yes, you did say colt-made, I shouldn't skim read. Colt of course weren't interested in any other designs Armalite made other than AR15. I did see a British army training video where a Sergeant showed off an AR-18 (or AR-180) and introduced it as an Armalite saying "it's great, I'd personally choose this gun". Judging by the film grain and moustaches it was in the 1970s or early 80s, so before the SA-80/L85. Should have adopted the C7 just like Netherlands and Denmark did but it seems that there were shenanigans afoot with the SA80 as some sort of scheme to boost the value of Enfield before the government sold it off. I do find it strange that for a long time the US had the worst variant of the AR15 with the A2 model: over-designed sights, clunky bust-fire mechanism and bizarrely proportioned barrel profile plus no provision for any sort of optical sight.
@@Treblaine Would've been so much better if they just adopted a straight up AR-18 instead of wasting all the time and money to turn it into a bullpup and just ending up with one of the worst service rifles out there.
@@Treblaine The "Armalite" referring to the AR-18 is more of an IRA thing. A batch of them were sent over to Ireland so they were in fairly regular service with the IRA, as much as any rifle could be said to be (the song "My Armalite" is about the AR-18, not the AR-15 as usually inferred). If the Sergeant had experience N.I. then he might have picked that name up there.
One of the best videos on the M16A2 (imo) is by Henry with 9 hole reviews where he went out to 500 yards with his M16A2 clone rifle. What also standout about his episode is the added interview with a Marine who was shot in the head in Fallujah and lived. That Marine service rifle was the A2, both the former marine (his name escapes me atm) and Henry went into great detail on the use and expected capabilities of the M16A2 in combat, might have some useful information for the paper you are writing for the Cody firearms museum. Loved the video!
I carried an A1, A2 and M4. We never had any issues with barrel rise shooting auto or 3 round burst. You would only use that for close quarters or suppression fire. Anything with distance was totally single shot so you knew you would drop your target.
I think the SAS got the M16 in 65-66 for use in Borneo. Radway Green produced ammunition in 66. Interesting that they decided not to import cartridges from the US. Your paper sounds very interesting. Could you give a heads up when the presentation is? Thanks
Back in 1984 I worked part time as the armourer for a well known UK gun dealer and Section 5 dealer. He bought around 10 'commercial sales' SA80 rifles from RSAF Enfield. As we were the UK agent at that time for IMI and had seen how many hoops they had to jump through to get ATF approval for the Galil rifles for civilian sale, I rebuilt an SA80 to be an civilianised ATF compliant rifle for the US market and sent it back to Enfield for evaluation... they 'poo, poo'ed ' the idea (they would have sold thousands to the USA)! To get to the caveat, we found out that Colt had offered the M16A2 to the British Army as a 'tagged on' order to the back of the second US Marine Corps purchase at a unit cost of around $74 USD per rifle.... Guess what we did? 😂🤣😂
@@gregandy4277 he's full of $#!+ ! U.S. contract price in that era was around $450 per copy! At $74 per unit, Colt U.S. would have basically been supplying them for free. Maggie Thatcher would have never passed up that deal ..... had it actually existed!
As a former US Army unit armorer and before that combat soldier actually using various iterations of the M16A2 I'm actually a huge fan of the standard issue rifle in and of itself (as opposed to the M203 and M249 both of which i used as well as a field piece in the field) as it was incredibly effective in a "knife fight" very agile, no extras but all essentials, if the enemy turned and ran could be used as a ranged weapon as well to out 300 yards effective absolutely. M4 carbine was well liked and in demand still today true is my understanding anyways. Had a cleaning back in an otherwise solid butt stock, could fix a bayonet to it modern versions obviously have "over attachment issues" so definitely high time for an upgrade but in the hands of some type of Constabulary Force still a very deadly weapon even if not "charged"(loading with live rounds.) It has a "toy" like feel because of the pistol grip but again...makes this item even more deadly imo as can shoot one handed even if need be. With proper fire control very well put together in pieces parts but even better holistically as well. Lighter weapon means carrying more ammo as well and of course more money available to spend on quality ammo.
Used one of these as a scout in the Australian army. Hated it. Stoppages all over the place, dust and mud made it worse. Never had any confidence in it at close range. Only good thing was the weight compared to the SLR which nearly everyone else had.
The M16 was on limited supply to British Army units serving in Northern Ireland. I was part of the covert army (I did not wear uniform or patrol the streets) and one day I happened to visit the defence company armoury. I was surprised to see a lone M16 among the SLR's and enquired as to who used it. Apparently, no one wanted it; as all those engaged in patrolling preferred their SLR''s. I was told that it was mine for the asking. I would eagerly have exchanged my SMG for it, but alas, the M16 was too long and would not fit in the sack I used to covertly carry my folded SMG. I would have given it a go had it been a CAR version, as I was not a fan of the SMG, preferring my FN Browning GP35, which replaced my dreadful Canadian Inglis HP35.
I served on Op Banner home service Battalions (UDR CGC, Royal Irish CGC) I worked alongside the Royal Marines Cop teams had M16's , as did the Paras I also carried an M16 on our Cop team training. But sadly had to stick with the old SLR back at Battalion.
If I remember rightly during NITAT , the Fire Teams had a mix of weapons. The point man carried the M16 , as it could fire a full magazine on auto in 1.5 seconds. The SLR had the advantage of once being hit by a 7.62 you stay down. Once met a Officer who took 5 rounds from a M16 in an ambush, but kept on running till out of the kill zone. Also clearing a double feed on a M16 is far slower than a rifle with a side cocking/ charging handle. One third of the time on a M16 you need a clearing rod to clear it. A superb weapon, but not without its flaws.
When i was doing my training at Holsworthy barracks with syd uni regiment..we trained on the m16..to be honest it felt like a child's toy.. couldn't imagine fixing a bayonet on it..unlike the preferred self loading rife,which had some grunt..a real man stopper.
I was issued an AR15 when I was serving in Belize. The total lack of recoil when compared with an SLR made it easy to get superb grouping on the range. Interestingly they were painted pale grey for some reason.
My dad was issued an M16 of some description while deployed to Belize. He said he liked that it was lightweight and easy to field strip, but thought it didn't have the power to punch through the thick jungle foliage. He said that if he'd actually had to fight, he'd have preferred an L1A1.
I used the AR15 in the Royal Marines back in 1992. Our troop moved on the CAR in 1996. I cannot wait to get my hands on the new KS1 when we get it. The Envision Technology ballistic calculator and a Pixels-on-Target thermal sight will be a brilliant tactical addition.
In the modern US Army, it's not just ammunition consumed. There's worry over "every bullet carries a lawyer" and limiting the number of shots fired limited commander liability.
That's basically the same reason the .50BMG SLAP cartridge wasn't allowed to be used with guns fitted with any kind of muzzlebrake or flashhider, as sabot petals would on occasion deflect inside the muzzle device and then strike the projectile in flight, which could cause really extreme point of impact shifts at long ranges. Very unsafe, even on a shooting range.
@@0neDoomedSpaceMarine More than that the sabot can get stuck in the muzzlebreak and cause a massive pressure spike in the gun. That Kentucky Ballistics was almost killed when a SLAP round blew out his rifle, and there's a good chance that it was at least partially because the muzzle was plugged with a sabot.
@@tristanc3873 In the video of that incident, you can see the round _before_ the one that blew it up skipping off the ground in front of his target. I took it as a sign that the ancient ammo he was using was well past its use-by date. Consider it a reminder that the correct response to "WTF?" is "F that! Unload!"
Yes - I'll be covering these in the symposium I mentioned :) None with any known combat history unfortunately though. They were passed around quite a bit.
Q. Should the UK have adopted the M16/AR-15? A. Yes. The worst implementation of the M16 is superior in just about every possible way to what we did choose.
FYI The Canadian version of this rifle is the C7 family. It is used by Canada, New Zealand, The Netherlands, Denmark and a few others. I believe that the British SAS use one of the variants as one of their primary weapons. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Canada_C7
NZ got the LMT MARS-L. Its the only acquisition project that was done well by our country in the last 20 years. Except the Bushmasters. I had a couple of mates included with the weapons trials. They rated the LMT as the 2nd best after the updated AUG which was probably based more on familiarity than anything actually technical. But the LMT is a great weapon. Had some issues initially which LMT was very good about fixing. AUG had advantages in some respects like urban fighting in ergonomics in that alot more weight is towards the rear especially with a 203 on it. But generally for future soldiers the MARS is better. Compared to C7 I have no idea.
As a shooter setting on auto on most auto weapons allows for a 2-3 shot mini-burst for a practices user. The addition of 'burst mode' adds complexity and cost, but the benefit for teaching your squaddies to use the weapon properly is far greater and obviates the need.
Its never too nerdy Jonathan, i served in the IDF from 2009 to 2012 and for most of the time my rifle was an M4A1 length barrel, M16A1 rear sight, thin barrel, no case deflector with a lower that said M16A1.
it could be a "colt 653" wich is basically the carbine variant of the m16a1. The idf also got the "menusar" wich are surplus m16a1 locally shortened to a 13,5" barrel and installed the retractable stock.
It’s crazy that the Brit’s have weapons like this only available in museums and videos like this, meanwhile I have one sitting a few feet away from me in the safe
The UK definitely should have adopted the M16. The US had already done all the R&D, and through the Vietnam conflict had smoothed out the kinks in the system. So all the UK would have had to do is license the thing. Instead they sunk money into developing the SA80. Which ended up being one of the worst modern rifles ever adopted. Then they spent mountains of pounds paying H&K to fix it.
Altering the flash hider or muzzle of the barrel to compensate for recoil break was originally started on the Thompson smg. It was called the cuts compensator.👍
Was hoping to have seen that weird M16A1/A2 hybrid with the SUSAT he showed off in the Back 4 Blood video as I would love to learn more about that weapon
THAT mate is OLD HAT. The SA80 is now a VERY decent piece of kit. Accuracy wise, the SA80 brought you up a level from the SLR, even if the SLR had the SUIT/SUSAT sight. Having said that, we wouldnt have moved to the 5.56 SA 80 if the yanks hadnt forced NATO to go there. I sussed out the 5.56 weakness in Malaya in 75 when we were firing in the jungle lanes ranges. Rather than penetrating the foliage, some rounds were bouncing off and spraying all over the place.Later, the Americans began to realise in Iraq that it had nowhere near the stopping power of the SLR 7.62 and started to move some systems back to 7.62mm. I served 22 yrs Brit Airborne and was most 2 Para shooting teams with both the SLR and then the SA80. It wasnt as bad as the nay sayers portrayed it to be.
Having started my soldiering on the No 4, then SLR, and become an attractive proposition to the SAS (in the form of an unsolicited job offer, which I turned down, because the same issues arose with interference by incompetent politicians as happened here), I got to handle the SA80 on the TAVR Platoon Commander's Course at Warminster in 1978 (which I came out top of). That's structurally almost back to the flintlock, in terms of generation. Two major issues existed. Firstly, weight. Secondly, shape. A fighting infantrymen relies on camouflage, and the key to that is the "S"es - shape, shine, silhouette, shadow. A long line is manmade. Pull it back into a bullpup and you get rid of the "long". Your forearm breaks it up too. What were key factors at the time? 1. Economic cost - the economic model being learned the hard way at the time says local production stimulates the economy, I'm not talking about unit price, mind. 2. Accuracy. The No 4 would kill an enemy through the tree he's hiding behind. The flex in the barrel of the SLR caused by the blowback mechanism would kill him by going around the tree. The M-16 would kill him by dropping the tree on his head while he was trying to suss where the bees were. Bees? A burst of tumbling bullets buzzed. It turned out the SA80L1 would kill him laughing as it turned into a clown car, disassembling itself That, as we all know, was eventually fixed.
As a veteran of the M16A1, I approve the 3-round burst fire. When an M16A1 was on fully automatic mode, we had to have strict fire discipline because it only took a few seconds to empty a 20 round magazine if the trigger was held down. Accuracy was never part of the question. As you pointed out, only the first round was aimed and then muzzle climb had the following rounds climbing up and to the left. So it was a lot better to only waste two rounds of your ammunition shooting into the air instead of wasting nineteen rounds and then having to change the magazine.
0:39 The top one is a legitimate M-16A2 with its micrometer adjustable rear sight and heavy barrel. The one on the bottom looks like a M-16A1 with an A2 pistol grip and fore end due to its pencil barrel, shorter stock, and less adjustable rear sight (I say less because one needs a tool or a round to adjust for windage).
I had one issued to me in British army service in Central America in the 1980s. Horrid thing. I would have preferred my L1A1 or L2A3 Machine Carbine. I was told we had M16s in the jungle as we were a long way away in distance and time from replacement ammunition and could carry more rounds with the M16.
God knows. Just never felt soldier proof and trial shooting made the rounds swerve about glancing off small branches. Jungles have a lot of branches. My L1A1 just went through everything converting cover into concealment as they say. The L2A3 was ideal to spray despondency and dismay in any general direction giving time to run away or run right over them. Maybe it was that I was given it with no instruction and had to make it up as I went along on a long patrol. Still would have done the job if needed I dare say.@@bigbake132
We did use the M16, called Armalite rifle, special forces used it extensively and infantry in jungle areas such as Belize, where the SLR was too big and bulky
The Colt 715 was manufactured by Diemaco, later Colt Canada, as the C7 Assault Rifle for the Canadian armed forces, and I recognized t in a matter of seconds. My 30-something year old Colt AR-15A2 is different only in being a semi-auto and having the "2-screw" 5/16" (nearly 8mm) Colt pivot pin, instead of a proper, captive, 1/4" (6.35 mm) pivot pin. That makes the upper an lower incompatible with anything else I have, without using an adaptor pin. In the past I've clocked a muzzle device with a jam nut so it pushed into my left hand upon firing, but always timed the flash hiders with peel washers at 12 o'clock. After working on M16A1s in the army, and my own AR-15s for decades, I recently used a crush washer for the first time ever. I had to torque the flash hider more than I torqued the barrel to get turn it all the way around to the top. I didn't like that at all, but maybe I'm just old-fashioned. I really like installing A1 flash hiders with a lock washer a lot more. You torque it until your wrench says it's good, and you're done. No need to worry about lining it up with anything else. IMO it's more effective at suppressing flash than the A2 flash suppressor, but not as good when shooting prone in dust or light, dry snow. If you stand on your hind legs like a man... never mind.
I do not know if it is well known , but the original concept for the AR-15, was that it was intended for the USAF Air Police (airfield security) and not the Army, who had the M-14, or that the British and some Australian and New Zealand instructors with Malaya and Borneo experience from SAS trained Green Berets at the British Jungle Training School before they deployed to Vietnam. The Brits and Commonwealth trialled the AR-15 before the US Army actually had them. The British and Commonwealth forces never had fouling problems as our cleaning regimes in UK were more frequent, when in service with the US Army they had fouling problems because the trial ammunition powder was cleaner than the powder used in the field (US Government went for cheaper powder and did not issue enough cleaning kits or impress on troops the need to clean them frequently). That was verified to me by a veteran SAS soldier who had served in Malaya and Borneo and elsewhere, now sadly no longer with us. His opinion of SA80 was "not a soldiers weapon, the bloody thing is not instinctive or easy to handle, which the SLR layout was. It is mostly about keeping your line of sight of focus towards the enemy, the SA80 strays from the point, the SLR had everything to hand for the left hand, safety and selector for the right thumb, same for M-16, and you can keep your eyes on the target ahead. I hate the safety, the cocking handle, the fact you cannot use it left handed, the weight, the balance, of the SA80". He also mentioned that if you lost the spring on an SLR you could still cycle it as a bolt action rifle.
On 'losing' the spring: when cleaning, we were taught to strip the gas plug, rod and spring first and replace them last. It was precisely because (or so we were told) if you were jumped you could snap the body shut and use the weapon like a bolt-action rifle. Mind you, you'd be in a pretty desperate situation if that happened... a bit like fitting a bayonet to an SMG - you can, but something's gone very wrong in your day if you find yourself actually having to use it.
1st time I saw the M16 family in UK military use was during my Op-Banner Tour 85-86. Having delivered members of the KOSB's by Helibedford to their tour Barracks, a number of them (around 6) climbed down carrying these weapons. Being a wide eyed Trog, with his 1958 stamped wood furniture SLR, to say I was gobsmacked would be an understatement 😳😊
I can say, with 100% confidence, that if I ever got a terminal illness and had a make -a-wish request, it would be to meet Jonathan Ferguson and get a tour of the Royal Armouries arsenal. The amount of history in that room astounds me
I thought you were going somewhere else with that... 😄
My day at the NFC (without Jonathan sadly) was one of the best days of my life. Any gun you could hope to fanboi over is there, I touched Hiram Maxim's prototype machine gun (no trigger, just pull the bolt back and let go and it'll run), Lahti and Solothurn 20mm's, an AK captured at the Battle of Ia Drang (We Were Soldiers battle), an HK417 all beaten up because the SBS used it in Afghanistan, Dreyse and Chassepot needle riflles, the list goes on; heaven...
The purge 😂
I can say, with 100% confidence, that if I ever got a terminal illness and had a make-a-wish request, I would spend all night with Ur Mom.
My goal is to have an arsenal like that. As an American I can, once I hit it big in the Lottery.
Well let's see it would've cost £46,000,000 to adopt the M16A2 rather than the £92,000,000 it cost us to have H&K 'fix' the SA80 so yes yes we should've adopted the M16A2
And you’d probably end up with Diemaco/Colt Canada guns which are better built and higher quality than Colt USA rifles.
A grand old British tradition of throwing good money after bad! I’m sure there are many more examples? Is it just the British who have this habit?
@@stephen7571 I think it’s just inherent of all governments. Someone is always getting a kick-back or looking to get one.
L85 is a better rifle
@@non-masturbatingtyrannosau3476 Heh no.
British Army, Belize 82/83. We used the M16. Loved it.
The most complicated things to explain in the world:
1. Quantum physics
2. The history and variations of the M-16 rifle
3. The offside rule
...but very nicely done sir!
I think the number 2 can be interchanged with the AK as well. Both have endless copies and variants. Thought I do believe the AK just edges out the AR as they had some fundamental changes early that made the early AKs unable to interchange parts with later AKMs. I’m pretty sure the M16 bolt carrier group can be used universally with almost any AR.
@@PolymurExcel Oh boy, the early AKs are a thing unto themselves. There were the very early AKs that were stamped receiver guns but the Russians couldn't quite get the welding processes for the side rails right. The next ones to go out were the milled receiver guns (which fixed the welded rail problem by not having welded rails from 1951 until around 1957 when the Russians got the stampings right and the stamped receiver AKM was accepted into service in 1959 and has existed since in its present form. And then the AK-74 came along, then the 74M, then the various Eastern Bloc variants...yadda yadda yadda.
Some parts from the early guns will fit AKMs and some won't. For the most part, trigger groups exchange. Some gas pistons will and some won't depending on the diameter. Early barrels from milled guns will not fit later stamped guns because the trunions are different. The AK had a solid 10+ years of field testing and iterative development to make it as good as it is.
Quantum physics is relatively straightforward.
Let us not forget US military procurements in general. There are some truly inexplicable decisions that have been made in that department.
@@robertmajors1737the irony is that it seems the U.S. is somewhat better at it than our allies in some ways….I’m not going to mention China and Russia. That’s an entirely different level.
One feature you forgot to mention of the A2 configuration -- and one that most people seem always to overlook -- is the slight reinforcing at the rear of the lower receiver, where the buttstock attaches. This was added because of the way infantrymen are taught to break their fall forward during a three to five second forward rush. This is for advancing under fire, but not such heavy fire that you have to low or high crawl behind cover. You bounce up, rush forward as fast as you can in under five seconds, and you throw yourself down flat again (hopefully behind cover). You break your fall by extending the rifle butt out in front of you so it hits the ground first. You use your arms like a shock absorber to slow your fall down, and you roll to one side when you hit the ground. You do this holding the rifle by the front handguard and by the wrist of the stock. That puts quite a bit of stress on the receiver where the stock attaches, so the A2 upgrade adds additional metal in this area to strengthen it.
That’s field manual type stuff. Doesn’t happen in actual combat and is frankly a ridiculous way of breaking your bound. Had to do it in EIB (expert infantryman’s course) and it is just an all around bad idea
"I'm up. He sees me. I'm down."
@@ViktoriousDead That is exactly how I was taught to do it at Fort Benning back in 1996. Probably not every soldier does it that way, but that _is_ what the army teaches you -- or it was at the time the M16A2 was designed. And they felt the need to reinforce the receiver on the A2, because enough soldiers _did_ do it that way to bend or crack lower receivers from time to time. They certainly didn't add the material to reinforce the receiver against the savage recoil of the 5.56mm round.
That's a lengthy explanation of "I'm up, he's seen me, I'm down" which you only want to do when doing pairs fire and manoeuvre. The rolling and special way of falling bit is rather odd/contrived.
Yeah we went away from training that. Some old heads still do reading straight out of old field manuals. But the way we do it now is to brace yourself with your offhand as you get down. The ol "point, post, sprawl." Same movement when you get down to the front leaning rest, push up position, but one handed, and you lower yourself to the ground without bashing your face in with your rifle.
I met two flavors of Army Brit in the service; the young woodland DPM guys with battle bowlers and L85A1s, and the maybe-middle-aged guys with "long" hair, big moustaches, and spray-tan AR platform carbines. The former said "smaller, lighter" about their rifles, and the latter said "they rattle because we work them to bits" about their carbines. For what it's worth, at that time, mine was an iron-sighted Colt M16A2-- never fired in anger, as far as I know-- and it was ubiquitous in American hands. Seeing AR-anything in the hands of the British Army just blew my mind, and I'm glad y'all have shown me more about the history of that odd-to-me relationship. Thank you!
This type of rifle, made by Diemaco, was my service rifle in the Dutch army in 1997. Although the rear sight wasn't easy to adjust for windage or elevation, with some decent training we all could easily hit the chest size target a 300 meters. Privately I owned a accurized AR15 A2 for target shooting. With match ammo I won matches at 600 meters. Never had any stoppages or problems with the Diemaco C7 or AR15. Its a reliable and accurate system.
yeah Diemacos are great, cold hammer forged barrel from Canada , well made AR
Also the long barrel guns that use the Stoner Gas system seems to be more reliable than short barrel ones. Its because the Stoner Gas system does better, relatively speaking, with longer gas tube than a shorter one.
Used the C7 in the CAF. Its better than the M16 imo. Diemaco is Colt Canada now. You could buy semi-auto C7 clones from Colt Canada before Trudeau’s AR-15 ban.
Helemaal mee eens. Weinig problemen en makkelijk in de omgang.
Units within the UK who have the choice of what weapons they carry and employ started acquiring AR-15s soon after it went into production from 1959-1963, namely the SAS, followed by the SBS. SAS used them in Borneo, for example. The Colt Commando variants also became very popular in SAS and SBS, with carbine variants still in service there to this day.
You'll find this is the case almost throughout the West. While the standard soldier used the SA80 or AUG or G36, the special forces used an AR variant, maybe piston driven... so why would you go to the expense of fielding a 'national' rifle when you could have just saved money and adopted the essentially royalty free AR? unless for some reason you did not want to be seen a vassal state of he US... in the same way the old Eastern Bloc looks like satellite states of the USSR with the AK variants.
As I mention in the video, I'm researching this at the moment. The 715 is just one of the spinoffs of that. First issue was 1964, although the earliest example in our collection (and likely acquired for T&E purposes) was made in 1959.
SAS and SBS also tended to use the HK roller locking series such as the G3 and HK33 and ofc the MP5 but that goes without saying
Gurkhas used them in Borneo as well, iirc.
The M16a1 also had a fair amount of service with the Royal Marines. One of the most memorable foot patrols I saw as a school kid in Northern Ireland was Royal Marines with 2 M16’s, 3 gpmg’s, a Bren and a L42a1 sniper rifle. Not exactly normal, always wondered what they were up to.
Great rifles, reliable and accurate, my oldest is an AR15-SP1, still shoots like new even after forty five years of use.
I was an NSW Armorer in the U.S. Navy for 20 years. The units I worked with never used the standard infantry M16. We only ever had the M4 and Mk18 for assaulters, and the Mk11 and Mk12 for the snipers.
The configurable upper/lower nature and the AR/M4/M16 makes it a great choice.
I build my own rifles (including AR pistol and SBR) and primarily choose Aero Precision receivers and freefloat handguards.
It's no small thing to be able to have options of caliber by buying different barrels for the AR15 from 5.56, 300 Blackout, and 300 HAM'R. Suppressed subsonic 300 Blackout is ridiculously awesome.
Having a 30 caliber barrel option in a soft (low recoil) shooting platform with a short barrel is what I would have wanted while was in service.
I learned some new things today. I did not know the 715 went to the British. I bought an "M16A2" back in the 1990s from a dealer who described it as an "export" version and it turned out to be a Model 715. I still have it. I did appreciate that it did not come with the burst feature. I did source a genuine Colt A2 sighted upper to make it more US-like. I don't think I ever checked to see if the rifle has multiple serial numbers stamped on it.
That's pretty cool that it did it's job and then found it's way back home. Take care of it.
If its a transferable full auto lower, they are worth about 50k if not more, very few hit the states so they can fetch a premium in the collectors market from the right person
But the exported models were usually model 719s
The birdcage flash suppressor is held in place with a crush washer. If it's been removed and reinstalled without a new crush washer, often it'll end up misaligned, as in the video.
Or, some of us over clock on purpose. My guns are used for competition so I clock mine to about 1:30ish for a .1 second per magazine advantage. Most of the good to great shooters do the same, (I’m slightly below good myself).
@@john-paulsilke893 how exactly does that help you?
@@jonisawesome69 it’s all about recoil management and if you can time your brake to your hand you can sneak a tiny bit my recoil managment.
@@jonisawesome69the A2 flash hider being closed on the bottom acts as a sort of compensator. Depending on the shooter, the rifle can recoil up and slightly left or right. Timing the flash hider to a 1:30 or 11:30 position can mitigate the vertical and slight horizontal movement. Much like the slant flash hider on the AKM is offset rather than redirecting gases straight vertical to the 12:00 position
Actually it’s held in place by tourque, if you’ll actually look instead of assuming, it’s actually a peel washer.
I trained on the A2 when I went to basic back in '99, and I never had an issue with the rifle, so I don't know what the problems other people had. I consistently scored high sharpshooter each time I went to the range. Granted, I was more keen on machine guns and explosives, but I could handle the rifle just fine. Sadly, I never got to use any of the M4 variants before I left in '07. The M16A2 will always have a special place in my heart.
My father primarily used an A1 when he was in the infantry in 1967-68 while serving in Vietnam. I don't know the details of all the variations, but apparently the chamber wasn't chrome plated. Maybe that wasn't an issue in testing or in dry environments but in the humidity of southeast Asia, it proved to be a terrible problem causing the rifle to fail exactly when you needed it most. If I remember correctly, rust in the chamber would interrupt the cycle and the empty shell would fail to eject. However, US GIs became quite fastidious about cleaning the rifle (probably a good idea anyway) and eventually chrome plated chambers became standard.
That was because the army’s low IQ idea started at the top with McNamara.
I was a couple of years older but we never used anything but SA80 until we reached unit. Admittedly at unit there were different variants available, mostly mission specific choices, surprised that during basic only a couple of years later you were using a completely different and not in wide issue weapon. That said, I've assumed you were UK, and that's probably my mistake
@@kev3d the chrome plated barrel was actually added upon the adoption of the A1. It was one of the major quality of life features they added when they swapped variants. If they were in Vietnam long enough or at the right time, then they would have been there to witness the switch in service rifle models.
@@PolymurExcel chrome lining of the chamber and barrel solved only part of the problem. McNut (McNamara) and his sycophants elected to go with ball powder as a propellant versus the stick powder Stoner used in development. Jungle humidity caused the ball powder to bloat expanding the brass casings in the chamber preventing extraction upon the round being fired; didn't matter if the chamber was chrome lined or not.
This is very fascinating. Even though it’s on the more technical side, it’s great to see more modern weapons discussed. This is probably my favourite video yet. Thank you!
That's nice to hear, thanks :)
Meet me at the old bayonet factory next to the grenade depot across from the naval meat processing wharf. We’ll settle this like men…
I carried the A2 in service with the 506th and the 327th Airborne Infantry, great rifle we loved it. Simple sturdy dependable , was great in -40F Korean winters.
Wooooooooow that is stupid cold.
@@jacksonthompson7099 he's exaggerating. Winter here doesn't going down till -40F
Plus the Korean war was 70 years ago. The guy's a Walt.
@@garymitchell5899 Yes the war ended a long time ago. The US still has a massive presence on the peninsula. The 101st has had Regiments rotate in and out of there for a long time.
@@asdf456ghj at night up near Imjin Gak maybe -20C at night back in 1991 up in the mountains in the northern region with all that Siberian wind maybe -40C it was COLD! Even the KATUSAs had never seen anything like it, so not -40F but COLD.. it was a long time ago. It was probably -40C not -40F.
Fantastic run down, this project has been super interesting so far, even if tracking the variations has been a bit stressful!
Please make sure someone posts a video of that Cody Firearms Museum symposium presentation! 🙏🏼 sounds like an awesome project! Between this video and Henry's 9hole reviews Falkland pick one video I'm very excited to hear about this presentation, especially to learn more about the earliest "acquisitions" of UK used AR patterns and the accompanying back stories! Thanks for all the hard work! 👍
In the eighties, as an ex RAF Armourer, there was more than a suggestion that these, or a derivation of it, 'may' be issued to us for left handers, as the incomming SA80 was impractical for said left handers! Don't know how the other armed services left handers faired, but this weapon must have been preferential to the SA80. Luckily, with my secondary role and rank, I was armed with a 9mm Browning. In earlier years having to proof test fire an LMG was awkward enough!
Then the MOD said wait it's cheaper to just tell left handed people they're right handed now and to get over it.
@William Tell one of the best shots in my platoon was a leftie firing from the right. Never bothered him.
@@MichaelGallagher97 I think most people signing on to British Army have never fired a weapon before so training them all to operate one right-handed from scratch is not so much of an issue.
I am right handed but left eye dominant so shot the L1A1 from my left shoulder, I shot marksman ,the SA80 would have chewed my cheek off
All of a sudden you become left handed. My A2 jammed after 3 rounds on the range prior to my going to afghan. Awful awful awful.
I'm surprised there was no mention of one of the more significant differences between A1s and A2s - the twist rate of the rifling. It was increased from 1:12 in the A1 to 1:7 in the A2 to accommodate the new, heavier SS109/M855 ammunition. Firing ammunition in the 'wrong' barrel will result in improper stabilization of the bullet and decreased accuracy, especially past 100m.
The 1:7 is for the M856 due to it oddly long length, just fun fact. It matches the twist on the Minimi/M249.
And just in case, remember that National Match shooters use 1:7.7 barrels to stabilize 80, 90, and 100 grain bullets out to 600 yards just fine so the much lighter and shorter 62 LAP round doesnt need all that twist.
I'm a Former US Marine from the 90's and this is the weapon I was issued. This rifle is dead accurate at 500 yards and even further. The recoil was basically nothing. Easy to clean and maintain. 4 years in the Marine Corps with 4th award Expert using the M16A2.... Ooh-Rah
And it's a LOT lighter than our SA80
Did you feel it was necessary to tell us you were a murine
@@josedorsaith5261 didn't have the range of a SLR
Semper Fi brother. I was still using the M16A4 in 2011, pain to carry in and out of trucks but awesome for table 1 rifle qual.
@@JOEFABULOUS.
I wish we could still own FN SLRs.
Funny story about the mix-match stuff - the first M16A2 I qualified on was a mix of A1 and A2 bits, with an A1 (possibly pre-A1) lower with the AUTO marking X’d over by hand and BURST hand stamped under it. The lower was almost entirely in the white, while the upper was a likely Reagan-era A2 with a bit more of its finish remaining, giving the gun a nice two-tone aesthetic. The rifle itself operated primarily as a bolt-action, cycling maybe every third round on its own.
Even the primary purchasers of M16s kitbash them together; they just give the wrecked rifles to boot camp kids to thrash.
Issued the A1 model in Vietnam more than a half-century ago, while on Navy active duty -- first with the Seabees in the Mekong Delta and later at Cam Ranh Bay. Very easy to carry and accurate to shoot (fortunately, I never shot it except on the training range or "by the pond out back"). Liked the fact that I could carry extra ammo when out on a trek with a couple other guys in a jeep (were on our own in the Mekong, traveling about).
I was in the Marines and had an M4 with semi/burst, we were taught never to use burst unless we were literally being attacked by human waves. The only time we ever shot burst was when we're getting rid of leftover ammo after a range. The recon/marsoc marines had special full auto m4's but again they usually only used semi auto.
In Belize 1978 i was issued an early pattern AR15 3 prong flash hider , triangle handguards , no forwards assist , and A1 sights , well worn and rattled like hell but reliable and accurate and above all light to patrol with
Did my Belize tour in 86 got issued the same gats, even more worn and rattley, loved the light weight over the slr
They were also used on VCPs in NI during the mid-1970s to early 1980s. Presumably because the full-auto capability was a useful option and more effective than throwing a Sterling SMG at a departing vehicle if it crashed the checkpoint.
We did a tour of Belize at short notice in 1982,issued with AR 15,found it a nice weapon, light,reliable, easy to clean,perfect for the jungle and unlike the SLR,it had an automatic setting, which was fun to fire a few burst down the range,on the rare occasions we got to Airport camp!
I was in Belize 82/83 ish, for 6 months. Drums, 1 Royal Anglian. We were based in tin huts near Punta Gorda. I can't remember the camp's name.
My service rifle for 10 years was the Canadian made Diemaco C7A1, a licensed built version of the Colt M-16A2 . The rumour was that the Diemacos had better barrels than their American brothers. Either way, I loved that rifle. Accurate, easy to shoot and maintain.
I've heard the c7 has a 'sqeeze barrel', increasing the accuracy. Also, the machining quality of Diemaco/Colt Canada is said to be better than Colt US.
Nonsense
@@rayjames6096 It isn't nonsense. The machining, round powder, and barrel are made to finer tolerances and in better quality. The former Diemaco and now Colt Canada products are chosen well ahead of the US M4 variants by the likes of the SAS.
@@geographyinaction7814 it's nonsense and made up.
@@geographyinaction7814 The M-4 is designed to specific tolerances to operate under all conditions and environments. They're all the same tolerances. Issuing weapons before an assignment don't involve specific manufacturing factories and operators are not given their choice, and its doubtful they even give that a thought.
"Hi, I'm not Ian, and welcome to another video..."
But loved this.
Whilst the SLR was our mainstay rifle, I served during the late 1970s to mid 1980's and during tours in Northern Ireland and Belize we carried the M16. The light weight of weapon and ammo was a benefit, but I only really trusted my SLR and always opted to carry it given the choice.
We had them issued to us in Belize, many of us preferred to have the SLR in our hands. Not it bothered me much as I would normally end up with the L4 LMG, oh the fun being a REME gun fitter with the artillery.
@@clivemortimore8203 I feel your pain - and If memory serves, the L4 was still the pintle mount for FV 433 Abbot.
I used the M16A2 in the Infantry and never had a problem with it or with the three round burst. Sometimes I think people create a problem where a problem doesn't exist.
Same story here. My first rifle issued to me out of Basic was an A2. The only time I ever had an issue with the burst function was the first time I fired it on burst with a BFA and blanks. I just had to tighten the BFA more, and it ran just fine. I heard people bitch about burst was to say if you only triggered off one or two rounds, you would only get one round on the next trigger pull, but I always just told them to use burst was it was intended and hold down the trigger till all three rounds are fired, and then release. The kinds of people who've complained about the burst function are the kinds of people who have either a) never used it in a stressful situation, or b) just want something to complain about. My only gripe with my A2 was the weight, but over the years I've come to love it so much that my personal AR15 is a clone of the A2, and I regularly argue with people about it vs the M4. I miss my old girl, and I would trade my M4A1 for my old M16A2 any day
The 3-round burst was a solution looking for a problem. Burst firing at range is stupid, and burst firing at close range (vs. full auto) is also stupid. It was the worst of all worlds.
I love this rifle over anything. I have used it during my time in service with the US Army as a Paratrooper and Infantryman. I had no issues with it in combat from Panama to Iraq. As an Infantryman always clean your weapon, clean and check magazines, and clean ammunition. They run well under all conditions because it's a closed action with the dust cover for the bolt and very fast to reload under combat conditions. Very easy to maintain under all conditions as far as cleaning and oiling. The gas system is over pressured for reliable cycle and the chamber and bore is chrome lined for better resistance from rust. The bolt and trigger components are heavily chromed and Phosphated to further reduce corrosion resistance. It's been in service with the US for over 50 years now. Elite units in other countries use the M4 variant use the M16 system as their primary weapon.
it was sweet shooting too, 300m hits no big deal. 11B 90-94 1/506th 1/327th
Always captivated from beginning to end. Sometimes wish I'd pursued a similar mastery/knowledge of firearms, just so interesting
Thanks for the feedback Connor. Never too late ;)
3:45 there is no controversy among us in the USMC regarding burst fire. Even many of our M4's are burst only. We almost never use anything but semi-auto. Full-auto is unnecessary, we have a Squad Automatic Weapon for that purpose. And I always get bothered when people say full-auto is good for "covering fire" because the truth of the matter is (I know from personal experience) that slower, well-aimed, single shots are nearly always more effective for covering fire. Unless you're trying to suppress a whole area in which case we have a weapons system for that purpose in the squad (SAW.) The burst is a good "oh shit" mode that won't burn through your whole magazine at the worst possible time.
If someone is unloading full-auto at me and the rounds are sort of all over the place, I may be willing to roll the dice and take a couple of quick snap shots back at you or risk taking a peek at where your movers are going while you try to pin me. The odds of one of those inaccurate full-auto rounds happening to hit exactly where I pop my head out are pretty slim. But slow, deliberately accurate shots are way scarier. I won't risk popping out under that because I KNOW you've got me dialed in.
The story of the first contact at Khe Sahn comes to mind. A mortar squad was doing night patrol out front when it bumped into high level (field grade) NVA personnel doing recon on the Marine's position. Everyone (the Marines, that is) lit up full auto. Back at the base they heard a god-awful racket for a few seconds then silence for as long as it takes to change magazines then more shooting (hopefully on semiauto this time).
One knows one is old when one’s service rifle is classified as a curio or relic in the US or in museum collections. Well actually the Colt SP1, the semiautomatic civilian version is C&R but it still hurts. Not at all too nerdy, I enjoyed this episode. I was aware of the Diemaco carbines in service with the SAS etc but I was not aware of these.
Thank you, Jonathan! I've been searching for the information about the ribbed handguard and you're a life savior!
I've always liked A1 features over the A2 "improvements". One of my favorite light and handy AR-15s that I put together many years ago consisted of an A1 upper, a 16 inch A1 profile barrel with mid-length gas. I used an old surplus M16A1 stock and pistol grip, but the mid-length hand-guards were of the oval A2 profile.
I carried both of them in the airborne Infantry, we all liked BOTH .. the A2 was more solid , more robust..
My favorite current rifle is what would Stoner do lower with an A1 16 inch carbine upper. It's either sporting the large round hand guards or the Magpul SL carbine gas also
For a fixed length stock, the A1 was better overall lengthwise.
Thanks
I have a rifle that I assembled from a complete Model *719* kit (everything except the lower receiver) on a semi auto lower. The 719 is basically the same rifle as the model 715….except it has a Safe-Semi-Burst fire control group instead of Safe-Semi-Auto. The latter feature is largely irrelevant to me of course because obviously I did not put any of the fire control components from that kit in the lower, but the 719 is yet another interesting variation of AR-pattern weapon.
Very interesting. I was in the US Army from 79 to 83. I shot the A1 a lot and then I worked at a machine gun company afterwards. I've shot every version and I like the round stock A1 version shorty from the Vietnam war best. 💪
Regards from the Midwest USA.
My famy is originally from England being that my last name is Smallwood.
♥️
60 million people in britain mate an ive never met the queen either
My condolences to your wife on the "small wood"
I was the last series (2052) through Parris Island (May-Aug 85) that trained with the M16A1. The barrels of our weapon were silver at this point from being continuous cleaned. During my 30 years' service, I carried the A2, the M4, the 1911 and the M9. The A4s were certainly in service; however, due to my rank I never carried one.
I had an A2 with full Auto and A1 sights in South Armagh in the late 80's. It also had an M203. Lovely piece of kit.....!!
I trained on the M16A2 in basic in 2000. It’s always been my favorite.
Yeah, we grew up with those beloved rifles..., you can pick them up in any local gun shops here in the States.
The heavier barrel profile on the M16A2 is by far the worst feature. At a first one may think it would aid with the gun staying cool, but in reality it does not, as most of the heat gathers in the rear half of the barrel, making the added weight on the front half wasted for the purpose.
The actual intent of the new barrel profile was that armorers thought soldiers were gradually bending them through bayonet drills and using the rifles for prying, as they could not get straightness gauges to go in some of them. In reality, these barrels were not bent, the gauges just stopped on tiny (and insignificant) burrs protruding from gas port.
A mistaken belief is that this gov't barrel profile is necessary for mounting the M203 grenade launcher, as the barrel has a step for it, but this is just to bring the diameter down so that the M203 can fit, and it designed to fit on the old thinner pencil profile to begin with.
Overall, the new barrel profile does nothing but add useless weight, the M16A1 with its thin pencil profile heats up at the same rate and has the same inherent precision, it mounts the M203, and it wasn't bending.
Henry at 9 Hole Reviews has an interesting take on this - worth watching his video. I am allergic to unnecessary weight on firearms, so I tend to agree with the critics of the 'government' profile, but I respect his position as a veteran and experienced shooter.
The burst is also pretty bad, having an unintuitive setup which will not reset itself until 3 rounds have cycled, with the possibility of discharging 2 or even 1 round while the cam is engaged, which then gets 'counted' for the next burst trigger pull, leading to possibilities of firing only 2 or even 1 round the next time you pulled the trigger on burst. This has occasionally been reported as malfunctions by people who didn't know better, but it's just an awkward quirk of an awkward feature.
This would be less bad if the burst mechanism didn't also make the triggerpull noticeably worse in semi-auto, which is what you'd be using like +90% of the time, affecting precision and practical rate of fire. Burst is a waste of time and ammunition when used in a situation where you'd normally use semi-auto, and it's simply inadequate for situations where you really want full-auto (which do still come up), like for breaking contact.
The M16A4 still has the gov't profile and the burst. The M4A1 drops the burst but still keeps the gov't profile (just shorter).
These aspects can be improved on.
I definitely prefer the pencil barrel.
Karl at Inrange has tested the AR15/M16 with the pencil barrel and they do indeed suffer with wandering zero once you have put rounds through it and heated it up. The A2 profile was 100% to prevent that problem. Modern metallurgy may have reached the stage where a pencil barrel can handle rapid fire but the metallurgy of the early 80s when the A2 was adopted was not able to create a heat resistant pencil barrel. A2 barrels are not step cut for grenade launchers as they mount the same way as full length delta ring hand guards . Shorter M4 barrels have that feature because the M203 is longer than the carbine length front sight post so it must clamp around something. Previous Colt carbines that the 203 was designed to mate with have thinner profile barrels.
The irony is that the M16a2 is still far lighter than most service rifles around, especially in the 1980s, but people got so used to the M16a1 being so much lighter that they forgot just how heavy service rifles used to be. Not saying the M16a2 was an improvement or necessary, but it shows just how expectations can change. For a British Squaddie who spent a lifetime schlepping an SLR at about ten pounds fully-loaded with another several pounds of 7.62mm on his pack, a M16a2 has its charms.
I was issued and qualified with an A2 in Basic Training in 1982. Fine weapon.
Love the new thumbnail, keep it up Royal Armouries and Mr. Ferguson😊
If I ever make it back to the UK, visiting the Armouries is high on my list of things to do, and these videos are a big part of why. :D
If you want to see these weapons, they are in the NFC - a separate part of the Royal Armouries. It is not open to the general public, but you can arrange a visit if you are carrying out research!
I used the M16A2, A4 and M4 during my Army career there's absolutely nothing wrong with the rifle. I never scored less than Expert in 15+ years. I carried the A2 in Bosnia and the M4 during two tours in Iraq. The M4 did everything I asked of it as a Scout and Infantryman
What’s the difference between the A2 and A4?
@@sfoeric A2 had the Handle while A4 had a picatinny rail above the chamber. A4 allowed for more options with Optics and scopes.
I think anytime I had issue with M16/M4 had more to do with Magazine then the rifle it self.
@@lionheartx-ray4135 Thanks for the explanation!
@@lionheartx-ray4135 yeah, apparently I found this out recently, those aluminum stanmags were actually supposed to be disposable. They were never meant to be used for years on end.
The rifle I was issued at my duty station was the A2 variant. (I prefer the round handguard of the A2.) We had two weapons in my unit that were the weapons of firepower support, the M60 and the 90mm recoilless rifle. Both of which weren't the best weapon to lug around on foot. (My unit was part of the 7th ID (Light).)
I always found the story of the birdcage flash suppressor funny. The original M16 had this three pronged thing. If it is true, supposedly they swapped it out because service-members kept warping them. They were apparently using the prongs to pry apart the metal mesh wires that tied supply crates together because it worked better their crowbars. The bird cage didn’t help as apparently the service members would in response, shove the entire barrel under the wires and tear them apart like a crowbar. Now they were bending the barrel which was worse than what they did before. If this true, all I gotta say is freakin grunts.
Honestly, we're in an age where we're starting to see the pinnacle of perfection from M16-pattern platforms. Between the ability to find piston-driven platforms, and now even complete internal bolt/buffer systems (Sig MXC, Palmetto State JAKL, etc.), you can't find a better system.
Lately, the US DoD has been seeking replace these great systems, not with a good updated version, but with a completely new system based on the Sig MXC Spear. Granted, it's familiar, but it is HUGE with an insane new 6.8mm round built on the .308 chassis. They always love justifying these moves by saying that our guys had bad experiences in Afghanistan, as if the M4 is the reason we lost.
I served in Afghanistan and used the M4, as well as the MK18 mod 0, and the MK12 SPR version. We never losses a tactical engagement during the entirety of Afghanistan, and the US military as a whole was not losing tactical engagements, with regular army using the M4 and the USMC using the M16A4/A5. So, the loss in Afghanistan wasn't coming from an ineffective platform or ineffective round. We always had the tactical advantage.
The m16/ar15 are fine weapons if you keep up with the maintenance. I have owned multiple versions. While the L1a1 I acquired in the 90’s was a fine rifle .The ar15 a2 is a lot more pleasant for a day at the range and make a fine varmint and home defense weapon when using the .55 gr m193 the m855 is a lousy round and the m262 .77 gr hpbtm is phenomenal .( yes , I live in America in a free state so it legal ) .
2:54 I trained with the M-16 (no bloody A1 or A2) in the USAF in the early '80s. The Air Force never adopted the A1 and switched to the A2 when it came out. My unit didn't receive it until I already left the service. The case deflector would have been a welcome addition. I got a blister on the back of my neck from hot brass while firing prone.
The model 604 was issued in limited numbers to units deploying to S ARMAGH. Close Observation Platoons elsewhere in the Province also had limited numbers of the 604, but at some point they were withdrawn. The furniture/hand guard was the same as the Vietnam era rifles.
The XM177/CAR-15 was the first introduction of the rounded ribbed forend from memory, mid 1960's for a short barrelled (10" & 11.5" versions) collapsible stock variant for use by special forces.
I think some regular army SLs & PLs/PSGs used it as well
The short answer is yes. The long answer is HELL YES.
Or alternatively, yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees.
The A2 was/is one hell of a service rifle imo. I grew up with on during my career in the Corps. Never had the chance to use the A4 but qualified with the M4 walking out with my 7th award expert.
I could happily work at the Royal Armouries, I have the interest, the enthusiasm, the willingness to learn, the attention to detail - where it could all break down is on money and how much I am prepared to pay them.....
We used to shoot competition against the Royal Marines in the Marine Corps matches and in Quantico at the Interservice matches in the 90s. We had open sight M16s, and they had their bullpup with a scope. We mopped the floor with them... and they had scopes. Their badasses thru and thru but their level of marksmanship isnt what our is in the U.S. This is most likely due to our hunting and sporting history...which is diminishing im sorry to say.
American here. I actually used to own a civilian model Colt AR-15 (the LE6920). Sadly, financial difficulties compelled me to sell it, with the hope of getting another one once I had recovered. Well, little did I know that, in that brief interim, Colt would suddenly decide to stop selling them to the civilian market due to political pressures! I have literally shed tears over this set of circumstances. In other words, right after I had to sell mine, they went from being the proverbial "dime a dozen", to nearly unobtainable collectors' items!😥 Btw, do you have any videos about AK-47s in the works?
They didn't. You can still find 6920s all over the place. Colt hasn't stopped selling commercially and anyone who told you otherwise is an idiot.
That is not accurate. Civilian Colt AR-15s are not 'unobtainable collectors items'. Colt paused sales for a fairly short period and then resumed commercial rifle sales in 2020. You can buy a Colt CR6920 today from all major retailers which is considered to be almost exactly the same rifle as the LE6920, just with slightly different markings. Just stay away from the outsourced Colt 'Expanse' models. It was not 'political pressure' that stopped their commercial sales, it was an oversaturated AR-15 market and military contracts taking precedent. Everyone who said it was 'political pressures' was purely speculating because Colt released a vague statement once. In truth the Colt AR-15s have always had an inflated price for comparatively basic features and aren't exactly competitive with other companies these days. They mostly sell for the brand recognition and the appeal of having a certain rollmark on your lower receiver and 'C' marks on the BCG. At the time they chose to pause sales rather than drop prices to compete.
@@solwindp78-1 , Just looked it up to confirm, and I stand corrected! Apparently, they resumed sales to the civilian market only 9 months after suspending it. I heard it via the news when they announced that they'd be stopping civilian sales, but the coverage of their resumption of civilian sales must have been more "quiet". Anyway, thank you for sharing the correct information with me!
@@gunsnchoses8309 , They most certainly did suspend sales of their AR-15s to civilians. I simply wasn't aware of the fact that they had resumed civilian sales a mere 9 months later!
@@andreweden9405 The quiet part Colt tried not to mention was Colt had enough surplus inventory they could stop producing rifles and still fulfill orders. Pre-CoVID they were overpriced for what you got and post-CoVID everyone is selling ARs at sticker price.
Great video, I appreciate all the details! In America, legal M16s cost over $30,000 and A2s are around $50,000. I plan on buying an A1 and using it for an early M4 (A2) parts kit I’ve had for years. God bless!
The round handguards were interchangeable with the A1, and I had an M16A1 in my reserve unit in the early 1990s with the A2 handguard. Second, a controlled 3-round burst with all three rounds on target inside 200m is very doable. 3rd the M4 carbines that I had, and I had several, all had 3-round burst.
Interesting to hear this for me, as it reinforces the opinions I heard of MOD officials when I visited the Nottingham MOD production center in 2002 (I was a US government employee who was visiting & meeting with staff in the nearby MOD Pattern Room, then @ Nottingham). My British counterparts expressed, not so seriously, that it made little sense to have British military shoulder arms made by HK, a German company, when the tried & true M16A2, made by a long-standing close ally, the US, was available & ready.
I assume the HK rifle here is the L85a2. It should be pointed out that at the time of L85A2 HK was owned by BAE, a British company.
The M16a2 is an excellent rifle, but the MOD wanted a bullpup configured rifle for dismounted close combat. The bullpup is the only way to maintain optimal terminal ballistics in a short rifle. The French, Austrians, Israelis and many other Armies came to the same conclusions.
H&K was then owned by BAE, British Aerospace - their ordnance division - so they were keeping the funds for the refurbishment "in-house" so to speak. I do agree with you, for what it is worth, that the Brits might have been better off adopting the M-16 than the SA80, but "not invented here" syndrome is real and since the SLR (FN FAL) was a foreign design, maybe the MOD thought it was time for a homegrown design.
We had an Armalite in our armoury; not entirely sure how it got there, but it was an original Colt-made one with the early three-prong flash hider and original buffer. Literally everything on it was bent. Barrel was bent, front sight was slanted, the push pins were U-shaped, most of the finish was gone, the teeth in the handguard were badly broken, the bottom of the pistol grip was worn off and the stock was cracked. Gas tube was bent, etc. It was used only for familiarisation. "And this lads, is an Armalite." Rattle, rattle. I remember when I was at Warminster once a Para showed me his 715 with an M203, the Paras actually had L85A1s at the time but they also had some 715s with M203s fitted. I think the history of the Armalite in British service is definitely worthy of some study, mainly the enormous list of excuses given for not generally adopting it. The thing that always makes me laugh is that the A2 upgrade was justified as being more cost-effective than general adoption of the L119A1 because that would require re-training. Every front-line unit has Armalite experience and my regiment was about as rear-line as possible and we had a crappy old one.
The Armalite as in the AR15 or the AR-18? The latter had a very boxy looking steel upper receiver with a charging handle protruding through the ejection port.
@@Treblaine AR-15. Colt never made the AR-18 and they were never used by the British Army AFAIK.
@@steven-k. Ah, yes, you did say colt-made, I shouldn't skim read. Colt of course weren't interested in any other designs Armalite made other than AR15.
I did see a British army training video where a Sergeant showed off an AR-18 (or AR-180) and introduced it as an Armalite saying "it's great, I'd personally choose this gun". Judging by the film grain and moustaches it was in the 1970s or early 80s, so before the SA-80/L85.
Should have adopted the C7 just like Netherlands and Denmark did but it seems that there were shenanigans afoot with the SA80 as some sort of scheme to boost the value of Enfield before the government sold it off.
I do find it strange that for a long time the US had the worst variant of the AR15 with the A2 model: over-designed sights, clunky bust-fire mechanism and bizarrely proportioned barrel profile plus no provision for any sort of optical sight.
@@Treblaine Would've been so much better if they just adopted a straight up AR-18 instead of wasting all the time and money to turn it into a bullpup and just ending up with one of the worst service rifles out there.
@@Treblaine The "Armalite" referring to the AR-18 is more of an IRA thing. A batch of them were sent over to Ireland so they were in fairly regular service with the IRA, as much as any rifle could be said to be (the song "My Armalite" is about the AR-18, not the AR-15 as usually inferred). If the Sergeant had experience N.I. then he might have picked that name up there.
One of the best videos on the M16A2 (imo) is by Henry with 9 hole reviews where he went out to 500 yards with his M16A2 clone rifle. What also standout about his episode is the added interview with a Marine who was shot in the head in Fallujah and lived. That Marine service rifle was the A2, both the former marine (his name escapes me atm) and Henry went into great detail on the use and expected capabilities of the M16A2 in combat, might have some useful information for the paper you are writing for the Cody firearms museum. Loved the video!
I carried an A1, A2 and M4. We never had any issues with barrel rise shooting auto or 3 round burst. You would only use that for close quarters or suppression fire. Anything with distance was totally single shot so you knew you would drop your target.
I think the SAS got the M16 in 65-66 for use in Borneo. Radway Green produced ammunition in 66. Interesting that they decided not to import cartridges from the US. Your paper sounds very interesting. Could you give a heads up when the presentation is? Thanks
Back in 1984 I worked part time as the armourer for a well known UK gun dealer and Section 5 dealer. He bought around 10 'commercial sales' SA80 rifles from RSAF Enfield. As we were the UK agent at that time for IMI and had seen how many hoops they had to jump through to get ATF approval for the Galil rifles for civilian sale, I rebuilt an SA80 to be an civilianised ATF compliant rifle for the US market and sent it back to Enfield for evaluation... they 'poo, poo'ed ' the idea (they would have sold thousands to the USA)!
To get to the caveat, we found out that Colt had offered the M16A2 to the British Army as a 'tagged on' order to the back of the second US Marine Corps purchase at a unit cost of around $74 USD per rifle.... Guess what we did? 😂🤣😂
The scar h 762 should be adopted by uk its a battle rifle it takes the SLR to the level it never reached .
You decided to go with a bonfire of the taxpayer’s money! 😃
@@gregandy4277 he's full of $#!+ ! U.S. contract price in that era was around $450 per copy! At $74 per unit, Colt U.S. would have basically been supplying them for free. Maggie Thatcher would have never passed up that deal ..... had it actually existed!
As a former US Army unit armorer and before that combat soldier actually using various iterations of the M16A2 I'm actually a huge fan of the standard issue rifle in and of itself (as opposed to the M203 and M249 both of which i used as well as a field piece in the field) as it was incredibly effective in a "knife fight" very agile, no extras but all essentials, if the enemy turned and ran could be used as a ranged weapon as well to out 300 yards effective absolutely. M4 carbine was well liked and in demand still today true is my understanding anyways. Had a cleaning back in an otherwise solid butt stock, could fix a bayonet to it modern versions obviously have "over attachment issues" so definitely high time for an upgrade but in the hands of some type of Constabulary Force still a very deadly weapon even if not "charged"(loading with live rounds.) It has a "toy" like feel because of the pistol grip but again...makes this item even more deadly imo as can shoot one handed even if need be. With proper fire control very well put together in pieces parts but even better holistically as well. Lighter weapon means carrying more ammo as well and of course more money available to spend on quality ammo.
Used one of these as a scout in the Australian army. Hated it. Stoppages all over the place, dust and mud made it worse. Never had any confidence in it at close range. Only good thing was the weight compared to the SLR which nearly everyone else had.
The M16 was on limited supply to British Army units serving in Northern Ireland. I was part of the covert army (I did not wear uniform or patrol the streets) and one day I happened to visit the defence company armoury. I was surprised to see a lone M16 among the SLR's and enquired as to who used it. Apparently, no one wanted it; as all those engaged in patrolling preferred their SLR''s. I was told that it was mine for the asking. I would eagerly have exchanged my SMG for it, but alas, the M16 was too long and would not fit in the sack I used to covertly carry my folded SMG. I would have given it a go had it been a CAR version, as I was not a fan of the SMG, preferring my FN Browning GP35, which replaced my dreadful Canadian Inglis HP35.
That HP35 must have had alot of wear and tear on it
I served on Op Banner home service Battalions (UDR CGC, Royal Irish CGC)
I worked alongside the Royal Marines Cop teams had M16's , as did the Paras
I also carried an M16 on our Cop team training. But sadly had to stick with the old SLR back at Battalion.
If I remember rightly during NITAT , the Fire Teams had a mix of weapons.
The point man carried the M16 , as it could fire a full magazine on auto in 1.5 seconds.
The SLR had the advantage of once being hit by a 7.62 you stay down.
Once met a Officer who took 5 rounds from a M16 in an ambush, but kept on running till out of the kill zone.
Also clearing a double feed on a M16 is far slower than a rifle with a side cocking/ charging handle.
One third of the time on a M16 you need a clearing rod to clear it.
A superb weapon, but not without its flaws.
@@skylongskylong1982 One of my mates was an instructor at NITAT
@@harry9392 At STANTA ?
When i was doing my training at Holsworthy barracks with syd uni regiment..we trained on the m16..to be honest it felt like a child's toy.. couldn't imagine fixing a bayonet on it..unlike the preferred self loading rife,which had some grunt..a real man stopper.
I was issued an AR15 when I was serving in Belize. The total lack of recoil when compared with an SLR made it easy to get superb grouping on the range. Interestingly they were painted pale grey for some reason.
Mine was green and probably grey and Black in Belize in 1986. I don't remember if they had the forward assist. I think not.
My dad was issued an M16 of some description while deployed to Belize. He said he liked that it was lightweight and easy to field strip, but thought it didn't have the power to punch through the thick jungle foliage. He said that if he'd actually had to fight, he'd have preferred an L1A1.
I used the AR15 in the Royal Marines back in 1992. Our troop moved on the CAR in 1996. I cannot wait to get my hands on the new KS1 when we get it. The Envision Technology ballistic calculator and a Pixels-on-Target thermal sight will be a brilliant tactical addition.
In the modern US Army, it's not just ammunition consumed. There's worry over "every bullet carries a lawyer" and limiting the number of shots fired limited commander liability.
That's basically the same reason the .50BMG SLAP cartridge wasn't allowed to be used with guns fitted with any kind of muzzlebrake or flashhider, as sabot petals would on occasion deflect inside the muzzle device and then strike the projectile in flight, which could cause really extreme point of impact shifts at long ranges. Very unsafe, even on a shooting range.
@@0neDoomedSpaceMarine
More than that the sabot can get stuck in the muzzlebreak and cause a massive pressure spike in the gun.
That Kentucky Ballistics was almost killed when a SLAP round blew out his rifle, and there's a good chance that it was at least partially because the muzzle was plugged with a sabot.
Nonsense
@@tristanc3873 In the video of that incident, you can see the round _before_ the one that blew it up skipping off the ground in front of his target.
I took it as a sign that the ancient ammo he was using was well past its use-by date.
Consider it a reminder that the correct response to "WTF?" is "F that! Unload!"
I carried an AR15 in NI in 84 preferred it far more than that ker rap SA80 which replaced the SLR later. Brit Jobs over kit won out.
I really like your content, I like the way that you add the history as well as the tech details on your videos, I really enjoy them.
Any colt 602/603 from the Malayan Emergency in the collection? Would be be some good history in those
Yes - I'll be covering these in the symposium I mentioned :) None with any known combat history unfortunately though. They were passed around quite a bit.
Remember some units in BAOR had them painted with a cameo pattern.
A Colt 715 with camo paint would be one of the coolest rifles you could have in the day.
Word Up ?
A big important feature of the M16A2 that many forget is that the aimer system is in METRES, not yards!!!
Great video Jonathan. Just watched Ians video on AR10 15 etc. Learning so much from both of you . Thanks
Q. Should the UK have adopted the M16/AR-15?
A. Yes.
The worst implementation of the M16 is superior in just about every possible way to what we did choose.
FYI The Canadian version of this rifle is the C7 family. It is used by Canada, New Zealand, The Netherlands, Denmark and a few others. I believe that the British SAS use one of the variants as one of their primary weapons.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Canada_C7
Falkland’s M16’s
I thought the Canadians used the C8
@@chooseyouhandle Yes, but the C8 is the carbine version of the C7 so is only used for certain applications. Vehicle mounted troops etc.
NZ got the LMT MARS-L. Its the only acquisition project that was done well by our country in the last 20 years. Except the Bushmasters. I had a couple of mates included with the weapons trials. They rated the LMT as the 2nd best after the updated AUG which was probably based more on familiarity than anything actually technical. But the LMT is a great weapon. Had some issues initially which LMT was very good about fixing.
AUG had advantages in some respects like urban fighting in ergonomics in that alot more weight is towards the rear especially with a 203 on it. But generally for future soldiers the MARS is better. Compared to C7 I have no idea.
As a shooter setting on auto on most auto weapons allows for a 2-3 shot mini-burst for a practices user. The addition of 'burst mode' adds complexity and cost, but the benefit for teaching your squaddies to use the weapon properly is far greater and obviates the need.
And above all the burst feature effects the semi auto trigger pull, so hard no for an experienced user forsure
Its never too nerdy Jonathan, i served in the IDF from 2009 to 2012 and for most of the time my rifle was an M4A1 length barrel, M16A1 rear sight, thin barrel, no case deflector with a lower that said M16A1.
it could be a "colt 653" wich is basically the carbine variant of the m16a1.
The idf also got the "menusar" wich are surplus m16a1 locally shortened to a 13,5" barrel and installed the retractable stock.
@@gastone2168 yeah there were 2 totally chopped up versions.
It’s crazy that the Brit’s have weapons like this only available in museums and videos like this, meanwhile I have one sitting a few feet away from me in the safe
Because the Brits vote for more gun control laws (big mistake).
@@memenadekhanh3992 Not really a mistake, we are quite happy with the way things are.
@@spaceageGecko I'm not, so stop saying it like you represent all brits please
@@HOI4TUTORIALS You'd find most are fine with the current regulations, last thing we need is easy access to firearms.
@@memenadekhanh3992 Really.. ?
Would love you to inform me of the next vote - don't recall having one before. 🥔
The UK definitely should have adopted the M16. The US had already done all the R&D, and through the Vietnam conflict had smoothed out the kinks in the system. So all the UK would have had to do is license the thing. Instead they sunk money into developing the SA80. Which ended up being one of the worst modern rifles ever adopted. Then they spent mountains of pounds paying H&K to fix it.
Altering the flash hider or muzzle of the barrel to compensate for recoil break was originally started on the Thompson smg. It was called the cuts compensator.👍
Was hoping to have seen that weird M16A1/A2 hybrid with the SUSAT he showed off in the Back 4 Blood video as I would love to learn more about that weapon
You know you have a problem when British servicemen never have a good word to say about the SA80.
THAT mate is OLD HAT. The SA80 is now a VERY decent piece of kit. Accuracy wise, the SA80 brought you up a level from the SLR, even if the SLR had the SUIT/SUSAT sight. Having said that, we wouldnt have moved to the 5.56 SA 80 if the yanks hadnt forced NATO to go there. I sussed out the 5.56 weakness in Malaya in 75 when we were firing in the jungle lanes ranges. Rather than penetrating the foliage, some rounds were bouncing off and spraying all over the place.Later, the Americans began to realise in Iraq that it had nowhere near the stopping power of the SLR 7.62 and started to move some systems back to 7.62mm. I served 22 yrs Brit Airborne and was most 2 Para shooting teams with both the SLR and then the SA80. It wasnt as bad as the nay sayers portrayed it to be.
Having started my soldiering on the No 4, then SLR, and become an attractive proposition to the SAS (in the form of an unsolicited job offer, which I turned down, because the same issues arose with interference by incompetent politicians as happened here), I got to handle the SA80 on the TAVR Platoon Commander's Course at Warminster in 1978 (which I came out top of). That's structurally almost back to the flintlock, in terms of generation.
Two major issues existed. Firstly, weight. Secondly, shape. A fighting infantrymen relies on camouflage, and the key to that is the "S"es - shape, shine, silhouette, shadow. A long line is manmade. Pull it back into a bullpup and you get rid of the "long". Your forearm breaks it up too.
What were key factors at the time?
1. Economic cost - the economic model being learned the hard way at the time says local production stimulates the economy, I'm not talking about unit price, mind.
2. Accuracy. The No 4 would kill an enemy through the tree he's hiding behind. The flex in the barrel of the SLR caused by the blowback mechanism would kill him by going around the tree. The M-16 would kill him by dropping the tree on his head while he was trying to suss where the bees were. Bees? A burst of tumbling bullets buzzed. It turned out the SA80L1 would kill him laughing as it turned into a clown car, disassembling itself That, as we all know, was eventually fixed.
As a veteran of the M16A1, I approve the 3-round burst fire. When an M16A1 was on fully automatic mode, we had to have strict fire discipline because it only took a few seconds to empty a 20 round magazine if the trigger was held down. Accuracy was never part of the question. As you pointed out, only the first round was aimed and then muzzle climb had the following rounds climbing up and to the left. So it was a lot better to only waste two rounds of your ammunition shooting into the air instead of wasting nineteen rounds and then having to change the magazine.
Or just use semi auto, the burst system sucks because it TANKS the semi auto trigger pull
0:39 The top one is a legitimate M-16A2 with its micrometer adjustable rear sight and heavy barrel. The one on the bottom looks like a M-16A1 with an A2 pistol grip and fore end due to its pencil barrel, shorter stock, and less adjustable rear sight (I say less because one needs a tool or a round to adjust for windage).
I had one issued to me in British army service in Central America in the 1980s. Horrid thing. I would have preferred my L1A1 or L2A3 Machine Carbine. I was told we had M16s in the jungle as we were a long way away in distance and time from replacement ammunition and could carry more rounds with the M16.
Why was it "horrid"? Were you issued the A2 or A1?
God knows. Just never felt soldier proof and trial shooting made the rounds swerve about glancing off small branches. Jungles have a lot of branches. My L1A1 just went through everything converting cover into concealment as they say. The L2A3 was ideal to spray despondency and dismay in any general direction giving time to run away or run right over them. Maybe it was that I was given it with no instruction and had to make it up as I went along on a long patrol. Still would have done the job if needed I dare say.@@bigbake132
That's a brilliant looking firearm.
We did use the M16, called Armalite rifle, special forces used it extensively and infantry in jungle areas such as Belize, where the SLR was too big and bulky
The Colt 715 was manufactured by Diemaco, later Colt Canada, as the C7 Assault Rifle for the Canadian armed forces, and I recognized t in a matter of seconds. My 30-something year old Colt AR-15A2 is different only in being a semi-auto and having the "2-screw" 5/16" (nearly 8mm) Colt pivot pin, instead of a proper, captive, 1/4" (6.35 mm) pivot pin. That makes the upper an lower incompatible with anything else I have, without using an adaptor pin. In the past I've clocked a muzzle device with a jam nut so it pushed into my left hand upon firing, but always timed the flash hiders with peel washers at 12 o'clock. After working on M16A1s in the army, and my own AR-15s for decades, I recently used a crush washer for the first time ever. I had to torque the flash hider more than I torqued the barrel to get turn it all the way around to the top. I didn't like that at all, but maybe I'm just old-fashioned. I really like installing A1 flash hiders with a lock washer a lot more. You torque it until your wrench says it's good, and you're done. No need to worry about lining it up with anything else. IMO it's more effective at suppressing flash than the A2 flash suppressor, but not as good when shooting prone in dust or light, dry snow. If you stand on your hind legs like a man... never mind.
Yet to watch the video, but after reading a certain book from a certain author, EM2.
Of course not, they should have adopted the G3 to boost German weapons manufcacturing instead! LOL :D
Can we split the difference and say "G41" instead?
If Britain wanted a full-power rifle, they would have kept using the FAL which was already in service.
We had G3 and HK53s in service as well. Licence built by Royal Ordnance/BAE.
Austrian Steyr AUG would be a better alternative than agening cal.30 G3.
@@zoiders That's right, although even more limited use than the AR15 and SF-only as far as I know.
I do not know if it is well known , but the original concept for the AR-15, was that it was intended for the USAF Air Police (airfield security) and not the Army, who had the M-14, or that the British and some Australian and New Zealand instructors with Malaya and Borneo experience from SAS trained Green Berets at the British Jungle Training School before they deployed to Vietnam. The Brits and Commonwealth trialled the AR-15 before the US Army actually had them. The British and Commonwealth forces never had fouling problems as our cleaning regimes in UK were more frequent, when in service with the US Army they had fouling problems because the trial ammunition powder was cleaner than the powder used in the field (US Government went for cheaper powder and did not issue enough cleaning kits or impress on troops the need to clean them frequently). That was verified to me by a veteran SAS soldier who had served in Malaya and Borneo and elsewhere, now sadly no longer with us. His opinion of SA80 was "not a soldiers weapon, the bloody thing is not instinctive or easy to handle, which the SLR layout was. It is mostly about keeping your line of sight of focus towards the enemy, the SA80 strays from the point, the SLR had everything to hand for the left hand, safety and selector for the right thumb, same for M-16, and you can keep your eyes on the target ahead. I hate the safety, the cocking handle, the fact you cannot use it left handed, the weight, the balance, of the SA80". He also mentioned that if you lost the spring on an SLR you could still cycle it as a bolt action rifle.
On 'losing' the spring: when cleaning, we were taught to strip the gas plug, rod and spring first and replace them last. It was precisely because (or so we were told) if you were jumped you could snap the body shut and use the weapon like a bolt-action rifle. Mind you, you'd be in a pretty desperate situation if that happened... a bit like fitting a bayonet to an SMG - you can, but something's gone very wrong in your day if you find yourself actually having to use it.
1st time I saw the M16 family in UK military use was during my Op-Banner Tour 85-86.
Having delivered members of the KOSB's by Helibedford to their tour Barracks, a number of them (around 6) climbed down carrying these weapons. Being a wide eyed Trog, with his 1958 stamped wood furniture SLR, to say I was gobsmacked would be an understatement 😳😊