History of the M16A2 & What Did Stoner Think?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- PlusTactical M16A2 25 Meter Zeroing Target On EZ Peel Notepad amzn.to/3EZC87S
Fire Force Military Issue Rifle Sling 2 Point Sling with Adjusters for Military Rifles amzn.to/3s2MdNX
Cleaning Kit, Cleaning Brushes Supplies with Accessories and Cleaning Mat amzn.to/3ytHFkB
Specter Gear 2 Point Sling, Mini-14 w/Standard Fixed Stock amzn.to/33oMOPv
Trijicon ACOG 4 x 32 Scope USMC Rifle Combat Optic for A4 amzn.to/3sjcyaL
Weatherproof Target M16A2 M16A4 amzn.to/3pOMDEO
Otis Defender Series Gun Cleaning Kit amzn.to/3ESGWMk
Otis 5.56MM Chamber Brush amzn.to/3m4VjWG
Otis Ripcord One Pass Bore Cleaner amzn.to/3s4G9Va
Otis Small Caliber Patches (100) amzn.to/3m4VAZI
AXIL Earmuffs Tactical amzn.to/2PIrFJV
Foam Rifle and Pistol Rest amzn.to/2mIjHSr
Efect Military Tool amzn.to/3mgFxHm
Armorer's Manual amzn.to/2G5FRm2
SAS Amazon Store: www.amazon.com...
Patreon Page: / smallarmssolutions
Donate To SAS: donorbox.org/d...
G96 - Code SAS10 - 10% off
bit.ly/2INZpgi
Manta Products - Code BAR20 - 20% off
bit.ly/2IIzLK9
Challenge Targets - Code SAS - 10% off steel targets
www.challenget...
Facebook - bit.ly/2INZa4S
Website - smallarmssolutions.com
Instagram - SmallArmsSolutions
PO Box 298, Cypress, TX 77410
The engineers in my neighborhood worked for Mellonics and Natick to improve the M16A1 at Rock Island. These engineers worked on an Army (not Marines) contract. The goal was to make the M16 better for the Army Soldiers, females, and smaller allies. There were many arguments between the engineers and the Army on one side and the Marines on the other side. Dirty tricks were played, and the Marines got their way. Thank you for giving a balanced point of view about the M16A2. Some of the A2 "improvements" were backwards. 30 years later... We got many of the improvements made available. This review is so much more beneficial than the brainwashing that many get in the military and police training circles. Who cares about the truth when confidence in the M16 is more important? The Stoner videos are pretty cool. Stoner wasn't perfect, but his interviews are cool.
P.S. I really appreciate Chris' more accurate info about the AR, much better than the History Channel.
Check out my comment and the Marine that immediately popped up to say "f*** you and your facts, A2 is better because feelings".
I do know this, as a Marine we marked our zero and remembered it. The rifle was our most cherished and loved piece of gear.
There really wasn't any dirty tricks on the Marines part because the Marines weren't the ones marketing the rifle to the other branches it was Colt. the 3 round burst limiter was a Colt idea to appeal to the bean counters in the pentagon who wanted to save money at any cost.
@@bBlaF i mean aside from the burst limiter which everyone agrees was a bad idea even the military the M16A2 was objectively a better rifle than the A1.
1. Better muzzle device.
2. Thicker barrel reduced point of impact shift when the barrel got hot
3. Furniture that did crack and break when it took a hard fall
4. Longer length of pull for taller American shooters (the A1 length of pull was designed for smaller stature soldiers)
5. Even though adjustable sight are largely only for rifle qualification and area fire they are still slightly better than having a rear sight that requires you to use a tool to change the elevation.
All he changes on the A2 aside from rear sight where on the C7 yet people praise that rifle but condemn the former.
@@nemisous83 A2 birdcage and furniture are better. POI still shifts with heat, just maybe a bit less and it takes a few more shots to get that hot. The increased length of pull might be a bit of a service to those 6'2" and up, and a neutral change for those 5'10" to 6'1", but it is an outright detriment to anyone 5'9" and below, which is an overwhelming majority of those who had to use the thing. A1 length serves far better as a universal LOP. I don't mind the more complex sight, but I never needed the adjustment to shoot as far as I can identify targets without magnification.
I doubt that anyone would argue that Eugene Stoner was a great designer. So no disrespect intended by my comments.
I spent 9 years active duty and 14 years in the Marine Corps Reserve. My MOS’s were Infantry Weapons Repair, Artillery Repair, and Marksmanship Instructor / Competitor.
I Earned the Marine Corps Distinguished Rifle Badge in 1997 and Distinguished Pistol Shot Badge in 1999. Which makes me 1 of less than 500 Marines in the history of the Competition in Arms Program to earn the title Double Distinguished. The CIAP started in 1901.
I spent 28 plus years in LE and have a ton of training under my belt from that. So I’m qualified to speak on this from the point of view of the end user, armorer, and instructor.
Overall the M16A2 filled the anticipated mission. This was the beginning of the 1980’s and the fight was going to be with the Warsaw Pact in Western Europe.
So they wanted the capability to penetrate a Soviet helmet at 800 meters. That led to the SS109 / M855 round. And probably had something to do with the 800 Meter marking on the elevation knob.
The flash suppressor being replaced by a compensator from the end users view was a non-issue. They never really noticed a difference.
Barrel profile was an issue due to bending. But what they changed didn’t fix the problem.
The A2 sights were NEVER a serious maintenance issue. The most common problem was the elevation knob losing its distinct clicks due to the holes in the bottom of the knob wearing. And that was rare. Never saw any sights broken from being dropped on them.
As for the mythical FIDGET factor. The M1903, M1917, M1, M14, and later variants of the M1, and M2 Carbines, the M16A2, A3, A4, M4’s, Mark 18’s all had fully adjustable Sights. And Stoner himself designed the AR in the beginning with adjustable sights.
Now I never saw Marines diddling their sights. And I believe the Corps has a lock on the title of MOST ADD / ADHD people in any organization! Marines knew that the rifle they had was theirs, and they knew what the windage and elevation settings were. We even trained them how to mark their sights with paint pens or White Out. In the fall of 1990 every 2 Mar Div unit went to Stone Bay and zeroed their rifles on the 300 line before they deployed to SWA. That’s how serious the issue is in the Corps.
We universally hated the 3 shot burst mechanism. But it was reliable.
The forward assist while rarely needed is useful. I’ve witnessed numerous times where the bolt didn’t full rotate into the locked position. The forward assist handled that.
The new composite plastic was a welcome change from a durability stand point. The grip wasn’t liked for the shelf they added. Didn’t fit most Marines. While I understand lengthening the stock it was a mistake. They should have kept it where it was. Thank God for the more aggressive checkering on the buttplate.
In the end the M16A2 cost more than new M16A1’s. Don’t care. The Congress pisses away millions. The rifle was about 2 pounds heavier. Not ideal, but not the end of the world. As they say in the Corps, I’d you think it’s to heavy then you need to workout more.
The only thing that made the M16A2 less reliable than the M16A1 was the M855 round. That’s because the projectile on the new round had a sharp point. When Marines would try to chamber the first round on a fresh mag, the tip would go straight into the seam where the barrel extension fits into the upper receiver. That caused the bullet to stub. If the Marine performed immediate action they would then cause a double feed. They did 2 things to fix the problem. Changed the profile on the tip of the bullet to a slightly more rounded one like on the M193 round. And they eventually extended the feed ramps adding a chamfer to the upper receiver that blended into the ramps on the barrel extension. Not sure when that change occurred.
Marine Corps Marksmanship doctrine up until around 1990 broke training into 3 phases. Preparatory Phase; that was all the classroom instruction and dry firing on the snapping in drums. Known Distance Firing which was a week of firing the KD course. And the last phase that was rarely conducted was Field Firing which was the units responsibility.
In the end Marines understood the basic fundamentals of marksmanship better than any other service. Heres where the rule of: You cant do, what you don’t know, comes into play. I’d much rather have Marines who know how to fire a precise shot and the skills to do it. As opposed to being in a gunfight with someone only capable of launching a cone of fire. It’s easy to be sloppy, and hard to be precise. Especially if you never learned the skills to be precise.
A big short coming in our doctrine was at close quarters battle. That’s because prior to 911 it wasn’t taught to anyone outside the Recon, Security Forces / FAST Teams, MP, or Infantry units. For the most part the only CQB experts were the Force Recon Marines, and SOTG instructors. And they didn’t have time to teach all that High Speed / Low Drag stuff to regular Marines. Nor did the Marine Corps have enough CQB Ranges.
Marksmanship Instructors and some switched on Marines knew when it comes to engagement under field conditions iron sights left a lot to be desired. Marines had tried to get red dots and optics like the ACOG adopted well before 2004. Force Recon did a little work with the Armeson OEG reflex sight in the late 80’s. Echo Company 2/24, 4th Mar Div deployed to SWA in Dec of 1990 with ACOGS on squad leaders rifles. Fire Team Leaders had OEG reflex sight on theirs. Saw that with my own eyes. They were billeted in B Range barracks at Stone Bay, Camp Lejeune while going through training which was where I lived.
Last point I want to make is this; to make a top notch weapon or anything for that matter requires teamwork. The designer, the engineer with the 50 pound brain, and the subject matter expert who knows how to use it and will teach others how to use it. All to frequently the SME is left out of the equation or ignored.
PS: At the end of the day Stoner could take heart in this. Most of our soldiers and Marines that died because their M16 failed were carrying M16’s or M16E1’s during Vietnam. The cause being lack of a chrome lined barrel, lack of proper training and cleaning kits with regards to operator level maintenance, and early ammo loaded with ball powder which caused clogging of the gas system. That was the fault of people above his pay grade who thought they knew better.
Kind of the way Admirals made Grumman use the Pieces Of Shit TF 30 engine in the F14A.
Too long, didnt read
Great points but it wasn't just the jarheads
Eugene Stoner, is an AMERICAN LEGEND!!! 🙏🏻
I love watching his old interviews from the 90s, you can really tell What all of his work meant to him, Little did we know at the time how much it would mean to all of us!🇺🇸
AMERICA STRONG
STAY FREE
LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC
🦅🇺🇸🌟
@@tyjax5119
AMERICA STRONG
STAY FREE
LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC
My experiences and impressions are similar to yours, just backed up 15 years. Being a southpaw, the first time I fired the M16, a hot ejected case hit my neck and went down my shirt, leaving two burn marks. A range officer saw it happen and installed a brass deflector for me.
I would like to add one small clarification to you excellent review. The Air Force never standardized the M16A1. We used the M16, which we kept rebuilding (I once saw an arsenal refinished XM16 in our inventory). The M16 had no forward assist. Like you, I did not care for it. The only time I ever tried to use one was on a CAR-15 I owned. The retaining pin broke and the spring and plunger fell out of the rifle.
Around 1998 the Air Force began acquiring a limited number of M4 carbines for our special operations members, dog handlers, and some security forces to replace our aging GAU/GUU series of short barreled M16 type carbines and SMGs. When 911 occurred, the demand for M4s quickly skyrocketed. I was responsible for writing a letter of explanation regarding our options for acquiring more M4s or updating existing firearms to M4 specs for our forward deploying support units. The immediate result was that we got some M4s loaned to us from our Security Force. At the same time the Air Force had begun an M16 upgrade program to make our rifles M16A2 compatible, but the only organization I knew which had actually funded and begun this transition were our Civil Engineers. All other Airmen were deploying with unmodified M16s. This created a supply issue because the Army was responsible for in-theater small arms ammunition. The Army no longer had stockpiles of M193 ammo and were only issuing M885. The latter round had proven to be inaccurate and unstable when fired through our 1:12 twist barrels at all but the closest range. It took about a year to resolve this problem.
Regarding the features of the M16A2, I was in a rather unique position in the mid-1980s to evaluate it because I had privately acquired an actual Colt M16A2 from a class 3 friend. At the time I placed the order I requested the three-shot burst feature. What showed up was a Canadian version - at least that is what we called it because it had every A2 feature except the burst. It was even marked "Burst". Over time I was glad mine was FA instead burst. The longer stock fit me better than the M16 stock (this was before body armor became standard). I also much preferred the A2 rear sight when sighting in at 100 yards because it was much easier to make fine sight adjustments for different loads. I confess it never dawned on me this might be a liability to the average soldier under combat conditions. I also agree it takes practice to use this sight at extended ranges because it is a confusing setup if you are not familiar with how to adjust it.
I loved the built-in brass deflector, but did not care for the extra weight of the rifle. My only real complaints were that it lacked an ambidextrous safety and night sights. I read an article a few years later where the project officer claimed he was forced to limit the number of slides he could show senior officers in a selection board presentation, so the last slide was dropped. On it were the night sights and ambi safety.
This man knows more about the black rifle than anything I've seen or heard. Great job !
The medical unit I was in during 2018 had a M16A2 built on a Harrington and Richardson A1 lower. They ground off the 1 and stamped it with a 2. That was an interesting piece of history to hold.
My last M4 in the 82nd, circa 2007, was an FM M16 lower ground down and restamped M4.
I saw one of those in the hands of a TXARNG soldier in Iraq in 09....
My "new" M4A1 in 2016 was an M4 with XX stamped over the M4 and M4A1 cut into the reciever under that. Some things never change in the US Army lol
I carried a General Motors built by one of their Divisions M16 Rifle in the USAF Security Police. It was at Eielson AFB, Alaska in Summer 1989. When the NCOIC of the Security Police Squadron handed me that Rifle for my issue, I was WTF! It was a worn out rattle trap. I carried it for a month when working on the Resource Security side on the Aircraft Ramp. I wish I had taken a photo of it . Right before I had to qualify on the Range. I was reissued a Colt M16 Rifle.
6:19 "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." The Soviets themselves knew by 1974 that a smaller caliber, at higher velocity, was the way to go. Hence their AK-74/caliber reduction from 7.62 to 5.45.
Funny enough Kalashnikov personally opposed the change of caliber and preferred the penetration and “stopping power” of the 7.62x39. It seems no likes it when others less mess with their babies for better or worse.
@@notbadsince97 Most of the bullets energy doesn't dump in a 7.62x39, it flies right thru. 5.56 practically pops people compared to it, human targets are not steel plates kalashnikov
@@AR15andGOD No disagreement here, hence the air quotes
I was in the Army from '84-'92 and I used the A1 until the last year or so. I qualified with the A1 throughout my career save for the last time I qualified.
The foreword assist was a necessary improvement. I have had to use it quite a few times using the M16.
You should not ride the charging handle forward
First I would like to complement you on your information very accurate. I am 75 years old I arrived in vietnam November of 1966 before we got off the ship we were issued the add on selector switch for our m14 the rifle fired really fast on full auto and hard to control I was in m 42 ai self propelled twin 40mm duster sometime in 1967 the first m16 arrived the infantry soldiers said the buffer was to light and they would attempt to double feed one fix was to only put 18 rounds in 20 round magazine the barrel and chamber were not chrome lined cartridges tended to stick in chamber infantry all carried cleaning rods assembled to knock stuck rounds out of chamber the bolt was made out of steel but the bolt carrier was aluminum and as most know similar when heated in motion seizing was a problem also the rifle was designed to use stick powder which is much cleaner burning than ball powder so cleaning kits at first weren't issued the army was using ball powder with calcium carbonate preservative it was stopping up the gas tube some infantrymen were found dead with their weapons apart trying to fix them also the first one in 14 twist didn't really stabilize 55 grain bullet soldiers were asking family's to send them guns some guys were even carrying leveraging rifles sent from home army bean counters probably killed as many men as THE VC I am glad I have lived long enough to tell the story very sad after the improvements done to the m16 it is now a good weapon but only for close combat sadly nothing will bring back the soldiers rat died because of the first ones
I hate bean counters
This channel is a gold mine of firearms knowledge
Only comment I’m going to make is; you’re exactly correct about that barrel. The change doesn’t do a thing to improve it. If they were going to add thickness, and therefore weight, they should’ve kept the barrel the same diameter the whole length. All the heat collects right where it tapers down and it’s a failure point. Otherwise, it’s a great rifle and someone like me will never shoot enough rounds through it probably in it’s lifetime for it to fail during one situation.
I shot an old M16A1in basic to qualify in the Air Force back in July 2001. The instructor was giving me crap about getting the old POS. I thought it was pretty cool. Mine had been through a lot...I was just imagining the history behind it. I'll never forget the struggle I had with that damn handguard back on though😆
This is the best video on TH-cam explaining this particular weapon…factual information…saved, shared and subbed.
eugene stoner was a great guy . i knew him in the late 70's when he lived down the street from me . he was working at cadillac gage in warren mi on the stoner 64 to update it for the 80's . he gave me my first ar15 in 78 . sadly it was stolen in 86 . taught me the in's and out's of the ar 15 .
I was told that the reason for the A2s weird barrel profile was that they wanted a heavier barrel, but didn't want to change the mounting system for the M203.
The 'airborne' argument presented in this video was the first I had ever heard of that, but it's as if there's no single agreed reason and all of them equally are asinine anyways
Two that I remember was that it was thickened so soldiers wouldn't bend the barrels using bayonets...or using them for opening crates
I was told it was needed because the tighter twist generated more heat.
Always love these historical videos regarding the AR/M16. Thanks for the upload
I agree and I love that logo.
Wow, Stoner was thee "man" with the knowledge & the foresight into the future. My only regret is I didn't have the chance to meet this gentleman 😢
I think the three round burst was the only real detractor from the system. The barrel profile is a little dumb but fine, the sights are better and can build confidence in a rifleman on a flat range, which is important. At the end of the day it was a good rifle and served it's purpose just fine.
Fellow graduate of Ma Benning's School For Wayward Boys - Sand Hill Campus. I carried an A2 for most of my enlistment, though we were transitioned into the M4 in 1998. Aside from a couple of very specific times at the range, we never fired in burst mode. We all hated it, and constantly bemoaned the lack of full auto. And we all loved shooting the SAW, we just hated humping it. Well, those guys that had never been an AG or M60/M240B gunner. We loved the lighter weight. I remember one time, we did a huge dog and pony show for AUSA, and St. Stoner was scheduled to attend. However, that was about the time he fell ill, which would result in his passing. As far as the rear sights, not having used the A1, I have nothing to compare it to. However, I don't ever recall "fidgeting" with knobs and dials. I do recall adjusting the elevation on an as needed basis to engage point targets out to 500m. Lastly, I have two 20rd magazines that saw service in Vietnam. Several of us failed our sham check, and got roped into a hey you detail. We had to help the supply clerk clear out the supply cage, and there was a ton of old stuff. I liberated the two magazines, and though I've since replaced the followers and springs, I still use them.
Fantastic video. I already knew the bulk of the material, but it's always nice to learn something that you slept next to more frequently than your ex-wife, back in the day. That, and I had never seen those videos of St. Stoner before. Thanks again.
Issued the A1 in Army,1974...thought it was a toy ,until range time,Expert badge.
I was stationed at Marine Barracks MP battalion at China Lake Ca in 1961, one day we had a class from either an engineer from Armalite or Colt now what's called the M 16 rifle, as I remember it was green or brown . The engineer was very enthusiastic stating this was to become the next battle rifle of the US Armed Forces, stating no lubrication was needed from the Artic to the Jungles and that the metallurgy was special and had some sort of silicone built in and had a chrome line chamber .
As I remember as the rifle was passed around it did seem slick to the touch . Only base engineers tested it along with a couple Sergeants that shot it. Back then we were issued Ml Garand's, we were not impressed it seemed more like a toy than real .
The AR stands for Armalite Rifle not Assault Rifle . I have never found any information on the AR coating the engineer explained but is a fact as I remember .
Not gonna' lie, there's never been a military-issued A2 trapdoor I've ever been able to open with my finger! And I've handled hundreds of them. They should use them for bank vault doors! And yes, I had to clean my rifles ridiculously - so I used that trapdoor MANY times. I remember every unit I've been in - including infantry units - where the crusty CSMs demanded that we scrape muzzle crowns clean with cut up sections of wire coat hangers. Leave it to the Army to find a way to destroy perfectly good rifles. The A2 is a good rifle, but I'll never forget the day I was issued an M4...rays of light beamed down from the heavens...then they made me mount the 203...because of course they did.
I started with the A1 with the Marines in 81, we moved over to the A2 before I got out. We absolutely loved the A2s and didn't mind a little extra weight. Yes, infantry.
So after I got out I eventually became law enforcement. I was issued an old A1 (no auto sear) as a patrol rifle and that's what I retired with. All the newbies wanted me to do a property exchange (supply trade) because those of us carrying A1s absolutely smoked the M4 children on quals.
@@JD-tn5lz the extra weight and longer barrel of the A1/A2 definitely lend themselves to better accuracy - particularly at longer ranges. If I'm on a range, I'd definitely take a 20 inch barrel over a 14.5. But in downtown Baghdad, with a hundred pounds of kit, the M4 is a God Send - especially when patrolling in the confines of MRAPs. That's, of course, until they make you a 203 gunner. All the big guys and the squad leaders got the 203s...and the little guys had to carry the SAW...Army logic.
@@charlesm.2756 M4 is definitely superior for MOUT, but it was a hindrance in a lot of places in Afghanistan. That 14.5 in barrel really neuters the 5.56 out past 300m. Really just depends what fight your in. Myself, I would have traded my M4 for an M16A4 in a heartbeat.
@@usmcvet0313 makes good sense. I never spent time in Afghanistan. I'd be very happy, on any given day, to carry an AR platform. It's got some shortcomings, but I still think it's the best combat rifle ever created...as long as you take care of it. The only thing I would trade out on an A4 is the fixed stock. I'm a big dude with longer arms, but trying to get a proper sight picture when wearing body armor is a challenge. I'd definitely prefer a collapsible buttstock - or at least an A1 length stock. That 5/8 inch makes a difference!
I qualified w/ the A1 in mid -84..and later that year had to qualify again w/ the A2. I have always loved the A2 round foregrips coz that is what I was shooting most of my adult life. To this day - I have a love for the A2 rifle. I am just not a fan of the quad rails of today.
Fun fact: The A2 flash hider fits into the mosquito net pole holes in the end bars of the cots. So if you had one that was hard to get the bar locked in, just use your M16 lol. Saw way too many fellow Joes do this. Never seemed to cause any issues though.
Damn.... I needed to know this 20 years ago. Not once in 25 years service did I ever manage to get both end bars fixed on a camp stretcher.
I qualified with the A1 in Marine Corps boot camp in 85, and switched to the A2 in Com school in 29 Stumps later that year. It was really nice not to have use a nail anymore for sight adjustment.
Most of the complaints I had about the M16 was unqualified suppositions I heard from someone not in the military about how the 5.56 was not an effective round. It's different when you actually own a weapon system like this and realize how awesome it is (except you don't have the full fun switch). The only other valid complaint was it was delivered only in 3 round burst. I qualified expert with the M16A2
Actually my favorite iteration of the “M” and “AR” series…. My second fave?…. SP1….
I know this sounds horrible, but the intended tool to adjust the sights, drive the pin to open the trigger-guard, and to open the door at the butt was a live round. The point of a 5.56 FMJ fits the job perfectly and is always at hand (except for in training).
Heres an idea: Move the bolt assist forward and change shape (Or elongate slightly) and use the bolt assist to also deflect rounds. Save weight and simplify by removing one part.
Don't feel bad man. I qualed sharpshooter in boot camp. The 7 quals after were all expert.
The Garand had a "Battle" setting that was used. You sighted the rifle adjusted the knobs and then put it on battle and left it alone.
I qualified on the A1 in AF BMTS in 1981 and requalified in 2001 and 2003 on it at the end of my AF career.
I would love to see your thoughts on the InRange WWSD rifles!
I am most interested in the KP15 lower portion on that review. I have come to love the KP15 and have half a dozen of them.
Unfortunately he hasn't been too kind to it previously. Though Id still be interested to hear his opinion.
Mostly he has said that he doesn't agree with the pencil barrel as something Stoner would have done, mainly because the AR family barrels only got heavier with time.
@@Scott-qq9jd that's the thing the original reason for the ar was a very light rifle, the combat style and the action on the person carrying it eventually determines the style of barrel they will need
@@Scott-qq9jd important to note, those barrels only really got heavy on the models Stoner and co. Didn't work on.
Holy crap! This guy really knows his stuff!
The longer butt "seemed like a good idea at the time", but the advent of widespread use of body armour caused a problem.
OK, like the Lee-Enfield, it is better for taller troops and a few minute's work in the armoury to swap out.
The virtual disappearance of the "rifle" butt of any length in favour of the multi-position "Carbine" butt is a step forward in the "real world". Buffers get "interesting, though.
The Canadians got it right with the sighting on the C7. Anyway, these days, optics "rule", but basic "iron" backups are a handy thing to have on the two-way rifle range.
The "round" hand-guards and delta ring are pretty much a logical extension of the similar components on the earlier XM-177 series.
The whole "burst-fire" thing is an abomination.. Some units had the "M-16A1.5" for competition. Basically, a carefully selected A1 lower assembly straight out of the armoury and a nice new (sometimes commercial) "A2" upper. This provided good, consistent trigger pull with a nice new engine room.
As for ammo and rifling twist: the mandated steel penetrator in the SS-109 / M-855 bullet makes it LONG for its weight. A standard 1:12" barrel will happily stabilize the Sierra 63 grain spire point AT PROPER VELOCITIES. This bullet was being "custom loaded" for use in "military match" shooting in the 1970s and '80s. "American Rifleman", among others, covered this experimental work at the time. M855 bullets are longer than the one-grain-heavier Sierras because of the reduced overall core density and the slinky ogive profile and are hopeless in a 1:12" barrel because the rifling cannot impart enough rotational speed to the bullet at any temperature on the planet. Caveat: Run M855 bullets in a 1:12" twist .22-250 and they work because the higher velocity provides the required spin rate. Not quite Lapua Scenars or SMKs, but.....
Great video and THAT is why I subscribe. Love your personal story as well. Great shooting by the way!
Yes !!! What an awesome Christmas present !!!! Thanks so much !!!
I was in USAF BMTS in 1990 and we were using the M-16A1
This is what I qualified with also. There was still some A1 floating around back then.
Awesome presentation, Thank you! I actually trained on an A1 in the Air Force in early 1991, so they still existed then. My current “Frankengun” has a flat top with removable carry handle/sight. My barrel is gov’t profile, although if you could recommend an upper with a 20” pencil, please let me know! I installed an A1 handguard, so I THINK what I have is closer to an A4 clone with an A1 handguard, but I love it regardless. Happy Holidays! Chris in Texas
Good luck finding an upper with a 20" pencil profile, anywhere in stock these days. . .
@@life_of_riley88 I’ve noticed.
@@cadamsm11 Yeah, it's a total bummer, as so many of us want to build a lightweight 20" rifle. Hopefully the barrel manufacturers will ramp up production soon.
@@life_of_riley88 Yes, I served 1991-99 in the Air Force, and from what I remember about our A-1’s, and from holding a Colt civilian SP-1, they seemed noticeably lighter…of course I was younger then also! I would love to have someone actually weigh an A1 and then an A2/4 with “government” barrel, to see the true weight difference. I know some manufacturers, like RRA, call their barrels “lightweight,” but I don’t really know what that means.
@@cadamsm11 From my research, a true Colt A1 would weight around 6.3lbs and a later A2 would be 7.5lbs, and most noticably front heavy due to the absurd "Govt profile" barrel.
I joined the army in 84... loved my A-1. Hated the 556 ball ammo. That crap was good to 200 yds but flew away after that. At night fire with tracers, there was more red in the sky than down range. Looked like the 4th of July for Christ sake. Lmfao. The whole company bitched about it. The next week we went to qualify and 17 guys qualified expert. Out of 300. I was not one of them lol. I did qualify marksman but nearly half the company had to requalify. I also got the chance to shoot the m -60 at night fire. F in tracers were gaining altitude like a fighter jet. It was all about the contractor not the men. Once I realized that, I did everything I could to get out... and I did.
I took the Marine Corps high power rifle clinic at Camp Perry in 2014. They gave everyone Federal M855 in those cardboard 150 round boxes to shoot with. There was a match portion of it that took up the last day and a half of the clinic. I saw a guy a few targets to left of me shoot a clean 100 score during the 300 yard prone rapid fire with that stuff. It must have been a good lot number.
Very enjoyable content; thank you. Many moons ago when I saw the forward assist I thought to myself....certainly no one in there right mind would outfit a battle rifle with a feature meant to force something into a space that it would not go freely and maybe it's simply a pop bottle opener ....?.... never underestimate the stupidity of ... well .... anyway, really enjoyed the video. Thank you
I hope to see a video on the Fulton-Armory Far-15a2.
Great stuff thanks.gave me some great info on a rifle I love and use.I love the versatility of the platform!
A fine present!
I served with the A1 in the 1980's. I prefer it to the A2's that I handled. Light simple and quick.
You sir are a fountain of knowledge
I went to basic in 95. I had an A2 then and the whole time I was in. Other than when zeroing we never adjusted the sights at all. Not even for a familiarization. The BDC knob is one thing, but the quick adjust windage is absurd on a military rifle. The lower on mine in basic was an old Colt A1 that had been converted to A2. I knew the differences even back then between the A1 and A2. But not most of the reasoning behind them. I’m not a fan of the A2. I guess not surprisingly for the same reasons Stoner wasn’t. But I finished my A2 clone a few months ago, for nostalgia reasons. Now I’m working on a what the A2 should’ve been rifle. So far I have a surplus Colt Type E stock with an A2 buttplate. A1 grip, and a C7 upper with an A2 aperture. Pencil 16” mid length barrel gas with A2 handguards.
The chemical they put on your glasses to keep them from fogging, was bar soap. You wipe a little bit on the glasses and you polish it off with a dry cloth. And it won't fog up for a couple of weeks if you're not messing with your glasses. It's an old southern trick for the windshields of your car and the mirror in your bathroom.
It was a liquid he gave me to put on my glasses. It worked, just to late
My GM M16 never jamed...but it coulda used some golf lessons
The 1 inch longer but stock removed quick point, snap shots for me
As always, another so historically informative and interesting video from SAS, GREAT job. The m16a2, Colt AR-15a2 is my personal favorite semi auto assault style rife although I own a first edition era Colt AR-15a4 and a first edition era Colt monolithic Carbine as my 16" version, I need a pre-ban ar-15a2 to fill that spot in the a2 line up, next favorite is my pre- ban Daewoo K2, I know another favorite of yours as well. But wanted to say just another great history lesson on not only Colt AR a2 family of rifles but the change from the 55 grain 5.56mm to the SS109 NATO 5.56MM round. Thank YOU.
Very interesting. Thanks. And Merry Christmas!
Thank you very much for this
I had an m-16a1 issued in basic training in 1991.
Great video and info. Seriously good presentation. Thanks.
Very well done video. I totally agree with the suggestion that the Canadians got it right with the C7.
Excellent content
I only used the A1 and like it better than the A2. I attended a week long training course with an A2 and using it one handed, it got heavy
Perhaps a video on long duration durability and maintenance on the M9
Very in testing and informative video, thank you very much, great channel👍
In the RITTENHOUSE fiasco,it was proven the forward assist, saved his ass.
How so?
@@nickma71 Antifa with 9mm going in for headshot,Kyle had a slack bolt,he FA it shut and fired..blowing Antifa bicep away.
@@elifoust7664 The forward assist is not needed on a rifle that was built right, and ammo that is right.
@@nickma71 Opinions are a plenty,enjoy.
@@elifoust7664 Right, and third eye like cyclops might be useful to some.
When it comes to accuracy in combat, it comes down to the operator of the weapon. As a none combat former trooper, my statements might not be as solid, but I seen many utubes of troops in action still do the spread and prey (I might do it too out of panic).
The M16 was made as an assault weapon of up to 350 meters because after action info showed that most combat was in this range and if closer where your charging the enemy to take his ground from him, it's putting the rifle on rock and roll for the CQC.
But now their replacing the M16 M4 series with a rifle with bigger bullet for the long range stuff like in Afghanistan from the long range ambushes. That's because the political leadership is taking our military out of it's true job roles and back into police in a far off land AGAIN.
I preferred the 16A2 and 16A4 over the M4s when I was in the Army, it was lighter than the M4s and M4A1s with the KAC Quad rail set ups installed.
You think an M16 weighs less than an M4?
Having been originally introduced to the M14. I find the argument of people fiddling with their sites ludicrous. You zero the rifle and that's what you use. The only time you're changing it is usually only the elevation because you might have to shoot something further away where you do have time to actually aim. The concept that adding weight to the rifle makes it more accurate is also just as stupid.
Even though I was army trained before I ever went in the service comma I ended up going into the Air Force and each time I qualified with the M16 comma and original five and a half pound, I don't even remember that they had a forward assist, I fired everything into a Less Than 3 in easily. I believe I first qualified at about an inch and a half. My last qualification was done at eight below zero with about a 17 not wind in my face. On my right and left post I put my elbow against the post and I Jam the magazine against it I flipped it on Full Auto and fire 20 rounds right hand post and 20 rounds left hand post and still shot a group of three inches. There is no reason whatsoever for a muzzle brake on a 5.56 rifle. Not when it has an inline stock. I've never even had enough muzzle rise in any of my mini-14s to justify any type of muzzle brake.
1 and 12-in twist makes the rifle have terminal ballistics that are second to none. The overall problem that I found with the rifle is that it is a specialty rifle. It is for specific applications. You cannot shoot through tactical barriers and still harm people in any meaningful manner behind a tactical barrier. And that barrier is as innocuous as elephant grass. Do a test with a 1 and 12 or 1 and 14-in twist and a 55 grain Full Metal Jacket on stationary watermelons. The watermelon will actually come towards you when you shoot it. It will not move away from you. And it will do so with great force with the one in 14 or 1 and 12-in twist. With the one in nine or one in 7-in twist it will still come towards you but just mildly so comparatively.
With a bullet weight of about 120 to 130 grains and just a little bit larger case, this could have been a superlative battle rifle. But in 5.56 I don't think this was ever a battle rifle. It is a great rifle for Recon work, and for the security work that it was actually designed to do. It does not over penetrate tactical barriers you can't even shoot it into the side of a car and do anything but irritate the hell out of the people inside the car without dumping a lot of ammo. If you want to actually hit somebody inside of a car you use a 308 but even the six five Grendel will penetrate a car and still do lethal damage to people inside it. It will at least damage them enough to want to stop what they're doing.
It would have been much better had the military decided to listen to Mr Stoner.
I remember when the A2 came out and the primary function of the AR-15 being a five and a half pound rifle was completely destroyed you now have a rifle that is almost as heavy as an M14 with nothing to show for it. Nothing whatsoever.
The ultimate test for that was when people went into the sandbox in the middle east. And I told everyone headed there, at least in the sandbox too where there were available. To beg borrow or steal an M14 because when you're talking about the distances involved in engagements and that environment. The M14 would be a much Superior rifle and as fate would have it it certainly was. At least somebody finally realized that and started rebuilding new m14s because of the one division of Marines that started heading out brand new m14s that had never been issued out to their men headed to the sandbox. As it turned out, having a half aluminum rifle that when you get sand and it starts grinding itself to bits is not necessarily the best thing to have in such an environment. Especially when the military insists on you soaking it down with oil which does nothing but draw dirt and sand. I did tell people to take or have people send them dry Teflon Lube so that they could completely clean off the interior of their rifle and spray some dry Teflon Lube on it and then leave it the hell alone. Turns out an M16 works just fine with dry Teflon Lube as does anything else in the sand. That way the sand when it gets into it can also migrate itself back out of it.
Eugen Stoner is an obvious genius but being an end user, I'm in disagreement with his some of his views. The first being is that I think the A2 sights are far superior to the original. Just like with firing full auto, sight adjustment can be controlled with good training. Plus, the large (ghost ring) sight of the A2 make it superior for shooting at close range. Second; I think the forward assist is better to have than not have. It's totally out of the way and is there if a little more force is ever needed to chamber a round.
I agree especially with the forward assist. From the guys I talked to they said they almost never used it but in the rare case they needed it, it was good to have. My father on the other hand used it quite a bit and was thankful it was there.
Excellent video! Thank you for making it
The original AR15, which took the life of a world leader and WWII hero some sixty years ago.
Another amazing video! Keep the info coming!
Incredible video. Thank you!!!
@smallarmssolutions Gotta disagree with you on one major thing and I can point you as to why you are wrong.
The marine corps was right in wanting a more precise rifle. Our marksmanship training paid off in combat in OEF/OIF especially when the ACOG was added on. Look up the issues that were brought up where marine units were accused of executing insurgents because of the high amount of head shots. It was in reality just the higher marksmanship training plus the added visibility of the ACOG. My unit trained heavily on accurate semi auto suppressive fire over burst/full auto fire. Burst and full auto was for room clearing and large unit fire and maneuver.
I would love to hear more of your opinions though as I completely respect them, I just have a different experience than you.
@@sd01 although I did understand that better after Gene's words I still disagree. We would still set up firing positions and get ranges that we good dial into and I promise you I could hit a man sized target at 600 yard with irons. Now I'm not saying during combat you will have a wide open shot like that but ides behind it is still solid. I know that "that rock" is 475 yards which means when the enemy takes cover behind it, I dial 500 then minus 1. All of this is mostly irrelevant with ACOGs though.
Gene's arguments on compromising the weight of the rifle I also slightly disagree with. He made all those changes so that we could have a rifle that only weighs 10 pounds but is as accurate and has all the accessories as what would have been an 18 pound rifle without those changes in materials.
When I got out in '12 my M16 (just switching to IAR) weighed just over 10 pounds unloaded. ACOG, PEQ, Grip-pod (that horrendous thing, it was useful though), sling, KAC rail.
I was in the army from 73-76 and had the M16A1
when did the military start using the A2
86
I kinda wonder about the a3 and a4 versions of the m16 and there stories. That would be interesting.
Carried a Colt M16-A2 in Iraq from 04-05.
What a contrast between the designer who cared for the boots on the ground and the bureaucratic officers in charge. 5 or 6 dollars to save lives? Not worth it. Dirtbag officers.
Best upper would be C7 w/out the forward assist.
I thought Stoner was right. We had the forward assist and I have used it only 4 times in my life. It works but if I was in a muddy or Sandy's area then I would not ever use it and my troops were told not to ever use it in those conditions.
I recently got an A4 style rifle and the grip and handguard are not to my liking. Gonna try a Kung Fu grip and an A1 style handguard. But as everyone has said, the dang thing is fun to shoot. It is what it is, a poster child for rifles made by the lowest bidder. I always thought the chrome lined pencil barrels were for dealing with the excessive heat from full auto usage and tracer rounds, and that's why the civilian AR rifle barrels don't need to have that special and expensive barrel. Are they supposedly more accurate, why?
Why does everyone shit on the 3 round Burst that the A2 offered?? I loved that feature
Because I decreased the firepower of the individual and unit dramatically. It was contrary to why we adopted the m16 in Vietnam. It made our troops unable to win ambushes against AK’s
Not sure if you're aware Chris, but someone uploaded Stoners interview recently he gave to the Smithsonian back in 1988. I think it's part II where he gives his thoughts on the A2 model.
(Update: Never mind Chris....I see you're already well aware of it. That's what I get for commenting before viewing the whole video : ) )
The Army disliked almost everything about the A2, and wanted to persue the A1PIP.
In '83, White labs conducted a study of the A2 for the Army and outlined its issues.
They wanted a shorter or adj stock
They wanted better optics mounting
They wanted full auto
They wanted night sights, with a fixed front blade, single rear aperature that was more intuitive to adjust
They wanted a stiffer and/or non removable handguard.
They wanted the extra barrel weight over the chamber, where it would soak up heat, and stiffen the barrel.
Not until the M4a1 did the Army get most of what it wanted.
Marines can talk trash all they want about what they can do on a manicured range after a week of dry fire.. I've seen enough to know its bullshit.
And....the M14 was far from the darling of RVN troops...Army & marine that some people seem to claim it was
Well stated
@@SmallArmsSolutions
I have a copy of the study, if you'd like to read it
As someone who has used both rifles I can empathetically state that the m16a1 was a much better weapon other than the handguards. The three round burst was a joke in fact Canada didn't even want it their m16a2 did not have a three-round burst he still had full auto. The fact that the later M4 still had the three round burst and then later on in the war on terror they got rid of the burst and went back to full auto.
Excellent weapon
At 29:52 is that Chris Bartocci in the picture ?
Nope
Did you ever know Carroll Childers during those days?
Ah yes, the Army and their irrational fear of their own incompetence. If the sight is too good for you then don’t use it. The Marines Corps is a very different force and we don’t always have the heavy stuff, frequently don’t. Accurate, long range fire is the only option. It is an important capability and the fact that we can use and need a more accurate platform shouldn’t cause such petty backbiting on the part of those who can’t and don’t.
Are you claiming the average Marine was trained to and used the adjustments on the rear sight during the 80s and 90s? Seriously?
Thank you for giving me content to watch while I drink myself stupid with some gingerbread bourbon old fashioneds.
I have to disagree with you on the A2 rear sight. Because of that A2 rear sight adjustability- which I practiced and had it down - I was able to hit the bull’s-eye at 500 yards 10 times out of 10. In the Marine Corps, that was a perfect score at the 500 yards. That gave me the upmost confidence in my weapon. Army soldiers couldn’t hit or don’t shoot a 500. The Marines always go above and beyond. Just like the army runs 2 miles for their fitness test. The Marine Corps runs 3 miles. Army shoots at 300 Marines shoot at 500. No I didn’t go to Combat. But if I did, with training, I could do that 500 again on the battlefield. It’s all about training. It amazes me what good training can accomplish. As far as those in Vietnam feeling they were out gun and didn’t want to shoot back, I’m willing to bet a limb they were soldiers and not Marines. Carlos, I really enjoyed the video. Much respect. By the way did my first enlistment in the army at Ft Benning and got out. Then I got smart and picked a technical MOS and did 1 in the Corps and got out. Had a good time in both. Thanks to that electronic job in the Marines, I have a good living now in IT.
The Army trains Infantrymen out to 500 at Sandhill, but it is not graded as a final qualifying score. The 300 meter pop-up targets are considered a more practical representation of target exposure in combat
We have gun teams, indirect fire and CAS for hostiles at 500 and beyond, instead of wasting 5.56
@@The_Assassin_of_The_Gray Honestly, I think the Marine Corps way of teaching marksmanship has a lot more combat value than people let on, and not in the meme "I shoot so far" way. People excuse Army leaving things out because "that's how they're going to use it in combat." But I disagree with that. I think you absolutely have to teach all the fundamentals, which lets people selectively stop applying them when they have to in combat for whatever situation they're in. This means they can still do the best with whatever cards they are dealt.
If I can hit a pop up target at 500 yards with a laser and an NVG at night, no dope or anything, just pointing and hoping it's vertically close enough to hit at that distance, I don't think 500 is an insane stretch ballistically. I am not infantry, still did 25-500 yards pop up both night and day.
Problem is combat stress, and that affects everybody, but gun teams, indirect fire and CAS have an easier time with effect on target. I do not think 500 is the magic number you don't engage with rifles anymore.
@@superfamilyallosauridae6505 The Army does teach the fundamentals - in the units I served in, we informally used machine gun pop ranges regularly to push the M4 out beyond 300
As Ate-Up as some of them were, the one good thing is the chain of command at least recognized the value of shooting from "Bad Breath" range to "Why, they even couldn't hit an elephant at this dis-!"
Guys got bonus "Attaboys" for hitting 600 meter targets with their M68 CCOs without magnification. Guy with an ACOG missed, it meant "Corrective Training"
Army TraDoc should formalize it because an Infantryman - Soldier or Marine - should be lethal at ANY range
@@The_Assassin_of_The_Gray Yeah. That extra range use is very nice!
I've heard mixed stuff about current Army basic, and worryingly, I've heard the attitude that the fundamentals don't really matter.
I really am interested to see how the quals and teaching will go once LPVOs become standard and eventually end up in recruit hands.
On this week's episode of: Tell me you're an asshole without saying you're an asshole....!
The forward assist dates kyle rittenhouse’s life lol, it’s literally so useful and very minimum, idk why people cry over it like children
I am not sure who started this rumor about soldiers would "Change the zero" on their rifle in combat. Your rifle is your best friend a soldier will not just start "Playing with his sights" becasue he has noting to do. I call BS on this and think it is just a rumor more than an actual fact.
That was the Army requirement. So there must have been some basis for it. The Army mandated it with the original AR15
I still think the A2 is the prettiest of the true M16s
do you think these are too large for a female prepper? Is an A1 a better choice?
It’s up to the individual. 3/8 of an inch is not that much. If this was a problem, you could always buy an A1 length stock or put a VLTOR A5 system on it.
I love the a2 carbine
"Surely the next war will be fought on the Camp Lejune KD range." -USMC since the beginning of time.
The 3 shot burst was a mechanical solution to a training problem. My experience in the service is weapons training and range time is below minimum for reasonable competence
I'm a service member currently serving(74D). The weapons training is a joke I remember in basic training I was showing guys while in the bay how to shoot because our ds were crappy shots.
I served as an Infantryman, and I was one of the handful of joes that qualified expert on the first go. Most of us shot 40/40. That meant we got to tutor the city boys, so they could just get the minimum. "How come you shoot so good?" "Well, because I've been shooting almost 20 years."
I was the old guy at 24. Even as my enlistment dragged on, and we had a couple real world deployments, most of those guys were really only good for barely effective suppressing fire. The only times they saw dramatic increases in accuracy, was when we were assigned the PAQ-4C, but those were only used for night operations. Kinda hard to miss when you have an infrared laser that is zeroed to the rifle. I would have loved to have still been in when they introduced the ACOG. I've been using similar optics in recent years, and I really do appreciate the increase in accuracy, quick ranging, and distance guesstimation. I would hope that the addition of such an easy to use optic would improve the effectiveness of the average soldier, but from some of the comments, that's not necessarily the case.
@@ericg7183 To my understanding sq leaders get acogs and the rest of the guys get reddots these days. (I'm nbc though not infantry so take that with a grain of salt)
In reality its up to the unit to order optics and such. There are still units out there, (mostly NG) that still issue m16a2s. My unit gave everyone red dots, but we have a few guys who hate the reddots and don't use em. Our cmd dosn't care because their qual scores are better without the optics.
Yeah my experience was there was some instruction in marksmanship but virtually no training on weapon handling, to include recoil control and effective followup shots.
depends on the unit and the people and your MOS, if you're a cook then yeah your training is gonna be a joke, but if you're an 11B, most of your day is revolved around tactics and technique training with your weapon. I was a medic for infantry and they would come grab me to run rifle drills with the new guys as the baseline, "if you can't beat Doc at this, we're gonna drill the shit outta you." but I spent hundreds of hours on the range with my line unit, they made sure I qualified expert before teaching me anything else, and these are people who were in the Army for 12-15 years and had been to Iraq and Afghanistan a few times by then
Burst settings are a throw back to the original bolt action military rifles with a magazine cut-off. It was for logistical bureaucrats to micro-manage soldiers back then and is for logistical bureaucrats today.
At least the cut offs had a purpose. In an era of early repeaters and logistical efforts still grappling with how to supply them, cut offs had some use beyond "micro-managing"
The burst setting is a response to troops in Vietnam sticking their M16A1’s over a wall or around trees and firing off entire magazines completely blind. It would have been better just to train people not to do stupid things like that, but why use a better software solution when you can make an inferior hardware solution.
Qualified with and carried the A2 from 97 to 03, as Marine 0612 (formerly 2512). I have some nostalgia for it, but I was always conscious that it wasn’t built for me. As an Asian mutt, the stock was way too long for my arms, especially with a flak jacket or Interceptor armor vest on. Also, the overall length was a pain while laying wire or installing field phones.
I would have preferred an M4 for convenience and fit, but back then only high-speed low-drag units got M4s, and only E-5s and up were issued pistols, at least at my unit.
Listening to Eugene Stoner talk about considerations he had towards the M-16, they echo exactly the same ones that Mikhail Kalashnikov and the Soviet brass had towards the AK, AKM and later AK-74. Keep things as simple as possible, make things easier to manufacture, reduce the amount of things soldier can muck around with. Make it soldier-proof and at the same time easy to learn. Looking at the original M-16A1 it's obvious just how much simpler lighter and soldier-friendly it is compared to more advanced models.
Stoner tape's is pretty good watch and insight into Mr Stoner's mindset when creating M16 :)
Now I need to watch Kalashnikov tapes :)
I prefer my early style sight to the A2 style .
The only branch that wanted the more complicated rear sight was the USMC. No other branch was trained to use it the way Marines were. They just set the rifle for battlesight zero and they were done. My dad was USAF CATM for nearly 20 years and told me that's all they did with them.
@Trap Lord Ghost not really due to the complexity, more due to manufacturing quality increase and development in materials. If you make the old configuration with modern methods and materials that have the modern research behind them, you get extremely similar performance. So similar that the difference is pretty much negligible. Aside from the difference in use of optics due to implementation of the flat top, the difference with just irons is damn near identical. Which basically means the only legitimate development was the flat top. Beyond that it's just materials and manufacturing improvements.
What I really appreciated about Stoner and Kalashnikov too is that they both cared about the lives of soldiers and wanted to give them the best rifles they could.
Having converted from M14/M1s to M16A1s, in the Marines, I agree. We even had the 3-prong in Vietnam. They worked just fine but too many Marines were using the open flash hider to twist off the wire on c-ration cases and twinking the barrels. I was out when A2s came along but shot them later, I wandered why the change. The 3-round burst was a bust without a full auto option (although, if a burst was used, I liked a 2-round burst better to keep rounds on target. I fired A2s and felt it would be dangerous for any GIs. A change in twist (like the Canadians did) would have fixed the issue of the M855 round. Red dots, etc. work great on the A1 handle (as folks are finding on the RETROs). Nice to hear others think the A2 was misthought. I have also heard others say that if they wanted to take a M16 back to a combat situation, they would rather have a M16A1. I built an AR version while the A1 was still in issue. She still shoots just fine. She also wears an original Colt 3x scope. I was RETRO before it was retro. Thanks for the video.
Fun fact: The Army actually was very skeptical of the M16A2 burst feature and removal of the full-auto mode, even citing the G11 Rifle beign developed by Germany at the time, which had the 2100RPM 3-round hyperburst but DID NOT remove full-auto.
They also noted that a 5-Round burst would be the optimal round count for hit probability if they aren't doing any high-ROF/Low-Recoil solutions like the G11.
And also they really disliked the burst mechanism added complexity and how it had a janky reset.
Retro before it was retro.
That's just old, soldier.
Thanks for your service and comment.
Brownells now has a 4x and 3x scopes for fixed handle. Made by same company in Japan that made the originals.
Best retro optic is a armson OEG
Army Inf. '86-'92. I transitioned to the A2 while stationed in Panama in '87. My A1 was basically spray painted by the armorer a few times a year and was a broken down rattletrap. Probably a great rifle 20 years prior but badly in need of replacement. Same with our 1911s that were also replaced in '87 with the M9. Great design, just worn out and we were glad to get something new- no matter what it was. We loved the A2s. Everyone shot better and had more confidence in the functionality of their weapon. We actually didn't mind the extra weight. The most common comment I recall from back then was "now this feels like a real weapon and not a toy." 203 gunners shot better too. We humped more than any light inf unit in the Army back then- up the mountain, down the mountain, all night long more times than I can count. My feet and knees are still a wreck 30 years later. Nobody bitched about the A2 weighing too much. 2 NCOs from the AMU came down and ran a weeklong course on the KD range down there at Empire. By the end of the week we were hitting 40 for 40 at 800 meters with the A2. I was amazed. I had laughed at the start of the week when the instructors said we'd be hitting regular at 800m by the end of the week. We were taught to do all that "turning and fidgeting" with the sights to utilize them from beyond the usual 300m out to 800m. When that was mated up with our prior 0-300m training we were good. The officers that talked with Stoner were full of it IMO. Typical low opinion of EMs by officers with superiority complexes. We handled the "complicated" rear sight just fine. Just in time too as Just Cause went down a year later and we were in it up to our eyeballs as one of the 2 inf. battalions permanently stationed down there. Desert Storm was soon after that for me as I had PCS-ed to the 101. A2 was fine in both and nobody was wrecking their sights in combat. Yeah, the 3 round burst was a let down and we were PO-ed in the beginning. We fired semi 90% of the time in combat anyway I soon found out. The need for a full auto rifle in combat is overrated. The SAWs and 60s took care of that. In mech units you had the weaponry on the vehicle that was full auto as well. We can nitpick 40 years later but for a guy who was there on the ground with it in 2 wars, I was glad to have it. Have a civ version Colt A2 in my safe to this day next to my M1 and the usual old guy hunting rifles and shotguns.
Damn 2 wars
Awesome testimony, great read.
I have basically the same opinion without the proofs of two wars. Thx!
Thank you for your service.
Agreed was in from 88-94 .