a blanket response to those who wanted to talk about what Eugene Stoner actually said, I'll be copy and pasting this to responses. at mark 33:43 of that video : th-cam.com/video/6bHXspji8Lk/w-d-xo.html (time stamped for your convenience. "there should be a sight to be put on there that could be adjusted by some difficulty, but just zero it in and don't ever make an attempt to change it in combat" " [Stoner pointing at the M16A2 sight] this became a very poor choice... I know how it got there, because the people in charge at the time were all team shooters (or what we call target shooters)..." "... and they decided that this was an excellent opportunity to make the weapon a more of a... ahhh... target rifle than a combat rifle" To be clear, I think here are two schools of thought, and both of them are right in their own way. One is more appropriate for a "conscript heavy" military and the other is more appropriate for an "all-volunteer professional" military. Previous message was somehow deleted.
Watch the video starting from 32:00, he put the elevation wheel on the original AR but they made him remove it. It was the infantry board who said the thing about nervous fingers. They convinced Stoner of this apparently and this is why at 34:00 he calls the sight a poor choice and goes on to criticize the marines other choices. You incorrectly attributed the ideas of the infantry board to Stoner.
Stoner was correctly overridden on design features, like the forward assist, by actual combat experienced brass. At minimum it saved that kid in Wisconsin.
As Marine DI I was always impressed how our marksmanship instructors could take a recruit, who had never fired a rifle in his life, give him an off the rack training rifle and in a week could have them hitting a man size target consistently at 500 yards using iron sights.
@@Spetsnazty the PMIs are distinct and very different than a DI, since the DI is all about theatrics and a lot of shouting and stress inducing antics, which is their job, when you go up north (I was west coast) there is a change of not just scenery but also mentality. The PMI is quiet, calm, and factual, he gives you scientific knowledge, and mind you not everyone in the platoon is scientifically inclined, so he has to be pedagogical and reach each and every recruit, which there is about 60ish remaining at this time in bootcamp. PMI dress different, they are more like an older brother and they are there to teach you not mold you, in many ways they are the first Marine in bootcamp that treat the recruits not as scum of the earth but as humans, which means the recruits tend to "bond" with the PMI in a different way than how they have "bonded" with their DIs.
I was in boot camp early 1995. At the 500 yard i only missed my 1st shot. Corrected for windage with help from the instructor. The final 9 shots were all hits. Qualified as an expert. Still proud.
Let’s remember that a 20 inch barrel was short when the M16 was introduced. The M1 Garand had a 24” barrel the M14 had a 22” barrel. In addition a shorter action and the original A1 stock the M16 was significantly shorter and handier
"You don't want to zero in combat." My brother was an advisor in Vietnam during Tet '68. His unit was having trouble with a sniper, and the ARVNs couldn't hit him. My brother borrowed a Garand, then used a billboard at about the right range to zero the weapon, and killed the sniper.
Oh my goodness back in the day we used to do 500 yard head shots just for fun just goofing around and now this is silly. Lotta talk lotta talk. I’m around and hit whatever he wants to.
I enlisted in 2005, and I'm still serving. For most of my career, I was issued the M16A2, having transitioned to the M4A1 in recent years. I not only miss my M16, I still remember the serial number of the one I carried in Iraq. If it were possible, I'd buy that specific one and bring her home.
If our government was not trying to control us, that would be a program. Not only would it provide the ability to more frequently exchange small arms for newer ones and improve reliability, but it would also increase the number of armed veterans in the country.
@@DaveSmith-cp5kj if I'm not mistaken, there was a time when American troops were able to do just that. However, I don't doubt for a second that you're right. They don't intend for the people to be able to defend themselves.
Well, you may joke about 1 M16 to one meter, but actually, MACV SOG members used CAR15 as the measurement reference for their recon photos (width of the Vietcong trails etc.)
Macvsog used xm177e2 primarily as those were the highest quantity ordered with the 11.5" barrel and restricted muzzle device. They also had the 2 position aluminum stocks up until like 1972 when they went to fiberlight. Aka the Colt 629 commando.
Copperhead by Sgt Major Joe Garner is excellent and there is a picture of him doing exactly that. What sets him apart from many autobiographical authors is that he never lies or exaggerates and he never glories in violence. Being a very skilled recce soldier he seldom had to fight anyone. He's a world away from today's punisher skull wearing wannabe "operators".
Great video. An old buddy was hit in fallujah, in his plate when he was exiting his track. As soon as his feet left the ramp. He said it felt like getting hit with a bat. Body armor saved his life.
My sgt took one center plate in Afghanistan stepping out of a matv.. I jumped out being the corpsman and dragged him behind the tire. I looked for entry and exit room. Same thing, knocked him out cold for a few minutes he broke 2 ribs. But went back to duty a few months later.
@@Robert53area Wait. I thought the armour could turn you into terminator that can tank 20-30 bullets while killing left and right, Tarkov mode basically.
@@Stratigoz well sometime, when you lucky enough that the shot not hitting a vital area ( so maybe in the stomach, enough to cause heavy bruise but maybe no broken bones or collaspe organ )
I joined the Marines in 1992 and was issued an M16A2 in Recruit Training. It was the only rifle I carried and shot in my 20 yrs and 20 days on active duty...Albania, Congo, Central African Republic, and I too was lucky enough to participate in the Initial invasion of Iraq in 2003. I was a SSgt then carried an M9. Despite my plea to be issued a brand new (at the time) Benelli M4 mainly because I thought it was soo cool, I was issued an Ole Colt M16A2. And thank God I was. That Shotgun would not have been very useful.....The only time I saw an M4 or an ACOG in Iraq back then was when some RECON dudes came thru. It wasnt until 2004-2005 that Infantry units were completely outfitted with them. And probably a year or so later until Non-Grunts were starting to qualify with them. Semper Fi Brad! I went over on the USS Boxer out of San Diego with the "Special MAGTF" 3rd MAW, RCT-1, with some AMTRACS. In country I was just south of An Nasiriya.
Very excellent video. As the M16A2 Rifle Development Project Officer (1980-1983), I really appreciated your objectivity. Lt. Col. Dave Lutz USMC (Ret'd). I wonder of you have viewed my M16A2 Program interviews with the Institute of Military Technology?
Sir, what a pleasure to see your note! I remember reading about your project when I was in Army OD BOLC. If you ever have time and an interest to talk, I'd love to learn more from you about the development process! Our email is 9holereviews@gmail.com
Two questions sir: 1. How does it feel to hear a bunch people say that the m16A2 was unnecessarily developed or developed in the wrong direction? 2. Did you think that the M16A2/A3/A4 was going to stay in service for another 30-40 years after your involvement?
Went from the A2 to A4 in the USMC. We always started our zero procedure with a new rifle or a new rack number. With a mechanical zero. Counting the clicks from all the way to one side, all the way to the other side and then going back to the middle on both windage and elevation. With the front sight flush. And then built our BZO from that mechanical zero.
That's how Paul Harrell was taught to zero his M-16 in the Marines. 1) Flush your sights. 2) Put on your mechanical zero. 3) Shoot and zero at 25. 4) Confirm your zero at 300. 5) Make final adjustments to your zero as needed at 300. 6) Actually... that's it.
I, as well. AR15 A2, M1 Carbine, 1903 Springfield, and my favorite M1 Grand. Iron sights for all shooting at 100, 300, and 500 yards. I can hit a 4" group at 150 yards with the stock carbine. So much fun!
That’s because it’s a practical shooting distance when using iron sights for general use beyond I wouldn’t even bother engaging with iron sights and especially with an intermediate caliber it’s just not effective and pointless alongside it’s a waste of ammo
@@BPzeropoint iron sights are not effective at 1000 meters or yards it’s pointless u gotta be able to see the target plus all of the other factors Comme in so no ur wrong
I am of Vietnam veteran. This is one of the best “Educational videos” on the M 16 that I have ever seen. It is obvious that the man knows what he’s talking about.
I remember the M16A1 vividly when I was in the Singapore army. It was very easy to hit a figure 11 at 100 yards but the problem was the night shoot. The wider aperture was easier to acquire a sight picture but very difficult to shoot accurately. Nevertheless, M16 was an awesome piece of equipment and I trust it with my life to protect both myself and my buddies to the left and right of me.
The M16A2 was my first issued rifle. I read horror stories from Vietnam about the M16's lack of reliability. I was surprised to discover that the reliability issues were almost completely corrected since their early adoption, and an M16A2 rifle will continue to run if you apply enough CLP and if you clean it regularly and as needed. I only had a single malfunction with an M16A2. Something in the fire control group failed when I was qualifying on the rifle range in Okinawa in 2004. An armorer was notified, and he corrected the issue in less than five minutes. I managed to just snag an Expert Rifle badge that time.
As an American I kinda like how we have a base on Okinawa. If we didn't Japan and china would be at war there already probably just because it's an interesting strategic position
@@hoppinggnomethe4154 I know it’s a hard life to live with your affliction but your condition can be controlled if you just remember to take your dickhead pills.
Retired from the Marine Corps back in 2002. Truely appreciated the M16A2 and the M9 on your side as back up. Using SS109/M855 with the 62 grain bullet. It is to this day an excellent light weight rifle.
Superb discussion by both Henry and Brad on how critical the operator's competence and confidence are to the overall effectiveness of a weapons system. This suggests that more time on the range, behind the sights, is probably much more beneficial to most shooters than is adding the latest and greatest gizmo to one's rifle. Great job! #newslettergang
I always say that a starting competitive shooter should buy a basic rifle of the type they're going to be using, and spend the difference between that basic rifle and the top line competitive rifle in ammunition for practice.
Time on the range with a specific rifle is definitely more important than a specific optic or even specific rifle. I spend most of my range time with an M1 Carbine, and I'm way more accurate with it compared to with an AR, which is an objectively more accurate rifle. I've just had more trigger time with the former
Very true. My personal opinion is that most units don't spend nearly enough time on the range. Beyond just doing qual, more practical shooting in more realistic moving combat scenarios is needed. I would bet that most units only shoot maybe twice a year at best (other than perhaps certain combat arms units).
in 1995 I qualified for the first time with an M16A2 and despite how completely beat my rifle was I remember how easy it was to hit those 300 meter targets if you just did what they told you to. I still shoot an A2 style AR out to 500 yards with the carry handle, it's such an easy rifle to shoot and the sights are great!
I still remember the absolute shame I felt qualifying marksman in bootcamp. I couldn't wait to get back to the range when I arrived at my unit. I ended my enlistment as a 3rd award expert, but that pizza box I had to rock after bootcamp still haunts me!
In 76 MCRD Parris Island, S.C. they were calling marksman badges Maggie's Drawers. Never understood that. I was high shooter for my platoon and then range instructed for the 2nd at Lejeune.
I felt the same when I qualified sharpshooter. When I went to the Fleet I shot high expert. After that I got to be a range coach. I helped a fellow Marine who had never qualified first time through shoot high marksman, a few points shy of sharpshooter. One of my best, sober, day's in the Corp.
On that front sight note, that's why I love zeroing my irons where the target is above the sights. Almost as a lollipop. That way when you get past your zero distance, you can still see your target. Works great with .22's for squirrels, and .30-06 for larger game
Same here. With handguns, almost every fixed-sight pistol made now is zeroed to hit where the front-post dot is on the sight picture. I hate that zero. I much prefer the 6 o'clock hold for all iron sights.
@@KikiRevenge essentially, so at 100 yards, the whole of the target is visible. Then at 200, the target is slightly obsessed due to raising the front sight for the elevation. The added benefit, especially with the .22lr's, when you use subsonics, you just hold a standard hold, instead of the 6 o clock.
@@isiahhendrix5651 I was taught this by an Army instructor, and it really gives you a much better sight picture once you get used to it. It's also how a lot of military sights are design and you get better results out of them as a result.
You can get a bit more velocity with a 24" barrel, but that gets unhandy. Friend of mine was getting 3500fps out of his 24" barrel with 55gr. Was almost kicked off a range because that rifle was drilling holes through a steel dueling tree target at 200y. Proved that his ammo was not steel, and that the range had put a pistol rated tree on the rifle range.
@@chadhaire1711 …in your fantasy world. 55gr M193 is commonly available is ~3,270 ft/s at the muzzle on a 20” and well over 3,300 ft/s from a 24”. Then there’s also Independence 193 that’s ~3,350 ft/s from a 20”. I bet it would be close to 3,500 ft/s from a 24”. Not sure if the current production lots are still loaded that hot.
@@chadhaire1711 55gr at 3200 out of a 24" barrel sounds like .223 Remington load data. 3500fps is still a hot load for 5.56, but not extraordinary. M193 gets 3200 from 20" test barrels, so the extra 4 inches of barrel length probably gets you to ~3350-3400fps without changing the load at all.
That's a very true observation you made about confidence and competence. Once you shoot out to the upper ranges of a rifle and hit point targets repeatedly, anything inside that range feels like a chip shot. Shooting to 500 unsupported in Boot Camp, learning what "right" felt like when it comes to stable positions, and having no real formal markmanship training up to that point (open mind), really allowed me to excel in any closer range shooting. I think not having shot much as a kid and not having presuppositions about what the M16 is capable of, was vital to me absorbing and applying the information I was taught during Grass and Range Week. Something completely alien to me is the way some of my friends who have never shot past maybe 100 or 200 yds think 500 yards is "long-range." Last year I took 2 deer at 220 yards with my M16A4 clone w/ a 4 power ACOG and put them down where they stood using 62 grain TSX. To some of the good old boys I was hunting with, they thought this was a very impressive feat, but being so used to shooting off hand at that range from the age of 18 onward, shooting with the rifle rested felt like cheating! There's maybe 1 or 2 inches of drop at that range: point and shoot. Sorry I keep piece-mailing comments as I watch the video!
One thing that drives me crazy about the "well Eugene Stoner said..." crowd is stuff like this. Stoner was an engineer NOT a soldier. He's far from the end all be all of how to fight with a rifle.
Yeah I understand entirely where people are coming from, but it's always irked me (and I know many of my GWOT brethren) that the M16A2 is talked about like it was an abortion. I have had great experiences with my issued rifles, and it appears that many guys who served during the M16A2 days agree that it is a rifle worthy to depend on.
I say this with respect to Eugene Stoner, his contributions along with J Sullivan are crucial to developing one of the worlds most used weapon systems.
@@9HoleReviews For sure..He made a great rifle without a doubt..It had its drawbacks at the beginning...But it's like everything else. It's one thing to design something. It's another thing for real world use.
Gotta give props to Josh for looking directly into the camera during debrief, despite looking at image of Henry of himself probably being easier. It really brings the feeling that you are conversing with the man, although when he doesn't talk it's a bit like he is staring right into your soul)
Every minute of this video is good advice. Thanks guys. I attended U.S. Army boot camp in 1972. (Ft. Dix NJ) We zeroed our M16A1's at 25 yds, and they said it was good for 250 yds, We were instructed to never touch that zero. We then engaged random pop up full size OD green silhouettes out to 300 yds. Almost all of us qualified as "experts' during final range qualifications. The same applied at our permanent duty assignments. I have just completed a mil-spec USMC M16A4 20" HBAR build and sighted it in with those standards. It hits fine at 500 with the expected elevation adjustments. I watched this video to help me refine my adjustments. Thanks!
Love my 20in M16A2 clone. It's what I use for CMP Service Rifle competition. Even though optics are allowed now, I still use iron sights. It's very satisfying shooting a 10 on the 600 yard target. Gotta use the right ammo though, at least 77gr for 600 yards.
I took the 29 palms MTU match cmp rifles out to 1000 during the 2019 high dessert competition and beat 2 out of 4 rifle shooting teach guys that showed up with the allowed optics. These irons really were pretty good for the time
I have never been happy with anything heavier than 69 grains in my A2. Yes the 69 grain really made her sing but heavier increased the time of flight and arc in trajectory to levels that I objected to, no competition just field work.
@@davidmilisock5200 you need the right tools for the job. In Service Rifle or Mid Range 600 yard competition you need something to cut through the wind and reach the target accurately and consistently. 77gr is pretty much the bare minimum out of a 20in barrel with 1/7 twist. Some sanctioned matches don't allow use of the lighter cartridges. I recall the match program for the Service Rifle match at Marine Base 29 Palms specifically prohibiting 55gr because the rounds drift too much. Many competitors will load of 80, 85, or 90gr .223 for the 600 yard slow fire stages. Too long to load from magazine so you load single cartridges using a single shot sled in place of the magazine.
@@groundpounder8373 you wouldn't gain anything. You'd actually lose a little bit of performance over distance as the shorter barrel will give you less velocity and a heavier projectile will drop more as it flies towards the target thus giving you less effective range. The heavier the bullet the more you'll have to lob your rounds to the target.
The USMC 500yd B Modified target has a man shaped silhouette that measures 40 inches tall and 20 inches wide. The outer box is the general area target. When shooting with irons at that distance, without a spotter, but with the help of men in the pits marking your shots, you will be able to adjust windage and elevation accordingly. This is great for learning fundamentals of marksmanship and putting the theory into practice. You have to hit within the paint to qualify, so saying that the target is the size of a jeep is a hyperbolic statement which misses the mark. That said, nice show, gents.
Sort of, the scoring really depends on the era, when we were in the military in the 2000's you collected 2 points every shot you landed on white. The large, well-contrasted target does a lot when you compare to the poorly contrasted green 300m targets that the Army shoots. What the B-modified does do very very very effectively is build that confidence for the marine, a confidence in the weapon that I've never seen the Army effectively build.
I can attest that my time as a Marine we shot sitting, kneeling, standing at the 200 and 300 yard targets. The 500 yard course of fire was 10 shots prone. Our Marines snapped in to get a bzo and then adjusted the rear aperture for each section of fire. You had no spotters and had to make your own wind calls based on the socks at mid field and at the target. On top of this each course of fire was timed. The rifle is 100% capable and during my time 2000-2005 there wasn't one rifle that had a optic. I was issued a M16 203 as a squad leader so when in the rear I had to start all over with a different rifle and get my bzo before qualifying again. Regardless the 20" m16a2 was a good rifle but would have been easier on us to have the M4 as we spent alot of time in buildings or engagements withing 300 yards. Also I never used the 3 round burst. Take care- Semper Fi
@@travist2844 That's one thing we should have mentioned that the USMC course does do well... it teaches marines how to work with wind. That's a crucial part of becoming proficient with a rifle.
Someone on a TH-cam channel said something hyperbolic as a joke to make a point? QUICK, SOMEONE NOTIFY SCOTLAND YARD! EVERYONE, QUICK, FACT CHECK THE JOKE! Holy shit, man, turn down the autism and learn to take a joke.
@@9HoleReviews Just a heads up. The new course of fire has us shooting at man sized threat targets from the 25 out to 500, start at 500 then 300, 200, 100 and 25. 200 and 100 are movers braced off a barracade. 25 is headshots only. Then there are three drills, failure to stop, box drills and failure to stop while moving. The only thing that scores are hits to a sapi sized "home plate" in the chest and a small coffin in the head.
Went to basic in 2015 and was issued a FN M16A2 from the 80s if I rember right and I was able to qualify with 40/40 (Army qual). It is an amazing rifle and would take it over an m4 any day. I struggled with the m4 and its iron sights, and even the CCO's.
Great video. My dad used the A2 during his time in the Army in Bosnia. He has nothing but positive things to say about it. I used the A4 when I joined the USMC and our 500y target really did give us confidence in our rifles
@lrk2051 Why would they hate that? The thing about the carrying handle that sucked was when you put a scope on one it was so high you couldn't get a cheek weld, I don't understand why someone wouldn't want a detachable carrying handle.
I first qualified in Marine bootcamp with the A1, and for the next 2 subsequent request. I was a consistent sharpshooter (middle grade). Then we got the A2 and I qualified expert for the remainder of my career. We named the A2 "dial-a-kill".
As for the zero, if you knew what your zero was, and we were supposed to memorize it, you could dial that zero into a new rifle and be on target the first shot. I did that every time I got a different rifle, when switching units. It worked perfectly, good enough for combat, and going to the range with that new rifle just let me dial it in a little more accurately. The idea that a good soldier would mess with their zero is just crazy.
I was a Navy instructor on these weapons during the early 2000s. I'll be honest, I loved it. Zero to 300 and you're "minute of man" at basically every range out to that. The shooting demo at the beginning demonstrates this perfectly.
The Marine Corps Primary Marksmanship Instructors knew that while our training programs first two phases taught the necessary fundamentals it didn’t cover close quarter battle skills. And even though the 3rd phase was Field Firing that portion fell on the shoulders of the units. And for the most part was never taught or practiced with any degree of regularity. And so it wasn’t until after the start of GWOT that developing a ciriculum and teaching those skills became a vital priority.
@@davidmilisock5200 yep. We knew that. But trying to build a course to teach those skills faced many obstacles. One of which was knowledgeable and experienced Marines who could design a course. And then get it blessed and made doctrine. And acquire all the material assets to support that type of training. At the start of GWOT the only Marines who might have been classified as Subject Matter Experts / Instructors in Close Quarter Battle were a very small number in Force Recon, Recon Battalion, or Special Operations Training Group; aka SOTG. The premier SME’s would have been CAG, or Dev Group. But they had a full plate already. So it wasn’t like they would have stopped what they were doing to run any train the trainer courses for the Marines to churn out CQB Instructors.
One thing to add that is important, we (Marines) were shooting that 500 yard target without any support except with the sling around your arm in the prone position. In boot camp in 1983, I was issued a A-1 and qualified with it. Can't remember when we were issued the A-2. Great video!
I used an A1 in 83 for boot. I think it was late 84 or early 85 before going to the range in the fleet and used an A2 at that time. But my duty station was at Pendleton.
In gamer's word,its a 'skill issue',not the fault of rifle itself. One of my friend who were part of so called 'youth camp'(Malaysian PLKN program circa late 2000s) actually love the rifle and its simplicity when it comes to zero the rifle are what made him one of the best marksman in his unit and were given a special certificate to be able to grab M16A1/2(depend on army stock) from an army reserves alongside some spare ammo when in event of war occured. Thank you for the insight.
In 1987 at Parris Island I scored a perfect 50 at the 500 yd line with the flu (and a handful of Ibuprofen) . Just missed out on series high shooter by 2 pts. Locked up meritorious PFC for me. The A2 will always hold a special place in my heart.
Being sick in the Air Force basic training was Rrrruff I can't imagine what being sick in marine boot camp must have been like but you keep quiet and move on so you don't end up in sick bay and. get set back😮😮
I honestly do not think I have been as sick for so long except in ft lost in the woods misery in Oct of 07. I also qualified expert every time because my issued fn a2 was fantastic. My nose bled and bled and the sinus infection plus jock itch plus cellulitis from tick bites before shipping out made it 10 times worse. Good times
These rifles were such sweethearts to shoot. I was issued one when I joined the Guard, at the time my unit had yet to recieve M4 Carbines. My first drill, fresh out of AIT was also my first AT. For those not aware, AT (or Annual Training) is a 2 week exercise. My first experience out of AIT was showing up to first formation, getting told to go draw a weapon and gear and get to my truck. I was handed a box full of brand new equipment and this beat up old A2. Day six, we went to the range to do our rifle qualifications. I zeroed the A2 in 3 shots (they made me shoot 10 for posterity) and in one iteration walked off that range with Expert. I continued to use the A2 til 2018 when we geared up for our first deployment, when we were issued M4s. Ever since then, I have been shooting high sharpshooter. There was just something about thise A2s that made them inherently more accurate. Maybe the longer barrel, maybe something else. But I miss my A2 so much. No matter how much someone tells me the M4 is better, I will always yearn for my old girl.
Having done both the USMC and Army quals, the former didn't exactly prepare me for the latter, both have their challenges but the MC course, looking back, did give me more confidence in my rifle, and the Army course gave me more confidence in my own ability
What sling did the Army let you use and were you allowed to rest the barrel on the sandbags? In 1993 USMC we used the 'Loop' sling in bootcamp then switched to the 'hasty' sling from then on. I hated the loop sling. It felt like a Tourniquet.
@@dohc22h We didn't use shooting slings and there are both prone supported (rested on a block) and unsupported. I found the blocks to be annoying so I shot all prone unsupported. USMC boot in 2006 we used loop slings and I was yelled at for doing a hasty sling
@@dohc22h They had us using a loop sling when I qual'd in 08. Yea, it did feel like putting a damn tourniquet on, but it was really stable. I still use a two point sling for shooting now, but I use a quickadjust system to get it really tight on the shoulder for stable shooting now instead of taking the risk of giving myself pack palsy. lol
@@Animo2006 You sound like a competition shooter.. I mean, I can see the attention to detail in the way you worded your description. Do you teach Marksmanship?
@@dohc22h I'm not a competition shooter. I'm just an enthusiast who shoots/trains/drills often. The foundation of my training comes from experience in the Marines and I try to keep my skills sharp and improve them as often as possible. I'm nowhere near the best shooter out there, I just try to be better today than I was yesterday. I have taught marksmanship on a basic level to a lot of people to make them consistent and accurate shooters within realistic distances.
I used this same rifle in Afghanistan, I loved the m16 great for long range shooting. For CQB I just short stocked it. I'd put the stock over my shoulder. And hold my hand over the rail. And used my thumb as a sight for small rooms. And I had the acog and side mounted iron sights. Iron sights were great for indoor shooting if the room was large enough.
I would flip my rifle to the side when I short stocked and used the end of the barrel as aiming reference. I find it to be like point shoulder shooting with a pistol. Just fine for in close.
Love this video. Brings back a lot of memories. Good info and history. I love my rifle. Another thing to consider in regard to barrel length is muzzle blast turbulence. The 5.56 projectile is greatly affected by unburnt powder grains and muzzle blast. This is reduced when a more complete burn is allowed in a 20 inch barrel. Thanks for your awesome work.
The way things are is comically short barrels right now, but particularly with bone-stock off the shelf 5.56, that 16-20" barrel is a much better length. With regular irons, Army quals are pretty trivial. Maxing out 40/40 still takes real skill. We had a fellow that was limited from promotion because he couldn't max his rifle. He could get 35 or 36, but never close to 40. Sooooo my PSG asked me to shoot next to him and "take out the hard stuff". I doinked down enough that he got 40/40 and walked off the range with most of a mag of ammo, while I *still* qualified on my own lane.
Barrel length is VERY important BOTH for effectiveness on bio targets AND gas impulse! the old CAR-15 suffered from bolt bounce and carrier wobble BECAUSE of the faster gas impulse affecting reliability especially in rapid fire! MID LENGTH is the way to go with a AR style Carbine.
I went through Army basic training in 1989 at 17 years old. We had M16 A1s and were only "shown" an A2. Even the National Guard unit I was in didn't get A2s until a few years into my 6 year commitment. I prefer the A2 rear sight over the A1.
It's been since 91 that I had the chance to hold an A1. But wasn't the elevation only done with the front post? If that's correct then I can appreciate the A-2 being adjustable from the rear site.
@@josepheller8395 You zeroed both rifles' elevation the same way, but the A1 had 5 detent positions on the front sight post. A2 has 4. You needed a punch or cartridge tip to dial the A1 windage wheel, but it turned the shaft the same way an A2 windage knob did. I carried a tool that could dial both style front sight posts, as well as the A1 windage wheel. Once zeroed, both rifles were treated and employed the same way, never using the elevation wheel on the M16A2 to dial trajectory. There was an alternate 37yd zero with offsets to use for better effective point blank zero range, but by the time people were talking about it, we had been using Aimpoint Comp Ms for many years.
@@LRRPFco52 thank you for the info. I was in the air force so we only qualified with the rifle then never picked it up again. I believe things have changed since then.
Thank you for this video. Army Basic Training in 72, was where I learned how shoot. I have to admit it was tough at first, probably tougher for my DS then me. I did make it through that experience. I will never forget that part of the training cycle. Quite sure that my DS was happy I made it through. During my 20 years, I carried the M16A1 and till this day have the highest respect for it.
My main rifle was a M16A2/M203 I served 86~2006 qualified high expert every year, iron sights Recon Marine. For patrols , I bought civilian mount for carry handle and put a Simmons 3~9 adj power scope on it, the mount allowed use of iron sights, made a leather & foam cheek rest for stock. Used a old VeitNam issued snap on bi-pod. Made a cover for scope while mounted out of bubble wrap and riggers tape.
Last comment. The A2 front sight post is 8 MOA. 0-200 the sight will cover a man sized chest/torso. Aim center mass to hit. An experienced rifleman can use the front sight as an improvised range finder. A2 is a fine rifle
My introduction to aperture sights was 40 years ago at Ft. Sill for artillery basic. I was hooked. Presently, all my rifles are equipped with aperture sights. I'm as good to 200 yards with a proper aperture as I am with a 4x scope. Your presentations are the perfect blend of history, instruction and entertainment. Many thanks to you!
Thank you for talking about quartering your front sight. I taught myself to shoot, and I've always done that with my iron sights. And anyone that goes to the range with me look's at me like I'm some sort of freaking weirdo for doing that instead of messing with the windage. And I just don't want to screw around with my windage adjustments so I just thought that was easier and didn't know it was really a thing, but I was like it works
I remember when they called holdover Kentucky windage. I always divided my sight and used hold over to adjust impact. In those days they said it was wrong to use Kentucky windage, but I was more confident with hold over than making sight adjustments for windage as I went back from 200-500. Of course I set elevation for distance, but unless there was a significant wind value change I left my windage alone.
The only way to shoot! Hunting, the game doesn't wait for you to change your sight. In combat, afterwards if one thinks about it it's hard to remember what sight picture you used!
The adjustments in the sights other than the major ones in range are so if I pick up your rifle I can put my "dope" into it and fire it . Mine was 8/3 -2 I remember it to this day. It's about how you look down the site and your eye relief and cheek on the stock.
In the CA National Guard OCS, I remember a Captain who put on a demonstration of the M16A2 in which he could shoot the head and shoulder targets at 650 yards! I was amazed by his skills, and immediately had more respect for the M16A2! Thanks for an excellent video! Your insight and information is much appreciated!
@@TheInfantry98 I carried the m4 as well as the M16 a4. The m16a4 was a step in the wrong direction in hindsight In my opinion. Marines have always had a hard on for max effective range. I look forward to hearing reviews from the new generation with the iar and the 6.8 rifle. From my position, we gave up ammunition capacity for accuracy and terminal performance. It's great on paper, but sometimes suppression fire is the best thing you can do. I guess the next war will determine the results.
@@andyd2960 I hope you and I are incorrect in that though. During my time in Iraq (03-04) I was packing 14 rifle magazines and quite a few pistol magazines too. Out in small unit elements as few as 7-9 personal without close backup units with in a hour or more time. My last deployed to Iraq in 08-09 my backup was at least a hour plus to respond. I was leading a squad of 14-17 personnel then, a few times I was really glad for the AH-64s flying around and available to help.
An interesting perspective, it seems that the M16A2/A1 had the potential to do more in its base configuration but due to the training regime at the time its potential was seldom capitalised on.
Terrific video, as usual. I love the good information, subdued music and humor... so much easier to watch than some channels that think every video has to be a comedy special. I love the A2 platform. And good shooting! One note: I believe if you watch the entire Gene Stoner interview in its context, you see that it wasn't actually Stoner who came up with the idea about soldiers messing with their sights being a problem. He is recounting what the Army told him, back when the M16 was being designed. He says, at that time, they wanted non-adjustable sights and he pushed for adjustment with a tool or some deliberate effort, in other words, what we got with the A1. I think, when he gets to speaking about the A2, he echoes that whole conversation, saying if they didn't want easily adjusted sights, they sure wouldn't want the A2 sights. That being said, I agree with your comment about the history of US service rifles. If adjustable sights were OK on the 1903, M1, M14, et al, how can they be a big deal on the M16? Peace.
Thanks for the kind words man. This is a topic we get comments on quite a bit too. Honestly I think that interview has done a lot to bring us context to the system but has also confused us a bit. What you said is partially true. Stoner did initially submit a sight system close to the A2 sights, but also agreed with the Army's A1 sight decision, HOWEVER does talk about the A2 sights being a mistake for the excess adjustability. -at mark 33:50 of that video : th-cam.com/video/6bHXspji8Lk/w-d-xo.html (time stamped for your convenience. "there should be a sight to be put on there that could be adjusted by some difficulty, but just zero it in and don't ever make an attempt to change it in combat" " [Stoner pointing at the M16A2 sight] this became a very poor choice... I know how it got there, because the people in charge at the time were all team shooters (or what we call target shooters)..." "... and they decided that this was an excellent opportunity to make the weapon a more of a... ahhh... target rifle than a combat rifle"
7:53 Range cat is unimpressed by your views on the USMC range rifle targets. Another phenomenal run by Henry. Pretty sure the only way I could hit a 500y target with iron sights is by walking out to it and throwing the rifle at it.
Haha I’m with you. I tried shooting to 100 yards on A2-style irons just yesterday, and sure.. I hit the target, but my grouping was all over the place at around 8-10” LOL (I suck). I’ve got to 500 yards once with my AR, but I had to do it with a 1-8 LVPO. Irons? Ya forget about it hahhaha.
You could do it. It's almost 0% skill and almost 100% just following your PMI instructions. If you can't shoot well, it's because you weren't taught well. Anyone can shoot out to 1000 yards with proper instruction. Also, while habits are hard to unlearn, it's never too late.
@@Ranstone As Raifsevrence stated so eloquently, if you can't see the target, instruction isn't doing much. My distance vision is poor. Even my old man had better distance vision in his 60's, than I had in my early 30's.
This is by far one of the greatest videos you guys have ever done . This turning point from pre9/11 to a post 9/11 Marine Corps is sadly ignored . Great stuff
@@stevewilson7819I'm from the "old Corps" back in 93-97 and a difference I noticed is the 'new Corps' Cammie Blouse went back to the slanted Vietnam era upper chest pockets
@@dohc22h yep. And no pockets at the bottom of the blouse so you could tuck it in to the waist of your trousers if you were rappelling. I graduated from recruit training in May 1980 and we still had some of the Vietnam issue light green pattern camouflage utilities. And sateen green covers. When I retire in 2003 we had Mar Pat and rough coyote tan Belleville boots. Gore Tex wasn’t even a thing until 1987.
@@stevewilson7819 Upgrading the utilities (Still think from a practical standpoint a combination of a flightsuit and utilities would have made a better option), boots (thank f'n god for that one, but also a shame there werent as much "authorized" boots to use. We got to field test a few in Pendleton at and some versions were like wearing sneakers with hardened outsoles and were very comfortable), swapping of weapon systems and basic training. Changing of the PT uniform (and I think they are trying to do a new one now) I think was an ongoing thing as I was in and when I was leaving. One thing that was hilarious was Marines having to get Army issues in certain areas due to a lack of supply or lack of issue.
In Canada at the annual Small Arms Comperition in Ottawa we regularly fired at 500m with our 20 inch 1/7 C7A2 Rifles. We did use the 3.4 magnification ELCAN optical sight. You can easily hit a man size target in 10-15km. cross winds at 500m if you know how to adjist your sights windage. What impressed me at the time was the USAF Sgt with a 14.5 M4 and ACOG keeping up with our C7A2 scores at 500m. That little 62 grain M855/C77 ball round can do the job as long as the shooter knows his rifle. Great video guys.
I served 2004-2008 with the (Marine security forces, 2/8, and 2ND combat engineer Battalion)with the Marine Corps deployed to IRAQ 2007, I also served with the Army 82nd 2-508 PIR deployed to Afghanistan 2011-2012. Qualified expert 3 times with the M16A2 shot expert with the Army numerous times with the M4 Carbine w/ACOG. Please let me know if you guys want to hear any of my stupid stories. I absolutely loved this video and agree with everything you guys discussed. It touched my heart hearing from Brad. Thanks guys. Seeing you in the Tie and ACU top was an abomination but I loved it!
We used M16A4 with iron sights in Ramadi Iraq in 2006 and 2007. When you hadn't had red dots yet, and you didn't know better, you didn't feel disadvantaged. Also, many red dots back then were not as good as they are now. Heavier, shorter battery life, etc. I liked having the adjustability of the rear sight, specifically elevation adjustment. never used the night aperture either, and we never adjusted windage after zeroing. The Front sight post is for zeroing in elevation, the "windage" knob is for zeroing laterally. After that our only adjustment was the elevation knob and Kentucky windage. I could adjust windage at 500m visually with the second shot easily when i was shooting more often.
Interesting take on this. When I joined the Marines in 1983, we were still using the M16A1. Some of which my platoon had Vietnam era serial numbers and many of which had barrels that needed replacement. It wasn't until 1984 we started to get the A2's which I liked much better due to the rear sights. Even though I qual'd as Expert with the A1, it gave me fits as you had to make your adjustments with a round or a nail. The A2 was something I easily adapted to. My score improved from low 220s to 230 and it was more durable than the A1 with the improvements. When I heard that the Army then the Marines were adopting the A4 I was stunned. With the shortened barrel length, you're talking about a 50m (54 yards) drop in accuracy and a 180 ft/s drop in muzzle velocity (3190 ft/s to 2970 ft/s). I'm sticking with a 20in" barrel. What many may not know about is the Philippine Marines have taken the M16A1s we sold to them and trained some of their shooters to hit targets up 800m. Even with a scope that's a tall order for the weapon they're putting to use but it justifies having the longer barrel.
Sadly I can believe that you can have idiots fiddling with the sight settings. Some units don't issue out weapons to individual soldiers anymore. They just hand them out almost at random out of the armory each time they train with weapons. You can get a well maintained weapon or a weapon with caked carbon from a year ago.
Echo 479 I think that you have hit the target on that some... some of the "dog and pony Army B.S. of the 80s" the white glove inspection B. S. I seen in some units of F###ing commands having to have everything "dress right dress" to the point of setting sights to mechanical zero, cleaned, dry of oil and spotless. 100% equipment layouts, into the 90s I seen more than a few P.O.S. E-7s and up doing this S###. Even when shown the regulations, tech. manuals and field manuals that it was incorrect that was the only way for them.. I seen so much equipment destroyed by over cleaning than from use, from using electric drills and wire brushes in rifle, machine gun barrels cases of brake parts cleaning cans and boiling water with parts "Simple Green or Purple power cleaner" to get units firearms spotless.
@@DB-yj3qc this is BIG FACTS. I got out in 2019. The standards for "clean" m16s and m4s in the army is absolutely ludicrous. Windex, hot water, scouring pads, bleach paste, whatever it takes to make a 20 year old rifle look shiny
I have a Colt A2 HBAR, which was the first rifle I ever owned. Was a birthday gift from my dad. In the Army I used the M4a1 that had the three round burst recievers that were converted back to Full. I absolutely love the A2 rifle. I wish they would make more of them on the civilian side.
Theyre available, actually not hard to find. I've also got my origional Hbar from back in the day ( 1987). While in the Marines we carried the A2, with 3 round lowers.
Man this got me feeling some age. I was issued a m16a2 in 2004. We did our qual and all the high expert shooters got the new ACOG and the A4 handguards. Then we had to shoot the KD qual course again and get PEQ-2s sighted in. Ramadi 2005 everyone got the A4s and ACOGs. Then in 2009 a lot of us weapons guys got M4s and PEQ-15 felt like SEAL team 6 with our M4s.lol Then in 2010 got the M-27 or the IAR. I loved the jump from the 240G to the 240B got to chuck the flex mount. We still used the m22 tripod. Afghanistan 09 and 10 the eagle plate carriers were cool.
I think it's still important for new soldiers to train with Iron-Sights. We know that Red-dots and optics (LPVO) are part of the standard equipment. But in the same way that GPS exist and we use it, every soldier must know how to navigate with a map and a compass. The same would be training with Iron-Sights. Thank you for this video.
My basic training was using the A1. As the years continued and the A2's took over I remember being told to basically leave the A2 sights alone and pretty much ignore the 3 round burst ;) I was confident with irons to about 300 (back when I could see). A much bigger issue back then was worn out guns and magazines, rather than the rifle itself.
Cold War Era Marine here. Please refer to former D.I. Luis Caballero’s post, below. I seem to recall reading that the Corps had changed some of the quals. for the K.D. Course in the nineties. Maybe that explains the remarks about the 500 yds. targets being “Jeep-sized”. But in my time, 1977-1980, we shot at a “man-sized target”. I never found out the exact dimensions of it, but while servicing targets in “the pits” I made it a point to compare its height to mine. I stand at 6’2”. The top of the target’s head was almost level with my eyes, a little above. So that target represented a man less than 6’ tall.
Nice video. It's really very remarkable that the original specifications for what became the M-16 was a lightweight jungle carbine effective to 300 meters with a full auto feature. However if you add a good barrel with a one in seven twist, a free float tube for the hand guard a good trigger, and run heavier 77 or 80 grain bullets you can easily clean a two MOA competition target at 600 yards. Mr Stoner came up with a brilliant design.
I could not agree more. With modern CNC manufacturing, bolt and barrels made to match it's not uncommon to see the AR15 in 5.56 NATO, 233, 223 Wyland 6MM ARC and 6,5 Grendel shooting 1/2" groups.
@@davidmilisock5200 Dont forget 6.8 SPC and 6mm Hagar. Carl Benoski won a NRA national high power championship with an AR based rifle 6mm Hagar. A well done AR can be every bit as accurate as a bolt gun. I always felt 223 Remington was a bit anemic for military work, but Im no expert. AR's are fun to shoot. No wonder its the number one selling rifle in the US.
@@DrCarl88 I only mentioned cartridges you can get from a factory and did not mention the 6.8 SPC as it's an effective combat and hunting cartridge but its BC and SD are not conducive for longer ranges. It's funny that the Wyland is available, but others are not.
@@davidmilisock5200 you are right for an AR platform 6mm is your best bet. I ran Berger's excellent 105 grain hybrid in my 6mm Hagar for 600 yards. Crazy accurate. You really are limited by what will fit in the magazine well. We would load them beyond magazine length and single load them in competiton at 600 yards. It will be interesting to see if the Army's new 6.8 mm round takes off. It could be a game changer.
@@DrCarl88 As a custom target cartridge it has promising stats, 80,000 PSI pushing a high BC/SD 6.8 projectile sounds interesting. As a combat rifle round combination the rifle is all wrong. WAAAY to heavy.
Commenting before watching the entire video: I was making headshots at 500 yards with my M16A2 service rifle on Parris Island in 2002. It is an extremely accurate rifle that can shoot farther than you should be engaging targets. In 2004 I deployed to Iraq with my M16A2 with iron sights and engaged targets at roughly 75 - 100 yards, on average. Point being that it wasn't until I was in Afghanistan in 2012 that I ever attempted to engage targets out to the maximum effective range of a rifle (we had M4s at that time), and in a combat environment, at those distances, it's best to use the M240 or M2 anyways. Whelp, hope this video is enlightening; just thought I'd share my unsolicited opinion prior to watching, because that's what the internet is for. Cheers.
I think you'll really enjoy watching this video, Brad talks about his time in the corps (around your era) using the A2 in combat too. Thanks for checking in before, I'd love to hear your thoughts after the video!
@@9HoleReviews Wow. Well done, gents. The quality of this video is on par with professional documentaries; highly commendable. First thing I noticed, with regards to comments made about the rifle itself, is that every time I was thinking something, Henry said it in the video. From the fact that the USMC Bravo "man-sized" targets are actually the size of Brock Lesnar to the 20 inch barrel being more "flat shooting," everything I was thinking, Henry stated. So well done being thorough and hitting all the pertinent points - it's obvious that Henry has experience with this rifle. Also, me being a knuckle-dragging Marine, his humor is on point and had me laughing. Now on to the interview with Brad: according to his timeline, we were in Iraq at the same time and must have been ships passing one another. My first deployment was Feb - Nov 2004 with a little-known infantry unit called Small Craft Company; we had boats and primarily patrolled the Euphrates and acted as a makeshift weapons/line company (we had M240s, M2s, and Mk19s). We were involved in Operation Vigilant Resolve (aka "First Fallujah") as well as Operation Phantom Fury (aka Al Fajr, aka "Second Fallujah"). Brad's statements on iron sights and the PEQs were 100% correct. The Marine Corps was broke as a joke and we all knew it. My unit convoyed up to TQ (Al Taqqadum) from Kuwait, towing our boats, in Feb 2004, with A2s and A4s, in Humvees which either didn't have doors or had heavy steel doors held on with 550 cord and sandbags layering the floors. We had NODs, which we had to have on our person at all times, but didn't have batteries for them. I, as a LCpl, bought a lot of my gear, such as a Camelback, drop magazine leg pouch (worthless), extra mags, and replacement mag followers (priceless). Despite these shortcomings, our SLs had 203s, our PLs had ACOGs (those were highly envied), and we even had access to some pretty sophisticated (for the time) night and thermal equipment. For example, we had a giant floodlight with a night cover which allowed us to shine an infrared light so that we could all see under NODs (not that we could accurately engage, but we could at least see). When we arrived at TQ, the 82nd was RIPing out, so there was a period where Marines and soldiers were on this big base together - that was the first time I saw "Gucci Gear." I saw a female soldier carrying a M4 with a PEQ, Aimpoint, and flashlight; I went up to her and asked her what her MOS was. She gave me some number and when I asked what that was she responded, "Admin." I also remember soldiers having stickers on their rifles - one female had a sparkling unicorn sticker on her buttstock. That was my first interaction and impression of the Army. During that deployment, however, I also got the opportunity to work with Army SF and Navy SEALS - now THEIR gear was Gucci! That was the first time I really became jealous of other rifles and gear and began to realize how under-equipped we actually were, but I think it was mostly just gear envy. Luckily we were fighting an enemy even more under-equipped, but I would hate to think of how we would have fared against a more technologically advanced enemy. Among my unit there was almost a Luddite-like cynical opposition to having nice gear. I, among others, were labeled "Gear Queers" for having extra gear that was not issued to us. Marines pride themselves on getting the mission accomplished with as little support and tools necessary; anything extra is considered extravagant and worthy of mockery. My second deployment to Iraq was with RCT-8 (The Ocho) in Feb 2005. During that deployment I was sent down to support L Co., 3/4, in Fallujah and Husay Jumayla (western outskirts of Fallujah across the Euphrates). During that deployment I was issued an ACOG; HOWEVER, I did not have the opportunity to zero it. As a result, I found myself zeroing the ACOG during the sporadic firefights we found ourselves in, making adjustments with a dime I kept in my pocket until it was "good enough." There's an excellent line in the series _Generation Kill_ about how the Marine Corps keeps its lower enlisted in a perpetual state of angry so that at a moment's notice we will be eager to kill a person. This was true during my experience. Have NODS but no batteries. Have vehicles but they're slow and lack doors. Have a determined enemy trying to kill you but your 1st Sgt is yelling at you for wearing white socks which are not authorized in your uniform. Keep up the work, gents. It is truly impressive how you turned a "simple" "review" of a rifle into an educational story. Cheers. USMC 2002 - 2007 Iraq 2004 & 2005 Civ Sec Contractor 2010 - 2013 Afghanistan 2010 & 2012
@@Johnny_Cash_Flow No way you're a Marine with that type of grammar and eloquent writing. Just kidding, that was very insightful and is priceless to those that has never been in that type of environment. Thanks for sharing, and as the others have said, thanks for your service.
Another benefit of the 20" barrel compared to a 14.5" is that if you're back in the Stone Age, pre-2005, in the U.S. Army was the sight radius. We weren't using optics when I was in so all we had was our irons.
Listening to this Marine talk about how he and others have ignored the rear sight and not even aiming with it in CQB makes sense now why the GWOT Marines I talked to dissing red dots
A2 is definitely a iconic rifle in my option I was 11 years old when the invasion of Iraq happen and I remember watching all news channels of the army and marines getting into firefights with the enemy and clearing houses and building with the A2. Which for a eleven old kid who was into military weapons at the time was crazy since it had a longer barrel compared to any AK's that insurgents were using at the time. Eleven year old me thought that it was the most badass rifle to have specially having a M203 grenade laucher on it. Which for a little kid at the time was cool. I do think the A2 was a definitely superior rifle ,but wasn't in it's best elements being made for more open and long rang fighting then a closed quarter fighting in a city,but hearing how marines in fallujah were able to use a ACOG scopes pair with the A2 which was a deady combination from what I have read and watch about that battle .If I had no other rifle then a A2 I would feel pretty comfortable using it to defend myself .
As a Marine PMI, holder of both the Distinguished Rifle, and Pistol Badges. Also NRA Highmaster Class shooter, and Pistol Master Classification I take issue with the statement about Marines hitting a Jeep at 500 yards. The reason the E Sihouette is mounted on a 6-6 foot white screen is because the shooter needs to have some sort of idea where his rounds are impacting so they can make whatever elevation or windage adjustments you need to get hits. And only hits on the silhoutte counts for points. Brads comments are all pretty much spot on! About Marines messing with sights I can tell you that Stoner was…..wrong! About Marines playing with their sights. That’s a case of a person who is an engineer and not an actual end user talking out his ass. But with his status his words carried lots of weight. About the case of the military being in a state of disrepair after 8 years of Clinton is dead on. I personally brought and upper receiver assembly equipped with a Trijicon ACOG TA-11 to Coaches School and had Marines shoot the Unknown Distance Course with my upper and they all said we needed those. In an after action report done after the initial invasion in 2003 it was documented that rifles equipped with ACOG was a combat multiplier. I also spoke with a Marine Gunny assigned to Systems Command in Oct of 2000. He told me that he had tried to get the Corps to purchase and field ACOGS. But when he went to his boss who was a general the general refused because he was more worried about Marines breaking the sights. The point of all this being that there were Marines working to drag the Corps into the modern world. But Marines holding the purse strings stood in the way.
my favorite is the laughing about the forward assist. "But it has a scallop on the bolt". Yup and stick your thumb on that when you need it the most and you'll have to draw on your fingerprints. "But you should clear the obstruction". That's great for a stuck case, but what about some tiny piece of carbon in the receiver slowing down the bolt. You gonna strip the weapon and clean it under fire? So stoner and his fan boys can actually gain some combat experience. I don't see them rocking only 602s.
@@ranmarsh8271 I am fully aware of what a zero shoot is. The Marines are using it as a scored shoot for marksmanship ratings though and that "if you knew anything" is contrived bullshit.
Remember how SECDEF Rumsfield was mocked when he stated the simple, brutal truth that "You go to war with the military you have"? Stoner was a WWII Marine, so his observation may have been based on Marines who were hastily trained in wartime.
In 1984 in Army basic, we were still using the M16A1, we transitioned to the A2 before I got out and it was a nice improvement. I still love both rifles.
In 91 I had the A1 in basic and the A2 at my permanent party units. I preferred the shorter stock, triangle handgrips and the simpler sights on the A1 vs the A2
So serving in the Canadian army we were constantly yearning for the Americans kit, as much of our stuff would've looked great in a Vietnam war flick. We switched from using the C1 (FN FAL) battle rifle in the late '80's, to a Canadian licensed Colt C7 (an A2 with full auto instead). In the mid '90s we got rid of the iron sights and switched to a picatinny rail system with an Elcan 3.5x scope....to finally after all these years learn that we had one piece of kit before the Marines, wow a morale boost after all these yrs, lol.
I remember my first Qual at Pendleton with the A2. Great instruction on the sighting system. If you did your part, it was easy to walk away expert, even on a slightly foggy morning. Great video.
Henry, you are 100% correct about the 500 yard training/qualifying breeding confidence. I really wish more people understood this concept. 300 yards being the comfort zone of the rifle versus the perceived outer limits, makes the difference in the Marine/Soldier being effective in the 200-300 yard engagement range.
I was USMCr 1984-1992, Desert Storm, non-combat MOS. Qualified expert with A1 in boot and later also with the A2. I preferred the A2 mainly because of the improved rear sight. I agree with everything you've said. I was and am confident and competent with the rifle, and I have passed on those skills to my two non-military sons.
Were you trained to aim the A1 at the top of the target at 500 yards? We were told the A1 models Front Site Tip were off slightly at 500 yards and the solution was to basically "fill" the target completely with the front site tip to hit center mass.... The A2 didn't have that issue... Center Mass all day.
@@dohc22h In all honesty, I don't remember regarding the A1 in bootcamp at 500 yards, but I do remember making front sight post adjustments as distances grew. That said, at that time and with front sight post adjustments, the aiming point was probably center mass or six o'clock.
Ah yes the AR-15A2 was my 1st introduction to the AR family when I was 12 years old. My dad still has it 32 years later. I still love the the A1,A4 and M4 but they will never be my 1st love and I can still rock the A2 at long range better than the rest except for the ACOG equipped A4. I still love going out to the range with dad and he holds his own for 65 years old. It's the best when he is feeling good and teaching tricks. He knows how to rock the A1 and A2 better than most. Sometimes I get to teach him new tricks. Go shooting with your friends and family's and enjoy yourselves. Keep up the good work.
I trained with the A1 for basic military training in Singapore in 97 and then issued with Colt commando later after posted to recon company. Both are pretty accurate up to 500m. Still achieved marksmanship with the short barrel Colt which I'm pleased because of the $200 incentive that came with it. Those were the days....
I think Eugene Stoner really was ahead of his time in regards to the design and modularity of the AR-15. That being said, others have come along and truly made that rifle what it is today. The engineers at Colt and the hundreds of companies and people that took the AR-15 design in the civilian market really do need to be given just as much credit for continuing to advance the rifle into the future. From continuing to advance components like stocks, grips, and optics to innovative ways they have built them over the last 15 or so years. I would also like to add that, a study from 2014 showed that it was taking US forces around 250,000 rounds, per enemy kill in Afghanistan. Thats with an M-16 A4 or M4 with a ACOG optic on it. So, I’m pretty sure Eugene Stoner’s comments about heavier barrel on the M-16 A2 wasn’t drastically going to change anything in regards to being combat effective one way or another.
@Zed Kay I'll say that it wasn't until the mid 90s and early 2000's where the modularity truly exploded. But yes, it was much better in terms of future proofing than pretty much any other rifle ever made
Could’ve sworn that was the average in Vietnam. Since they had less training time and were susceptible to spraying and praying. That’s why the A2 and onwards used burst up until recently in Afghanistan. That’s why even most M4s have “Burst” stamped over with an X and AUTO right below it.
I can't help but wonder how that study was conducted. Was it "really" just looking at infantry rifles? Or was it perhaps looking at every other small arm that also fired bullets (SAW, 240, .50 caliber, minigun) Not even Vietnam's bullets-per-enemy KIA was that high.
Great video Captain. I'm a Army veteran. Probably same time frame you were in, 83 to 89 for me. I love the A2. I've got a few different setups at the house. I trained on the A1, a old H&R M16A1 in boot camp. Anyway, I never messed with my zero either. I would flip the rear sight though, 0-2, and small hole. I really like your explanation of how that sighting system works. I was very young back then, 17 yo. I was really just trying to get through the day, whatever task I was doing, sad to say, without much thought behind it. I would love to train under you. I love to shoot. It's my happy place. Great shooting by the way. I just qualified as marksman. I'm sure you are a expert. Thanks for your service Cap.
In my annual qualification with an M16A1, I was able to possible at 500 yards on KD courses in imperial units and at 500 meters in metric KD courses. The rifle is a tack driver. BTW: I am very myopic and wear thick glasses.
I would love to see you guys run the Canadian Forces service rifles - the C7A2 and C8A3 - and comment on the differences between them. Our rifles are Colt Canada-built with CHF heavy barrels. The C7A2 is our standard rifle with a 20" barrel and a 3.4x ELCAN scope, the C8A3 is our 15.7" carbine commonly used with a EOTech. Due to the high manufacturing quality and CHF barrels, the C7 is capable of fantastic accuracy - while the C8 gives up some velocity, due to barrel harmonics on the 15.7" length (and the addition of the 40mm GL mounting sleeve), it is MORE accurate than the full-length rifle at all ranges, except the extreme limit of practicality with the 5.56 round. Semi-auto civilian versions are available - the Colt Canada SA20 and SA15.7. Would LOVE to see this and so would many of my fellow Canuck shooters!
The clip at 30:34 is wild, I have seen war footage but that clip really gave me the feeling of my stomach dropping. These young men breaching into a staircase where they can hear chanting, where they knew an enemy they shot was previously there. That really takes some real balls to breach that with those 20 inch rifles.
That clip was part of a longer video I saw a long, long time ago. Those Marines were hearing fighters on the inside repeating "God is great," and would very soon get the hell out of there. It's been ages, but I think they leveled the building once they cleared from it. What weapons they employed to do so I cannot remember. Again, it's been forever.
@@KM-fckutube you can’t just throw a grenade into a room full of people without first confirming who they are. That sounds like a quick way to get up in Leavenworth.
As a lefty shooter I was sold on the A2 simply because it had a built in brass deflector. I never could get one from the Arms Room when I had an A1 and ate brass all the time at the ranges. Q: Why did you not use M855 spec ammo on the course, as that is what the A2 was engineered to use? Also a comment, if you repeat this could you do it at actual ground level? Shooting from an elevated position is not what was done at range qualifications. Great video, thanks!
I was in the Army Guard. In 2014 I took the Squad Designated Marksman course with the M16A4 (my unit had the M16A2 until 2019 but we never went anywhere). We shot iron sights one week at 600 yards down to 100 yards. After going through this course, the 300 meter target looked a lot bigger. So Henry makes a great point in the confidence to make hits at 300 by practicing at 500 (or 600 in my case).
The fact that this video dropped the day after I finally got my A2 clone built just validates my love for the platform. Went all the way through basic with the old musket and still had them when I got to my first unit in Alaska. Favorite rifle to this day hands down.
When I transitioned to NG from active, we were light infantry with A1s fitted with A2 handguards. Let's just say many UA magdumps were done during live fires, so sweet. Late 90s.
Absolutely awesome, sir. I was a sdm in the army infantry and did 6 tour over 3 deployments to Iraq and Afghan. I started to get pulled in to your videos in researching a m76 build and really liked your take on things. It wasn't till this video I realized your skills. Nice job with the thanksgiving day prop, Marksmachan!
Oh maaan using the M-16 as a measuring stick for 1m just had me burst out laughing LOL. That’s the most American way to help do conversions in our head HAHAHAHAHA. Just lovely. I love these debriefs and the occasional banter. I just love how many experts you’re regularly able to get of any given the particular rifle to come in and chime in. Super educational, interesting, and entertaining. Between this and Forgotten Weapons, we are just so blessed with these videos from people with so much varied upbringings and backgrounds.
I agree and and disagree with Stoner and Henry on the A2 rear sights: 1) You don't want your zero shifting in a combat zone, no matter how that happens. 2) Training builds confidence, which can translate to greater combat effectiveness. 3) There is nothing inherently wrong with both the A1 and A2 rear sight design, but they each have their own benefits and drawbacks. In my opinion, the best way to solve the Marine Corp's problem would've been to swap the existing A1 aperture set with a version calibrated for 500-yard targets instead of the usual 300-400-yard that the standard aperture came with. This would've been more cost effective while still meeting the Corp's training goals. In my opinion, I love the A1 rear sight for combat rifles, specifically because it can't knocked out of zero (intentionally or otherwise), and it's simplicity makes it a lot more rugged than other rear sight designs. The A2 rear sight is fantastic for general shooting, because you can use both the battle-sight-zero method and dialing for distance, without changing any hardware, depending on your circumstances and/or preferences. I have an iron-sighted AR that I use for hunting that has an A2 rear sight and it hasn't failed me yet...but I have bumped both adjustment knobs out of zero (been witness-marking all of my iron sights for years).
1. The only aspect that could affect your zero is the front sight post and windage the former is pretty hard to do and the latter is rather tight you with pretty audible and tactile clicks and is pretty much impossible to accidentally knock out of zero. 2. Shooting at 500 is a form of training, as well as confidence building. Shooting at range allows the shooter to train with other outside factors like wind as well as show him that his rifle is capable of shooting past 300 yards. 3. The A1 was an incredibly flawed design since it only had one range setting which was 300 yards and was far more cumbersome to zero. The A2 on the other hand fixed pretty much all of these issues I think the only way it could have been improved was taking away the windage wheel and make it a flat head screw that was click adjustable with a cartridge case. 4. Well the A2 has a lot of improvements over the A1 like the brass deflector, A2 rear sight, furniture that didn't constantly break, no POI shift from a hot barrel as well as the A2 compensator. The only negative about the rifle was the 3 round burst however that wasnt the Marine Corps' wacky idea it was Colt who lobbied the Marines to include it citing test results from the Army's tests on burst fire rifles, and saying it would save money on ammunition and increase hit probability.
@@nemisous83 - 1) That's only true on the A1 sights; the A2 sights have exposed and finger adjustable windage and elevation knobs...unlike the A1 sights. My original point was that shifting sights in combat is unacceptable, and that some sighting systems are more prone to shift than others. I've seen A2 sights get bumped out of zero; sure, it was rare, but it happened. I've never seen an A1 rear sight get bumped...ever, and I shoot iron sighted AR's in competition a lot. 2) Okay...? I didn't say anything bad or critical about training at that range. There's both good and bad aspects to training at longer ranges or training at more realistic ranges; either way, training is important. 3) The A1 rear sights actually had two apertures, one was a 0-300 meters and the second was 300-400 meters. The design intent was that the soldier would do 90% of their shooting using the 0-300 aperture, but would only use the 300-400 aperture for those rarer extended range targets. A1 sights are really easy to zero with the proper tool, they're $10 and sold at literally every surplus store...oh, and pick up an A1 technical-manual for another $5 and do some reading. 4) Sure, some of the other improvements made on the A2 made it better to shoot compared to the A1...but I was talking about their sights exclusively. So, I'm not going to waste my time talking about the rest of what you said.
I own a Windham MPC which is essentially an M4 in civilian clothing. This video is very useful in helping me as a civilian shoot my rifle better. I never knew the difference between the rear sights. Thanks to this video I do now.
@@tedarcher9120 Not when it was "meters" and "metric". But now that we're using freedom units and M16A2s, and the rest of the world just happens to use something similar to us... I'd say there's a chance.
![U.S. Rifle M1917 [Sgt. York's WW1 Medal of Honor Story ] to 500yds: Practical Accuracy](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/OYunBYZyCY8/mqdefault.jpg)
![U.S. Rifle M1917 [Sgt. York's WW1 Medal of Honor Story ] to 500yds: Practical Accuracy](/img/tr.png)
![🥇 SG 550 (Swiss Army Rifle) to 500yds: Practical Accuracy [Stgw 90 - PE 90]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FL_zcqOFrbI/mqdefault.jpg)
a blanket response to those who wanted to talk about what Eugene Stoner actually said, I'll be copy and pasting this to responses.
at mark 33:43 of that video : th-cam.com/video/6bHXspji8Lk/w-d-xo.html (time stamped for your convenience.
"there should be a sight to be put on there that could be adjusted by some difficulty, but just zero it in and don't ever make an attempt to change it in combat"
" [Stoner pointing at the M16A2 sight] this became a very poor choice... I know how it got there, because the people in charge at the time were all team shooters (or what we call target shooters)..."
"... and they decided that this was an excellent opportunity to make the weapon a more of a... ahhh... target rifle than a combat rifle"
To be clear, I think here are two schools of thought, and both of them are right in their own way. One is more appropriate for a "conscript heavy" military and the other is more appropriate for an "all-volunteer professional" military.
Previous message was somehow deleted.
Watch the video starting from 32:00, he put the elevation wheel on the original AR but they made him remove it. It was the infantry board who said the thing about nervous fingers. They convinced Stoner of this apparently and this is why at 34:00 he calls the sight a poor choice and goes on to criticize the marines other choices. You incorrectly attributed the ideas of the infantry board to Stoner.
nose to the charging handle...good job
Stoner was correctly overridden on design features, like the forward assist, by actual combat experienced brass. At minimum it saved that kid in Wisconsin.
As for the mentioned solution to the problem, torque stripe would work even better.
Its better score than Josh shot with the ACOG.
Marine: “what is this?”
Armorer: “i have no idea but its serialized so don’t lose it.”
One of the most Marine Corps things ive heard
My chuckle for the day
As Marine DI I was always impressed how our marksmanship instructors could take a recruit, who had never fired a rifle in his life, give him an off the rack training rifle and in a week could have them hitting a man size target consistently at 500 yards using iron sights.
Was that not a responsibility of the DI? Where there separate cadre teaching marksmanship?
@@Spetsnazty that is correct we had Marines assigned as Marksmanship instructors most of whom were members of the competitive team.
@@luiscaballero6988 interesting. Thank you.
Wouldn't want to be a DI around recruits in condition 1.
@@Spetsnazty the PMIs are distinct and very different than a DI, since the DI is all about theatrics and a lot of shouting and stress inducing antics, which is their job, when you go up north (I was west coast) there is a change of not just scenery but also mentality. The PMI is quiet, calm, and factual, he gives you scientific knowledge, and mind you not everyone in the platoon is scientifically inclined, so he has to be pedagogical and reach each and every recruit, which there is about 60ish remaining at this time in bootcamp. PMI dress different, they are more like an older brother and they are there to teach you not mold you, in many ways they are the first Marine in bootcamp that treat the recruits not as scum of the earth but as humans, which means the recruits tend to "bond" with the PMI in a different way than how they have "bonded" with their DIs.
I was in boot camp early 1995. At the 500 yard i only missed my 1st shot. Corrected for windage with help from the instructor. The final 9 shots were all hits. Qualified as an expert. Still proud.
An expert wouldn’t miss his first shot
someone who's never shot long range ever ^
@@PepeDeezNutz do you like Wendys?
@@Gchang54yes
@@Ducking69 wendys nuts slide across your face. Gahhtum
Let’s remember that a 20 inch barrel was short when the M16 was introduced. The M1 Garand had a 24” barrel the M14 had a 22” barrel. In addition a shorter action and the original A1 stock the M16 was significantly shorter and handier
was a1 stock was one in to one and half inch shorter?
@@ej_22 I believe A1 stock is 5/8ths of an inch shorter.
@@ej_22 yes the a1 was shorter
Now 16.5 inch is the new 20 inch.
@@brockbergquist4593 by how much
"You don't want to zero in combat." My brother was an advisor in Vietnam during Tet '68. His unit was having trouble with a sniper, and the ARVNs couldn't hit him. My brother borrowed a Garand, then used a billboard at about the right range to zero the weapon, and killed the sniper.
Most dangerous thing. A marine and his rifle.
In Nam they should not have been using a Garand. M14 on the other hand was available to some.
@@dwightehowell8179 US troops had M14s in the early days, but ARVNs had Garands. See, for instance, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_the_Vietnam_War
Oh my goodness back in the day we used to do 500 yard head shots just for fun just goofing around and now this is silly. Lotta talk lotta talk. I’m around and hit whatever he wants to.
@@frederickking1660 My brother was in the Army..
I enlisted in 2005, and I'm still serving. For most of my career, I was issued the M16A2, having transitioned to the M4A1 in recent years. I not only miss my M16, I still remember the serial number of the one I carried in Iraq. If it were possible, I'd buy that specific one and bring her home.
If our government was not trying to control us, that would be a program. Not only would it provide the ability to more frequently exchange small arms for newer ones and improve reliability, but it would also increase the number of armed veterans in the country.
David Smith. Excellent point.
@@DaveSmith-cp5kj if I'm not mistaken, there was a time when American troops were able to do just that. However, I don't doubt for a second that you're right. They don't intend for the people to be able to defend themselves.
Repeal the Hughes Ammendment.
@@FinalLugiaGuardian agreed. 100%
Well, you may joke about 1 M16 to one meter, but actually, MACV SOG members used CAR15 as the measurement reference for their recon photos (width of the Vietcong trails etc.)
Really it was a semi joke because i've actually used it as a meter sick in the field condition. You have a lot of M16A2s in a platoon.
It sounds crazy at first, but certainly makes sense. Neat!
Macvsog used xm177e2 primarily as those were the highest quantity ordered with the 11.5" barrel and restricted muzzle device. They also had the 2 position aluminum stocks up until like 1972 when they went to fiberlight. Aka the Colt 629 commando.
Copperhead by Sgt Major Joe Garner is excellent and there is a picture of him doing exactly that. What sets him apart from many autobiographical authors is that he never lies or exaggerates and he never glories in violence. Being a very skilled recce soldier he seldom had to fight anyone. He's a world away from today's punisher skull wearing wannabe "operators".
@@9HoleReviews It proves that knowing the dimensions of owned equipment is essential. Yes !! Size does matter :))
Great video.
An old buddy was hit in fallujah, in his plate when he was exiting his track. As soon as his feet left the ramp. He said it felt like getting hit with a bat. Body armor saved his life.
He must have been hit with a large caliber 7.62 or bigger
My sgt took one center plate in Afghanistan stepping out of a matv..
I jumped out being the corpsman and dragged him behind the tire. I looked for entry and exit room. Same thing, knocked him out cold for a few minutes he broke 2 ribs. But went back to duty a few months later.
@@Robert53area Wait. I thought the armour could turn you into terminator that can tank 20-30 bullets while killing left and right, Tarkov mode basically.
@@Stratigoz well sometime, when you lucky enough that the shot not hitting a vital area ( so maybe in the stomach, enough to cause heavy bruise but maybe no broken bones or collaspe organ )
I don't know if you been hit by a baseball bat in the head, but man.. it'll make your ears ring in your head hurt like a MF
I joined the Marines in 1992 and was issued an M16A2 in Recruit Training. It was the only rifle I carried and shot in my 20 yrs and 20 days on active duty...Albania, Congo, Central African Republic, and I too was lucky enough to participate in the Initial invasion of Iraq in 2003. I was a SSgt then carried an M9. Despite my plea to be issued a brand new (at the time) Benelli M4 mainly because I thought it was soo cool, I was issued an Ole Colt M16A2. And thank God I was. That Shotgun would not have been very useful.....The only time I saw an M4 or an ACOG in Iraq back then was when some RECON dudes came thru. It wasnt until 2004-2005 that Infantry units were completely outfitted with them. And probably a year or so later until Non-Grunts were starting to qualify with them.
Semper Fi Brad! I went over on the USS Boxer out of San Diego with the "Special MAGTF" 3rd MAW, RCT-1, with some AMTRACS. In country I was just south of An Nasiriya.
Very excellent video. As the M16A2 Rifle Development Project Officer (1980-1983), I really appreciated your objectivity. Lt. Col. Dave Lutz USMC (Ret'd). I wonder of you have viewed my M16A2 Program interviews with the Institute of Military Technology?
Sir, what a pleasure to see your note! I remember reading about your project when I was in Army OD BOLC. If you ever have time and an interest to talk, I'd love to learn more from you about the development process! Our email is 9holereviews@gmail.com
Thank You For developing this rifle .....its a fine rifle that saved my life on multiple occasions. I appreciate it.
@@m26_lemon_grenade55 M26 you are very welcome Marine!
I would love to see an interview between you guys.
Two questions sir: 1. How does it feel to hear a bunch people say that the m16A2 was unnecessarily developed or developed in the wrong direction? 2. Did you think that the M16A2/A3/A4 was going to stay in service for another 30-40 years after your involvement?
Went from the A2 to A4 in the USMC. We always started our zero procedure with a new rifle or a new rack number. With a mechanical zero. Counting the clicks from all the way to one side, all the way to the other side and then going back to the middle on both windage and elevation. With the front sight flush. And then built our BZO from that mechanical zero.
This is how I learned too.
That's how Paul Harrell was taught to zero his M-16 in the Marines.
1) Flush your sights. 2) Put on your mechanical zero. 3) Shoot and zero at 25. 4) Confirm your zero at 300. 5) Make final adjustments to your zero as needed at 300. 6) Actually... that's it.
Semper Fi my brother same here! 1st. Batt. 3rd. Mar. Div.
@@MissionaryForMexico Kill!
i do the same on optics and write it down...i case i get lost spinning dials..not all my stuff has zero stops
The thing I love about this channel is showing how effective iron sights can be at 500 yards. I love shooting like this.
I, as well. AR15 A2, M1 Carbine, 1903 Springfield, and my favorite M1 Grand. Iron sights for all shooting at 100, 300, and 500 yards.
I can hit a 4" group at 150 yards with the stock carbine. So much fun!
@@rondoway123456legend
That’s because it’s a practical shooting distance when using iron sights for general use beyond I wouldn’t even bother engaging with iron sights and especially with an intermediate caliber it’s just not effective and pointless alongside it’s a waste of ammo
and even 1000
@@BPzeropoint iron sights are not effective at 1000 meters or yards it’s pointless u gotta be able to see the target plus all of the other factors Comme in so no ur wrong
I am of Vietnam veteran. This is one of the best “Educational videos” on the M 16 that I have ever seen.
It is obvious that the man knows what he’s talking about.
I remember the M16A1 vividly when I was in the Singapore army. It was very easy to hit a figure 11 at 100 yards but the problem was the night shoot. The wider aperture was easier to acquire a sight picture but very difficult to shoot accurately. Nevertheless, M16 was an awesome piece of equipment and I trust it with my life to protect both myself and my buddies to the left and right of me.
Salute
The A2 will always hold a special place in my heart. The precision you can achieve with the rear sight is quite remarkable.
The M16A2 was my first issued rifle. I read horror stories from Vietnam about the M16's lack of reliability. I was surprised to discover that the reliability issues were almost completely corrected since their early adoption, and an M16A2 rifle will continue to run if you apply enough CLP and if you clean it regularly and as needed. I only had a single malfunction with an M16A2. Something in the fire control group failed when I was qualifying on the rifle range in Okinawa in 2004. An armorer was notified, and he corrected the issue in less than five minutes. I managed to just snag an Expert Rifle badge that time.
As an American I kinda like how we have a base on Okinawa. If we didn't Japan and china would be at war there already probably just because it's an interesting strategic position
@@TheAnnoyingBoss you should learn history, instead of saying stupid things
@@hoppinggnomethe4154 I know it’s a hard life to live with your affliction but your condition can be controlled if you just remember to take your dickhead pills.
Mine only failed with a BFA attached
@@hoppinggnomethe4154 he's an American, did you expect more?
There just something about an M16A2 that I love. It looks so cool.
Even though I’m more of an M14/M1 Garand guy, I agree with you the A2 slaps.
Ya the rifle silhouette is pretty much iconic now. Instantly recognizable.
It is the subconscious attraction of "Blackhawk Down".
@@kiwigrunt330 its a crazy true story though and how grueling modern combat can be.
Retired from the Marine Corps back in 2002. Truely appreciated the M16A2 and the M9 on your side as back up. Using SS109/M855 with the 62 grain bullet. It is to this day an excellent light weight rifle.
Superb discussion by both Henry and Brad on how critical the operator's competence and confidence are to the overall effectiveness of a weapons system. This suggests that more time on the range, behind the sights, is probably much more beneficial to most shooters than is adding the latest and greatest gizmo to one's rifle. Great job! #newslettergang
Thanks man! Kit is important but the operator is the one pulling the trigger!
I always say that a starting competitive shooter should buy a basic rifle of the type they're going to be using, and spend the difference between that basic rifle and the top line competitive rifle in ammunition for practice.
Experience over equipment every time.
Time on the range with a specific rifle is definitely more important than a specific optic or even specific rifle. I spend most of my range time with an M1 Carbine, and I'm way more accurate with it compared to with an AR, which is an objectively more accurate rifle. I've just had more trigger time with the former
Very true. My personal opinion is that most units don't spend nearly enough time on the range. Beyond just doing qual, more practical shooting in more realistic moving combat scenarios is needed. I would bet that most units only shoot maybe twice a year at best (other than perhaps certain combat arms units).
in 1995 I qualified for the first time with an M16A2 and despite how completely beat my rifle was I remember how easy it was to hit those 300 meter targets if you just did what they told you to. I still shoot an A2 style AR out to 500 yards with the carry handle, it's such an easy rifle to shoot and the sights are great!
I still remember the absolute shame I felt qualifying marksman in bootcamp. I couldn't wait to get back to the range when I arrived at my unit. I ended my enlistment as a 3rd award expert, but that pizza box I had to rock after bootcamp still haunts me!
In 76 MCRD Parris Island, S.C. they were calling marksman badges Maggie's Drawers.
Never understood that.
I was high shooter for my platoon and then range instructed for the 2nd at Lejeune.
Maggie’s drawers (slang for underwear) refers to waving the flag from the target pit for a miss.
All the time I was an instructor I never asked and never heard!
Makes sense now.
Maggie liked 'em red too!
I felt the same when I qualified sharpshooter. When I went to the Fleet I shot high expert.
After that I got to be a range coach. I helped a fellow Marine who had never qualified first time through shoot high marksman, a few points shy of sharpshooter. One of my best, sober, day's in the Corp.
Now that I think about it, I had an A1 in boot and an A2 in the fleet.
On that front sight note, that's why I love zeroing my irons where the target is above the sights. Almost as a lollipop. That way when you get past your zero distance, you can still see your target. Works great with .22's for squirrels, and .30-06 for larger game
Does that mean you're zeroing for a 6 o'clock hold?
Same here. With handguns, almost every fixed-sight pistol made now is zeroed to hit where the front-post dot is on the sight picture. I hate that zero. I much prefer the 6 o'clock hold for all iron sights.
@@KikiRevenge essentially, so at 100 yards, the whole of the target is visible. Then at 200, the target is slightly obsessed due to raising the front sight for the elevation. The added benefit, especially with the .22lr's, when you use subsonics, you just hold a standard hold, instead of the 6 o clock.
@@isiahhendrix5651 I was taught this by an Army instructor, and it really gives you a much better sight picture once you get used to it. It's also how a lot of military sights are design and you get better results out of them as a result.
Interesting. Is there a tutorial for this online? Would like to try w a backup rifle
You can get a bit more velocity with a 24" barrel, but that gets unhandy.
Friend of mine was getting 3500fps out of his 24" barrel with 55gr. Was almost kicked off a range because that rifle was drilling holes through a steel dueling tree target at 200y. Proved that his ammo was not steel, and that the range had put a pistol rated tree on the rifle range.
@@chadhaire1711 reloaded with Varget. And a bit under the max load listed!
@@chadhaire1711 I don’t know where you got your numbers, but they’re wrong.
@@chadhaire1711 …in your fantasy world. 55gr M193 is commonly available is ~3,270 ft/s at the muzzle on a 20” and well over 3,300 ft/s from a 24”. Then there’s also Independence 193 that’s ~3,350 ft/s from a 20”. I bet it would be close to 3,500 ft/s from a 24”. Not sure if the current production lots are still loaded that hot.
@@chadhaire1711 55gr at 3200 out of a 24" barrel sounds like .223 Remington load data. 3500fps is still a hot load for 5.56, but not extraordinary. M193 gets 3200 from 20" test barrels, so the extra 4 inches of barrel length probably gets you to ~3350-3400fps without changing the load at all.
Very good to know: (🤩I’ll check for 22in upper online)
That's a very true observation you made about confidence and competence. Once you shoot out to the upper ranges of a rifle and hit point targets repeatedly, anything inside that range feels like a chip shot. Shooting to 500 unsupported in Boot Camp, learning what "right" felt like when it comes to stable positions, and having no real formal markmanship training up to that point (open mind), really allowed me to excel in any closer range shooting. I think not having shot much as a kid and not having presuppositions about what the M16 is capable of, was vital to me absorbing and applying the information I was taught during Grass and Range Week.
Something completely alien to me is the way some of my friends who have never shot past maybe 100 or 200 yds think 500 yards is "long-range." Last year I took 2 deer at 220 yards with my M16A4 clone w/ a 4 power ACOG and put them down where they stood using 62 grain TSX. To some of the good old boys I was hunting with, they thought this was a very impressive feat, but being so used to shooting off hand at that range from the age of 18 onward, shooting with the rifle rested felt like cheating! There's maybe 1 or 2 inches of drop at that range: point and shoot.
Sorry I keep piece-mailing comments as I watch the video!
One thing that drives me crazy about the "well Eugene Stoner said..." crowd is stuff like this. Stoner was an engineer NOT a soldier. He's far from the end all be all of how to fight with a rifle.
Yeah I understand entirely where people are coming from, but it's always irked me (and I know many of my GWOT brethren) that the M16A2 is talked about like it was an abortion. I have had great experiences with my issued rifles, and it appears that many guys who served during the M16A2 days agree that it is a rifle worthy to depend on.
I say this with respect to Eugene Stoner, his contributions along with J Sullivan are crucial to developing one of the worlds most used weapon systems.
@@9HoleReviews For sure..He made a great rifle without a doubt..It had its drawbacks at the beginning...But it's like everything else. It's one thing to design something. It's another thing for real world use.
I mean, he wasn't a soldier.
He's a Marine.
Granted, a flight mechanic, so the point still stands.
@@classifiedad1 as aMarine, he was an Aviation Ordnanceman, so he dealt with plenty of weapons.
Gotta give props to Josh for looking directly into the camera during debrief, despite looking at image of Henry of himself probably being easier. It really brings the feeling that you are conversing with the man, although when he doesn't talk it's a bit like he is staring right into your soul)
yeah josh has a good setup, I need to really tweak mine. His face shows up on the side of my recording camera here.
@@9HoleReviews i think it's good either way. It's about content (which is great) anyways
Every minute of this video is good advice. Thanks guys. I attended U.S. Army boot camp in 1972. (Ft. Dix NJ) We zeroed our M16A1's at 25 yds, and they said it was good for 250 yds, We were instructed to never touch that zero. We then engaged random pop up full size OD green silhouettes out to 300 yds. Almost all of us qualified as "experts' during final range qualifications. The same applied at our permanent duty assignments. I have just completed a mil-spec USMC M16A4 20" HBAR build and sighted it in with those standards. It hits fine at 500 with the expected elevation adjustments. I watched this video to help me refine my adjustments. Thanks!
Love my 20in M16A2 clone. It's what I use for CMP Service Rifle competition. Even though optics are allowed now, I still use iron sights. It's very satisfying shooting a 10 on the 600 yard target. Gotta use the right ammo though, at least 77gr for 600 yards.
I took the 29 palms MTU match cmp rifles out to 1000 during the 2019 high dessert competition and beat 2 out of 4 rifle shooting teach guys that showed up with the allowed optics. These irons really were pretty good for the time
I have never been happy with anything heavier than 69 grains in my A2. Yes the 69 grain really made her sing but heavier increased the time of flight and arc in trajectory to levels that I objected to, no competition just field work.
@@davidmilisock5200 you need the right tools for the job. In Service Rifle or Mid Range 600 yard competition you need something to cut through the wind and reach the target accurately and consistently. 77gr is pretty much the bare minimum out of a 20in barrel with 1/7 twist. Some sanctioned matches don't allow use of the lighter cartridges. I recall the match program for the Service Rifle match at Marine Base 29 Palms specifically prohibiting 55gr because the rounds drift too much.
Many competitors will load of 80, 85, or 90gr .223 for the 600 yard slow fire stages. Too long to load from magazine so you load single cartridges using a single shot sled in place of the magazine.
@@jobervelasco8614 Sir, is there any benefit shooting heavier bullets out of shorter barrels ? Ie, 14.6, 16 and 18 inch ? Thank you for your comments.
@@groundpounder8373 you wouldn't gain anything. You'd actually lose a little bit of performance over distance as the shorter barrel will give you less velocity and a heavier projectile will drop more as it flies towards the target thus giving you less effective range. The heavier the bullet the more you'll have to lob your rounds to the target.
The USMC 500yd B Modified target has a man shaped silhouette that measures 40 inches tall and 20 inches wide. The outer box is the general area target. When shooting with irons at that distance, without a spotter, but with the help of men in the pits marking your shots, you will be able to adjust windage and elevation accordingly. This is great for learning fundamentals of marksmanship and putting the theory into practice. You have to hit within the paint to qualify, so saying that the target is the size of a jeep is a hyperbolic statement which misses the mark. That said, nice show, gents.
Sort of, the scoring really depends on the era, when we were in the military in the 2000's you collected 2 points every shot you landed on white. The large, well-contrasted target does a lot when you compare to the poorly contrasted green 300m targets that the Army shoots. What the B-modified does do very very very effectively is build that confidence for the marine, a confidence in the weapon that I've never seen the Army effectively build.
I can attest that my time as a Marine we shot sitting, kneeling, standing at the 200 and 300 yard targets. The 500 yard course of fire was 10 shots prone.
Our Marines snapped in to get a bzo and then adjusted the rear aperture for each section of fire. You had no spotters and had to make your own wind calls based on the socks at mid field and at the target.
On top of this each course of fire was timed.
The rifle is 100% capable and during my time 2000-2005 there wasn't one rifle that had a optic.
I was issued a M16 203 as a squad leader so when in the rear I had to start all over with a different rifle and get my bzo before qualifying again. Regardless the 20" m16a2 was a good rifle but would have been easier on us to have the M4 as we spent alot of time in buildings or engagements withing 300 yards. Also I never used the 3 round burst.
Take care- Semper Fi
@@travist2844 That's one thing we should have mentioned that the USMC course does do well... it teaches marines how to work with wind. That's a crucial part of becoming proficient with a rifle.
Someone on a TH-cam channel said something hyperbolic as a joke to make a point?
QUICK, SOMEONE NOTIFY SCOTLAND YARD!
EVERYONE, QUICK, FACT CHECK THE JOKE!
Holy shit, man, turn down the autism and learn to take a joke.
@@9HoleReviews Just a heads up. The new course of fire has us shooting at man sized threat targets from the 25 out to 500, start at 500 then 300, 200, 100 and 25. 200 and 100 are movers braced off a barracade. 25 is headshots only. Then there are three drills, failure to stop, box drills and failure to stop while moving. The only thing that scores are hits to a sapi sized "home plate" in the chest and a small coffin in the head.
Went to basic in 2015 and was issued a FN M16A2 from the 80s if I rember right and I was able to qualify with 40/40 (Army qual). It is an amazing rifle and would take it over an m4 any day. I struggled with the m4 and its iron sights, and even the CCO's.
Great video. My dad used the A2 during his time in the Army in Bosnia. He has nothing but positive things to say about it. I used the A4 when I joined the USMC and our 500y target really did give us confidence in our rifles
Semper Fi, Mac.
DOUGout
A4s are junk.
@@mikedegnan5252
What is it about them that makes them junk?
Just curious, I've never handled one.
@lrk2051
Why would they hate that? The thing about the carrying handle that sucked was when you put a scope on one it was so high you couldn't get a cheek weld, I don't understand why someone wouldn't want a detachable carrying handle.
@@dukecraig2402 old people are set in their ways.
I first qualified in Marine bootcamp with the A1, and for the next 2 subsequent request. I was a consistent sharpshooter (middle grade). Then we got the A2 and I qualified expert for the remainder of my career. We named the A2 "dial-a-kill".
She's a beautiful rifle. I was genuinely saddened when I could no longer avoid transitioning to the M4. I want my 16 back.
As for the zero, if you knew what your zero was, and we were supposed to memorize it, you could dial that zero into a new rifle and be on target the first shot. I did that every time I got a different rifle, when switching units. It worked perfectly, good enough for combat, and going to the range with that new rifle just let me dial it in a little more accurately. The idea that a good soldier would mess with their zero is just crazy.
I was a Navy instructor on these weapons during the early 2000s. I'll be honest, I loved it. Zero to 300 and you're "minute of man" at basically every range out to that. The shooting demo at the beginning demonstrates this perfectly.
the navy used m16a3's
The Marine Corps Primary Marksmanship Instructors knew that while our training programs first two phases taught the necessary fundamentals it didn’t cover close quarter battle skills. And even though the 3rd phase was Field Firing that portion fell on the shoulders of the units. And for the most part was never taught or practiced with any degree of regularity.
And so it wasn’t until after the start of GWOT that developing a ciriculum and teaching those skills became a vital priority.
Table 2
Rifle shooting is not gunfighting. Gunfighting is not rifle shooting. Survival is a balanced mix of both with a healthy dash of luck!
@@davidmilisock5200 yep.
We knew that. But trying to build a course to teach those skills faced many obstacles.
One of which was knowledgeable and experienced Marines who could design a course. And then get it blessed and made doctrine. And acquire all the material assets to support that type of training.
At the start of GWOT the only Marines who might have been classified as Subject Matter Experts / Instructors in Close Quarter Battle were a very small number in Force Recon, Recon Battalion, or Special Operations Training Group; aka SOTG.
The premier SME’s would have been CAG, or Dev Group. But they had a full plate already. So it wasn’t like they would have stopped what they were doing to run any train the trainer courses for the Marines to churn out CQB Instructors.
One thing to add that is important, we (Marines) were shooting that 500 yard target without any support except with the sling around your arm in the prone position. In boot camp in 1983, I was issued a A-1 and qualified with it. Can't remember when we were issued the A-2. Great video!
We were still using the old A1 in boot camp in late 1984. My unit got the A2 in 85 I think.
I used an A1 in 83 for boot. I think it was late 84 or early 85 before going to the range in the fleet and used an A2 at that time. But my duty station was at Pendleton.
I was in Boot Feb. 86. We had A-2's Semper-Fi
@@seanbb4896 Semper-Fi Brother!
In gamer's word,its a 'skill issue',not the fault of rifle itself.
One of my friend who were part of so called 'youth camp'(Malaysian PLKN program circa late 2000s) actually love the rifle and its simplicity when it comes to zero the rifle are what made him one of the best marksman in his unit and were given a special certificate to be able to grab M16A1/2(depend on army stock) from an army reserves alongside some spare ammo when in event of war occured.
Thank you for the insight.
In 1987 at Parris Island I scored a perfect 50 at the 500 yd line with the flu (and a handful of Ibuprofen) . Just missed out on series high shooter by 2 pts. Locked up meritorious PFC for me. The A2 will always hold a special place in my heart.
Being sick in the Air Force basic training was Rrrruff I can't imagine what being sick in marine boot camp must have been like but you keep quiet and move on so you don't end up in sick bay and. get set back😮😮
@@tommyjenkins7453 Exactly. no one wants a recycle or to be one.
I honestly do not think I have been as sick for so long except in ft lost in the woods misery in Oct of 07. I also qualified expert every time because my issued fn a2 was fantastic. My nose bled and bled and the sinus infection plus jock itch plus cellulitis from tick bites before shipping out made it 10 times worse. Good times
These rifles were such sweethearts to shoot. I was issued one when I joined the Guard, at the time my unit had yet to recieve M4 Carbines. My first drill, fresh out of AIT was also my first AT. For those not aware, AT (or Annual Training) is a 2 week exercise. My first experience out of AIT was showing up to first formation, getting told to go draw a weapon and gear and get to my truck. I was handed a box full of brand new equipment and this beat up old A2. Day six, we went to the range to do our rifle qualifications. I zeroed the A2 in 3 shots (they made me shoot 10 for posterity) and in one iteration walked off that range with Expert. I continued to use the A2 til 2018 when we geared up for our first deployment, when we were issued M4s. Ever since then, I have been shooting high sharpshooter. There was just something about thise A2s that made them inherently more accurate. Maybe the longer barrel, maybe something else. But I miss my A2 so much. No matter how much someone tells me the M4 is better, I will always yearn for my old girl.
"Let your NCO's fix that problem." LMAO. The little smirk on Henry's face is priceless.
Plausible deniability. It's the officer's best friend and the NCO's best "training" device.
“I just asked him to solve the problem. The problem was the sights getting set off zero, what did you think the problem was? “
hearing a (former) Coy OC say NCOs, Fix That Problem gave me bit of a chill
In USMC Boot Camp 1979, I remember on qual day, I hit the 500 yd. target 8 out of 12 shots. This was with the M-16 A1.
Having done both the USMC and Army quals, the former didn't exactly prepare me for the latter, both have their challenges but the MC course, looking back, did give me more confidence in my rifle, and the Army course gave me more confidence in my own ability
What sling did the Army let you use and were you allowed to rest the barrel on the sandbags? In 1993 USMC we used the 'Loop' sling in bootcamp then switched to the 'hasty' sling from then on. I hated the loop sling. It felt like a Tourniquet.
@@dohc22h We didn't use shooting slings and there are both prone supported (rested on a block) and unsupported. I found the blocks to be annoying so I shot all prone unsupported. USMC boot in 2006 we used loop slings and I was yelled at for doing a hasty sling
@@dohc22h They had us using a loop sling when I qual'd in 08. Yea, it did feel like putting a damn tourniquet on, but it was really stable. I still use a two point sling for shooting now, but I use a quickadjust system to get it really tight on the shoulder for stable shooting now instead of taking the risk of giving myself pack palsy. lol
@@Animo2006 You sound like a competition shooter.. I mean, I can see the attention to detail in the way you worded your description. Do you teach Marksmanship?
@@dohc22h I'm not a competition shooter. I'm just an enthusiast who shoots/trains/drills often. The foundation of my training comes from experience in the Marines and I try to keep my skills sharp and improve them as often as possible. I'm nowhere near the best shooter out there, I just try to be better today than I was yesterday. I have taught marksmanship on a basic level to a lot of people to make them consistent and accurate shooters within realistic distances.
I used this same rifle in Afghanistan, I loved the m16 great for long range shooting.
For CQB I just short stocked it. I'd put the stock over my shoulder. And hold my hand over the rail. And used my thumb as a sight for small rooms.
And I had the acog and side mounted iron sights. Iron sights were great for indoor shooting if the room was large enough.
I would flip my rifle to the side when I short stocked and used the end of the barrel as aiming reference. I find it to be like point shoulder shooting with a pistol. Just fine for in close.
Always wondered why they planted the thumb now i know... thanks👍
Love this video. Brings back a lot of memories. Good info and history. I love my rifle. Another thing to consider in regard to barrel length is muzzle blast turbulence. The 5.56 projectile is greatly affected by unburnt powder grains and muzzle blast. This is reduced when a more complete burn is allowed in a 20 inch barrel. Thanks for your awesome work.
The way things are is comically short barrels right now, but particularly with bone-stock off the shelf 5.56, that 16-20" barrel is a much better length. With regular irons, Army quals are pretty trivial. Maxing out 40/40 still takes real skill. We had a fellow that was limited from promotion because he couldn't max his rifle. He could get 35 or 36, but never close to 40. Sooooo my PSG asked me to shoot next to him and "take out the hard stuff". I doinked down enough that he got 40/40 and walked off the range with most of a mag of ammo, while I *still* qualified on my own lane.
Barrel length is VERY important BOTH for effectiveness on bio targets AND gas impulse! the old CAR-15 suffered from bolt bounce and carrier wobble BECAUSE of the faster gas impulse affecting reliability especially in rapid fire! MID LENGTH is the way to go with a AR style Carbine.
I went through Army basic training in 1989 at 17 years old. We had M16 A1s and were only "shown" an A2. Even the National Guard unit I was in didn't get A2s until a few years into my 6 year commitment. I prefer the A2 rear sight over the A1.
It's been since 91 that I had the chance to hold an A1. But wasn't the elevation only done with the front post? If that's correct then I can appreciate the A-2 being adjustable from the rear site.
@@josepheller8395 correct.
@@josepheller8395 You zeroed both rifles' elevation the same way, but the A1 had 5 detent positions on the front sight post. A2 has 4. You needed a punch or cartridge tip to dial the A1 windage wheel, but it turned the shaft the same way an A2 windage knob did. I carried a tool that could dial both style front sight posts, as well as the A1 windage wheel.
Once zeroed, both rifles were treated and employed the same way, never using the elevation wheel on the M16A2 to dial trajectory. There was an alternate 37yd zero with offsets to use for better effective point blank zero range, but by the time people were talking about it, we had been using Aimpoint Comp Ms for many years.
@@josepheller8395 Yep. Preferred my A2.
@@LRRPFco52 thank you for the info. I was in the air force so we only qualified with the rifle then never picked it up again. I believe things have changed since then.
Thank you for this video. Army Basic Training in 72, was where I learned how shoot. I have to admit it was tough at first, probably tougher for my DS then me. I did make it through that experience. I will never forget that part of the training cycle. Quite sure that my DS was happy I made it through. During my 20 years, I carried the M16A1 and till this day have the highest respect for it.
My main rifle was a M16A2/M203 I served 86~2006 qualified high expert every year, iron sights Recon Marine. For patrols , I bought civilian mount for carry handle and put a Simmons 3~9 adj power scope on it, the mount allowed use of iron sights, made a leather & foam cheek rest for stock. Used a old VeitNam issued snap on bi-pod. Made a cover for scope while mounted out of bubble wrap and riggers tape.
Last comment. The A2 front sight post is 8 MOA. 0-200 the sight will cover a man sized chest/torso. Aim center mass to hit. An experienced rifleman can use the front sight as an improvised range finder. A2 is a fine rifle
My introduction to aperture sights was 40 years ago at Ft. Sill for artillery basic.
I was hooked. Presently, all my rifles are equipped with aperture sights. I'm as good to 200 yards with a proper aperture as I am with a 4x scope.
Your presentations are the perfect blend of history, instruction and entertainment.
Many thanks to you!
Confidence in your skill and equipment is PRICELESS!
Thank you for talking about quartering your front sight. I taught myself to shoot, and I've always done that with my iron sights. And anyone that goes to the range with me look's at me like I'm some sort of freaking weirdo for doing that instead of messing with the windage. And I just don't want to screw around with my windage adjustments so I just thought that was easier and didn't know it was really a thing, but I was like it works
yeah man if you have good front sights with a good width, that's a much more simple method.
I feel you my man. Zero the rifle and shoot to the conditions. You always know what to expect when you pick the thing up.
I remember when they called holdover Kentucky windage. I always divided my sight and used hold over to adjust impact. In those days they said it was wrong to use Kentucky windage, but I was more confident with hold over than making sight adjustments for windage as I went back from 200-500. Of course I set elevation for distance, but unless there was a significant wind value change I left my windage alone.
The only way to shoot! Hunting, the game doesn't wait for you to change your sight. In combat, afterwards if one thinks about it it's hard to remember what sight picture you used!
The adjustments in the sights other than the major ones in range are so if I pick up your rifle I can put my "dope" into it and fire it . Mine was 8/3 -2 I remember it to this day. It's about how you look down the site and your eye relief and cheek on the stock.
In the CA National Guard OCS, I remember a Captain who put on a demonstration of the M16A2 in which he could shoot the head and shoulder targets at 650 yards! I was amazed by his skills, and immediately had more respect for the M16A2! Thanks for an excellent video! Your insight and information is much appreciated!
I went to boot camp with an a2. The dust cover was worn out and wouldn't close anymore. It was an excellent weapon for its day.
We used the M4 Assault Rifle
@@TheInfantry98 I carried the m4 as well as the M16 a4. The m16a4 was a step in the wrong direction in hindsight In my opinion. Marines have always had a hard on for max effective range. I look forward to hearing reviews from the new generation with the iar and the 6.8 rifle. From my position, we gave up ammunition capacity for accuracy and terminal performance. It's great on paper, but sometimes suppression fire is the best thing you can do. I guess the next war will determine the results.
@@andyd2960
I hope you and I are incorrect in that though. During my time in Iraq (03-04) I was packing 14 rifle magazines and quite a few pistol magazines too. Out in small unit elements as few as 7-9 personal without close backup units with in a hour or more time. My last deployed to Iraq in 08-09 my backup was at least a hour plus to respond. I was leading a squad of 14-17 personnel then, a few times I was really glad for the AH-64s flying around and available to help.
An interesting perspective, it seems that the M16A2/A1 had the potential to do more in its base configuration but due to the training regime at the time its potential was seldom capitalised on.
Terrific video, as usual. I love the good information, subdued music and humor... so much easier to watch than some channels that think every video has to be a comedy special. I love the A2 platform. And good shooting!
One note: I believe if you watch the entire Gene Stoner interview in its context, you see that it wasn't actually Stoner who came up with the idea about soldiers messing with their sights being a problem. He is recounting what the Army told him, back when the M16 was being designed. He says, at that time, they wanted non-adjustable sights and he pushed for adjustment with a tool or some deliberate effort, in other words, what we got with the A1. I think, when he gets to speaking about the A2, he echoes that whole conversation, saying if they didn't want easily adjusted sights, they sure wouldn't want the A2 sights.
That being said, I agree with your comment about the history of US service rifles. If adjustable sights were OK on the 1903, M1, M14, et al, how can they be a big deal on the M16?
Peace.
Thanks for the kind words man. This is a topic we get comments on quite a bit too. Honestly I think that interview has done a lot to bring us context to the system but has also confused us a bit.
What you said is partially true. Stoner did initially submit a sight system close to the A2 sights, but also agreed with the Army's A1 sight decision, HOWEVER does talk about the A2 sights being a mistake for the excess adjustability.
-at mark 33:50 of that video : th-cam.com/video/6bHXspji8Lk/w-d-xo.html (time stamped for your convenience.
"there should be a sight to be put on there that could be adjusted by some difficulty, but just zero it in and don't ever make an attempt to change it in combat"
" [Stoner pointing at the M16A2 sight] this became a very poor choice... I know how it got there, because the people in charge at the time were all team shooters (or what we call target shooters)..."
"... and they decided that this was an excellent opportunity to make the weapon a more of a... ahhh... target rifle than a combat rifle"
7:53 Range cat is unimpressed by your views on the USMC range rifle targets.
Another phenomenal run by Henry. Pretty sure the only way I could hit a 500y target with iron sights is by walking out to it and throwing the rifle at it.
Haha I’m with you. I tried shooting to 100 yards on A2-style irons just yesterday, and sure.. I hit the target, but my grouping was all over the place at around 8-10” LOL (I suck). I’ve got to 500 yards once with my AR, but I had to do it with a 1-8 LVPO. Irons? Ya forget about it hahhaha.
You could do it. It's almost 0% skill and almost 100% just following your PMI instructions.
If you can't shoot well, it's because you weren't taught well. Anyone can shoot out to 1000 yards with proper instruction.
Also, while habits are hard to unlearn, it's never too late.
@@Ranstone if you can't see the target, you can't shoot the target.
@@Ranstone As Raifsevrence stated so eloquently, if you can't see the target, instruction isn't doing much. My distance vision is poor. Even my old man had better distance vision in his 60's, than I had in my early 30's.
@@JustinStrife
Well, we trained with ACOGs anyway. A 4x does wonders. (ACOGs are also the most crystal clear optic I have ever looked through.)
This is by far one of the greatest videos you guys have ever done . This turning point from pre9/11 to a post 9/11 Marine Corps is sadly ignored . Great stuff
Well said friend AMEN.
For those that served around the time it would be interesting to hear from a wide variety of Marines as to what changes they saw and survived.
@@stevewilson7819I'm from the "old Corps" back in 93-97 and a difference I noticed is the 'new Corps' Cammie Blouse went back to the slanted Vietnam era upper chest pockets
@@dohc22h yep. And no pockets at the bottom of the blouse so you could tuck it in to the waist of your trousers if you were rappelling.
I graduated from recruit training in May 1980 and we still had some of the Vietnam issue light green pattern camouflage utilities. And sateen green covers.
When I retire in 2003 we had Mar Pat and rough coyote tan Belleville boots.
Gore Tex wasn’t even a thing until 1987.
@@stevewilson7819 Upgrading the utilities (Still think from a practical standpoint a combination of a flightsuit and utilities would have made a better option), boots (thank f'n god for that one, but also a shame there werent as much "authorized" boots to use. We got to field test a few in Pendleton at and some versions were like wearing sneakers with hardened outsoles and were very comfortable), swapping of weapon systems and basic training. Changing of the PT uniform (and I think they are trying to do a new one now) I think was an ongoing thing as I was in and when I was leaving.
One thing that was hilarious was Marines having to get Army issues in certain areas due to a lack of supply or lack of issue.
In Canada at the annual Small Arms Comperition in Ottawa we regularly fired at 500m with our 20 inch 1/7 C7A2 Rifles. We did use the 3.4 magnification ELCAN optical sight. You can easily hit a man size target in 10-15km. cross winds at 500m if you know how to adjist your sights windage. What impressed me at the time was the USAF Sgt with a 14.5 M4 and ACOG keeping up with our C7A2 scores at 500m. That little 62 grain M855/C77 ball round can do the job as long as the shooter knows his rifle. Great video guys.
I served 2004-2008 with the (Marine security forces, 2/8, and 2ND combat engineer Battalion)with the Marine Corps deployed to IRAQ 2007, I also served with the Army 82nd 2-508 PIR deployed to Afghanistan 2011-2012.
Qualified expert 3 times with the M16A2 shot expert with the Army numerous times with the M4 Carbine w/ACOG. Please let me know if you guys want to hear any of my stupid stories.
I absolutely loved this video and agree with everything you guys discussed. It touched my heart hearing from Brad. Thanks guys. Seeing you in the Tie and ACU top was an abomination but I loved it!
I was in 1-505 PIR, Afghanistan '11-'12.
We used M16A4 with iron sights in Ramadi Iraq in 2006 and 2007. When you hadn't had red dots yet, and you didn't know better, you didn't feel disadvantaged. Also, many red dots back then were not as good as they are now. Heavier, shorter battery life, etc. I liked having the adjustability of the rear sight, specifically elevation adjustment. never used the night aperture either, and we never adjusted windage after zeroing. The Front sight post is for zeroing in elevation, the "windage" knob is for zeroing laterally. After that our only adjustment was the elevation knob and Kentucky windage. I could adjust windage at 500m visually with the second shot easily when i was shooting more often.
Interesting take on this. When I joined the Marines in 1983, we were still using the M16A1. Some of which my platoon had Vietnam era serial numbers and many of which had barrels that needed replacement. It wasn't until 1984 we started to get the A2's which I liked much better due to the rear sights. Even though I qual'd as Expert with the A1, it gave me fits as you had to make your adjustments with a round or a nail. The A2 was something I easily adapted to. My score improved from low 220s to 230 and it was more durable than the A1 with the improvements. When I heard that the Army then the Marines were adopting the A4 I was stunned. With the shortened barrel length, you're talking about a 50m (54 yards) drop in accuracy and a 180 ft/s drop in muzzle velocity (3190 ft/s to 2970 ft/s). I'm sticking with a 20in" barrel. What many may not know about is the Philippine Marines have taken the M16A1s we sold to them and trained some of their shooters to hit targets up 800m. Even with a scope that's a tall order for the weapon they're putting to use but it justifies having the longer barrel.
I was issued a XM16-E1 made by GM HydroMatic Division at MCRD SD in 1983. Boy, that weapon had a lot of rounds put through it.
Sadly I can believe that you can have idiots fiddling with the sight settings. Some units don't issue out weapons to individual soldiers anymore. They just hand them out almost at random out of the armory each time they train with weapons. You can get a well maintained weapon or a weapon with caked carbon from a year ago.
Exactly why the AK47 did NOT have an adjustable gas system
Only in the Army. In the Marines, those are well-cleaned and inspected by the armorers. You're never going to find a weapon with caked on carbon.
If it wasn’t sighted in by the person carrying it, then fiddling with the elevation is as likely to put it on target as it is to move it off.
Echo 479
I think that you have hit the target on that some... some of the "dog and pony Army B.S. of the 80s" the white glove inspection B. S. I seen in some units of F###ing commands having to have everything "dress right dress" to the point of setting sights to mechanical zero, cleaned, dry of oil and spotless. 100% equipment layouts, into the 90s I seen more than a few P.O.S. E-7s and up doing this S###. Even when shown the regulations, tech. manuals and field manuals that it was incorrect that was the only way for them.. I seen so much equipment destroyed by over cleaning than from use, from using electric drills and wire brushes in rifle, machine gun barrels cases of brake parts cleaning cans and boiling water with parts "Simple Green or Purple power cleaner" to get units firearms spotless.
@@DB-yj3qc this is BIG FACTS. I got out in 2019. The standards for "clean" m16s and m4s in the army is absolutely ludicrous. Windex, hot water, scouring pads, bleach paste, whatever it takes to make a 20 year old rifle look shiny
I have a Colt A2 HBAR, which was the first rifle I ever owned. Was a birthday gift from my dad. In the Army I used the M4a1 that had the three round burst recievers that were converted back to Full. I absolutely love the A2 rifle. I wish they would make more of them on the civilian side.
You can easily put one together.
Theyre available, actually not hard to find.
I've also got my origional Hbar from back in the day ( 1987).
While in the Marines we carried the A2, with 3 round lowers.
@@thefrogking481That's awesome
Man this got me feeling some age. I was issued a m16a2 in 2004. We did our qual and all the high expert shooters got the new ACOG and the A4 handguards. Then we had to shoot the KD qual course again and get PEQ-2s sighted in. Ramadi 2005 everyone got the A4s and ACOGs. Then in 2009 a lot of us weapons guys got M4s and PEQ-15 felt like SEAL team 6 with our M4s.lol Then in 2010 got the M-27 or the IAR. I loved the jump from the 240G to the 240B got to chuck the flex mount. We still used the m22 tripod. Afghanistan 09 and 10 the eagle plate carriers were cool.
I think it's still important for new soldiers to train with Iron-Sights. We know that Red-dots and optics (LPVO) are part of the standard equipment. But in the same way that GPS exist and we use it, every soldier must know how to navigate with a map and a compass. The same would be training with Iron-Sights.
Thank you for this video.
My basic training was using the A1. As the years continued and the A2's took over I remember being told to basically leave the A2 sights alone and pretty much ignore the 3 round burst ;) I was confident with irons to about 300 (back when I could see). A much bigger issue back then was worn out guns and magazines, rather than the rifle itself.
Cold War Era Marine here. Please refer to former D.I. Luis Caballero’s post, below.
I seem to recall reading that the Corps had changed some of the quals. for the K.D. Course in the nineties. Maybe that explains the remarks about the 500 yds. targets being “Jeep-sized”. But in my time, 1977-1980, we shot at a “man-sized target”. I never found out the exact dimensions of it, but while servicing targets in “the pits” I made it a point to compare its height to mine. I stand at 6’2”. The top of the target’s head was almost level with my eyes, a little above. So that target represented a man less than 6’ tall.
Nice video. It's really very remarkable that the original specifications for what became the M-16 was a lightweight jungle carbine effective to 300 meters with a full auto feature. However if you add a good barrel with a one in seven twist, a free float tube for the hand guard a good trigger, and run heavier 77 or 80 grain bullets you can easily clean a two MOA competition target at 600 yards. Mr Stoner came up with a brilliant design.
I could not agree more. With modern CNC manufacturing, bolt and barrels made to match it's not uncommon to see the AR15 in 5.56 NATO, 233, 223 Wyland 6MM ARC and 6,5 Grendel shooting 1/2" groups.
@@davidmilisock5200 Dont forget 6.8 SPC and 6mm Hagar. Carl Benoski won a NRA national high power championship with an AR based rifle 6mm Hagar. A well done AR can be every bit as accurate as a bolt gun. I always felt 223 Remington was a bit anemic for military work, but Im no expert. AR's are fun to shoot. No wonder its the number one selling rifle in the US.
@@DrCarl88 I only mentioned cartridges you can get from a factory and did not mention the 6.8 SPC as it's an effective combat and hunting cartridge but its BC and SD are not conducive for longer ranges. It's funny that the Wyland is available, but others are not.
@@davidmilisock5200 you are right for an AR platform 6mm is your best bet. I ran Berger's excellent 105 grain hybrid in my 6mm Hagar for 600 yards. Crazy accurate. You really are limited by what will fit in the magazine well. We would load them beyond magazine length and single load them in competiton at 600 yards. It will be interesting to see if the Army's new 6.8 mm round takes off. It could be a game changer.
@@DrCarl88 As a custom target cartridge it has promising stats, 80,000 PSI pushing a high BC/SD 6.8 projectile sounds interesting. As a combat rifle round combination the rifle is all wrong. WAAAY to heavy.
Commenting before watching the entire video:
I was making headshots at 500 yards with my M16A2 service rifle on Parris Island in 2002. It is an extremely accurate rifle that can shoot farther than you should be engaging targets.
In 2004 I deployed to Iraq with my M16A2 with iron sights and engaged targets at roughly 75 - 100 yards, on average. Point being that it wasn't until I was in Afghanistan in 2012 that I ever attempted to engage targets out to the maximum effective range of a rifle (we had M4s at that time), and in a combat environment, at those distances, it's best to use the M240 or M2 anyways.
Whelp, hope this video is enlightening; just thought I'd share my unsolicited opinion prior to watching, because that's what the internet is for.
Cheers.
I think you'll really enjoy watching this video, Brad talks about his time in the corps (around your era) using the A2 in combat too. Thanks for checking in before, I'd love to hear your thoughts after the video!
@@9HoleReviews
Wow. Well done, gents. The quality of this video is on par with professional documentaries; highly commendable.
First thing I noticed, with regards to comments made about the rifle itself, is that every time I was thinking something, Henry said it in the video. From the fact that the USMC Bravo "man-sized" targets are actually the size of Brock Lesnar to the 20 inch barrel being more "flat shooting," everything I was thinking, Henry stated. So well done being thorough and hitting all the pertinent points - it's obvious that Henry has experience with this rifle. Also, me being a knuckle-dragging Marine, his humor is on point and had me laughing.
Now on to the interview with Brad: according to his timeline, we were in Iraq at the same time and must have been ships passing one another.
My first deployment was Feb - Nov 2004 with a little-known infantry unit called Small Craft Company; we had boats and primarily patrolled the Euphrates and acted as a makeshift weapons/line company (we had M240s, M2s, and Mk19s). We were involved in Operation Vigilant Resolve (aka "First Fallujah") as well as Operation Phantom Fury (aka Al Fajr, aka "Second Fallujah").
Brad's statements on iron sights and the PEQs were 100% correct. The Marine Corps was broke as a joke and we all knew it. My unit convoyed up to TQ (Al Taqqadum) from Kuwait, towing our boats, in Feb 2004, with A2s and A4s, in Humvees which either didn't have doors or had heavy steel doors held on with 550 cord and sandbags layering the floors. We had NODs, which we had to have on our person at all times, but didn't have batteries for them. I, as a LCpl, bought a lot of my gear, such as a Camelback, drop magazine leg pouch (worthless), extra mags, and replacement mag followers (priceless). Despite these shortcomings, our SLs had 203s, our PLs had ACOGs (those were highly envied), and we even had access to some pretty sophisticated (for the time) night and thermal equipment. For example, we had a giant floodlight with a night cover which allowed us to shine an infrared light so that we could all see under NODs (not that we could accurately engage, but we could at least see).
When we arrived at TQ, the 82nd was RIPing out, so there was a period where Marines and soldiers were on this big base together - that was the first time I saw "Gucci Gear." I saw a female soldier carrying a M4 with a PEQ, Aimpoint, and flashlight; I went up to her and asked her what her MOS was. She gave me some number and when I asked what that was she responded, "Admin." I also remember soldiers having stickers on their rifles - one female had a sparkling unicorn sticker on her buttstock. That was my first interaction and impression of the Army.
During that deployment, however, I also got the opportunity to work with Army SF and Navy SEALS - now THEIR gear was Gucci! That was the first time I really became jealous of other rifles and gear and began to realize how under-equipped we actually were, but I think it was mostly just gear envy. Luckily we were fighting an enemy even more under-equipped, but I would hate to think of how we would have fared against a more technologically advanced enemy. Among my unit there was almost a Luddite-like cynical opposition to having nice gear. I, among others, were labeled "Gear Queers" for having extra gear that was not issued to us. Marines pride themselves on getting the mission accomplished with as little support and tools necessary; anything extra is considered extravagant and worthy of mockery.
My second deployment to Iraq was with RCT-8 (The Ocho) in Feb 2005. During that deployment I was sent down to support L Co., 3/4, in Fallujah and Husay Jumayla (western outskirts of Fallujah across the Euphrates). During that deployment I was issued an ACOG; HOWEVER, I did not have the opportunity to zero it. As a result, I found myself zeroing the ACOG during the sporadic firefights we found ourselves in, making adjustments with a dime I kept in my pocket until it was "good enough."
There's an excellent line in the series _Generation Kill_ about how the Marine Corps keeps its lower enlisted in a perpetual state of angry so that at a moment's notice we will be eager to kill a person. This was true during my experience. Have NODS but no batteries. Have vehicles but they're slow and lack doors. Have a determined enemy trying to kill you but your 1st Sgt is yelling at you for wearing white socks which are not authorized in your uniform.
Keep up the work, gents. It is truly impressive how you turned a "simple" "review" of a rifle into an educational story.
Cheers.
USMC 2002 - 2007
Iraq 2004 & 2005
Civ Sec Contractor 2010 - 2013
Afghanistan 2010 & 2012
@@Johnny_Cash_Flow thank you for your service, sir
@@darryljames6403 Thank you for my service.
Cheers.
@@Johnny_Cash_Flow No way you're a Marine with that type of grammar and eloquent writing. Just kidding, that was very insightful and is priceless to those that has never been in that type of environment. Thanks for sharing, and as the others have said, thanks for your service.
Another benefit of the 20" barrel compared to a 14.5" is that if you're back in the Stone Age, pre-2005, in the U.S. Army was the sight radius. We weren't using optics when I was in so all we had was our irons.
Listening to this Marine talk about how he and others have ignored the rear sight and not even aiming with it in CQB makes sense now why the GWOT Marines I talked to dissing red dots
A2 is definitely a iconic rifle in my option I was 11 years old when the invasion of Iraq happen and I remember watching all news channels of the army and marines getting into firefights with the enemy and clearing houses and building with the A2. Which for a eleven old kid who was into military weapons at the time was crazy since it had a longer barrel compared to any AK's that insurgents were using at the time. Eleven year old me thought that it was the most badass rifle to have specially having a M203 grenade laucher on it. Which for a little kid at the time was cool. I do think the A2 was a definitely superior rifle ,but wasn't in it's best elements being made for more open and long rang fighting then a closed quarter fighting in a city,but hearing how marines in fallujah were able to use a ACOG scopes pair with the A2 which was a deady combination from what I have read and watch about that battle .If I had no other rifle then a A2 I would feel pretty comfortable using it to defend myself .
As a Marine PMI, holder of both the Distinguished Rifle, and Pistol Badges. Also NRA Highmaster Class shooter, and Pistol Master Classification I take issue with the statement about Marines hitting a Jeep at 500 yards.
The reason the E Sihouette is mounted on a 6-6 foot white screen is because the shooter needs to have some sort of idea where his rounds are impacting so they can make whatever elevation or windage adjustments you need to get hits. And only hits on the silhoutte counts for points.
Brads comments are all pretty much spot on! About Marines messing with sights I can tell you that Stoner was…..wrong! About Marines playing with their sights. That’s a case of a person who is an engineer and not an actual end user talking out his ass. But with his status his words carried lots of weight.
About the case of the military being in a state of disrepair after 8 years of Clinton is dead on.
I personally brought and upper receiver assembly equipped with a Trijicon ACOG TA-11 to Coaches School and had Marines shoot the Unknown Distance Course with my upper and they all said we needed those. In an after action report done after the initial invasion in 2003 it was documented that rifles equipped with ACOG was a combat multiplier.
I also spoke with a Marine Gunny assigned to Systems Command in Oct of 2000. He told
me that he had tried to get the Corps to purchase and field ACOGS. But when he went to his boss who was a general the general refused because he was more worried about Marines breaking the sights. The point of all this being that there were Marines working to drag the Corps into the modern world. But Marines holding the purse strings stood in the way.
my favorite is the laughing about the forward assist. "But it has a scallop on the bolt". Yup and stick your thumb on that when you need it the most and you'll have to draw on your fingerprints. "But you should clear the obstruction". That's great for a stuck case, but what about some tiny piece of carbon in the receiver slowing down the bolt. You gonna strip the weapon and clean it under fire? So stoner and his fan boys can actually gain some combat experience. I don't see them rocking only 602s.
Is it common place for the enemy to stand in front of a 6ft by 6ft white screen so you can make adjustments for range and wind as you shoot at them?
@@zoiders if you knew anything, then you would know that the USMC uses other courses that don't have a "white screen" behind it
@@ranmarsh8271 I am fully aware of what a zero shoot is. The Marines are using it as a scored shoot for marksmanship ratings though and that "if you knew anything" is contrived bullshit.
Remember how SECDEF Rumsfield was mocked when he stated the simple, brutal truth that "You go to war with the military you have"?
Stoner was a WWII Marine, so his observation may have been based on Marines who were hastily trained in wartime.
In 1984 in Army basic, we were still using the M16A1, we transitioned to the A2 before I got out and it was a nice improvement. I still love both rifles.
I was in from 1988-1996, Army. I believe we had the A2 version my entire time.
In 91 I had the A1 in basic and the A2 at my permanent party units.
I preferred the shorter stock, triangle handgrips and the simpler sights on the A1 vs the A2
So serving in the Canadian army we were constantly yearning for the Americans kit, as much of our stuff would've looked great in a Vietnam war flick. We switched from using the C1 (FN FAL) battle rifle in the late '80's, to a Canadian licensed Colt C7 (an A2 with full auto instead). In the mid '90s we got rid of the iron sights and switched to a picatinny rail system with an Elcan 3.5x scope....to finally after all these years learn that we had one piece of kit before the Marines, wow a morale boost after all these yrs, lol.
The M16 style rifle is my favorite style of AR. Its how the platform was truly meant to be used in my opinion.
I remember my first Qual at Pendleton with the A2. Great instruction on the sighting system. If you did your part, it was easy to walk away expert, even on a slightly foggy morning. Great video.
Henry, you are 100% correct about the 500 yard training/qualifying breeding confidence. I really wish more people understood this concept. 300 yards being the comfort zone of the rifle versus the perceived outer limits, makes the difference in the Marine/Soldier being effective in the 200-300 yard engagement range.
The Army still trained at extended ranges, it just wasn't part of their doctrinal qualification.
I was USMCr 1984-1992, Desert Storm, non-combat MOS. Qualified expert with A1 in boot and later also with the A2. I preferred the A2 mainly because of the improved rear sight. I agree with everything you've said. I was and am confident and competent with the rifle, and I have passed on those skills to my two non-military sons.
Were you trained to aim the A1 at the top of the target at 500 yards? We were told the A1 models Front Site Tip were off slightly at 500 yards and the solution was to basically "fill" the target completely with the front site tip to hit center mass.... The A2 didn't have that issue... Center Mass all day.
@@dohc22h In all honesty, I don't remember regarding the A1 in bootcamp at 500 yards, but I do remember making front sight post adjustments as distances grew. That said, at that time and with front sight post adjustments, the aiming point was probably center mass or six o'clock.
Ah yes the AR-15A2 was my 1st introduction to the AR family when I was 12 years old. My dad still has it 32 years later. I still love the the A1,A4 and M4 but they will never be my 1st love and I can still rock the A2 at long range better than the rest except for the ACOG equipped A4. I still love going out to the range with dad and he holds his own for 65 years old. It's the best when he is feeling good and teaching tricks. He knows how to rock the A1 and A2 better than most. Sometimes I get to teach him new tricks. Go shooting with your friends and family's and enjoy yourselves. Keep up the good work.
I trained with the A1 for basic military training in Singapore in 97 and then issued with Colt commando later after posted to recon company. Both are pretty accurate up to 500m. Still achieved marksmanship with the short barrel Colt which I'm pleased because of the $200 incentive that came with it. Those were the days....
I think Eugene Stoner really was ahead of his time in regards to the design and modularity of the AR-15. That being said, others have come along and truly made that rifle what it is today. The engineers at Colt and the hundreds of companies and people that took the AR-15 design in the civilian market really do need to be given just as much credit for continuing to advance the rifle into the future. From continuing to advance components like stocks, grips, and optics to innovative ways they have built them over the last 15 or so years. I would also like to add that, a study from 2014 showed that it was taking US forces around 250,000 rounds, per enemy kill in Afghanistan. Thats with an M-16 A4 or M4 with a ACOG optic on it. So, I’m pretty sure Eugene Stoner’s comments about heavier barrel on the M-16 A2 wasn’t drastically going to change anything in regards to being combat effective one way or another.
@Zed Kay You could swap stocks Pistol Grips Handguards and uppers with a screwdriver.
@Zed Kay I'll say that it wasn't until the mid 90s and early 2000's where the modularity truly exploded. But yes, it was much better in terms of future proofing than pretty much any other rifle ever made
Could’ve sworn that was the average in Vietnam. Since they had less training time and were susceptible to spraying and praying. That’s why the A2 and onwards used burst up until recently in Afghanistan. That’s why even most M4s have “Burst” stamped over with an X and AUTO right below it.
I can't help but wonder how that study was conducted. Was it "really" just looking at infantry rifles? Or was it perhaps looking at every other small arm that also fired bullets (SAW, 240, .50 caliber, minigun)
Not even Vietnam's bullets-per-enemy KIA was that high.
@@ndx6779 I've also always wondered about the specifics of that study. I'm no expert, but it comes across as kinda extreme
Great video Captain. I'm a Army veteran. Probably same time frame you were in, 83 to 89 for me. I love the A2. I've got a few different setups at the house. I trained on the A1, a old H&R M16A1 in boot camp. Anyway, I never messed with my zero either. I would flip the rear sight though, 0-2, and small hole. I really like your explanation of how that sighting system works. I was very young back then, 17 yo. I was really just trying to get through the day, whatever task I was doing, sad to say, without much thought behind it. I would love to train under you. I love to shoot. It's my happy place. Great shooting by the way. I just qualified as marksman. I'm sure you are a expert. Thanks for your service Cap.
In my annual qualification with an M16A1, I was able to possible at 500 yards on KD courses in imperial units and at 500 meters in metric KD courses. The rifle is a tack driver. BTW: I am very myopic and wear thick glasses.
I would love to see you guys run the Canadian Forces service rifles - the C7A2 and C8A3 - and comment on the differences between them.
Our rifles are Colt Canada-built with CHF heavy barrels. The C7A2 is our standard rifle with a 20" barrel and a 3.4x ELCAN scope, the C8A3 is our 15.7" carbine commonly used with a EOTech.
Due to the high manufacturing quality and CHF barrels, the C7 is capable of fantastic accuracy - while the C8 gives up some velocity, due to barrel harmonics on the 15.7" length (and the addition of the 40mm GL mounting sleeve), it is MORE accurate than the full-length rifle at all ranges, except the extreme limit of practicality with the 5.56 round.
Semi-auto civilian versions are available - the Colt Canada SA20 and SA15.7.
Would LOVE to see this and so would many of my fellow Canuck shooters!
The clip at 30:34 is wild, I have seen war footage but that clip really gave me the feeling of my stomach dropping. These young men breaching into a staircase where they can hear chanting, where they knew an enemy they shot was previously there. That really takes some real balls to breach that with those 20 inch rifles.
that would have been one of those "room clearing by hand grenade" instances if it had been a year or 2 later
That clip was part of a longer video I saw a long, long time ago. Those Marines were hearing fighters on the inside repeating "God is great," and would very soon get the hell out of there. It's been ages, but I think they leveled the building once they cleared from it. What weapons they employed to do so I cannot remember. Again, it's been forever.
I’m not going in there! “FRAG OUT!” is all you’re hearing from me.
@@KM-fckutube you can’t just throw a grenade into a room full of people without first confirming who they are. That sounds like a quick way to get up in Leavenworth.
@@MrZachgonz already know who's in the room by the chanting. And I have Men with me that have my back, not pussy snitches.
Brad's episode on 9-hole Review Podcast was hilarious! On how he kept pulling the pin out of grenades to protect himself.
He really should have painted the stupid thing gold and announced the presence of the holy hand grenade whenever he needed to part the seas of iraqis.
I thought of it as Mutually Assured Destruction on a micro scale....it is a very effective means of controlling an outcome in your favor
As a lefty shooter I was sold on the A2 simply because it had a built in brass deflector. I never could get one from the Arms Room when I had an A1 and ate brass all the time at the ranges. Q: Why did you not use M855 spec ammo on the course, as that is what the A2 was engineered to use? Also a comment, if you repeat this could you do it at actual ground level? Shooting from an elevated position is not what was done at range qualifications. Great video, thanks!
Oh I'm looking forward to that speedway run!
Thank you for you work on the sight picture diagrams. They are very helpful for people who don’t have the long range iron sight experience.
I was in the Army Guard. In 2014 I took the Squad Designated Marksman course with the M16A4 (my unit had the M16A2 until 2019 but we never went anywhere).
We shot iron sights one week at 600 yards down to 100 yards. After going through this course, the 300 meter target looked a lot bigger. So Henry makes a great point in the confidence to make hits at 300 by practicing at 500 (or 600 in my case).
The fact that this video dropped the day after I finally got my A2 clone built just validates my love for the platform. Went all the way through basic with the old musket and still had them when I got to my first unit in Alaska. Favorite rifle to this day hands down.
Good stuff man. I'm working on mine myself. It was my Dad's service rifle.
@@kangaroo4527 hell yeah brother. I have an A1 clone I did in honor of my dad. 20 inch rifles are just so enjoyable.
When I transitioned to NG from active, we were light infantry with A1s fitted with A2 handguards. Let's just say many UA magdumps were done during live fires, so sweet. Late 90s.
Absolutely awesome, sir. I was a sdm in the army infantry and did 6 tour over 3 deployments to Iraq and Afghan. I started to get pulled in to your videos in researching a m76 build and really liked your take on things. It wasn't till this video I realized your skills. Nice job with the thanksgiving day prop, Marksmachan!
Oh maaan using the M-16 as a measuring stick for 1m just had me burst out laughing LOL. That’s the most American way to help do conversions in our head HAHAHAHAHA. Just lovely. I love these debriefs and the occasional banter. I just love how many experts you’re regularly able to get of any given the particular rifle to come in and chime in. Super educational, interesting, and entertaining. Between this and Forgotten Weapons, we are just so blessed with these videos from people with so much varied upbringings and backgrounds.
I agree and and disagree with Stoner and Henry on the A2 rear sights:
1) You don't want your zero shifting in a combat zone, no matter how that happens.
2) Training builds confidence, which can translate to greater combat effectiveness.
3) There is nothing inherently wrong with both the A1 and A2 rear sight design, but they each have their own benefits and drawbacks.
In my opinion, the best way to solve the Marine Corp's problem would've been to swap the existing A1 aperture set with a version calibrated for 500-yard targets instead of the usual 300-400-yard that the standard aperture came with. This would've been more cost effective while still meeting the Corp's training goals.
In my opinion, I love the A1 rear sight for combat rifles, specifically because it can't knocked out of zero (intentionally or otherwise), and it's simplicity makes it a lot more rugged than other rear sight designs. The A2 rear sight is fantastic for general shooting, because you can use both the battle-sight-zero method and dialing for distance, without changing any hardware, depending on your circumstances and/or preferences. I have an iron-sighted AR that I use for hunting that has an A2 rear sight and it hasn't failed me yet...but I have bumped both adjustment knobs out of zero (been witness-marking all of my iron sights for years).
1. The only aspect that could affect your zero is the front sight post and windage the former is pretty hard to do and the latter is rather tight you with pretty audible and tactile clicks and is pretty much impossible to accidentally knock out of zero.
2. Shooting at 500 is a form of training, as well as confidence building. Shooting at range allows the shooter to train with other outside factors like wind as well as show him that his rifle is capable of shooting past 300 yards.
3. The A1 was an incredibly flawed design since it only had one range setting which was 300 yards and was far more cumbersome to zero. The A2 on the other hand fixed pretty much all of these issues I think the only way it could have been improved was taking away the windage wheel and make it a flat head screw that was click adjustable with a cartridge case.
4. Well the A2 has a lot of improvements over the A1 like the brass deflector, A2 rear sight, furniture that didn't constantly break, no POI shift from a hot barrel as well as the A2 compensator. The only negative about the rifle was the 3 round burst however that wasnt the Marine Corps' wacky idea it was Colt who lobbied the Marines to include it citing test results from the Army's tests on burst fire rifles, and saying it would save money on ammunition and increase hit probability.
@@nemisous83 -
1) That's only true on the A1 sights; the A2 sights have exposed and finger adjustable windage and elevation knobs...unlike the A1 sights. My original point was that shifting sights in combat is unacceptable, and that some sighting systems are more prone to shift than others. I've seen A2 sights get bumped out of zero; sure, it was rare, but it happened. I've never seen an A1 rear sight get bumped...ever, and I shoot iron sighted AR's in competition a lot.
2) Okay...? I didn't say anything bad or critical about training at that range. There's both good and bad aspects to training at longer ranges or training at more realistic ranges; either way, training is important.
3) The A1 rear sights actually had two apertures, one was a 0-300 meters and the second was 300-400 meters. The design intent was that the soldier would do 90% of their shooting using the 0-300 aperture, but would only use the 300-400 aperture for those rarer extended range targets. A1 sights are really easy to zero with the proper tool, they're $10 and sold at literally every surplus store...oh, and pick up an A1 technical-manual for another $5 and do some reading.
4) Sure, some of the other improvements made on the A2 made it better to shoot compared to the A1...but I was talking about their sights exclusively. So, I'm not going to waste my time talking about the rest of what you said.
I own a Windham MPC which is essentially an M4 in civilian clothing. This video is very useful in helping me as a civilian shoot my rifle better. I never knew the difference between the rear sights. Thanks to this video I do now.
Tremendous work guys. How can we make the M16A2 catch on as a unit of measurement?
Obviously this standardization will help harmonize the world as a giant step for world peace
We can also shorten it and just write "15M" instead of "15 M16A2", that would be more convenient, I think
Saying I'm about 2 M16A2s tall sounds way more interesting than talking about how many "feet" tall you are.
@@cristianespinal9917 I don't think it will catch on in America though
@@tedarcher9120 Not when it was "meters" and "metric". But now that we're using freedom units and M16A2s, and the rest of the world just happens to use something similar to us... I'd say there's a chance.