Am I the only that thinks all 3 series of M16s where amazing? The A1 had that iconic hand guard and just screams Vietnam whenever you see it. The A2 was a classic during the 80s and 90s. And the A4 with that pic rail and ACOG was the work horse of the war on terror.
@@mausermongerkoziczkowski8104 Military equipment is usually over used as fuck. The stuff I used in training jammed, the stuff I used in theater was squared away and reliable as can be. If you never went into theater you were using mag springs with 10s of thousands of rounds through them probably
Eugene Stoner thought most of the A2 "upgrades" defeated the purpose of what they set out to do in creating a lightweight, intermediate caliber(so accurate in full auto), high volume of fire weapon for use in targets within 0-300 yards/meters where you can actually see it through iron sights. the only thing he liked was the handguards bc it increased efficiency by using one mold.
So what, Stoner can be wrong. The only thing the A2 lacks over the A1 is full auto, which doesn't apply 99% in the military and hardly at all to civilians. Drastically better sights, especially the 2 sized apertures and square FSP, better twist rate barrel, better hand guards, shell deflector, better stock, reinforced lower. Weight wise my A2 clone only comes in at 8 oz heavier than my A1 clone.
@@NoQuestions4sked I'm just saying what Stoner said. He thought that the idea of the m16 was to be able to fight against the AK which had 30 round mags and full auto. in jungles full auto is way more useful because you can't even see your target or where it is. the military found that in engagements with the enemy (not 1 vs 1) volume of fire was the most critical important factor. the idea was that the guys would get pinned down somewhere and would not be able to put out enough suppressing fire to keep the enemy's heads down while they advanced on their position. the military specified when they were testing rifles in the trials that the rifle should have select fire capability to match the AK. they trials also specified that the rifle be light weight, hence the pencil barrel. when you say "better twist rate" that is subjective. for instance the original 55 grain projectiles acted like a hollow point because on impact they pitch and yaw and tumble apart, imparting all of the energy to the target, rather than zipping through them and continuing for another mile, only poking a hole in them. the higher twist rates like 1:14 and 1:12 were actually optimized for the light projectiles. the gun itself is capable of shooting very far, but was only ever realistically used in a military context out to 300-400 yards, and the 55 grain tended to have better wounding performance and a higher velocity. he thought a lot of the "upgrades" they made with the A2 were in direct contrast to the original purpose of the rifle and made it more into a target sports rifle and less combat effective. full auto is deff not worthless like you say it is. all the trashing of f/a is just civilians attempting to cope with the lack of availability.
@@NoQuestions4sked 1:12 twist does significantly more damage to soft targets than a 1:7 twist, combined with shitty M855 that’s why soldiers complain about the 556 being underpowered. The A1 didn’t have this issue. A1 is also lighter and has much simpler sights. It’s a combat rifle. Not a match rifle. The A2 sucks
@@NoQuestions4sked - So what, You Are Definitely Wrong! Just because you quote the specs we are supposed to think you are the be all, end all expert? Hahaha! Get da F@CK outtahere! Stoner was right, and he always will be! Signed, US Army Infantry Combat Veteran!
I grew up on the M16A2 in the Marines, and loved it. I had no problems at all with its accuracy and reliability. My only complaint was the burst feature. I believe replacing the auto for burst was a punishment for poor training. Rather than limiting the Marine to three rounds, proper techniques to train the Marine to control each burst would have been appropriate. Sometimes, a mag dump is in order, and forcing the operator to repeatedly mash the trigger 10 times to keep the enemies head down while your buddy advances is lame. It's interesting how the burst feature is either being implemented in conjunction with auto, or being replaced in lieu of auto on new rifle platforms.
Unit 1058 I say they should have a 4 system selector, with safe, semi, binary (one shot with trigger pulled, one shot when release) and then full auto as well. Give the guy options I always say. What do you think about that as Marine
I hated the burst trigger. Luckily for me i was a 45B and had the parts to change my A2 trigger out with an A1. Much better pull on semi when i qualified. A2 sights were better so i always maxed out my scores.
as an Air Force Security Specialist, we were issued M16A1 slick sides left over from the 60-70s. looking back, i was glad i wasn't paying for the ammo when you can dump a 30 round mag in a second or so. i loved that gun so much i went ahead and built my own AR15 clone with a 1 :12 twist pencil profile barrel, carry handle upper, rifle length gas system and A2 butt stock. You Can't Beat The Classics. #LetsGoBrandon
@@predatorjunglehunter7332 then due tell. I have experience with both, so if it’s not for the trigger, what is it? Automatic fire sucks, unless it’s used for suppressing.
II went into the Corps in ‘80 (1st summmeer of PLC). Used and qualed with the A1 until either ‘85 or ‘86 when I then qualed with the A2. Was in the Air Wing then and only saw it at the range. I immediately liked it. Around 1989 or. 90, , I bought a Colt Sporter Target model. Basically the A2 without the burst. Still have it.
I have used the M16 and the M4. I definitely prefer the M16. I was a Cavalry Scout with the 101st so we were issued M4's as they better served our purposes but I still would have rather had the M16. It has superior accuracy and can reach out to 500 meters while the M4 only reaches out to 300 meters effectively on a point target.
As a left-handed shooter... I thank you for the deflector! It's very cool to see who was behind the changes to A2 and why. I love the carry handle rifles of old. I'm building an a1 clone, but I fully plan on doing an A2 also.
People are impressed when I tell them that as a Marine we would use the M16a2 at 200, 300, and 500 Meters with iron sights to qualify. AT&T long distance tapping for the aggressor.
I buy and sell premium grade binoculars. 500 meters is pushing the limit what the eye can clearly see and define, especially if it's trying to hide or is shadows.
My basic training was with the M16A1 then when i was in country i recieved the M16A2, we were some of the first ones to recieve the new M16A2 that the Army were issued. I was in the U.S. Army in 1983 in 536th MP co.in Grafenwoth Germany.
If David Lutz is still reading the comments : There's one thing I've always wondered about firearms designs ; how do you compute everything to properly design them ? For example, I've got no idea how to compute the felt recoil curve, or what's the barrel's heat transfer coefficient in order to have an idea what could be the sustained rate of fire. Do you have any suggested books to take a look at which questions the engineers generally ask themselves, and then which models/equations they use to find the adequate compromises ? Best Regards and Thank You for your Service
We got the M16a2 in the summer of 84 after we got back from Beruit,brand new in the box so to speak .The weapon was a great improvement over the M16a1.Only bad part was the 3rd burst
The very first items I purchased after serving as a Corpsman, 2nd MarDiv was a Colt AR15 A2 HBAR Match slab-side (no mag release fence), an Ithaca M37 shotgun, an M-1A by Springfield topped with an original Unertl 6x40 and a Colt .45 M1911. That's what I used then and know well. That A2 really shoots great. Puts the newer junk ARs (all Colts and one Stag) I've since bought to shame! For me, the A2 HBAR was and is still perfect!
It in no way puts a modern BCM to shame. The A2 is cool no doubt, and no dispute the 20" rifle gas and rifle buffer systems have the best impulse, but to say it puts the newer rifles to shame is an outright lie.
You asked: "...What about the heavy profile in front of the fsb? I was under the impression that the reasons for adding the extra meat at the front was in error...." Not in regards to preventing the barrel bending during dynamic bayonet fighting drills or banging against rappelling towers, etc. The Operational and Engineering testing proved the heavier profile in front of just behind the FSP was many times more resistant to being ben in our more aggressive training environments than those of the other services.. Now it is also a fact (now, established many years after this testing) that a burr on the gas port can act as a "scraper" of sorts and may cause a build-up of bullet jacket material that will cause the military's "barrel straightness gauge" to get hung-up in that general area. A bore brush and an electric drill can usually fix this. However, I noted more recently, that the copy of the Army 23&P TM on the internet directs Armorers to "re-bend" bent barrels over a bench so the drop gauge passes through. So maybe we have at least two potential issues with the drop gauge, "bent barrels", etc.The drop gauge used always "sticks" in the area of the gas port, so if the bayonet lug was used as a fulcrum in theory it might bend there. Never saw one "bent" any where else by using the drop gauge that was not grossly observable like if run over by a truck.I also remember being told that Colt originally used such a drop gauge after turning down the barrel blanks on the lathe, and if bent, they had a way to straighten them. Some Army engineer saw this in action and then insisted that such a drop gauge be part of the Armorer's gauge set.I have watched Colt turn down M16 barrel blanks (about 1-inch in diameter) in just two hard and fast passes and you could see the barrel bowing under the pressure from the carbide cutter.
David Lutz - First off, thank you for your incredible service to our country and all of your amazing innovations, which are still bearing fruit and helping soldiers to this very day. My question is, with the immense popularly of the AR pattern rifle today, have you considered starting your own business to sell them? Or possibly sell your own upgraded parts & accessories using your ideas & innovations? I think it would do incredibly well.
Man I gotta get one someday. I don't have any ARs yet. Got an M1a and other old military. Had the A2 in the Marines. sometimes I miss that rifle. More practical than the old wood rifles I have. But shooting a 1917 Eddystone in 30 06 is a blast also. I'd love to go pull butts on the USMC range once more. Of course I'd like to go for another expert award also! Yut!
When I reported to my 1st duty station ( armory at TBS, Quantico, VA) in '79, then Capt. Lutz was running the show. He was one of the finest officers I ever had the privilege to serve under in my 26 yrs. of military service. Semper Fi, Sir! Job well done!
Old school is nice but in all honesty I prefer the A4 because of the flat top rail. And i can still put a rail removable carry handle and A2 furniture to still look like old school if i wanted to. so it's kinda of win win for me.
Good to see LtCol Lutz. I wanted to come work for you at the Development Center after I left the Scout-Sniper Instructor School but ended up going to a CQB section. We then developed the 36 yard/30 meter zeroing procedure to replace the 25 meter/1000 inch zeroing for the A2.
In Eugene stoners interview about the a2, he stated that the marine Corp actually made the rifle less combat effective. His talking points were A. The a2 became more of a precision rifle, and less of a combat rifle. B. The addition of easily adjusting windage and elevation was a problem as accidental adjustments in combat became much easier. Btw, you can’t zero you rifle in combat, and this also added weight. Essentially the marine Corp thought they could improve upon a nearly perfect rifle. But what you need in a rifle is ease of use for combat.
Totally agree with you, they changed a rifle and it’s modern principles to fit their old static range practices, and not the other way around and adapted tests to the principles and concepts of the new weapon.
I mustered out just as the A2 came online. After watching this I wish the improvements had been implemented years earlier. Live and learn, right? I'll always miss the A1 handguards. It's a 70s thing, I guess. Semper Fi!
Every time I went to the field or on deployment, I would swap out my trigger pack for a full auto A1 pack. It only takes a couple minutes. Nobody was ever the wiser. To be fair though, in the 13 years I was in, I can count on three fingers how many times we actually used full auto or burst.
My Marine Officer Basic School class (TBS - H Co. 1984) was one of the first classes to qualify with the A2. I fired the A1 when I was in boot camp at Parris Island. I liked the A2. It was heavier and sturdier than the A1. We never used the burst feature. One of my more memorable times at TBS was when after a live fire exercise, they let us shoot up a bunch of left over ammo. We were shooting from the hip and doing lots of John Wayne type shit. It would have been great to have had the old A1 to shoot off a few mags on fully auto. I actually do not remember being able to fire the A1 on fully auto in Basic. Of course, as a LT at TBS, we were not nearly as regulated as a recruit. I was surprised that they let us just play John Wayne with hundreds of rounds of ammo!
Keep in mind, the A2 with burst was designed in the Cold War where you had to stockpile gear for massive amounts of troops - many of them conscripted through Selective Service and never proven in battle - to fight in multiple theaters. Since 99% of the military isn't using full-auto by doctrine at the rifleman role anyways, the burst feature makes sense - it's an emergency option only and it stops newbies from mag-dumping into oblivion like in Vietnam. For suppressive fire, you already had the M60 or M249 held by specialists at the squad level.
Col. Lutz is well-respected, but it's funny to me - after watching videos of Gene Stoner discussing the M16 - to hear that Stoner disliked the 3-round burst feature, the heavy barrel, the target-range sights, and especially the forward assist "Wheeler button."
It was very interesting when they both became part of the Knight's Armament family in the 90's, many years later... Col. Lutz was respected by Mr. Stoner as well. Eugene Stoner knew Col. Lutz was doing his job. Mr. Stoner just didn't agree with the job he was given.... Another interesting twist to the story is that Col. Lutz helped the development and adoption of one of Mr. Stoner's final designs while working at KAC. The SR-25, Mrk 11 and M110 variants where all programs that Col. Lutz had a hand in during and after Mr. Stoner's tragic death in 1997.
Had an A2 thru OSUT and 4 years of active duty infantry with the 82nd; got out, and still had A1s in service with our Vermont National Guard unit in '94... they were a blast to shoot, but almost to a soldier, folks did better with their annual qualifying with the A2. That's not to say the A1's weren't missed during summer camp, MILEs gear and all that ;) Thanks for the video.
The squared off front sight post, longer butt stock and 3 round burst over full auto are considered among many to be hindrances and not improvements. Other than that I guess he did ok. I wouldn't be bragging about it though.
Dr.Trollish the square front sight would be fine, if it wasn't thick as a tree. The burst is irrelevant to me, as I only use single fire. And the A2 stock, while admittedly long, and a bit cumbersome with a plate carrier, is tolerable. The one thing I really do not like though, is the 'govt" profile barrel... too much unnecessary weight at the muzzle..
Problem with the A2 trigger is that it "stacks" in semi-auto, due to the burst cam. It will start off with a nice 5-6lbs pull, but will increase with the next two shots (up to around 11-12lbs) until it resets.
I'm with you, M16A1e1 all the way the Canadian's got it right, accepted the handguard, 1-7 twist and brunton bump kept the original sight..set your zero and learn to estimate range and your holds.
I highly disagree that a 3-round burst provides "ammo savings" and that it's better than a full-auto or 2-round burst. The 3rd shot is essentially wasted since it's so off target.
I didn't see where he said why the twist rate was changed. I have read the change was because the M855 needed it, not the other way around. The M855 was developed for the belt fed M249, then the rifling was changed to match the new bullet. Great video, I am glad he shared it with us.
the M249 wasn't a concept when they were testing for the M855. common complaint from Viet Nam was 52 grain was too light of a projectile in jungle environment. to keep the M16 platform lightweight, the challenge was to create a bullet that could penetrate a WWII style helmet at 800 yards. wasn't stable in the 1:12 twist barrel of the current platform which is why barrel rates were dropped to 1:7/1:8 and 1:9.
@@keayrhyasen1154 first of all M193 is 55 grains, not 52. They switched to 1:7 twists for the A2’s because they started using 62 grain M855 which wouldn’t stabilize in 1:12 twist barrels. M193 stabilizes just fine in a 1:12. And the military never used 1:8 and 1:9 twists
For newer heavier Bullets. He states in a fuller Article on line, that he was originally going to go with a 1/9 Barrel, but a USMC Armorer (?) recommended he go with 1/7; just in case the Corps went with an even heavier Bullet in the future. Which turned out to very Prophetic, when in the 2nd Afghan War, Marines and Navy Seals switched to 77 gr Bullets to reach out across Mountain Valleys !
I think the changes were outstanding. I went through grass week in 1983 with the A1 at Parris Island in 1983. Once I was deployed I had the A2 and really appreciated the simple but effective changes to the rifle. Semper Fidelis 🇺🇸
so basically they added a pound of barrel, lengthened the stock and made a spongy trigger just to get something they could qualify easier with? GREAT CHANGES COL, THANKS FOR THE HARD WORK LMAO
The finest M16 in my opinion (and best looking). The A4 is about as good and makes it easier to install optics, if you want that. I have sold off all my AR carbines and pistol AR platforms and kept my AR15A2 HBAR with standard sights, AR15A4 HBAR with 1.5-4 x compact scope and Colt Enhanced rifle with 24" bull barrel and micrometer match sights. No need for anything else and there is nothing better.
Love this video. What is the name of the background music? In April 1987 I was introduced to the M16A2 at USMC Recruit Depot San Diego, and qualified expert with it at Edson Range, Camp Pendleton, California. At 500 meters in the prone position with a good/tight sling, I hit the target 8 out of 10 times using iron sights. We weren't allowed to use the carrying handle, but when we ran through the pitch black tunnel to and from the butts, we all ran using the carrying handle.
Good video, somethings from the A1 to A2 weren't in this video, one I'm curious about is to hear from him is the change to the A2 barrel profile. Maybe a Part 2?
I know this is an old post, but I can shed a little light on your question. Firstly, the flash hider was changed from the A1 birdcage to the A2 birdcage with the bottom sealed in order to reduce dust signature when shooting from a prone position. The barrel twist was changed from a 1:12 to 1:7 twist to stabilize heavier grain rounds, and the profile of the barrel was changed from a pencil barrel to government profile barrel due to reports of paratroopers landing barrel first and bending their A1 barrels. So partly it is due to strengthening of the barrel. The other reason is that pencil barrels heat up very fast, changing your MOA after the barrel gets hot. The government barrels are slower to heat up and thus give more consistent MOA.
@@GusFogle That's not entierly true. The barrels were doing fine, it was an armory issue of carbon building up near the gas port that caused a change in the barrel straightness gauges. The barrels were also sufficiently strong. The weight of a government barrel is also distributed wrong, with it all going to the front of the rifle. The profile didn't change under the handguard, the place that heats up the most, so in actuality you really didn't change enough to get a good POI shift difference. The twist change does make sense, but it should have been a 1/9 like they originally wanted, the 1/7 was to accommodate tracer rounds not being stabilized enough. The furniture changes were actually good. In my opinion, they should have gone with a C7 upper with the deflector like the Canadians, with the m16a1 sighting system, an a1 barrel and FCG, and then the a2 furniture and lower receiver strengthening ribs.
Compromise. Leadership at the time came from Vietnam and had a bad image of auto burning through ammo. Originally the A2 was slated to be semi only, but since this particular burst mechanism had already been tested by the military, it was shoved in as a last minute addition to keep some volume of fire in the hands of Joe.
It was the summer of 86 - I hit eight out of ten bulls with an A2 at 500 meters to shoot expert. Probably because the last thing I wanted to do was get put in an unq platoon and get bent for the next two weeks during mess and maintenance...
I remember when I was first issued my M16 A2 back in 1985 we had to clean our weapons as soon as we got them take all the packing grease off of them and they were inspected the M16 A2 is a very good weapon I would much rather have that than a M4 carbine I am M16 A2 with an m203 40 mm grenade launcher underneath and I'm good as long as I got all 40 mm grenades I can use
"Improvements", yeah lets take the best thing about the M16A1 (the lightweight) and ruin it. The front sight, case deflector, and ghost ring rear sight aperture were probably the best and only viable changes made to the M16A1. The adjustable rear sight gets knocked off zero too easily, its only good for KD ranges. We already know that the barrels bending was a myth and they never needed to be thickened, just added weight to the worst possible place on the rifle. The three-round bust was useless, ruined the semi auto trigger pull, and is now being phased out in the military (or at least the Army is going back to AUTO last I heard). And the A2 stock is too long for the majority of shooters, especially with modern body armor. I hated the A2 and A4, pigs of rifles for absolutely no reason.
I cut my teeth on the A2, then we transitioned to the A4. Once I got out I experienced the A1 ( or a clone at least) and was blown away by it's handling and weight (lack of). I don't mind carbines as long as the weight is kept low.
I may have sounded too harsh. My main grips with the A2 (and A4) is the thickened barrel and lengthened stock. Fix those two things and it would be a huge improvement.
Not An Argument. That weight is nearly a fully loaded 30 round stanag, most of which is hanging off the very end of your barrel. Between the two choices, I'll take an A1 profile barrel over an A2 any day. As to the A2 sights. I do prefer them, but agree that they need better retention on the adjustments. They 'self adjust" far too easily, especially when rubbing against gear.
Shouldn't have implemented the burst fire feature in the first place. Wasting ammunition could have been resolved with proper training and trigger control.
I have a windaham weaponry m16a2 clone and I ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT! the only thing I wish that was different about it, is mine has a removable carry handle. I wish it came already fixed to the upper. Not removable
While I really love some of the a2 mods there are some I can do without. First the positives. the case deflector, front sight post (bearing in mind my eons behind an a1) and the increased length of pull also the ease of the trap door opening. Now the negatives. the 1/7 twist was adopted to stabilize the NATO m856 Tracer round it is shot out/worn out far faster than slower twists. secondly the Burst fire function instead of full auto over complicates the trigger assembly and creates a horrendous trigger pull so the "ammo saver" turns out to be an ammo waster. the Marine Corps teaches long distance shooting ( which the Army should do more of) but the 1/7 twist also negates a lot of the lethality of the 5.56 round ( no tumbling). the longer length of pull is a very good idea. the handguards (a2 style) are a problem too. they do not dissipate heat nearly as well as the a1 type and they are hydroscopic. Now IF you have not signed the Hague accords or the Geneva Convention and can use say barnes x bullets in a heavier weight say 77 grains now you are pushing (somewhat) .243 Winchester territory ballistically speaking. all in all the a2 is a great rifle I prefer mine in a 1/9 twist. I,ll give the reader of my post three guesses why.
From experience, they really should not have made the rifler heavier or made the stock longer. Most people find the A1 stock to be a one size fits all and the 3 round burst was just poorly designed and since none of us ever use it in combat, it served no purpose. The select fire setting will always affect the semi auto trigger pull. Even today with M4s, there's been problems with M4s that have burst settings messing up. M4A1s that have full auto settings never have that problem. The stock's length should have been kept like the A1's length. That little bit of extra length makes it harder to work with modern armor with all the new stuff we have to put on. Back in the 80s when this thing came out, the gear was different, so a longer stock length was ok and everybody was using a bladed stance anyway. Today, we don't shoulder our weapons that way anymore
I loved the A2. First time shooting a rifle that wasn’t bolt action was in 99 at Ft Benning. First time shooting burst with tracers was even better. Never got to shoot anything full auto.
FYI GENTS, Re, the 3RB, Lt Col Lutz states in a rather lengthy & informative Article on line, that the Marine Corps "Bean Counters" (think $$$ !) were going to eliminate Full Auto ALL TOGETHER ! So he was able to convince them to go with 3 RB instead, as a Compromise !
It is a good looking rifle. I prefer the full butt stock. The problem with any air cooled machinegun is the fire discipline required to not to overheat the barrel. Three round burst is the way to go.
The AR-15/M16 invented by a Marine vet and the A2 was refined by Marines. During my time in the Corps the A2 paid it's dues and in my duties as a 8531 I pressed it's capabilities to it's full potential and trained many to become Expert marksman with it. When I hear Call of duty millennials complaining about the overall length of the A2 thru A4 20" bbl and weight today I'm like really?? it's not an M14 on M1 and still considered a carbine in comparison to other NATO class battle rifles in use.
“Improve” is a pretty bold statement. The A2 has some improvements, but in many ways is inferior to the A1. Yes, I speak from experience. I was for 25 years a US Army infantry officer. The first rifle I was issued was an A1, then I was issued an A2, my final issue rifle was the M4 carbine. The square front post was an improvement. The trapezoid delta ring was an improvement. The round hand guards was an improvement. The faster rifling was an improvement, but 1:9 would have better than 1:7, the closed bottom flash hider was an improvement, the shell deflector was an improvement, the dust cover port was an improvement. The over complex rear sight is a wash. Most soldiers can not take advantage of the improvements it offers. That was a target shooting feature, not a combat feature. The longer stock, the heavy barrel and burst fire were NOT improvements.
I thought it was the US Army that asked for an adjustable rear sight as we see the M16 today. A2s came out around early 84 as I remember them...w/ the heavier front 20" barrel.
....great to hear it from one of the leaders of the program...thank you. I love the A1 and A2s....I HATE the look of the flat tops...yea, okay optics reasons...still hate the look...thank you for improving upon the A1! Thank you...
That burst was the worst idea introduced to the M16, you get caught up in between a burst and only fire one round when expecting multiple.., going back to the M16A3 with full auto , it was right the first time.
The A3 was introduced in parallel to the A2, for the US Navy. It did not replace the A2, and the A4 that did, was still burst. This was only addressed with the fleeting of the A1 (auto) variant of the M4 (also burst).
I had no idea what I was doing when I built my first AR and been kicking my self in the ass for not going with a 20in barrel. Other than that and having a detachable carry handle, mine looks just like this one.
Order one from BCA, sell the upper you have and upgrade for little or no $$$ www.bearcreekarsenal.com/upper-assemblies?spec_caliber=333&spec_length=293&stock=2 Currently "out of stock" but create an account with them and send them an email that you want one and they will have one ready for you in 1-2 days. They will send you an email to let you know it is back in stock. They will NOT "hold" one for you, so do this when you are ready to buy.
Guys I think it was the government that wanted to do away with full auto. The colonel convinced them to compromise. Listen to what he said about it. Geez.
What is the difference between the modern M4A1 and the old M16A1 lower recievers?.. I mean they both fire full automatic. (Not talking about the uppers just lower receivers).
Along with the 3rd burst, I think the elevation drum in the rear sight was a mistake. The carry handle itself is lightweight and simple enough, but the way it stretches across the whole upper receiver is unnecessary. A simple rear sight with 1/2 moa windage adjustament would have been fine. I think had there been a flattop rail from the start and a freefloated handguard, it would have been damn near perfect. Still not a bad choice.
The Navy has no business being involved with re-designing a rifle for the US Army. The M-16A1 was a fine rifle and needed no re-design. I have fired both and the M-16A1 was good enough. There was no need for some candy-ass three-round burst control.
Am I the only that thinks all 3 series of M16s where amazing? The A1 had that iconic hand guard and just screams Vietnam whenever you see it. The A2 was a classic during the 80s and 90s. And the A4 with that pic rail and ACOG was the work horse of the war on terror.
If I can have only one rifle for the rest of my life, this is it. A plain Jane M16A2 with well zeroed iron sights will serve you for a lifetime.
I guess, Mine jammed just like my old A-1 did.
@@mausermongerkoziczkowski8104 Military equipment is usually over used as fuck. The stuff I used in training jammed, the stuff I used in theater was squared away and reliable as can be. If you never went into theater you were using mag springs with 10s of thousands of rounds through them probably
Sam Hopkins I’ve owned 17 Colt AR15A2s and never had a malfunction with any of them, 50,000 rounds over 30 years
Kyle Reese watch inrangeTV mud tests, sand tests , the AR15s didn’t jam at all but all 5 AKs and other rifles all stopped quickly
oriyo_xcvi Just like the A1
Eugene Stoner thought most of the A2 "upgrades" defeated the purpose of what they set out to do in creating a lightweight, intermediate caliber(so accurate in full auto), high volume of fire weapon for use in targets within 0-300 yards/meters where you can actually see it through iron sights. the only thing he liked was the handguards bc it increased efficiency by using one mold.
So what, Stoner can be wrong. The only thing the A2 lacks over the A1 is full auto, which doesn't apply 99% in the military and hardly at all to civilians. Drastically better sights, especially the 2 sized apertures and square FSP, better twist rate barrel, better hand guards, shell deflector, better stock, reinforced lower. Weight wise my A2 clone only comes in at 8 oz heavier than my A1 clone.
@@NoQuestions4sked I'm just saying what Stoner said. He thought that the idea of the m16 was to be able to fight against the AK which had 30 round mags and full auto. in jungles full auto is way more useful because you can't even see your target or where it is. the military found that in engagements with the enemy (not 1 vs 1) volume of fire was the most critical important factor. the idea was that the guys would get pinned down somewhere and would not be able to put out enough suppressing fire to keep the enemy's heads down while they advanced on their position. the military specified when they were testing rifles in the trials that the rifle should have select fire capability to match the AK. they trials also specified that the rifle be light weight, hence the pencil barrel. when you say "better twist rate" that is subjective. for instance the original 55 grain projectiles acted like a hollow point because on impact they pitch and yaw and tumble apart, imparting all of the energy to the target, rather than zipping through them and continuing for another mile, only poking a hole in them. the higher twist rates like 1:14 and 1:12 were actually optimized for the light projectiles. the gun itself is capable of shooting very far, but was only ever realistically used in a military context out to 300-400 yards, and the 55 grain tended to have better wounding performance and a higher velocity. he thought a lot of the "upgrades" they made with the A2 were in direct contrast to the original purpose of the rifle and made it more into a target sports rifle and less combat effective. full auto is deff not worthless like you say it is. all the trashing of f/a is just civilians attempting to cope with the lack of availability.
@@iamAwesomo1994 Whole lot of words to tell me you have no experience with the platform and are just repeating things you've heard.
@@NoQuestions4sked 1:12 twist does significantly more damage to soft targets than a 1:7 twist, combined with shitty M855 that’s why soldiers complain about the 556 being underpowered. The A1 didn’t have this issue.
A1 is also lighter and has much simpler sights. It’s a combat rifle. Not a match rifle. The A2 sucks
@@NoQuestions4sked - So what, You Are Definitely Wrong! Just because you quote the specs we are supposed to think you are the be all, end all expert? Hahaha! Get da F@CK outtahere! Stoner was right, and he always will be! Signed, US Army Infantry Combat Veteran!
I grew up on the M16A2 in the Marines, and loved it. I had no problems at all with its accuracy and reliability. My only complaint was the burst feature. I believe replacing the auto for burst was a punishment for poor training. Rather than limiting the Marine to three rounds, proper techniques to train the Marine to control each burst would have been appropriate. Sometimes, a mag dump is in order, and forcing the operator to repeatedly mash the trigger 10 times to keep the enemies head down while your buddy advances is lame. It's interesting how the burst feature is either being implemented in conjunction with auto, or being replaced in lieu of auto on new rifle platforms.
Im about to buy one for a $1000 😃 minus the 3 round burst 😔
Unit 1058 I say they should have a 4 system selector, with safe, semi, binary (one shot with trigger pulled, one shot when release) and then full auto as well. Give the guy options I always say. What do you think about that as Marine
I hated the burst trigger. Luckily for me i was a 45B and had the parts to change my A2 trigger out with an A1. Much better pull on semi when i qualified. A2 sights were better so i always maxed out my scores.
@@popuptarget7386 cheater
@@User-nu6km if you aint cheatin, you aint tryin..haha!
as an Air Force Security Specialist, we were issued M16A1 slick sides left over from the 60-70s. looking back, i was glad i wasn't paying for the ammo when you can dump a 30 round mag in a second or so. i loved that gun so much i went ahead and built my own AR15 clone with a 1 :12 twist pencil profile barrel, carry handle upper, rifle length gas system and A2 butt stock.
You Can't Beat The Classics.
#LetsGoBrandon
Some Security Forces armories had those A1s in their racks up until the early 2000's.
I know Cannon AFB had a few.
We were still using the M16 A1 when I was in. We were also taught to use 3 round bursts without a "burst" lever position.
It's just funny because the Army is now upgrading our burst fire M4s to Full-auto M4A1s.
That’s because the 3 round cam burst trigger sucks. It’s gritty as hell on semi. The auto/semi auto triggers (same mechanism) are better for accuracy.
@@magellanstravels that's not the main reason behind the change, though...
@@predatorjunglehunter7332 then due tell. I have experience with both, so if it’s not for the trigger, what is it? Automatic fire sucks, unless it’s used for suppressing.
M16 A. 1234=M4.
I wonder why they do not install piston kits for all M4 rifles at the same time. DI sucks, especially in that carbine version.
I sure did love my A2 never had a failure to fire in my years of service
II went into the Corps in ‘80 (1st summmeer of PLC). Used and qualed with the A1 until either ‘85 or ‘86 when I then qualed with the A2. Was in the Air Wing then and only saw it at the range. I immediately liked it. Around 1989 or. 90, , I bought a Colt Sporter Target model. Basically the A2 without the burst. Still have it.
Always loved the fixed carry handle and solid butt stock. It's what god intended.
I have used the M16 and the M4. I definitely prefer the M16. I was a Cavalry Scout with the 101st so we were issued M4's as they better served our purposes but I still would have rather had the M16. It has superior accuracy and can reach out to 500 meters while the M4 only reaches out to 300 meters effectively on a point target.
As a left-handed shooter... I thank you for the deflector! It's very cool to see who was behind the changes to A2 and why. I love the carry handle rifles of old. I'm building an a1 clone, but I fully plan on doing an A2 also.
People are impressed when I tell them that as a Marine we would use the M16a2 at 200, 300, and 500 Meters with iron sights to qualify. AT&T long distance tapping for the aggressor.
500 yards to me was always easy points. Standing at 200 yds was much harder.
Agree. Standing was always the worst, and kneeling because my foot was/ is fucked from all the humps.
I buy and sell premium grade binoculars. 500 meters is pushing the limit what the eye can clearly see and define, especially if it's trying to hide or is shadows.
I've ringed steel at 650 yards with mine. People need to spend more time practicing than trashing the rifle.
@@sanfranciscobay what you focus on is the sights. The target is a blur if you're sighting your weapon correctly.
This is the best video on the M16A2 rifle, very informative.
The info is coming right from the guy that headed up the project for the Marines. He has written a bit about the A2 in Larry Vickers' book as well.
Jake recorded over six hours of video where I covered all the changes asked about below. So what you have here is a condensed version.
David Lutz Thank you very much for your hard work; I appreciated my M16A2 rifle and how it worked in the field.
jagervw You be welcome!
Could you explain the reasoning behind the A2 profile barrel?
My basic training was with the M16A1 then when i was in country i recieved the M16A2, we were some of the first ones to recieve the new M16A2 that the Army were issued. I was in the U.S. Army in 1983 in 536th MP co.in Grafenwoth Germany.
If David Lutz is still reading the comments :
There's one thing I've always wondered about firearms designs ; how do you compute everything to properly design them ?
For example, I've got no idea how to compute the felt recoil curve, or what's the barrel's heat transfer coefficient in order to have an idea what could be the sustained rate of fire.
Do you have any suggested books to take a look at which questions the engineers generally ask themselves, and then which models/equations they use to find the adequate compromises ?
Best Regards and Thank You for your Service
We got the M16a2 in the summer of 84 after we got back from Beruit,brand new in the box so to speak .The weapon was a great improvement over the M16a1.Only bad part was the 3rd burst
Well, IMHO.....the length of the stock and "burst" settings are the two biggest shortcoming....
@Travis Tucker sights work and the stock is the right length if you have avg length arms
Thank you for your comments, Mr. Stoner wasn't a fan of the three round burst either.
@willl 88 nice run it hard and everything will break
@@INSTMILTECH Do you have a source for Stoner's opinion about the three round burst? I'd love to see that.
And that fat needless barrel beyond the FSB
The very first items I purchased after serving as a Corpsman, 2nd MarDiv was a Colt AR15 A2 HBAR Match slab-side (no mag release fence), an Ithaca M37 shotgun, an M-1A by Springfield topped with an original Unertl 6x40 and a Colt .45 M1911. That's what I used then and know well. That A2 really shoots great. Puts the newer junk ARs (all Colts and one Stag) I've since bought to shame! For me, the A2 HBAR was and is still perfect!
It in no way puts a modern BCM to shame. The A2 is cool no doubt, and no dispute the 20" rifle gas and rifle buffer systems have the best impulse, but to say it puts the newer rifles to shame is an outright lie.
You asked: "...What about the heavy profile in front of
the fsb?
I was under the impression that the reasons for adding the extra meat at the
front was in error...."
Not in regards to preventing the barrel bending during dynamic bayonet fighting
drills or banging against rappelling towers, etc.
The Operational and Engineering testing proved the heavier profile in front of
just behind the FSP was many times more resistant to being ben in our more
aggressive training environments than those of the other services..
Now it is also a fact (now, established many years after this testing) that a
burr on the gas port can act as a "scraper" of sorts and may cause a
build-up of bullet jacket material that will cause the military's "barrel
straightness gauge" to get hung-up in that general area. A bore brush and
an electric drill can usually fix this.
However, I noted more recently, that the copy of the Army 23&P TM on the
internet directs Armorers to "re-bend" bent barrels over a bench so
the drop gauge passes through. So maybe we have at least two potential issues
with the drop gauge, "bent barrels", etc.The drop gauge used always "sticks" in the area of the gas port, so if the bayonet lug was used as a fulcrum in theory it might bend there. Never saw one "bent" any where else by using the drop gauge that was not grossly observable like if run over by a truck.I also remember being told that Colt originally used such a drop gauge after turning down the barrel blanks on the lathe, and if bent, they had a way to straighten them. Some Army engineer saw this in action and then insisted that such a drop gauge be part of the Armorer's gauge set.I have watched Colt turn down M16 barrel blanks (about 1-inch in diameter) in just two hard and fast passes and you could see the barrel bowing under the pressure from the carbide cutter.
David Lutz - First off, thank you for your incredible service to our country and all of your amazing innovations, which are still bearing fruit and helping soldiers to this very day. My question is, with the immense popularly of the AR pattern rifle today, have you considered starting your own business to sell them? Or possibly sell your own upgraded parts & accessories using your ideas & innovations? I think it would do incredibly well.
Man I gotta get one someday. I don't have any ARs yet. Got an M1a and other old military. Had the A2 in the Marines. sometimes I miss that rifle. More practical than the old wood rifles I have. But shooting a 1917 Eddystone in 30 06 is a blast also. I'd love to go pull butts on the USMC range once more. Of course I'd like to go for another expert award also! Yut!
You should check out Fulton Armory's website. They do customizable M16A2 builds.
When I reported to my 1st duty station ( armory at TBS, Quantico, VA) in '79, then Capt. Lutz was running the show. He was one of the finest officers I ever had the privilege to serve under in my 26 yrs. of military service. Semper Fi, Sir! Job well done!
Naahh.. Still love the old school m16a1.
A1 with a2 parts
Yeah well your not in the military so there for you have absolutely no judgment
Old school is nice but in all honesty I prefer the A4 because of the flat top rail. And i can still put a rail removable carry handle and A2 furniture to still look like old school if i wanted to. so it's kinda of win win for me.
@@hudsonzzzz I'm in the military, our country replaced m16A1 to R4 rifles from remington manufacturer same variant with m4 carbines.
A1 and A3 (With the A4 Rail Handguard) are my favorites M16 versions ❤️
Good to see LtCol Lutz. I wanted to come work for you at the Development Center after I left the Scout-Sniper Instructor School but ended up going to a CQB section. We then developed the 36 yard/30 meter zeroing procedure to replace the 25 meter/1000 inch zeroing for the A2.
In Eugene stoners interview about the a2, he stated that the marine Corp actually made the rifle less combat effective. His talking points were A. The a2 became more of a precision rifle, and less of a combat rifle. B. The addition of easily adjusting windage and elevation was a problem as accidental adjustments in combat became much easier. Btw, you can’t zero you rifle in combat, and this also added weight. Essentially the marine Corp thought they could improve upon a nearly perfect rifle. But what you need in a rifle is ease of use for combat.
Almost kinda like a master class chef feeling a bit sore from a patron adding extra salt.
Totally agree with you, they changed a rifle and it’s modern principles to fit their old static range practices, and not the other way around and adapted tests to the principles and concepts of the new weapon.
@@Bite_Me_MFYet the worthless A2 worked so well for how many Decades & Wars !
M１６A２の性能、命中精度、デザインが素晴らしいです。
I mustered out just as the A2 came online. After watching this I wish the improvements had been implemented years earlier. Live and learn, right? I'll always miss the A1 handguards. It's a 70s thing, I guess. Semper Fi!
Every time I went to the field or on deployment, I would swap out my trigger pack for a full auto A1 pack. It only takes a couple minutes. Nobody was ever the wiser. To be fair though, in the 13 years I was in, I can count on three fingers how many times we actually used full auto or burst.
I had the A2 in boot camp and it it was old wore-out and still would hit a target at 300 yards, thanks for your video
I used the M16A2 in boot camp. I then was issued a M16A4 in the fleet.
I have come full circle on this and now I would comfortably choose this rifle and would use the longer barrel
This man is a living legend.
I’ll never look at my upgrades the same way again.
Good stuff.💪👍🥃
WE AGREE! Great comment Mad Mick!
I prefer the A1 carry handle but the A2 is definitely a great sight. Workin on a CAR-15 build at the moment and loving every second of it.
My Marine Officer Basic School class (TBS - H Co. 1984) was one of the first classes to qualify with the A2. I fired the A1 when I was in boot camp at Parris Island. I liked the A2. It was heavier and sturdier than the A1. We never used the burst feature. One of my more memorable times at TBS was when after a live fire exercise, they let us shoot up a bunch of left over ammo. We were shooting from the hip and doing lots of John Wayne type shit. It would have been great to have had the old A1 to shoot off a few mags on fully auto. I actually do not remember being able to fire the A1 on fully auto in Basic. Of course, as a LT at TBS, we were not nearly as regulated as a recruit. I was surprised that they let us just play John Wayne with hundreds of rounds of ammo!
Keep in mind, the A2 with burst was designed in the Cold War where you had to stockpile gear for massive amounts of troops - many of them conscripted through Selective Service and never proven in battle - to fight in multiple theaters. Since 99% of the military isn't using full-auto by doctrine at the rifleman role anyways, the burst feature makes sense - it's an emergency option only and it stops newbies from mag-dumping into oblivion like in Vietnam. For suppressive fire, you already had the M60 or M249 held by specialists at the squad level.
I was a teenager during early gwot, so i have become fond of the M16A4 with M5 Ras and Ta31rco
Col. Lutz is well-respected, but it's funny to me - after watching videos of Gene Stoner discussing the M16 - to hear that Stoner disliked the 3-round burst feature, the heavy barrel, the target-range sights, and especially the forward assist "Wheeler button."
It was very interesting when they both became part of the Knight's Armament family in the 90's, many years later... Col. Lutz was respected by Mr. Stoner as well. Eugene Stoner knew Col. Lutz was doing his job. Mr. Stoner just didn't agree with the job he was given....
Another interesting twist to the story is that Col. Lutz helped the development and adoption of one of Mr. Stoner's final designs while working at KAC. The SR-25, Mrk 11 and M110 variants where all programs that Col. Lutz had a hand in during and after Mr. Stoner's tragic death in 1997.
Had an A2 thru OSUT and 4 years of active duty infantry with the 82nd; got out, and still had A1s in service with our Vermont National Guard unit in '94... they were a blast to shoot, but almost to a soldier, folks did better with their annual qualifying with the A2. That's not to say the A1's weren't missed during summer camp, MILEs gear and all that ;) Thanks for the video.
We in our time had the E 1 in the USMC in Nam but this was good to learn
The squared off front sight post, longer butt stock and 3 round burst over full auto are considered among many to be hindrances and not improvements.
Other than that I guess he did ok. I wouldn't be bragging about it though.
Dr.Trollish the square front sight would be fine, if it wasn't thick as a tree.
The burst is irrelevant to me, as I only use single fire. And the A2 stock, while admittedly long, and a bit cumbersome with a plate carrier, is tolerable.
The one thing I really do not like though, is the 'govt" profile barrel... too much unnecessary weight at the muzzle..
Problem with the A2 trigger is that it "stacks" in semi-auto, due to the burst cam. It will start off with a nice 5-6lbs pull, but will increase with the next two shots (up to around 11-12lbs) until it resets.
I'm with you, M16A1e1 all the way the Canadian's got it right, accepted the handguard, 1-7 twist and brunton bump kept the original sight..set your zero and learn to estimate range and your holds.
I highly disagree that a 3-round burst provides "ammo savings" and that it's better than a full-auto or 2-round burst.
The 3rd shot is essentially wasted since it's so off target.
IMO this is the best looking version of the M16
I didn't see where he said why the twist rate was changed. I have read the change was because the M855 needed it, not the other way around. The M855 was developed for the belt fed M249, then the rifling was changed to match the new bullet. Great video, I am glad he shared it with us.
the M249 wasn't a concept when they were testing for the M855. common complaint from Viet Nam was 52 grain was too light of a projectile in jungle environment. to keep the M16 platform lightweight, the challenge was to create a bullet that could penetrate a WWII style helmet at 800 yards. wasn't stable in the 1:12 twist barrel of the current platform which is why barrel rates were dropped to 1:7/1:8 and 1:9.
@@keayrhyasen1154 first of all M193 is 55 grains, not 52. They switched to 1:7 twists for the A2’s because they started using 62 grain M855 which wouldn’t stabilize in 1:12 twist barrels. M193 stabilizes just fine in a 1:12. And the military never used 1:8 and 1:9 twists
For newer heavier Bullets. He states in a fuller Article on line, that he was originally going to go with a 1/9 Barrel, but a USMC Armorer (?) recommended he go with 1/7; just in case the Corps went with an even heavier Bullet in the future. Which turned out to very Prophetic, when in the 2nd Afghan War, Marines and Navy Seals switched to 77 gr Bullets to reach out across Mountain Valleys !
The M16A2 is the most beautiful post-WW2 rifle. It's one of the very few modern guns that look very elegant.
I think the changes were outstanding. I went through grass week in 1983 with the A1 at Parris Island in 1983. Once I was deployed I had the A2 and really appreciated the simple but effective changes to the rifle.
Semper Fidelis 🇺🇸
so basically they added a pound of barrel, lengthened the stock and made a spongy trigger just to get something they could qualify easier with?
GREAT CHANGES COL, THANKS FOR THE HARD WORK LMAO
No discussion of the A2 lower reinforcements.
+vlodpg Because there werent any. All of the fencing came on the A1
I was talking about the reenforcement of the front take down pin & the extra material for the receiver extension that the A1 didn't have.
Probably overlooked them, they are pretty minor.
Why in the hell would Marines want a 3 round burst????
Because after 3 your fire is no longer accurate.
@@frankverdino477 so untrue. range is everything
Thank you sir, I went from a truly awful shot to high Sharpshooter on the Rock in 1985.
The finest M16 in my opinion (and best looking). The A4 is about as good and makes it easier to install optics, if you want that. I have sold off all my AR carbines and pistol AR platforms and kept my AR15A2 HBAR with standard sights, AR15A4 HBAR with 1.5-4 x compact scope and Colt Enhanced rifle with 24" bull barrel and micrometer match sights. No need for anything else and there is nothing better.
I love your videos but please review your audio settings, the music is so much louder than the spoken words.
Yes, and the older we get, background noise is the worse culprit in our hearing deficiency.
pounding drums means , its great b/s
Love this video. What is the name of the background music? In April 1987 I was introduced to the M16A2 at USMC Recruit Depot San Diego, and qualified expert with it at Edson Range, Camp Pendleton, California. At 500 meters in the prone position with a good/tight sling, I hit the target 8 out of 10 times using iron sights. We weren't allowed to use the carrying handle, but when we ran through the pitch black tunnel to and from the butts, we all ran using the carrying handle.
The Col. didn't mention changing the hand guards form triangular to round...unless I missed it!
That was like the only good change too.
Good video, somethings from the A1 to A2 weren't in this video, one I'm curious about is to hear from him is the change to the A2 barrel profile.
Maybe a Part 2?
Yeah, I'd like to hear justification for that fiasco.
Pretty sure it was intentionally left out.
I know this is an old post, but I can shed a little light on your question. Firstly, the flash hider was changed from the A1 birdcage to the A2 birdcage with the bottom sealed in order to reduce dust signature when shooting from a prone position. The barrel twist was changed from a 1:12 to 1:7 twist to stabilize heavier grain rounds, and the profile of the barrel was changed from a pencil barrel to government profile barrel due to reports of paratroopers landing barrel first and bending their A1 barrels. So partly it is due to strengthening of the barrel. The other reason is that pencil barrels heat up very fast, changing your MOA after the barrel gets hot. The government barrels are slower to heat up and thus give more consistent MOA.
@@GusFogle That's not entierly true. The barrels were doing fine, it was an armory issue of carbon building up near the gas port that caused a change in the barrel straightness gauges. The barrels were also sufficiently strong. The weight of a government barrel is also distributed wrong, with it all going to the front of the rifle. The profile didn't change under the handguard, the place that heats up the most, so in actuality you really didn't change enough to get a good POI shift difference. The twist change does make sense, but it should have been a 1/9 like they originally wanted, the 1/7 was to accommodate tracer rounds not being stabilized enough. The furniture changes were actually good. In my opinion, they should have gone with a C7 upper with the deflector like the Canadians, with the m16a1 sighting system, an a1 barrel and FCG, and then the a2 furniture and lower receiver strengthening ribs.
Holy Crap, the M16A2 had fully adjustable Rear Sights; just like the Model 1903 Springfield, M1 Garand, & M14 Springfield !
the ar15 is such a good design it was still a solid weapon no matter how hard they tried to ruin it with the m16a2
Outstanding platform. When all those bells and whistles s**t the bed, your irons are good to go. Every Marine a Rifleman. RAH
i carried a GAU-5
So, you are responsible for the LOUSY trigger, gee thanks.
This bad trigger translated to the M4s we got with burst. Those that got M4A1s were lucky with better triggers. No one even uses the burst option
Compromise. Leadership at the time came from Vietnam and had a bad image of auto burning through ammo. Originally the A2 was slated to be semi only, but since this particular burst mechanism had already been tested by the military, it was shoved in as a last minute addition to keep some volume of fire in the hands of Joe.
In my opinion, the M16-A2 was the sexiest rifle made before 1990. Aside from the AK-74 😃😜
It was the summer of 86 - I hit eight out of ten bulls with an A2 at 500 meters to shoot expert. Probably because the last thing I wanted to do was get put in an unq platoon and get bent for the next two weeks during mess and maintenance...
I remember when I was first issued my M16 A2 back in 1985 we had to clean our weapons as soon as we got them take all the packing grease off of them and they were inspected the M16 A2 is a very good weapon I would much rather have that than a M4 carbine I am M16 A2 with an m203 40 mm grenade launcher underneath and I'm good as long as I got all 40 mm grenades I can use
"Improvements", yeah lets take the best thing about the M16A1 (the lightweight) and ruin it. The front sight, case deflector, and ghost ring rear sight aperture were probably the best and only viable changes made to the M16A1.
The adjustable rear sight gets knocked off zero too easily, its only good for KD ranges. We already know that the barrels bending was a myth and they never needed to be thickened, just added weight to the worst possible place on the rifle. The three-round bust was useless, ruined the semi auto trigger pull, and is now being phased out in the military (or at least the Army is going back to AUTO last I heard). And the A2 stock is too long for the majority of shooters, especially with modern body armor.
I hated the A2 and A4, pigs of rifles for absolutely no reason.
I cut my teeth on the A2, then we transitioned to the A4. Once I got out I experienced the A1 ( or a clone at least) and was blown away by it's handling and weight (lack of). I don't mind carbines as long as the weight is kept low.
I may have sounded too harsh. My main grips with the A2 (and A4) is the thickened barrel and lengthened stock. Fix those two things and it would be a huge improvement.
The original Vietnam era A1 pencil profile is great. Same thickness as gov under the handguards but saves weight up front.
the a1 is only 0.9lbs lighter at the cost of being FAR weaker.
Not An Argument. That weight is nearly a fully loaded 30 round stanag, most of which is hanging off the very end of your barrel. Between the two choices, I'll take an A1 profile barrel over an A2 any day.
As to the A2 sights. I do prefer them, but agree that they need better retention on the adjustments. They 'self adjust" far too easily, especially when rubbing against gear.
Shouldn't have implemented the burst fire feature in the first place. Wasting ammunition could have been resolved with proper training and trigger control.
Huh. Gotta love history lessons. I thought the M16A2 was first adopted by the Army like its predecessor. The more you know!
I have a windaham weaponry m16a2 clone and I ABSOLUTELY LOVE IT! the only thing I wish that was different about it, is mine has a removable carry handle. I wish it came already fixed to the upper. Not removable
Awesome guns. I have the M14 M16A1 and the M16A2
Thanks for your service
While I really love some of the a2 mods there are some I can do without. First the positives. the case deflector, front sight post (bearing in mind my eons behind an a1) and the increased length of pull also the ease of the trap door opening. Now the negatives. the 1/7 twist was adopted to stabilize the NATO m856 Tracer round it is shot out/worn out far faster than slower twists. secondly the Burst fire function instead of full auto over complicates the trigger assembly and creates a horrendous trigger pull so the "ammo saver" turns out to be an ammo waster. the Marine Corps teaches long distance shooting ( which the Army should do more of) but the 1/7 twist also negates a lot of the lethality of the 5.56 round ( no tumbling). the longer length of pull is a very good idea. the handguards (a2 style) are a problem too. they do not dissipate heat nearly as well as the a1 type and they are hydroscopic. Now IF you have not signed the Hague accords or the Geneva Convention and can use say barnes x bullets in a heavier weight say 77 grains now you are pushing (somewhat) .243 Winchester territory ballistically speaking. all in all the a2 is a great rifle I prefer mine in a 1/9 twist. I,ll give the reader of my post three guesses why.
No 5.56 projectile tumbles unless it hits something (tree limb, human etc)
From experience, they really should not have made the rifler heavier or made the stock longer. Most people find the A1 stock to be a one size fits all and the 3 round burst was just poorly designed and since none of us ever use it in combat, it served no purpose. The select fire setting will always affect the semi auto trigger pull. Even today with M4s, there's been problems with M4s that have burst settings messing up. M4A1s that have full auto settings never have that problem.
The stock's length should have been kept like the A1's length. That little bit of extra length makes it harder to work with modern armor with all the new stuff we have to put on. Back in the 80s when this thing came out, the gear was different, so a longer stock length was ok and everybody was using a bladed stance anyway. Today, we don't shoulder our weapons that way anymore
I loved the A2. First time shooting a rifle that wasn’t bolt action was in 99 at Ft Benning. First time shooting burst with tracers was even better. Never got to shoot anything full auto.
FYI GENTS, Re, the 3RB, Lt Col Lutz states in a rather lengthy & informative Article on line, that the Marine Corps "Bean Counters" (think $$$ !) were going to eliminate Full Auto ALL TOGETHER !
So he was able to convince them to go with 3 RB instead, as a Compromise !
It is a good looking rifle. I prefer the full butt stock. The problem with any air cooled machinegun is the fire discipline required to not to overheat the barrel. Three round burst is the way to go.
The AR-15/M16 invented by a Marine vet and the A2 was refined by Marines. During my time in the Corps the A2 paid it's dues and in my duties as a 8531 I pressed it's capabilities to it's full potential and trained many to become Expert marksman with it. When I hear Call of duty millennials complaining about the overall length of the A2 thru A4 20" bbl and weight today I'm like really?? it's not an M14 on M1 and still considered a carbine in comparison to other NATO class battle rifles in use.
What about the Flash Suppresser and Forward Assist?
The burst trigger is a total p.o.s. everything else about that rifle I like.
“Improve” is a pretty bold statement. The A2 has some improvements, but in many ways is inferior to the A1. Yes, I speak from experience. I was for 25 years a US Army infantry officer. The first rifle I was issued was an A1, then I was issued an A2, my final issue rifle was the M4 carbine.
The square front post was an improvement. The trapezoid delta ring was an improvement. The round hand guards was an improvement. The faster rifling was an improvement, but 1:9 would have better than 1:7, the closed bottom flash hider was an improvement, the shell deflector was an improvement, the dust cover port was an improvement.
The over complex rear sight is a wash. Most soldiers can not take advantage of the improvements it offers. That was a target shooting feature, not a combat feature.
The longer stock, the heavy barrel and burst fire were NOT improvements.
yep--all true
Excellent.
What about the M16A4?
the King of the Family
2020. Did the rangers in battle of mogadishu wished they had full auto m16 than a semi and 3 burst fire?
I thought it was the US Army that asked for an adjustable rear sight as we see the M16 today. A2s came out around early 84 as I remember them...w/ the heavier front 20" barrel.
I only have a Colt SP1.
You are doing ok.
tone the music down my god
Please *
....great to hear it from one of the leaders of the program...thank you. I love the A1 and A2s....I HATE the look of the flat tops...yea, okay optics reasons...still hate the look...thank you for improving upon the A1! Thank you...
That burst was the worst idea introduced to the M16, you get caught up in between a burst and only fire one round when expecting multiple.., going back to the M16A3 with full auto , it was right the first time.
The A3 was introduced in parallel to the A2, for the US Navy. It did not replace the A2, and the A4 that did, was still burst. This was only addressed with the fleeting of the A1 (auto) variant of the M4 (also burst).
@@skepticalbadger Thank you. :)
I think you only 2 thing wrong first the 3 rounds burst and the reduction from 5 to 4 click front sight.
I had no idea what I was doing when I built my first AR and been kicking my self in the ass for not going with a 20in barrel. Other than that and having a detachable carry handle, mine looks just like this one.
Order one from BCA, sell the upper you have and upgrade for little or no $$$
www.bearcreekarsenal.com/upper-assemblies?spec_caliber=333&spec_length=293&stock=2
Currently "out of stock" but create an account with them and send them an email that you want one and they will have one ready for you in 1-2 days. They will send you an email to let you know it is back in stock. They will NOT "hold" one for you, so do this when you are ready to buy.
When I need one.. there'll be plenty of them lying around on the ground.
now i know exactly which idiot is responsible for 3 round burst.
@Nunya Johnson
YOU OBVIOUSLY WERE NEVER A MARINE.....
AND YOU WOULDN'T SAY THAT TO HIS FACE PUSSCAKE....
Guys I think it was the government that wanted to do away with full auto. The colonel convinced them to compromise. Listen to what he said about it. Geez.
What is the difference between the modern M4A1 and the old M16A1 lower recievers?.. I mean they both fire full automatic.
(Not talking about the uppers just lower receivers).
A few things
Along with the 3rd burst, I think the elevation drum in the rear sight was a mistake. The carry handle itself is lightweight and simple enough, but the way it stretches across the whole upper receiver is unnecessary. A simple rear sight with 1/2 moa windage adjustament would have been fine. I think had there been a flattop rail from the start and a freefloated handguard, it would have been damn near perfect. Still not a bad choice.
Rzr2ffe Perhaps the Rock River Arms UTE2 upper receiver is what you’re looking for?
I love my AR15.....
One of the best assault rifle.
Building an m16a4 this month
I'm more curious about the rifle at 6:03
The Navy has no business being involved with re-designing a rifle for the US Army. The M-16A1 was a fine rifle and needed no re-design. I have fired both and the M-16A1 was good enough. There was no need for some candy-ass three-round burst control.
Hell the army couldn't even get it right. I saw that sad XM16e1 that shit was a disaster of a rifle.
Great video! Thank you for sharing it.
Intense music for a technical video
Great video.
Best dang video in a long time
Great info! Thanks for sharing