100% agree. Nailing down the best service rifle today is definitely a lot murkier but the A2 is clearly the best SR of its era. Thanks for watching and commenting, I'm always linking to your A2 content because I think we've come to similar conclusions
@@charlesbukowski9836 I think within the concept of the "Service Rifle" as I understand and described in the video, you're probably correct. At the very least, the A4 is America's last service rifle, considering everything is moving carbine-ways (M4, XM5).
@@JaredAF that is what killed the further interest in the 16 platform....they shortened the barrel when the 556 surplus ammo needs a 20 inch and it works just fine there ... reliability as well .... Carbines fail three times more than rifle length....the tests are online but you have to dig for them...
@@charlesbukowski9836 Wrong . Acogs go down . Iron sights do not . A Rifleman with proper training with a M16 A2 beats Acog carrying troops who cannot shoot accurately when things go loppy hands down . All American troops should first be trained on M16 A2 first and then cross trained on the new technologies that are not as reliable
when I was duty guns on my ship, I would always issue myself the only A3 we had on board. People thought I was crazy for taking the extra weight (it happened to have an M203), but it had an AimPoint, and was never used on the range for requals, so the gas system wasn't blown out and it was hardly ever handled by anyone but me. 5.56 out of 20" is a beautiful thing.
@ M4’s range is shorter and not really suited to buttstroking. The AK is an excellent Assault rifle, but the energy and accuracy drops off rapidly after 200M. The 7.62 is too slow and 5.45 doesn’t have enough velocity to penetrate most modern body armors. I love my A2 because you can adapt it to the Army’s M855A1 and the 20” barrel gives it a little extra velocity. You have to reach high with your body armor to beat the steel penetrator going between 3400-3600 FPS.
The M16 is a lightweight air cooled gas operated magazine fed rifle that can be fired in semi or automatic fire with the use of a selective lever (screaming) ---SIR It was my best friend , my life, I mastered it as I mastered my own life. A2 in boot camp, trusted and used A4 as infantryman in combat. Love both
Infantry….hmm the A2 I had in Bootcamp was Semi, 3 round burst and safe…. The A1 had safe, semi, full automatic…. I’m just a retired Marine with 8 years of combat in 4 countries….I don’t know shit right there yoo-hoo
I was in the Marines through the mid 90s and had the A2, and always loved it. It was reliable, accurate, and just plain fun to shoot. I had grown up hearing Vietnam vets complain about the M16, but the A2 was a joy for me to use. I never had any issues with its weight or length, which are complaints that I just can't even fathom. Granted, I've never shot an M4, but the 5.56 round was made specifically for the 20" barrel, so I just can't imagine being as confidant with an M4 as I was with the M16A2. As far as the three round burst, the only time we ever used it was for room clearing drills in MOUT training, all other instances it remained firmly in semi-auto mode. My only complaint with my time with the A2 wasn't with the rifle itself, but with the blanks we used with the MILES gear. Those blanks CONSTANTLY jammed, it was a PITA. Never had a single jam with live ammo, though. Anyways, great overview of my favorite rifle!
I can confirm that blanks are a PITA: I got "killed" on an Army Aviation "escape and evasion" course in Germany because our blank ammo was seriously dirty and the MILES blank adapter was just putting all that carbon back into the chamber-- had an "'op for' bad guy" dead to rights, my rifle jammed, and he shot me instead
I can confirm the "blanks PITA" theory: as an Army aviator, I had to attend an "Escape & Evasion" course in Germany. During my run, I encountered an "Op For bad guy" at point blank range. I fired first, but my rifle jammed (because of the MILES/dirty blanks combo), and he shot me instead... At the time, I was inexperienced and ignorantly blamed it on the gun. Took me years to fully trust ARs again
The A1 we used in 1978 had trap doors used to store a cleaning kit or cigarettes.. That's if we're talking the same thing. As far as the sights the A2 we're definitely an upgraded system. Going to the weight between the A1 to À2 I hated the extra half pound. I loved shooting it. The A1 is what I entered the Marine Corps with in the 70s and the senior SNCOs remember when they first got them in Vietnam. The DOD quickly upgraded and made them reliable. Thanks for posting.
In Basic Training I had an A2 and I personally loved it. We only shot irons and my sights never shifted even after marching, crawling, drill and ceremony practice, etc. Very sturdy rifle.
That setup might be the best combo. When you need Full-Auto, you NEED Full-Auto. Plus, the 5/8” less pull makes quite a bit of difference. The only drawback is the rubber butt plate.
@@arminiuschatti2287They likely were retrofitted with the burst trigger pack. A lot of early A2's have a "BURST" stamped over where the old A1 "AUTO" used to be.
I don’t own a A2 but I do have a 20” with a rifle length gas system. And I really do enjoy the heck out of it. As for the BS about maneuverability it’s not as bad as people make it out to be. It can be done if you choke up the stock over your shoulder. The marines do it all the time
Correct. It’s not like you really need to aim in CQB. Plus the 20” barrel is needed to make the 5.56 run correctly. Speed is it’s needed to make the 5.56 sing.
I just got a similar A2 from Bear Creek Arsenal chambered in 223 Wylde, and I love the heavy Barrel in the 20 inch, they get good ballistics and accuracy both!
I was always an A1 freak due to my early 70's service. Your argument was compelling, it convinced me at least. Its time to add a little weight to my next 20" build.
The A2 was the first gun I ever shot back in 1997 when I was in basic training. It’s the weapon I judge all all other rifles against. Unfortunately I don’t own one by the time I started collecting was more than a decade later and have not gotten around to getting one as there is always something new and shiny and guns are expensive But I do plan to get one at some point. Thanks for the video.
lol I remember having to stand in line for 3hrs and reading my serial numbers to 3 different people twice a day in basic just to get to train with that gun. It was odd, I had always thought recruits kept their rifle with them during basic but figured out different when I got there. In 96
I have 6 AR platform rifles. My hands down favorite is my early-90s (pre-ban) Colt AR-15A2 HBAR. My 2nd favorite is my AR15-A4. Basically the same but one has a detachable carry handle. I have the carry handle on it. The 20" A2 is simply the best there ever was. I also have a 24" HBAR match rifle, 2 M4 style 16" rifles and one AR Pistol in .300 BLK. The A2 is my go to!
I love your take on the A2. I was only ever issued A2s or A4s (with carry handles) when I was im the National Guard and Army Reserves. Honestly, no one really liked them. We always looked at the M4s and M4A1s Active Duty carried and thought they were more desirable. But years later I built an A2 clone and really began to appreciate it as a civilian. Pretty much everything you said I would agree with, though I hadn't even considered the balance. The one problem with the iron sights, at least in Army doctrine, is that we were trained to simply zero at 25 meters with the rear sight set ti "8/3+1," and returj the wheel to "8/3" afterwards. Sometimes people forgot to return to 8/3, and the difference did seem significant enough that scores on the qualification range were effected. I only saw that happen two or three times, but each time when the soldier realized his mistake and corrected the elevation adjustment, his score improved.
I know when I was in, the "POG units" got A4s and the grunt units got M4s, M4A1s and M27 IARs and when you talked to the guys who got A4s, they wanted the M4s as more of a status symbol than anything. That Grass is Greener effect; Want what the cool guys have.
@@JaredAF Exactly. I think much of the animosity towards the A2 is rooted in status more than anything else. The people that carried it the longest felt like they were screwed, the people who didn't carry it looked patronizingly at those that did. Either way, it was viewed like a bike with training wheels.
I think the best sample group to talk to about the A2 are the guys who were in in the 80s-90s, before the M4s started throwing the green grass effect into the mix. a lot of those guys did their initial training with M16A1s as well
@@wernervoss6357 Except it takes a much better Rifleman to accurately shoot an A2 than and M4 . In my opinion people who can shoot an A2 accurately at range are much better Marksmen than modern day military members only trained with optics and smaller barrels .
I was Army infantry from 2010-2016. Always had an M4 with one exception. Before my second deployment I had PCS’d to Campbell and when I got there everyone else had already been gone for a month or two. All the unit’s M4s were already down range and I was issued a M16A2 to qualify with. Indeed, I felt like a dumbass because I had a prejudice towards the rifle from seeing the support units carrying it. However, the rifle was the best thing I shot throughout the entirety of my service. Ergonomics were better, the length and weight of the rifle lended itself better to stability. I was worried having been spoiled with years of an ACOG would impact my qual but I found it easier to qualify expert with the irons on this platform than learning the intricacies of the ACOG. The biggest reason I would say the M4 or at least the A4 makes the A2 obsolete is because of the rail system. Not because of stupid shit that can be placed on it but because of the ease of adding lasers and optics. If you’re not fighting in a conventional infantry unit that needs to be able to fight at night though, I’m gonna say the A2 is the king of all the variations.
Good discussion. I tend to agree, I think the A2 is an upgrade over the A1. The A2 sights imo, are superior to the A1 sights in every way. When used correctly, accurate hits can be made past 600 yards as long as the wind is judged correctly and using good ammunition. I don't mind the PSA handguards, but I opted for a quadrail since I wanted to add a light and vg. The only other upgrade if keeping just the irons, are a pair of night sights, really helps in low light. I love the look of the A2 carry handle, but since mine was the removable version w/flattop receiver, I installed a LPVO on mine. I hate those knobs on the detachable carry handles. Eventually I want to build an A2 clone, but finding the A2 upper has been a real chore since most are either way over priced or out of stock.
A lot of people complain about the A2's, especially these days. I carried one for 16 months before being issued an M4; my only real complaints are that it was long if you are getting in and out of armored vehicle regularly and the fixed buttstock isn't great with the IBA or IOTV body armor. We never even considered burst mechanism, nobody ever used it. I own an A4 clone, set up in an A2 configuration and I like it. I think they're okay rifles. For us the switch to M4's was a real improvement because of what we were doing.
I carried both the A1 and the A2 during my service and the A2 was just better all the way around. Better sights for distance and once you learned how to battle zero the rear sight for 50/200 yards just use the small peep sight hole and no need for the larger peep sight hole unless danger close. Weight and length was not an issue and little to no recoil when shooting and even had the fancy 3 round burst which we never really used but was cool nevertheless. Nice shooting and keep up the good work!
Admin referenced you yesterday and this video still only has 5.3k views. It should be at least 50.3k by now. Love your channel dude. Your M9 video tickled me with that Policenauts reference. 10/10
4:53 The standard service-wide ammo was changed for the A2 (heavier projectile). I can't recall the detailed specifics (grains). What I do remember, is that for us who still used the A and A1 for several years afterward, the ammo supply for the A and A1 slowly dried up over time. There finally came a time when we had to use imported IMI-manufactured (Israeli Military Industries) ammo for qualification (Israel continued using the A and A1 for many years). A & A1 rifles would mechanically function just fine with A2 ammo, but the bullets would fly all over the target. The 1:12 rifling just couldn't handle the heavier A2 projectiles. 5:59 Incorrect. There was a trap door cleaning kit compartment in our 1960's vintage M-16's that were still being used in the 1980's. 12:25 The data used by the bean counters were Vietnam statistics. During a contact, conscripts would just blow magazine after magazine in full-auto without aiming. The cyclic rate meant that a standard 20-rd magazine would only last 2.5 seconds. In no time, they'd find themselves in injun country without ammo. They'd either have to RTB, or create a field resupply situation that put more people and equipment in jeopardy.That's why the fulll-auto was eliminated. By the 1980's, soldiers were much better trained and professional, and could have properly used full auto, but of course the military is always 10 years behind the information curve. Luckily, I was in a unit that continued using the A1, so we retained that capability for up-close and personal use. 21:05 We always sighted in each individual on the range. Allotted 10 rounds per shooter for sight adjustment. Some of the adjustments that had to be made were quite substantial for some people. That sounds wild to me that ya'll would qual without first sighting in. 26:16 "Historical?" You suck. ;-) 27:23 "It just felt right." That's the way I am with the triangle forward grip. I have a 1971 model AR-15 that mimics my service weapon. In my hands, I feel like I'd still be a formidable opponent in a 2-way rifle range, even at my age, especially so if the other soul was stuck with one of those short-barreled M4's. For over a year, I was "Ma Bell" with a 10x optic on the carrying handle, could hold a group the size of a snuff can at 250 meters, and nail a silhouette near the weapon's max range. (I'm assuming the term "Ma Bell" is no longer used? Here's what it refers to... ruclips.net/video/BIGSdwdPxQk/видео.htmlsi=bTegJEUZp6TgHR-n Your summary is SPOT-ON accurate. Considering that you probably weren't even born when that transition occurred, I'm TOTALLY impressed with your analysis. Keep up the fantastic work!
There was nothing wrong with the A1. I liked it because it had a 20" barrel. Plus, the twist rate was perfect for the 55 grain FMJ bullets that were used at the time. When they started jacking with the twist rate, cutting the barrel down, that was going the wrong way in my opinion. I was issued a brand new Harrington Richardson when I got to my new station in Germany in 1975. That weapon was quality throughout. The Colt that I trained on in Basic was junk. Mostly from overuse, but I believe Colt was not the weapon that the H&R was. The H&R was solid and tight. It shot very well. I qualified expert right away with it. I only missed 4 shots outside of the torso target at 250, 200, 150, 100 yards. I can not remember just how many rounds we fired for qualification at different ranges and different positions, but I remember I only missed 4 times. I was stoked about that. Our NCOIC was happy AH because we all shot well. Our amour room had new weapons. There were no old weapons. You can't ask for more than that.
what a fantastic explanation of an incredible service rifle. I really appreciated your use of confidence as a trait that makes a strong piece of military equipment what it is. That kind of thing is so important and it's often either overlooked or taken for granted these days. Either way, incredible job with this video, keep it up.
I think the A2 buttstock was a good idea for when it was implemented, body armor wasn't a serious thing in the 80s, and the added length of pull makes the rifle better for the era it was designed for. Adjustable stocks are more useful these days given the prominent use of body armor. I believe the A1 rear sight is better for average grunts, the knobs make it too easy to bump the sights out of adjustment in rough conditions, but are a great upgrade for more trained marksmen and really were great sights for distance shooting. I served in the iron sight days and never had the privilege of using advanced optics, even in theater, and I can see how the rail system and better optics are a modern upgrade, but the M16A2s sights always put the rounds where you asked it to and are virtually instructable. Burst was just stupid, but fortunately, that was easy to fix with a file and a cooperative arms room guy. Overall, it was a great rifle for its time.
Bought an Armalite M15A2 in the year 2000, it also came with a heavy barrel with 1 in 9 rifle twist, permanently fixed muzzle device Armalite calls a recoil check... Does not have a bayonet lug, OD green furniture... Love It
From the perspective of middle aged military planners in the 80s, it made sense to limit the M16's suppressive fire capabilities because 20th century suppressive fire usually relied an automatic rifleman/machine gunner. The M16 was the first full auto rifle that was standard issue, before then, people relied on a BAR, M60, M1919 or and M2 in some cases for their suppressive fire. In the eyes of the people at that time, they already had a role for full auto suppressive fire so they didn't need every soldier to have that capability, especially when the M16a1 with it's lighter barrel and prone to melting hand-guard was not meant for sustained fire for long periods of time. That was the M60's job. Now we know that combat is unpredictable and you never know when that extra firepower in the hands of the everyday grunt might come in handy, but at a time where Semi-automatic standard infantry weapons were considered revolutionary, only a few decades after 2 wars mainly fought with bolt action rifles(WW2 and the Korean war in the 50s), it makes sense why they believed that the average soldier didn't need full auto. Full automatic standard issue weapons were really only an American thing at the time. Even so, I would say burst as a disadvantage is a bit exaggerated. It fares pretty well in cases such as long range suppressive fire where you would take shots in short burst any way to be more accurate and the rest of the time, the automatic rifleman would handle suppressive fire with his/her's M249 so you can see why burst rifles were used for decades because it fared very well in most combat situation the US had. I'd say what caused its eventual death was the US' continual encounters with urban warfare where CQC was a much greater issue and a lighter and more maneuverable weapon with full auto for suppressive fire, dealing with ambushes at close range or for dealing with multiple target at close range is ideal.
The burst fire capability was not a success as evidenced that the succeeding M4 eliminated the burst feature and returned back to a full-auto capability!
The biggest problem with the mechanism is that, beyond the fact that it's attempted to achieve a mechanical solution to a training problem, the burst mechanism for the AR-15 in particular is an objectively inferior trigger group. You'll see what I mean if you google a breakdown of how it works, but due to the fact there are 6 individual mating surfaces for the trigger catch on, there's potentially 6 different trigger pull characteristics depending on the position of the burst mechanism when you pull the trigger. That's absolutely horrendous for accuracy, making an already not very good milspec trigger worse. In addition to that, because there's no way for the burst mechanism to "Reset," you never know how many shots you'll get for the first burst you fire. You may get 3. You may get 2. You may get 1. So it effectively invalidates the entire point of full auto, since you may well just get a semi-auto gun when you're in a situation where you feel full auto is justified. For all of these reasons, it's unfortunately *not* an exaggeration to say that the burst mechanism is a disadvantage. That's not to say that the burst had to be a major detriment, it could have been done well and not been an objective downgrade. But specifically the mechanism that was designed and implemented *was* a disadvantage purely because it was mechanically inferior to the standard full auto trigger group.
I have a 7 year old little boy who’s left handed, but he tends to wann shoot right handed. Should I just let him go with what he likes more or is there a way to tell what would be best for him?
Ten year veteran. I started on the M-16 and then moved to the M-6A2. This rifle is easy and accurate. Open sights at 500 meters. Most people need optics past 300 meters but not with this rifle. Reliable, stable…..love it.
I was issued both in the Army. The A2 had some features that were better (the brass deflector, hand guards, and the easier to use hand guard retainer ) but it was fundamentally flawed bc it was designed for the Marine Corps rifle range and NOT for combat. The Army wanted what it eventually got, the M4, but IMHO the original A1 was a better rifle for combat (no nonsense sights, full auto, lighter). The AR platform is made to dominate the 300 meter battle area. The A1 does that better. In the end, I wish congress would've let the 2 services pick their own version of the AR platform. I remember seeing what the army wanted back in the 1980's which was basically an A1 with a 18 inch barrel and an optical sight. Update it with the brass deflector and the hand guards then leave the full auto and that would've been the bomb.
THANK you, For your Video, about m-16 , and your Knowledgeam, carrying the, 16ma1, in 1970s , and a tanker model, and other models in the 1980s and 1990s .
Because there's really no wire fences in the forests of Vietnam to use the pronged brakes with (before the A1 variant). What you do is put the muzzle on the wire, twist it & fire off a round; cutting the wire. But that'll let the enemy know you're breaking in their perimeter when you want to be covert. And it'll likely going to be snagged on to anything, and I mean *anything.* given the fact that the majority of the troops sent are conscripts and drafted, with little amount of training. Especially taking care of their M16s. Granted, I like the three-pronged brake. But you gotta be careful with it So in conclusion, you made a solution to a possible problem, but that problem is not there in that particular place. So you don't really need it. Plus it'll also likely be ruined by some barely trained soldiers with low IQ
If you have 9HoleReviews and Bowser’s Castle in your top three comments, then you’ve done something very right, young man. Keep up the excellent work that you do on this platform.
I trained on an A1 in the 1991 Air Force, but I really like my A4 clone build-very accurate-and my Del-ton upper is 1:9 which I find optimal since I run 55-62 grain. The entire rifle, with sling and with carry handle, but without mag, is 7.89 pounds.
@@MountaintravelerEddie you can always count on the Marines to nut stomp the other services. Sometimes they forget wer'e all on the same side, crayon poisoning.
@@Sandhill1988 😂🤣😂🤣hey I got nothing against the chair force…. Their ladies like the OTT’s Open Throat Thrusters But hey, we are all on the same team. Every branch of the military now is poisoned from politics Not crayons bro. Maybe what you don’t understand is that we bust each others balls, but let a civvie start some shyt….you and me would do the beat down. It’s all in good fun. Don’t worry Enjoy your day…..21 years ago I was part of the initial push to Iraq. Who’s the ones that got a F-117 shot down in Yugoslavia 25 years ago (March 1999)??? Only Air Force got those…..my ass was there and saw that / heard it. Semper
Best in its own zeitgeist. It has no M4 feed ramps and a permanent carry handle iron sight. Both features hold it back in terms of modern modularity and reliability. It's got a vibe, though.
about 1:12 and 1:7 twist rate. the introduction of the M855 ammunition, which had a heavier steel core and tracer rounds (which are even longer), required a faster twist rate to maintain accuracy and stability in flight.
I was issued an A1 in basic, carried one as a Paratrooper, then an A2, then various M4 types. I could not care less about how good a rifle is for D&C...or bayonet training for that matter. I have never seen anyone use the " more capable" rear sight either. The 1/7 twist was a result of the tracer version of the ss109 round. Heavy 77grn bullet use in combat was a result of the 1/7 twist, not the other way around. Pat Rogers (rip) used to call an A2 a musket or fence post, and that the usmc rifle team had far too much influence on it. In '83(?) the Army had a study done of the A2, i disliked almost everything about it. Some minor, some major. They wanted a shorter or adjustable butt, stiffer non removable handguard, single aperature rear sight with all adjustments at the rear, fixed front post sized for ranging, night sights, optics mounting, full auto, different barrel contour. The Army wanted to pursue the M16a1PIP, but congress forced the A2 on them. It was not until the M4 a1 that they got close to what they wanted. I'll eventually get an A2, but only because its what I crossed the berm with...it wouldn't be my first choice at all.
I used to say that as a short and sweet way to sum it up, but then you look back through history and see every conscript army having great adjustable sights on their rifles from the 1870s through the 1950s. Did people get dumber? No, VC/PAVN used SKS and AK rifles with adjustable sights. A1 sights were completely cynical and A2 sights should always have been the standard.
Man, I get the argument and almost agree, but they're actually pretty terrible in practice. You get the distance adjustability at the expense of the windage adjustment being solid in the A2 design. I thought they were great until my A2's rear sights just broke on me in Iraq and wouldn't hold a zero anymore because the windage detent shit the bed and it freely moved left and right. It was a BAD fuckin' day. That part of the design is god-awful with the little nubs that grind against each other. Make that from pot metal painted black and it's not gonna hold up. The whole platform had shitty feed geometry problems until the M4, too. I never had an A2 that actually worked right, ever. Guns made to a price point under contract aren't actually very good, even when they say "colt" on them. If the A2 had A1 windage and M4 feedramps, it'd be a GREAT gun. Add a piston and it'd be a PERFECT iron sights gun, provided it's not made under a contract.
The "professionals" out getting work done weren't sitting there adjusting their sights in combat. They were "setting it and forgetting it" and when they needed it, it was there. Or at least I have not heard of anyone adjusting their sights in actual combat. The bullet drop compensation from scopes like the ACOG was used by those trained in it. Sure. Because it's fast and right there in your face so you can react quickly. I don't know anyone who adjusted their sights in the middle of qualifications or in the middle of combat. Do you?
@@redcat9436The issue is A1 saw grueling combat wifh 100s of US servicemen killed in certain engagements in Vietnam even in a single day, A2 saw the Gulf war and Iraq where intensity of combat was much less, to this A1 remains the deadliest M16 variant to be produced.
I had an A2 the whole time I was in the Army. I finished building my A2 clone almost 3 years ago or so. Mine is identical to the ones I had in the Army, except for being semi auto only, though it does have burst markings, and the crush washer for the flash suppressor. The ones we had were thin and shiny, like the one in your photo of the A2 with an M4 stock. But I couldn’t find any of those so used a regular crush washer. I would agree that burst is the only really dumb change made. I do prefer the A1 grip, but never had anything against the A2 grip til I tried an A1. And even though I’m 6’2” I find an A1 length stock much better. It is a good rifle though. I’d definitely take one over any version of an AK if I had to go over the top.
This IS a most outstanding presentation. ... love your anaylsis and personal take. . I started rewatching this morning while brushing teeth....and learned so much about an old friend, and trusted companion. I am an advocate of the concept of a service rifle. It seems the military has gone for the 'gamer' attributes as you say. Gross....lighter and shorter does not mean better...Marine infantryman stood apart from their Army counterparts in the early 2000s with the old A2.....killed while clearing rooms, to 550meter shots...most importantly the service rifle is a weapon ---without ammo. ...certainly can--- and has crushed bone... It's unfortunate you missed out on using it during your time at boot camp, especially learning its irons. You would have appreciated......Back then you never heard anything bad about the sights.....they are remarkably accurate. You were expected to make appropriate elevation adjustments based on your own personal zero.....make wind calls and corresponding adjustments on your own... and it was a cardinal sin to do any sort of 'Kentucky windage'.. true rifle marksmanship..... Looking forward to the next installment A4...
Thanks for the awesome reply, glad you watched till the end! I agree the idea that the M4 Carbine would replace the M16 Rifle was an example of the US mil mass issuing essentially a specialist or specialized weapon. Same thing is going on with this new MCX 6.8 Spear nonsense, which seems more like a Designated Marksman's Rifle rather than a service rifle; it's also like ten times as expensive 🤦 . The M16 in my opinion still makes a better *service rifle* than either on paper and in practice. It hits the perfect middle ground of capability for weight and expense.
I have been trying to get this through peoples heads for twenty years now..The government profile barrel is NOT the HBAR that we shot in the 90s. Many people would think that the M16A2 utilized that Heavy barrel.It DIDNT the difference in weight between an unloaded m16A1 to M16A2 is less than a pound.A match HBAR Colt is about 9 pounds.A m16A2 is like 7 .7 pounds..It’s guilty by association because of the HBAR match rifles.
I think the Canadians got the better deal with the C7. The A2 is front heavy, the A1 is nutral balanced. The 1-7 twist isn't ideal, it's for the long ass tracer. 1-8 will stabalize 80 grain match kings that won't fit in a magazine. 1-9 will beautifully stabalize the M855. M16 A2 sights suck compared to the M1 Grand, the small appature is backwards. If the barrel weight was over chamber throat and right behind the gas port where barrels rupture I'd be more happy with the weight.
My mom was in the Army in the late 80's and I'm sure she was issued an A2 I want to get one some day and have her shoot it, sounds like a fun day. I wouldn't mind getting an H&R A1 clone from PSA and just getting A2 furniture for it so I can have both the A1 & A2 they are not a bad price from there. I just love the retro M16's 20" is pure sex. I'm pretty new to firearms, I had no idea there was so much difference between the A1 & A2 glad I caught this video, thanks for the content! Please keep it coming you're making great videos!
I love my Colt Sporter II (A2 analog). But the slick sided, Model 604s we had in the Air Force were absolutely my favorite. We didn't have A1s in the Air Force, as the one commentor said. We went straight from 604s to Franken A2s in late 90s‐early-2000s. Original 604 rifles modified into A2s. Then quickly adopted the M4/M4A1.
I've seen pictures of some ooooold lowers from the air force. really cool. also the last branch to discontinue use of the Model 15 S&W service revolver.
BASED! Even as a 160th SOAR after my time with 82nd, You touch on a main point that gets lost focusing with "On the clock" competition Min-Maxing... Sure, Little Birds and Blackhawks are "Better" on specialized mission criteria, just like the A1, Mk18, & WWSD... but a "Good" service rifle is just like my Chinook, you'll want my want my "Heavy" weight when things get tough.
I'm mixed on the sights. For marksmanship the a2 style is fantastic, you can readjust them as needed for range and leading targets. That said adjust them under pressure it's a good chance you'll over correct or under correct. The more simplistic a1 style makes it harder for you to adjust when under pressure. A great rule of thumb is to set and forget when it comes to any type of sights. The a1 better renforces that idea. Internalize your holds, and then you can at least put down effective supressive fire. If you're just using it as a hunding rifle or range toy go ahead and take the time to adjust for the shot. As for durability i agree. If you manage to break the a2 irons the rest of the rifle has taken some damage too. The a2 bridge is better at not kicking up dust in my opinion. Having used the colt 601 and the original m16 or "the Air Force rifles", I don't see the need for the forward assist. Never has a ran into a situation when a forward assist would would have been better than dropping the mag and pulling the changing handle or changing weapons. Everything else is negligible to me emd user. Both are great rifles so long as you train to use it effectively.
I’m former Army Infantry 2001-2004 and I was training in basic with that rifle and was issued an M4 when I got to the 25th Id. I love the M16 a lot more!
Spent all my time in the Army with the A2. Depending on what you got it was excellent. Brand new colts were accurate and zeroed quickly. Worn out A2's were difficult to qualify with.
I am perhaps fortunate to say that in my era I was trained on and issued an M-14 and was given familiarization training on the first black rifle version of the M-16. No question that if you are doing a 12 or 20 mile march you would prefer an M-16. But if you were taking 600 yard shots, an M-14 gives you more confidence, especially if it is scoped and zeroed. .I totally missed the A2 version but knew of it. I still have a 6920 M-4 and love it. No way would I swap it for any of the M16 versions. :)
The A2 is actually more popular among strict competition/ target shooters. The main reason being competition shooters crave insanely heavy and unwieldy weapons. They literally add weights to their handguards and other such stupid things. The hate for the A2 is mainly just because while some of it was an upgrade some of the decisions made were just bad. Changing the stock was bad making it longer at least could have made it shorter but instead they made it longer. Again for a boomer who has never shot in anything other than a weaver stance this is great but as for me and everyone else I served with we had reasons why we no longer used a stance that should never have existed in the first place. It is an upgrade I think it's more frustrating because with a few changes it could have been nearly perfect. Keep the original stock length, don't add burst, and keep the original barrel profile. If for some weird reason the barrel profile has to be replaced make one that isn't bad. Otherwise I really love the A2 and frankly for shooting competition or larping with the boys it's great. A2's and A4's only become annoying when you are actually wearing kit and you aren't allowed to swap stocks or grips.
What i had when i joined in 93. 94 got the "M4" family and retired our CAR-15s , Also Aimpoint 2-5k family before block1 mod in 95/96. A2 was a purpose-built awesome rifle.
Completing my A2 build. Oddly enough with a Colt HBAR, got the front sight post swapped out with a bayonet lug FSP, ordered a butt stock cleaning kit as well.
The only part of the rifle that is well and truly undeniably bullshit was burst, and it was not avoidable. A bunch of both Army and Marine officers wanted to entirely eliminate auto, yes, going back to a semiautomatic service rifle. Col Lutz was able to get burst as a compromise. Don't let people tell you it was just the Marines, or just the Army, it was both, gripped by idiocy. And it's really not the M16A2 program's fault that burst is a thing. It should've been free to not care at all and leave the FCG alone.
On the front site, the four sided site with its square post gave a better/sharper sight picture than the old rounded 5 notch post. The Marines were all about the marksmanship for it!
"It's too heavyyyyy!" "Get stronger!" I started out in the Army with the M16A1 and never had any problems with the fixed sights, handguards, thinner barrel, etc. I was able to achieve perfect scores during rifle qualification at popup target ranges with it more than once. About half way through my enlistment we got the brand new A2's, and it was quite impressive over the A1 until we went to the firing range the first time. I couldn't get mine zeroed. I was feeling like a total idiot because my record with the A1 proved I knew how to shoot. The armorer wound up running a rod down the barrel and determined the barrel was bent and issued me a different rifle, which I was able to zero in just a few shots. The burst was definitely my biggest complaint about the A2, though. That, and we didn't get the 62 gr. SS109 ammo until much later, so I could never get it dialed in to the 800m targets where the M193 ammo would fall short using the adjustable sight set to 800. I never got back to that range after we finally did get the heavier bullets, so I don't know what difference it would have made.
I was in the 101st (Ft. Campbell) when we switched over to A2's. For the first time, I shot "expert" with irons (all we had back then) - They definitely are an upgrade. I'm a lefty, so I also (for the 1st time), didn't catch hot brass in my uniform because of the integral brass deflector-- REALLY loved that upgrade. While the "A2 birdcage" worked better, I missed the aesthetics of the "three prong," fwiw. But, the worst "upgrade" by far (for me, since a lot of guys have a longer reach) was the longer fixed stock. Completely made me have to readjust my firing grip and sight picture. That's why I love my 16" with ADJUSTABLE stock 😏
I’d like to interject my humble opinion on the topic of why they lengthened the butt stock. I’m a retired Army Infantryman and served on Active Duty from 1983-2009. I used all iterations of the M-16 and in 1967 when the M-16 was initially issued to the front line units, the average Grunt wore small-regular uniforms as well as size 10.5 boots while by the 80’s the average height and weight had increased to medium-regular and size 11.5 boot which translates to longer bone structure making the older M-16A1 a little small for a comfortable stock weld and in gripping the pistol grip. To see what I mean, imagine trying to shoot a 300 yard target with an M4 while the stock is compressed up against the charging handle, a very uncomfortable position. In all my years as well as being in two wars, my rifle didn’t let me down but my rifle use was only average, other may have used it a lot more and had problems but it was very rare in our units to see someone with a weapon giving them issues.
The A2 sights are NOT too complicated! I trained with the A2 at Paradise Island in ‘08, and they absolutely taught us to adjust the sights. If they can teach a crayon-eater like me to adjust sights, it’s not too complicated.
My first AR is an H&R m16a2 clone, which I decided on largely because of this video. The wisest choice for a first AR it is not, but it's classy and I love late 80s/early 90s aesthetics.
John Q public doesn't need full auto for any real reason besides crime and absolute FUN. Of we want to shoot full auto weapons we can take road trips to to to a place that have these weapons and use theirs to brighten your day. As long as we can keep that body design of that weapon I can deal with single shot or bianary trigger packs! Great Video, keep em' coming!!
I've got an A2 upper with a lightweight barrel and quad rail. Best thing about the AR is the modularity. Even with the carry handle, I can choose between a red dot on top or goosenecked, or a magnified optic. I've never been a fan of the A2 rear sight assemble itself, but even my A1/C7s have the A2 aperture.
I love the A2 sights. I fired an M16A1 in the Navy many years ago, and I don't believe I would like the burst feature of the A2. But the A2 hadn't made it's way into the pipeline yet, and I don't have any experience with it, other than reading. I know that the burst mechanism makes each trigger pull in semi-auto successively heavier (up to three times) and I am pretty sure that would have driven me crazy. A semi/full auto A2 would have been great. I guess the Navy finally got pretty close to that with the A3, but wasn't the A3 a detachable carry handle? Not really sure on that. Excellent video, BTW.
The A3 was really just a lower after a certain point so there were/are M16A4-pattern rifles (flat top) with full auto capabilities and the earlier A2-pattern rifles as well. Thank you for the kind words sir
I was trained on the M16A2 in bootcamp and carried an M16A4 in Afghanistan. There was zero issue with people fucking with the sights. That's a training issue. I'm 6'3". I'd say the A2 length of buttstock is too long. It's definitely too long for use with body armor and short eye relief scopes like the ACOG/RCO. Shooting with irons isn't really any issue for me with that length of pull. I saw a lot of Marines that were under 5'6" struggle with that length of pull, however.
M16a2 is the perfect service rifle. should honestly be issued to soilders who dont get given optics. The sight adjustment and the long sight radius make it the perfect combat rifle.
Jared I always appreciate your videos! They are very informative and extremely positive! Your videos I have to say are ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️! As far as your background of the m16A2, I learned a lot about the rifle I hadn’t known before. Thank you! I can’t say enough good about your videos and how you present them! Your #1 in my book. Great video and awesome presentation!!!
I loved mine while I was in the Corps. Now I shoot an M16A2 NM, and it's a tack driver. It prefers 69 grain Hornady Black ammo, and I've repeatedly hit a steel IPSC target at 600 yards. I've never understood the hate for the A2.
Between the slightly longer length of pull and the slightly heavier weight, I just dismiss the complaints as manlet cope. Good points towards the end too. Its nice for a service rifle to be robust, capable of taking abuse, and capable of dealing out abuse in ways other than just firing projectiles. Reminds me of the first time my wife shot my Lee Enfield No. 4... "Jeeze this thing is heavy, you could just smash someones head with it." "Yes."
I imagine most of the complaints are just people agreeing with Stoner, who disliked every modification made for the A2 except the handguard. He expressed frustration that he went to great lengths to make a lightweight rifle only for it to be made heavier. Maybe you should watch the Stoner tapes before dismissing it as cope.
I’m no expert, but I’ve been a frequent visitor of gun stores, my whole life. I always took particular interested, staring at the AR15’s. I believe your upper doesn’t have the bayonet lug because it was manufactured post 1994 the Clinton administration passed a assault weapons ban and the bandit, lug removal was part of that. The ban ended in 2004., but it took a few years before I started seeing the Bayonet log on AR’s again.
The worst things are the barrel profile and burst fire (specifically how it works). The stock and grip were a slight downgrade, but not as bad as everyone makes them out to be. The handguard is definitely an upgrade, and the sights are more capable (albeit more complex than the A1’s).
Filipino here, if y'all don't like that variant, *you are not man enough to rock a 20 inch full size service rifle with burst fire feature* (I like that feature)... And the thicc barrel to handle the heat If y'all disagree, y'all not patriotic enough yourselves
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Dude the A2 is the best late Cold War iron sight rifle!
100% agree. Nailing down the best service rifle today is definitely a lot murkier but the A2 is clearly the best SR of its era. Thanks for watching and commenting, I'm always linking to your A2 content because I think we've come to similar conclusions
The A4 acoged is still the best general service rifle ever made ...yes even more better than the M1 Garand😊
@@charlesbukowski9836 I think within the concept of the "Service Rifle" as I understand and described in the video, you're probably correct. At the very least, the A4 is America's last service rifle, considering everything is moving carbine-ways (M4, XM5).
@@JaredAF that is what killed the further interest in the 16 platform....they shortened the barrel when the 556 surplus ammo needs a 20 inch and it works just fine there ... reliability as well .... Carbines fail three times more than rifle length....the tests are online but you have to dig for them...
@@charlesbukowski9836 Wrong . Acogs go down . Iron sights do not . A Rifleman with proper training with a M16 A2 beats Acog carrying troops who cannot shoot accurately when things go loppy hands down .
All American troops should first be trained on M16 A2 first and then cross trained on the new technologies that are not as reliable
when I was duty guns on my ship, I would always issue myself the only A3 we had on board. People thought I was crazy for taking the extra weight (it happened to have an M203), but it had an AimPoint, and was never used on the range for requals, so the gas system wasn't blown out and it was hardly ever handled by anyone but me. 5.56 out of 20" is a beautiful thing.
Sounds rad. Would have loved to be able to issue myself an A3 lol. "Heavy is good, heavy is reliable..."
We were still using M-14 rifles when I was in!
Concur, Guns!
@@JaredAF
And if it fails, you can always hit him with it!😜😜😜
@@JaredAFshows u never had to lug a rifle around for a very long distance lol 😂
The A2 saved my life in combat and I still remember the Serial No. 1033060.
My M16A4 in iraq (2008) was 10100373. Still remember it to this day
Cool. A service rifle that was issued to you. An M4 or AK would have done the same.
@ M4’s range is shorter and not really suited to buttstroking. The AK is an excellent Assault rifle, but the energy and accuracy drops off rapidly after 200M. The 7.62 is too slow and 5.45 doesn’t have enough velocity to penetrate most modern body armors.
I love my A2 because you can adapt it to the Army’s M855A1 and the 20” barrel gives it a little extra velocity. You have to reach high with your body armor to beat the steel penetrator going between 3400-3600 FPS.
@@arminiuschatti2287 so you were popping dudes at over 500 meters and buttstroking them to save your life?
@@arminiuschatti2287 yeah everyone knows that but did you buttstroke and make 500+ yard hits in that near death experience?
The M16 is a lightweight air cooled gas operated magazine fed rifle that can be fired in semi or automatic fire with the use of a selective lever (screaming) ---SIR
It was my best friend , my life, I mastered it as I mastered my own life.
A2 in boot camp, trusted and used A4 as infantryman in combat.
Love both
LMGAS! Thanks for watching and commenting, love your videos
@@JaredAF happy patriots day to you brother
Infantry….hmm the A2 I had in Bootcamp was Semi, 3 round burst and safe….
The A1 had safe, semi, full automatic….
I’m just a retired Marine with 8 years of combat in 4 countries….I don’t know shit right there yoo-hoo
@@MountaintravelerEddie8 years of combat? Oooook.
Whats the difference in a2 in a4
My Boi a muhreen and it's showing more and more. It's nice to see more of us with the ol retro 20 inch bois
More people are coming back around to the 20 inch AR. The shorties were/are a little bit of a fad. Thanks for watching semper crayola
I was in the Marines through the mid 90s and had the A2, and always loved it. It was reliable, accurate, and just plain fun to shoot. I had grown up hearing Vietnam vets complain about the M16, but the A2 was a joy for me to use. I never had any issues with its weight or length, which are complaints that I just can't even fathom. Granted, I've never shot an M4, but the 5.56 round was made specifically for the 20" barrel, so I just can't imagine being as confidant with an M4 as I was with the M16A2. As far as the three round burst, the only time we ever used it was for room clearing drills in MOUT training, all other instances it remained firmly in semi-auto mode. My only complaint with my time with the A2 wasn't with the rifle itself, but with the blanks we used with the MILES gear. Those blanks CONSTANTLY jammed, it was a PITA. Never had a single jam with live ammo, though. Anyways, great overview of my favorite rifle!
Those blanks make the rifle filthy filthy filthy
Got to be a T-800 once with MILES gear! It only register near misses!
I can confirm that blanks are a PITA: I got "killed" on an Army Aviation "escape and evasion" course in Germany because our blank ammo was seriously dirty and the MILES blank adapter was just putting all that carbon back into the chamber-- had an "'op for' bad guy" dead to rights, my rifle jammed, and he shot me instead
I can confirm the "blanks PITA" theory: as an Army aviator, I had to attend an "Escape & Evasion" course in Germany. During my run, I encountered an "Op For bad guy" at point blank range. I fired first, but my rifle jammed (because of the MILES/dirty blanks combo), and he shot me instead... At the time, I was inexperienced and ignorantly blamed it on the gun. Took me years to fully trust ARs again
I was issued the A2 in the USMC (02-06) I love the A2 and its simplicity I have a few of them that I use often.
86-91 loved the A2. I have several clones minus the three round burst. You can tell the 5.56 was made for the 20” barrel.
I think the "rifle is fine" meme applies most to the m16a2
The A1 we used in 1978 had trap doors used to store a cleaning kit or cigarettes.. That's if we're talking the same thing. As far as the sights the A2 we're definitely an upgraded system. Going to the weight between the A1 to À2 I hated the extra half pound. I loved shooting it. The A1 is what I entered the Marine Corps with in the 70s and the senior SNCOs remember when they first got them in Vietnam. The DOD quickly upgraded and made them reliable. Thanks for posting.
In Basic Training I had an A2 and I personally loved it. We only shot irons and my sights never shifted even after marching, crawling, drill and ceremony practice, etc. Very sturdy rifle.
Exactly!
Carry handles just look cool. And so do the mounted scopes for them.
Cold War drip will always be 👌🏽
Can’t beat the 20” ar rifle, the way it was meant to be.
Agreed 👍
20 inch full length all the way!
Agreed!
Ballistically 18.5 is maximum fps efficiency. After that the gains are very small
@@jason200912 @kCtUallY, 24 inches for 5.56. Didnt mean to be a smartass😅
Excellent video. You're very knowledgeable. A2 sights finally bring the M16 in line with the Garand & M14.
Awesome video I agree man the A2 is an awesome generation and really does not deserve the weird stigma it has about being easily knocked off zero.
My friend who was in the army in the mid 80s was issued an a1 lower with a a2 upper with the grenade launcher.
That setup might be the best combo. When you need Full-Auto, you NEED Full-Auto. Plus, the 5/8” less pull makes quite a bit of difference. The only drawback is the rubber butt plate.
@@arminiuschatti2287They likely were retrofitted with the burst trigger pack. A lot of early A2's have a "BURST" stamped over where the old A1 "AUTO" used to be.
I don’t own a A2 but I do have a 20” with a rifle length gas system. And I really do enjoy the heck out of it. As for the BS about maneuverability it’s not as bad as people make it out to be. It can be done if you choke up the stock over your shoulder. The marines do it all the time
Correct. It’s not like you really need to aim in CQB. Plus the 20” barrel is needed to make the 5.56 run correctly. Speed is it’s needed to make the 5.56 sing.
I have a 20 incher as well. I set it up like the Canadian C7A2. Basically, an M16A4 with an adjustable stock and detachable carry handle.
I just got a similar A2 from Bear Creek Arsenal chambered in 223 Wylde, and I love the heavy Barrel in the 20 inch, they get good ballistics and accuracy both!
I was always an A1 freak due to my early 70's service. Your argument was compelling, it convinced me at least. Its time to add a little weight to my next 20" build.
The A2 was the first gun I ever shot back in 1997 when I was in basic training. It’s the weapon I judge all all other rifles against. Unfortunately I don’t own one by the time I started collecting was more than a decade later and have not gotten around to getting one as there is always something new and shiny and guns are expensive But I do plan to get one at some point.
Thanks for the video.
lol I remember having to stand in line for 3hrs and reading my serial numbers to 3 different people twice a day in basic just to get to train with that gun. It was odd, I had always thought recruits kept their rifle with them during basic but figured out different when I got there. In 96
I have 6 AR platform rifles. My hands down favorite is my early-90s (pre-ban) Colt AR-15A2 HBAR. My 2nd favorite is my AR15-A4. Basically the same but one has a detachable carry handle. I have the carry handle on it. The 20" A2 is simply the best there ever was.
I also have a 24" HBAR match rifle, 2 M4 style 16" rifles and one AR Pistol in .300 BLK.
The A2 is my go to!
I love your take on the A2. I was only ever issued A2s or A4s (with carry handles) when I was im the National Guard and Army Reserves. Honestly, no one really liked them. We always looked at the M4s and M4A1s Active Duty carried and thought they were more desirable. But years later I built an A2 clone and really began to appreciate it as a civilian. Pretty much everything you said I would agree with, though I hadn't even considered the balance. The one problem with the iron sights, at least in Army doctrine, is that we were trained to simply zero at 25 meters with the rear sight set ti "8/3+1," and returj the wheel to "8/3" afterwards. Sometimes people forgot to return to 8/3, and the difference did seem significant enough that scores on the qualification range were effected. I only saw that happen two or three times, but each time when the soldier realized his mistake and corrected the elevation adjustment, his score improved.
I know when I was in, the "POG units" got A4s and the grunt units got M4s, M4A1s and M27 IARs and when you talked to the guys who got A4s, they wanted the M4s as more of a status symbol than anything. That Grass is Greener effect; Want what the cool guys have.
@@JaredAF Exactly. I think much of the animosity towards the A2 is rooted in status more than anything else. The people that carried it the longest felt like they were screwed, the people who didn't carry it looked patronizingly at those that did. Either way, it was viewed like a bike with training wheels.
I think the best sample group to talk to about the A2 are the guys who were in in the 80s-90s, before the M4s started throwing the green grass effect into the mix. a lot of those guys did their initial training with M16A1s as well
@@wernervoss6357 Except it takes a much better Rifleman to accurately shoot an A2 than and M4 . In my opinion people who can shoot an A2 accurately at range are much better Marksmen than modern day military members only trained with optics and smaller barrels .
I was Army infantry from 2010-2016. Always had an M4 with one exception. Before my second deployment I had PCS’d to Campbell and when I got there everyone else had already been gone for a month or two. All the unit’s M4s were already down range and I was issued a M16A2 to qualify with. Indeed, I felt like a dumbass because I had a prejudice towards the rifle from seeing the support units carrying it. However, the rifle was the best thing I shot throughout the entirety of my service.
Ergonomics were better, the length and weight of the rifle lended itself better to stability. I was worried having been spoiled with years of an ACOG would impact my qual but I found it easier to qualify expert with the irons on this platform than learning the intricacies of the ACOG.
The biggest reason I would say the M4 or at least the A4 makes the A2 obsolete is because of the rail system. Not because of stupid shit that can be placed on it but because of the ease of adding lasers and optics. If you’re not fighting in a conventional infantry unit that needs to be able to fight at night though, I’m gonna say the A2 is the king of all the variations.
Good discussion. I tend to agree, I think the A2 is an upgrade over the A1. The A2 sights imo, are superior to the A1 sights in every way. When used correctly, accurate hits can be made past 600 yards as long as the wind is judged correctly and using good ammunition. I don't mind the PSA handguards, but I opted for a quadrail since I wanted to add a light and vg. The only other upgrade if keeping just the irons, are a pair of night sights, really helps in low light. I love the look of the A2 carry handle, but since mine was the removable version w/flattop receiver, I installed a LPVO on mine. I hate those knobs on the detachable carry handles. Eventually I want to build an A2 clone, but finding the A2 upper has been a real chore since most are either way over priced or out of stock.
yes there seems to be an A2 drought
The A2 receivers are reinforced compared to the older A1
A lot of people complain about the A2's, especially these days. I carried one for 16 months before being issued an M4; my only real complaints are that it was long if you are getting in and out of armored vehicle regularly and the fixed buttstock isn't great with the IBA or IOTV body armor. We never even considered burst mechanism, nobody ever used it. I own an A4 clone, set up in an A2 configuration and I like it. I think they're okay rifles. For us the switch to M4's was a real improvement because of what we were doing.
I carried both the A1 and the A2 during my service and the A2 was just better all the way around. Better sights for distance and once you learned how to battle zero the rear sight for 50/200 yards just use the small peep sight hole and no need for the larger peep sight hole unless danger close. Weight and length was not an issue and little to no recoil when shooting and even had the fancy 3 round burst which we never really used but was cool nevertheless. Nice shooting and keep up the good work!
Admin referenced you yesterday and this video still only has 5.3k views. It should be at least 50.3k by now. Love your channel dude. Your M9 video tickled me with that Policenauts reference. 10/10
Really? Which vid?
@@JaredAF He did an AMA on his channel Managerial Outcomes yesterday. He mentioned you by name and said you were rad
@@archimagirus_sancti Ah ok, I'll have to check that out. Any idea around what timestamp? I was like I don't remember that from the Chauchat video lol
4:53 The standard service-wide ammo was changed for the A2 (heavier projectile). I can't recall the detailed specifics (grains). What I do remember, is that for us who still used the A and A1 for several years afterward, the ammo supply for the A and A1 slowly dried up over time. There finally came a time when we had to use imported IMI-manufactured (Israeli Military Industries) ammo for qualification (Israel continued using the A and A1 for many years). A & A1 rifles would mechanically function just fine with A2 ammo, but the bullets would fly all over the target. The 1:12 rifling just couldn't handle the heavier A2 projectiles.
5:59 Incorrect. There was a trap door cleaning kit compartment in our 1960's vintage M-16's that were still being used in the 1980's.
12:25 The data used by the bean counters were Vietnam statistics. During a contact, conscripts would just blow magazine after magazine in full-auto without aiming. The cyclic rate meant that a standard 20-rd magazine would only last 2.5 seconds. In no time, they'd find themselves in injun country without ammo. They'd either have to RTB, or create a field resupply situation that put more people and equipment in jeopardy.That's why the fulll-auto was eliminated.
By the 1980's, soldiers were much better trained and professional, and could have properly used full auto, but of course the military is always 10 years behind the information curve. Luckily, I was in a unit that continued using the A1, so we retained that capability for up-close and personal use.
21:05 We always sighted in each individual on the range. Allotted 10 rounds per shooter for sight adjustment. Some of the adjustments that had to be made were quite substantial for some people. That sounds wild to me that ya'll would qual without first sighting in.
26:16 "Historical?" You suck. ;-)
27:23 "It just felt right." That's the way I am with the triangle forward grip. I have a 1971 model AR-15 that mimics my service weapon. In my hands, I feel like I'd still be a formidable opponent in a 2-way rifle range, even at my age, especially so if the other soul was stuck with one of those short-barreled M4's. For over a year, I was "Ma Bell" with a 10x optic on the carrying handle, could hold a group the size of a snuff can at 250 meters, and nail a silhouette near the weapon's max range. (I'm assuming the term "Ma Bell" is no longer used? Here's what it refers to... ruclips.net/video/BIGSdwdPxQk/видео.htmlsi=bTegJEUZp6TgHR-n
Your summary is SPOT-ON accurate. Considering that you probably weren't even born when that transition occurred, I'm TOTALLY impressed with your analysis. Keep up the fantastic work!
You are wise beyond your years. You hit all the points I love about the A2 and why I trusted it.
There was nothing wrong with the A1. I liked it because it had a 20" barrel. Plus, the twist rate was perfect for the 55 grain FMJ bullets that were used at the time. When they started jacking with the twist rate, cutting the barrel down, that was going the wrong way in my opinion. I was issued a brand new Harrington Richardson when I got to my new station in Germany in 1975. That weapon was quality throughout. The Colt that I trained on in Basic was junk. Mostly from overuse, but I believe Colt was not the weapon that the H&R was. The H&R was solid and tight. It shot very well. I qualified expert right away with it. I only missed 4 shots outside of the torso target at 250, 200, 150, 100 yards. I can not remember just how many rounds we fired for qualification at different ranges and different positions, but I remember I only missed 4 times. I was stoked about that. Our NCOIC was happy AH because we all shot well. Our amour room had new weapons. There were no old weapons. You can't ask for more than that.
M16a2 is the best retro rifle ever, I loved it when I served and I still love it
what a fantastic explanation of an incredible service rifle. I really appreciated your use of confidence as a trait that makes a strong piece of military equipment what it is. That kind of thing is so important and it's often either overlooked or taken for granted these days. Either way, incredible job with this video, keep it up.
thanks a lot, I hope to make more full length videos in the fall/winter
I think the A2 buttstock was a good idea for when it was implemented, body armor wasn't a serious thing in the 80s, and the added length of pull makes the rifle better for the era it was designed for. Adjustable stocks are more useful these days given the prominent use of body armor.
I believe the A1 rear sight is better for average grunts, the knobs make it too easy to bump the sights out of adjustment in rough conditions, but are a great upgrade for more trained marksmen and really were great sights for distance shooting. I served in the iron sight days and never had the privilege of using advanced optics, even in theater, and I can see how the rail system and better optics are a modern upgrade, but the M16A2s sights always put the rounds where you asked it to and are virtually instructable.
Burst was just stupid, but fortunately, that was easy to fix with a file and a cooperative arms room guy.
Overall, it was a great rifle for its time.
Bought an Armalite M15A2 in the year 2000, it also came with a heavy barrel with 1 in 9 rifle twist, permanently fixed muzzle device Armalite calls a recoil check... Does not have a bayonet lug, OD green furniture... Love It
From the perspective of middle aged military planners in the 80s, it made sense to limit the M16's suppressive fire capabilities because 20th century suppressive fire usually relied an automatic rifleman/machine gunner. The M16 was the first full auto rifle that was standard issue, before then, people relied on a BAR, M60, M1919 or and M2 in some cases for their suppressive fire. In the eyes of the people at that time, they already had a role for full auto suppressive fire so they didn't need every soldier to have that capability, especially when the M16a1 with it's lighter barrel and prone to melting hand-guard was not meant for sustained fire for long periods of time. That was the M60's job. Now we know that combat is unpredictable and you never know when that extra firepower in the hands of the everyday grunt might come in handy, but at a time where Semi-automatic standard infantry weapons were considered revolutionary, only a few decades after 2 wars mainly fought with bolt action rifles(WW2 and the Korean war in the 50s), it makes sense why they believed that the average soldier didn't need full auto. Full automatic standard issue weapons were really only an American thing at the time.
Even so, I would say burst as a disadvantage is a bit exaggerated. It fares pretty well in cases such as long range suppressive fire where you would take shots in short burst any way to be more accurate and the rest of the time, the automatic rifleman would handle suppressive fire with his/her's M249 so you can see why burst rifles were used for decades because it fared very well in most combat situation the US had. I'd say what caused its eventual death was the US' continual encounters with urban warfare where CQC was a much greater issue and a lighter and more maneuverable weapon with full auto for suppressive fire, dealing with ambushes at close range or for dealing with multiple target at close range is ideal.
The burst fire capability was not a success as evidenced that the succeeding M4 eliminated the burst feature and returned back to a full-auto capability!
@@edmundcharles5278The M4 didnt succeed the M16. It was the finale to a long lineage of M16 carbines.
The biggest problem with the mechanism is that, beyond the fact that it's attempted to achieve a mechanical solution to a training problem, the burst mechanism for the AR-15 in particular is an objectively inferior trigger group. You'll see what I mean if you google a breakdown of how it works, but due to the fact there are 6 individual mating surfaces for the trigger catch on, there's potentially 6 different trigger pull characteristics depending on the position of the burst mechanism when you pull the trigger. That's absolutely horrendous for accuracy, making an already not very good milspec trigger worse. In addition to that, because there's no way for the burst mechanism to "Reset," you never know how many shots you'll get for the first burst you fire. You may get 3. You may get 2. You may get 1. So it effectively invalidates the entire point of full auto, since you may well just get a semi-auto gun when you're in a situation where you feel full auto is justified.
For all of these reasons, it's unfortunately *not* an exaggeration to say that the burst mechanism is a disadvantage. That's not to say that the burst had to be a major detriment, it could have been done well and not been an objective downgrade. But specifically the mechanism that was designed and implemented *was* a disadvantage purely because it was mechanically inferior to the standard full auto trigger group.
I deployed to RVN in ‘69 with my M16 and to Desert Storm in ‘90 with my M16A2. Just purchased a replica M16A2, left handed, from Stag Arms. Love it❤.
I have a 7 year old little boy who’s left handed, but he tends to wann shoot right handed. Should I just let him go with what he likes more or is there a way to tell what would be best for him?
Awesome video. How cool to live with land where you can be free to have a target range.
Love the info and candid delivery. Subscribed
Ten year veteran. I started on the M-16 and then moved to the M-6A2. This rifle is easy and accurate. Open sights at 500 meters. Most people need optics past 300 meters but not with this rifle. Reliable, stable…..love it.
I was issued both in the Army. The A2 had some features that were better (the brass deflector, hand guards, and the easier to use hand guard retainer ) but it was fundamentally flawed bc it was designed for the Marine Corps rifle range and NOT for combat. The Army wanted what it eventually got, the M4, but IMHO the original A1 was a better rifle for combat (no nonsense sights, full auto, lighter). The AR platform is made to dominate the 300 meter battle area. The A1 does that better. In the end, I wish congress would've let the 2 services pick their own version of the AR platform. I remember seeing what the army wanted back in the 1980's which was basically an A1 with a 18 inch barrel and an optical sight. Update it with the brass deflector and the hand guards then leave the full auto and that would've been the bomb.
I need this! Back in 2006 this is what we qualified with in Basic Training. Then got brand new Colt M4s at my unit.
THANK you, For your Video, about m-16 , and your Knowledgeam, carrying the, 16ma1, in 1970s , and a tanker model, and other models in the 1980s and 1990s .
M16A1 did have a birdcage, A2 closed the bottom of it off. 3 prong open flash hider was on early pre-A1 guns.
yeah mentioned it in the video but probably should have clarified
You’re referring to the colt 601 and xm16E1
Why was the prong replaced?
Because there's really no wire fences in the forests of Vietnam to use the pronged brakes with (before the A1 variant). What you do is put the muzzle on the wire, twist it & fire off a round; cutting the wire. But that'll let the enemy know you're breaking in their perimeter when you want to be covert. And it'll likely going to be snagged on to anything, and I mean *anything.* given the fact that the majority of the troops sent are conscripts and drafted, with little amount of training. Especially taking care of their M16s. Granted, I like the three-pronged brake. But you gotta be careful with it
So in conclusion, you made a solution to a possible problem, but that problem is not there in that particular place. So you don't really need it. Plus it'll also likely be ruined by some barely trained soldiers with low IQ
@@jehoiakimelidoronila5450um 75% of US troops in the Vietnam war had volunteered to go and were not drafted/conscripted.
Really enjoy your videos man. Keep up the good work 💪
If you have 9HoleReviews and Bowser’s Castle in your top three comments, then you’ve done something very right, young man. Keep up the excellent work that you do on this platform.
Another great video! I really like the format of your M16A1 and A2 videos.
Awesome, I hope to make more in this style
I trained on an A1 in the 1991 Air Force, but I really like my A4 clone build-very accurate-and my Del-ton upper is 1:9 which I find optimal since I run 55-62 grain. The entire rifle, with sling and with carry handle, but without mag, is 7.89 pounds.
Try the 1:7” twist. Your M855’s will shoot more accurate there chair force
Semper
USMC / Retired
@@MountaintravelerEddie you can always count on the Marines to nut stomp the other services. Sometimes they forget wer'e all on the same side, crayon poisoning.
@@Sandhill1988 😂🤣😂🤣hey I got nothing against the chair force….
Their ladies like the OTT’s
Open
Throat
Thrusters
But hey, we are all on the same team.
Every branch of the military now is poisoned from politics
Not crayons bro. Maybe what you don’t understand is that we bust each others balls, but let a civvie start some shyt….you and me would do the beat down. It’s all in good fun. Don’t worry
Enjoy your day…..21 years ago I was part of the initial push to Iraq.
Who’s the ones that got a F-117 shot down in Yugoslavia 25 years ago (March 1999)???
Only Air Force got those…..my ass was there and saw that / heard it.
Semper
I built three variations with an 18 inch barrel. Love it!
Best in its own zeitgeist. It has no M4 feed ramps and a permanent carry handle iron sight. Both features hold it back in terms of modern modularity and reliability.
It's got a vibe, though.
Funny, the M16A1/A2 both worked very well without the M4 feed ramps!
about 1:12 and 1:7 twist rate. the introduction of the M855 ammunition, which had a heavier steel core and tracer rounds (which are even longer), required a faster twist rate to maintain accuracy and stability in flight.
I was issued an A1 in basic, carried one as a Paratrooper, then an A2, then various M4 types.
I could not care less about how good a rifle is for D&C...or bayonet training for that matter.
I have never seen anyone use the " more capable" rear sight either.
The 1/7 twist was a result of the tracer version of the ss109 round. Heavy 77grn bullet use in combat was a result of the 1/7 twist, not the other way around.
Pat Rogers (rip) used to call an A2 a musket or fence post, and that the usmc rifle team had far too much influence on it.
In '83(?) the Army had a study done of the A2, i disliked almost everything about it. Some minor, some major.
They wanted a shorter or adjustable butt, stiffer non removable handguard, single aperature rear sight with all adjustments at the rear, fixed front post sized for ranging, night sights, optics mounting, full auto, different barrel contour.
The Army wanted to pursue the M16a1PIP, but congress forced the A2 on them. It was not until the M4 a1 that they got close to what they wanted.
I'll eventually get an A2, but only because its what I crossed the berm with...it wouldn't be my first choice at all.
I have the Windham Weaponry 20" Government model with the Brownells retro scope a way kool set up for 1968 Vietnam vet ! 😊
A1 sights are for conscripts, A2 sights are for professionals.
I used to say that as a short and sweet way to sum it up, but then you look back through history and see every conscript army having great adjustable sights on their rifles from the 1870s through the 1950s. Did people get dumber? No, VC/PAVN used SKS and AK rifles with adjustable sights. A1 sights were completely cynical and A2 sights should always have been the standard.
Man, I get the argument and almost agree, but they're actually pretty terrible in practice. You get the distance adjustability at the expense of the windage adjustment being solid in the A2 design. I thought they were great until my A2's rear sights just broke on me in Iraq and wouldn't hold a zero anymore because the windage detent shit the bed and it freely moved left and right. It was a BAD fuckin' day. That part of the design is god-awful with the little nubs that grind against each other. Make that from pot metal painted black and it's not gonna hold up. The whole platform had shitty feed geometry problems until the M4, too. I never had an A2 that actually worked right, ever. Guns made to a price point under contract aren't actually very good, even when they say "colt" on them.
If the A2 had A1 windage and M4 feedramps, it'd be a GREAT gun. Add a piston and it'd be a PERFECT iron sights gun, provided it's not made under a contract.
The "professionals" out getting work done weren't sitting there adjusting their sights in combat. They were "setting it and forgetting it" and when they needed it, it was there.
Or at least I have not heard of anyone adjusting their sights in actual combat.
The bullet drop compensation from scopes like the ACOG was used by those trained in it. Sure. Because it's fast and right there in your face so you can react quickly.
I don't know anyone who adjusted their sights in the middle of qualifications or in the middle of combat.
Do you?
The A2 sights are trash. A1 is superior.
@@redcat9436The issue is A1 saw grueling combat wifh 100s of US servicemen killed in certain engagements in Vietnam even in a single day, A2 saw the Gulf war and Iraq where intensity of combat was much less, to this A1 remains the deadliest M16 variant to be produced.
Excellent video. Really like your presentation style.
I had an A2 the whole time I was in the Army. I finished building my A2 clone almost 3 years ago or so. Mine is identical to the ones I had in the Army, except for being semi auto only, though it does have burst markings, and the crush washer for the flash suppressor. The ones we had were thin and shiny, like the one in your photo of the A2 with an M4 stock. But I couldn’t find any of those so used a regular crush washer. I would agree that burst is the only really dumb change made. I do prefer the A1 grip, but never had anything against the A2 grip til I tried an A1. And even though I’m 6’2” I find an A1 length stock much better. It is a good rifle though. I’d definitely take one over any version of an AK if I had to go over the top.
This IS a most outstanding presentation. ... love your anaylsis and personal take. . I started rewatching this morning while brushing teeth....and learned so much about an old friend, and trusted companion. I am an advocate of the concept of a service rifle. It seems the military has gone for the 'gamer' attributes as you say. Gross....lighter and shorter does not mean better...Marine infantryman stood apart from their Army counterparts in the early 2000s with the old A2.....killed while clearing rooms, to 550meter shots...most importantly the service rifle is a weapon ---without ammo. ...certainly can--- and has crushed bone... It's unfortunate you missed out on using it during your time at boot camp, especially learning its irons. You would have appreciated......Back then you never heard anything bad about the sights.....they are remarkably accurate. You were expected to make appropriate elevation adjustments based on your own personal zero.....make wind calls and corresponding adjustments on your own... and it was a cardinal sin to do any sort of 'Kentucky windage'.. true rifle marksmanship..... Looking forward to the next installment A4...
Thanks for the awesome reply, glad you watched till the end! I agree the idea that the M4 Carbine would replace the M16 Rifle was an example of the US mil mass issuing essentially a specialist or specialized weapon. Same thing is going on with this new MCX 6.8 Spear nonsense, which seems more like a Designated Marksman's Rifle rather than a service rifle; it's also like ten times as expensive 🤦 . The M16 in my opinion still makes a better *service rifle* than either on paper and in practice. It hits the perfect middle ground of capability for weight and expense.
I have been trying to get this through peoples heads for twenty years now..The government profile barrel is NOT the HBAR that we shot in the 90s.
Many people would think that the M16A2 utilized that Heavy barrel.It DIDNT the difference in weight between an unloaded m16A1 to M16A2 is less than a pound.A match HBAR Colt is about 9 pounds.A m16A2 is like 7 .7 pounds..It’s guilty by association because of the HBAR match rifles.
yeah people really queen about the weight of the M16A2, it's pretty annoying.
Correct-yet even the extra weight at the end of the M16A2 barrel does impart a distinct ‘forward heaviness’ of the M16A2 over the M16A1 pencil barrel.
MAX ALGORITHMIC ACTION ACTIVATED
I think the Canadians got the better deal with the C7. The A2 is front heavy, the A1 is nutral balanced. The 1-7 twist isn't ideal, it's for the long ass tracer. 1-8 will stabalize 80 grain match kings that won't fit in a magazine. 1-9 will beautifully stabalize the M855. M16 A2 sights suck compared to the M1 Grand, the small appature is backwards. If the barrel weight was over chamber throat and right behind the gas port where barrels rupture I'd be more happy with the weight.
The C7 is a heavy barrel and it has a lot of extra accessories. It's a heavier rifle.
My mom was in the Army in the late 80's and I'm sure she was issued an A2 I want to get one some day and have her shoot it, sounds like a fun day. I wouldn't mind getting an H&R A1 clone from PSA and just getting A2 furniture for it so I can have both the A1 & A2 they are not a bad price from there. I just love the retro M16's 20" is pure sex. I'm pretty new to firearms, I had no idea there was so much difference between the A1 & A2 glad I caught this video, thanks for the content! Please keep it coming you're making great videos!
Thanks. Been busy and haven't been able to work on videos much lately but one should be going up today or tomorrow, although it will be very different
The A2 was issued in the late 1990s and early 1990s.
I love my Colt Sporter II (A2 analog). But the slick sided, Model 604s we had in the Air Force were absolutely my favorite.
We didn't have A1s in the Air Force, as the one commentor said. We went straight from 604s to Franken A2s in late 90s‐early-2000s. Original 604 rifles modified into A2s. Then quickly adopted the M4/M4A1.
I've seen pictures of some ooooold lowers from the air force. really cool. also the last branch to discontinue use of the Model 15 S&W service revolver.
BASED! Even as a 160th SOAR after my time with 82nd, You touch on a main point that gets lost focusing with "On the clock" competition Min-Maxing...
Sure, Little Birds and Blackhawks are "Better" on specialized mission criteria, just like the A1, Mk18, & WWSD...
but a "Good" service rifle is just like my Chinook, you'll want my want my "Heavy" weight when things get tough.
I'm mixed on the sights. For marksmanship the a2 style is fantastic, you can readjust them as needed for range and leading targets. That said adjust them under pressure it's a good chance you'll over correct or under correct. The more simplistic a1 style makes it harder for you to adjust when under pressure. A great rule of thumb is to set and forget when it comes to any type of sights. The a1 better renforces that idea. Internalize your holds, and then you can at least put down effective supressive fire. If you're just using it as a hunding rifle or range toy go ahead and take the time to adjust for the shot. As for durability i agree. If you manage to break the a2 irons the rest of the rifle has taken some damage too. The a2 bridge is better at not kicking up dust in my opinion. Having used the colt 601 and the original m16 or "the Air Force rifles", I don't see the need for the forward assist. Never has a ran into a situation when a forward assist would would have been better than dropping the mag and pulling the changing handle or changing weapons. Everything else is negligible to me emd user. Both are great rifles so long as you train to use it effectively.
I like the A1,it's crazy light-and the 1 in 12 out of a 20inch with 55grain will blow through level 3A body armour like a hot knife through butter
Correct- all that the A1 needed was an updated new barrel with a new 1 in 7 twist!
@@edmundcharles5278Isnt 1 in 12 better because its faster and deadlier?
@@dobridjordje Twist rate has no effect on muzzle velocity or terminal effectiveness
I’m former Army Infantry 2001-2004 and I was training in basic with that rifle and was issued an M4 when I got to the 25th Id. I love the M16 a lot more!
This is the best M16A2 video on RUclips.
Spent all my time in the Army with the A2. Depending on what you got it was excellent. Brand new colts were accurate and zeroed quickly. Worn out A2's were difficult to qualify with.
I am perhaps fortunate to say that in my era I was trained on and issued an M-14 and was given familiarization training on the first black rifle version of the M-16. No question that if you are doing a 12 or 20 mile march you would prefer an M-16. But if you were taking 600 yard shots, an M-14 gives you more confidence, especially if it is scoped and zeroed. .I totally missed the A2 version but knew of it. I still have a 6920 M-4 and love it. No way would I swap it for any of the M16 versions. :)
Its because the A2 was not an upgrade package. They took away the fully auto function and replaced it with 3 round burst.
3:33 it doesn't get mentioned by anyone without good taste. Rock River is about as good as it gets.
The A2 is actually more popular among strict competition/ target shooters. The main reason being competition shooters crave insanely heavy and unwieldy weapons. They literally add weights to their handguards and other such stupid things. The hate for the A2 is mainly just because while some of it was an upgrade some of the decisions made were just bad. Changing the stock was bad making it longer at least could have made it shorter but instead they made it longer. Again for a boomer who has never shot in anything other than a weaver stance this is great but as for me and everyone else I served with we had reasons why we no longer used a stance that should never have existed in the first place.
It is an upgrade I think it's more frustrating because with a few changes it could have been nearly perfect. Keep the original stock length, don't add burst, and keep the original barrel profile. If for some weird reason the barrel profile has to be replaced make one that isn't bad. Otherwise I really love the A2 and frankly for shooting competition or larping with the boys it's great. A2's and A4's only become annoying when you are actually wearing kit and you aren't allowed to swap stocks or grips.
What i had when i joined in 93. 94 got the "M4" family and retired our CAR-15s , Also Aimpoint 2-5k family before block1 mod in 95/96. A2 was a purpose-built awesome rifle.
Completing my A2 build. Oddly enough with a Colt HBAR, got the front sight post swapped out with a bayonet lug FSP, ordered a butt stock cleaning kit as well.
The only part of the rifle that is well and truly undeniably bullshit was burst, and it was not avoidable. A bunch of both Army and Marine officers wanted to entirely eliminate auto, yes, going back to a semiautomatic service rifle.
Col Lutz was able to get burst as a compromise. Don't let people tell you it was just the Marines, or just the Army, it was both, gripped by idiocy. And it's really not the M16A2 program's fault that burst is a thing. It should've been free to not care at all and leave the FCG alone.
Agree. The burst sucks and it should have been replaced with standard FA FCGs like they did from the M4 to the M4A1.
On the front site, the four sided site with its square post gave a better/sharper sight picture than the old rounded 5 notch post. The Marines were all about the marksmanship for it!
exactly, like the squared off front sight of a S&W target revolver
"It's too heavyyyyy!"
"Get stronger!"
I started out in the Army with the M16A1 and never had any problems with the fixed sights, handguards, thinner barrel, etc. I was able to achieve perfect scores during rifle qualification at popup target ranges with it more than once. About half way through my enlistment we got the brand new A2's, and it was quite impressive over the A1 until we went to the firing range the first time. I couldn't get mine zeroed. I was feeling like a total idiot because my record with the A1 proved I knew how to shoot. The armorer wound up running a rod down the barrel and determined the barrel was bent and issued me a different rifle, which I was able to zero in just a few shots.
The burst was definitely my biggest complaint about the A2, though. That, and we didn't get the 62 gr. SS109 ammo until much later, so I could never get it dialed in to the 800m targets where the M193 ammo would fall short using the adjustable sight set to 800. I never got back to that range after we finally did get the heavier bullets, so I don't know what difference it would have made.
I was in the 101st (Ft. Campbell) when we switched over to A2's. For the first time, I shot "expert" with irons (all we had back then) - They definitely are an upgrade.
I'm a lefty, so I also (for the 1st time), didn't catch hot brass in my uniform because of the integral brass deflector-- REALLY loved that upgrade.
While the "A2 birdcage" worked better, I missed the aesthetics of the "three prong," fwiw.
But, the worst "upgrade" by far (for me, since a lot of guys have a longer reach) was the longer fixed stock. Completely made me have to readjust my firing grip and sight picture.
That's why I love my 16" with ADJUSTABLE stock 😏
I’d like to interject my humble opinion on the topic of why they lengthened the butt stock. I’m a retired Army Infantryman and served on Active Duty from 1983-2009. I used all iterations of the M-16 and in 1967 when the M-16 was initially issued to the front line units, the average Grunt wore small-regular uniforms as well as size 10.5 boots while by the 80’s the average height and weight had increased to medium-regular and size 11.5 boot which translates to longer bone structure making the older M-16A1 a little small for a comfortable stock weld and in gripping the pistol grip. To see what I mean, imagine trying to shoot a 300 yard target with an M4 while the stock is compressed up against the charging handle, a very uncomfortable position. In all my years as well as being in two wars, my rifle didn’t let me down but my rifle use was only average, other may have used it a lot more and had problems but it was very rare in our units to see someone with a weapon giving them issues.
I personally think that the men that fought in Vietnam would have liked the A2 more than the A1. Great video man!, I liked it.
The A2 sights are NOT too complicated! I trained with the A2 at Paradise Island in ‘08, and they absolutely taught us to adjust the sights. If they can teach a crayon-eater like me to adjust sights, it’s not too complicated.
My first AR is an H&R m16a2 clone, which I decided on largely because of this video. The wisest choice for a first AR it is not, but it's classy and I love late 80s/early 90s aesthetics.
John Q public doesn't need full auto for any real reason besides crime and absolute FUN. Of we want to shoot full auto weapons we can take road trips to to to a place that have these weapons and use theirs to brighten your day. As long as we can keep that body design of that weapon I can deal with single shot or bianary trigger packs! Great Video, keep em' coming!!
“Shall not infringe.” Full-Auto makes a lot of difference when the G-Man comes for you.
Great Review, Your a great American.
thanks man
I've got an A2 upper with a lightweight barrel and quad rail. Best thing about the AR is the modularity. Even with the carry handle, I can choose between a red dot on top or goosenecked, or a magnified optic. I've never been a fan of the A2 rear sight assemble itself, but even my A1/C7s have the A2 aperture.
Great rifles. When I was in the Army it was the M16 A1.. Im old. 😂
The A2 model is mh favorite ❤
Great review!!
My biggest gripe is the rear stock is too long in my opinion. For armor, for many women and smaller men....it's not ideal, at all.
There is a company that makes the A2 style stock in A1 length. Uses A2 hardware/buttplate. $40….
I love the A2 sights. I fired an M16A1 in the Navy many years ago, and I don't believe I would like the burst feature of the A2. But the A2 hadn't made it's way into the pipeline yet, and I don't have any experience with it, other than reading. I know that the burst mechanism makes each trigger pull in semi-auto successively heavier (up to three times) and I am pretty sure that would have driven me crazy. A semi/full auto A2 would have been great. I guess the Navy finally got pretty close to that with the A3, but wasn't the A3 a detachable carry handle? Not really sure on that. Excellent video, BTW.
The A3 was really just a lower after a certain point so there were/are M16A4-pattern rifles (flat top) with full auto capabilities and the earlier A2-pattern rifles as well. Thank you for the kind words sir
Never fired one. Was an MP (95B type) from ‘79-‘85. Did pretty well with my A1 and my 1911 though. Thanks.
I was trained on the M16A2 in bootcamp and carried an M16A4 in Afghanistan. There was zero issue with people fucking with the sights. That's a training issue. I'm 6'3". I'd say the A2 length of buttstock is too long. It's definitely too long for use with body armor and short eye relief scopes like the ACOG/RCO. Shooting with irons isn't really any issue for me with that length of pull. I saw a lot of Marines that were under 5'6" struggle with that length of pull, however.
at least, it's still a fine rifle, sir.
M16a2 is the perfect service rifle.
should honestly be issued to soilders who dont get given optics. The sight adjustment and the long sight radius make it the perfect combat rifle.
It would be my choice if I was going to run irons.
Jared I always appreciate your videos! They are very informative and extremely positive! Your videos I have to say are ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️! As far as your background of the m16A2, I learned a lot about the rifle I hadn’t known before. Thank you! I can’t say enough good about your videos and how you present them! Your #1 in my book. Great video and awesome presentation!!!
Good job! I subscribed. You should do reviews on more pistols since your style is very through
I loved mine while I was in the Corps. Now I shoot an M16A2 NM, and it's a tack driver. It prefers 69 grain Hornady Black ammo, and I've repeatedly hit a steel IPSC target at 600 yards. I've never understood the hate for the A2.
Between the slightly longer length of pull and the slightly heavier weight, I just dismiss the complaints as manlet cope.
Good points towards the end too. Its nice for a service rifle to be robust, capable of taking abuse, and capable of dealing out abuse in ways other than just firing projectiles. Reminds me of the first time my wife shot my Lee Enfield No. 4...
"Jeeze this thing is heavy, you could just smash someones head with it."
"Yes."
Haha i didn't want to say it... Yep, that head splitting quality just isn't there with the M16A1 I feel like. thanks for watching and commenting
I imagine most of the complaints are just people agreeing with Stoner, who disliked every modification made for the A2 except the handguard. He expressed frustration that he went to great lengths to make a lightweight rifle only for it to be made heavier. Maybe you should watch the Stoner tapes before dismissing it as cope.
I love the A2. You have a cool truck
I’m no expert, but I’ve been a frequent visitor of gun stores, my whole life. I always took particular interested, staring at the AR15’s. I believe your upper doesn’t have the bayonet lug because it was manufactured post 1994 the Clinton administration passed a assault weapons ban and the bandit, lug removal was part of that. The ban ended in 2004., but it took a few years before I started seeing the Bayonet log on AR’s again.
i think colt started shaving those off before the AWB. like in the 80s. especially on their target sporter models. don't know for sure though
The worst things are the barrel profile and burst fire (specifically how it works). The stock and grip were a slight downgrade, but not as bad as everyone makes them out to be. The handguard is definitely an upgrade, and the sights are more capable (albeit more complex than the A1’s).
I would NEVER have a .223/5.56 rifle without a 20' barrel.
M16A2 + Synthwave = 👌
Filipino here, if y'all don't like that variant, *you are not man enough to rock a 20 inch full size service rifle with burst fire feature* (I like that feature)... And the thicc barrel to handle the heat
If y'all disagree, y'all not patriotic enough yourselves
An M16A2 and a CUCV. You built yourself a time machine!