Was the M16A2 honestly an improvement over the A1?

Burst is a shit

Beautiful

I was in when my unit made the change, everybody wondered 'why'. Not a single change was needed or wanted by troops.

I really hope you are all different anons.

It was at best a sidegrade, better at some things, worse at others.
>heavier barrel, better full auto but higher weight. Nowadays there's a trend back to thinner barrels proving it was basically a meme
>increased length of pull was retarded unless you're a big guy
>ruined A1 aesthetics
>SS109 sucks dick, easily could've made a more effective 55 grain bullet and not wasted money on barrels

Should have went with the A2 model 711

Huge improvement but it should of been full auto.

youtube.com/watch?v=fX5RoaYqQ04

Very cool user

Thank you for your service

>Huge improvement
About the only thing that I would classify as "huge" would be the handguards and that's literally it. Otherwise, the A2 is a one-step-forward-two-steps-back ordeal.

>A2 handguards were made of a more durable material
>A2 stock was also more durable but the length of A1 was better for a combat rifle; A2 was better for KD range, highpower style shooting
>Brass deflector and reinforcements were an improvement but not drastically so
>Barrel profile is retarded and was designed based on a misunderstanding
>Sights were an improvement but mostly just for the KD range; not that much of an improvement in field use
>Burst mechanism was not only retarded but poorly designed
>M855 has documented terminal performance issues

It's basically the Marines trying to turn the M16 into a target rifle because soviet manuals said the AK-74 had a longer effective range than the M16A1 and "muh overmatch." I'd rather have an A1.

Attached: a1-203.jpg (1037x692, 374K)

upvote because this is epic

the sheer shit factor of burst fire coupled with the A2's retarded cam makes it an automatic downgrade from the A1 in my eyes

The good:
>change in twist rate
>logistically simplified handguards
>furniture made of stronger materials unavailable at time of original design
>a2 birdcage doesn’t kick up dirt
>handguard retention ring redesigned to delta shape
>reinforced lower receiver
The bad:
>stock too long
>a2 barrel profile is a nonsensical fix for the misdiagnosis of “bent barrels” which was actually due to gas port burrs
>3rnd burst only nice in theory, entails issues for end-users
>overcomplicated rear sight
>grip nub
Ideally, the a2 would have been an a1 with the good points folded into the design, possibly with a barrel profile similar to the faxon gunner profile (which would have been the logical solution to the misdiagnosed barrel bending issue).
A full breakdown of the shortcomings of the a2 can be read here apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a168577.pdf

Attached: 68E97D8E-30CA-45E3-A8B7-C06BCACA0EE7.jpg (1242x1494, 361K)

For every positive it brought it had two negatives following along. We should have just slapped A2 handguards and sliprings on A1s and left it at that until the late 90s when M4s started really making the rounds.

>>overcomplicated rear sight
imagine thinking this.

Here. This is for you guys.

Attached: k a magical place m16a2.png (921x674, 77K)

The sights are much better. The elevation on the rear sight made a big difference. The stock is better IMO as it's longer. The barrel is a bastard, because it's pencil until the gas block then .750 after that. It makes no sense. The change in twist was good as we went to 62 grain and heavier.

Burst is the gay though. It's easier just to train to use a short auto burst.

so does the A2 profile not have a single benefit?

>Garrison troops didn't have much to say about their rifles.

the A1 profile has no benefit over the A2 profile.

This is why I keep coming back to this wretched place.

>he thinks he will be making long shots and adjusting for windage inna shit

Ok Wild Bill.

Yes, for Marine and Army sharpshooting teams.

>lighter
>not front heavy
>proven to be more accurate

the duality of man

A1 doesn't have a narrowing of the barrel near the middle.
It's like someone WANTED the barrel to bend there.

>haven’t seen this shit in years
Good job anons

Attached: 3D2F7D88-FB53-49E2-8430-D3BBABAD3FEA.jpg (1131x602, 103K)

>why a2 over a1?
this guy "coldblue" is why. read the thread. he goes into detail about the grip, front sight, stock, and some other things
>ar15.com/forums/AR-15/Why-did-the-military-go-from-the-A1-pistol-grip-to-the-A2-pistol-grip-/118-626884/?page=1

Most of the issues with the gun sorted themselves out when we ran out of ammo that used that godawful reclaimed powder with a flame front twice as fast as intended. The rest were solved, and new ones caused, by the furniture, sights, and other accessories. The new modern lower design was exceptional but the burst cam was bad. I agree with burst fire but the burst cam should always reset on trigger release. Sights were a welcome change. The stock was made to punch holes at Camp Perry not maneuver on a battlefield. The grip hump is not a good idea. The new twist rate is unironically better but we could have kept the old one with no real problems.

All the A2 barrel does is weigh more because they beefed it up in literally the most useless part. It doesn't add rigidity because it's just dangling out there in the front and the hottest part of the barrel will always be the area right BEHIND the FSB.

read the thread above.
"...What about the heavy profile in front of the fsb?
I was under the impression that the reasons for adding the extra meat at the front was in error...."

"Not in regards to preventing the barrel bending during dynamic bayonet fighting drills or banging against rappelling towers, etc.
The Operational and Engineering testing proved the heavier profile in front of just behind the FSP was many times more resistant to being ben in our more aggressive training environments than those of the other services.. "

"Part of my strategy to get the Army to adopt the Marine Corps improved rifle (so it was more affordable for us over the long run) was to involve as many Army elements, voters at the table, nay sayers, etc., as possible, like their human Engineering lab (HEL) at Aberdeen Maryland. (See my comment above re: buttstock length.)
So in looking to improve the pistol grip (which is a major human to machine contact/control surface to begin with), which we were going to change anyway (i.e., buy a new pistol grip mold) taking the sling swivel provision from the bottom of the front grip, we looked at a fully contoured pistol grip with grooves for all three fingers. But HEL objected as this would only fit the 45% percentile Soldier. But adding just one groove to support the middle finger would fit the 85th to the 90th % Soldier. They also liked removing the sling swivel feature as we contoured that area actually increasing the front gripping are slightly."

>Not in regards to preventing the barrel bending during dynamic bayonet fighting drills or banging against rappelling towers, etc.
It would bend near the receiver not at some arbitrary point right at the FSB, and literally no one has bent their A1 doing bayonet drills or rappelling. This also doesn't dispel the actual documentation we have admitting to the gas port fouling fiasco.

im just repeating what lt col lutz has to say. hes literally one of the guys that designed the changes. i'll take his word for it.

Only in the sights and handguard

Yeah and he also stated that the drop gauge tests made them mistakenly believe that bending was the reason the gauge stopped right at the gas port, and not the fouling. The profile is literally a result of carelessness.

>However, soon after I started using a borescope with a video recorder and monitor to inspect “bent” barrels. What I found was a mound of bullet jacket material at their gas ports. This build up was caused by a burr left from drilling/reaming the gas port. This was where the Armorer’s Drop Gauge was getting stuck. When we removed this “mound”, the barrels would all pass the Drop Gauge. We let Colt know what we had deduced, and that is one reason they kept models of “A2’s” in their line-up with A1 profile barrels. However, the A2 profile was already down the road for the US Military. So about the only advantage of the A2 profile was to give the rifle a little more muzzle hang. This was noted by most all the Operational Test participants, especially when they fired the standing/off-hand leg of our rifle qualification course.

And here's the thread with the man himself posting that.

ar15.com/forums/ar-15/-/118-260598/?page=1

>dynamic bayonet fighting drills or banging against rappelling towers
So in other words to prevent Marines from damaging their own rifle while doing Marine things. So I can safely stick with a pencil barrel for just gunfighting purposes, yes?

heavier barrel does fuck all for round type. Rifling twist rate is what you mean user

>replacing HK33 for gay-16

So long as you’re not grug, yes

>automatic downgrade
>automatic
heh

>>heavier barrel, better full auto but higher weight.

Found the larper.

MY SIDES

Attached: coltaward_zpsf763b813.jpg (1024x462, 135K)

The C7 is what the M16A2 should have been