User Panel
Off the record, I love your new bangs, Mrs. Obama
OR, USA
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 12:14:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Lancelot]
I've never been a fan of the "stock" pistol grips. They've always come off immediately in favor of MIAD's or MOE's. And a quick browse on the EE seems to mimic the same sentiment. (They're like awful stocking stuffers that no one wants)
I'm building an XM177'ish carbine, and just got in an A1 grip to slap on it. Holy smokes...it's still too small to be "comfortable" compared to a MOE+, but it's world's more comfortable (and seemingly universal) than the A2. It's wider, and doesn't have that annoying ridge right where you want to put your middle finger (unless of course you have truck driver/bass player hands). Other than the stippling, how was the A2 grip considered an "upgrade"? For that matter, how was that grip (in A1 or A2 configuration) ever considered large enough for American's hands to begin with? |
|
Originally Posted By JJREA:
I really like my A2 with an A1 buttstock. It feels perfect for me. But I'm only 5'8". But I never shoot with armor. And not very thick clothing. But man it feels just right. The A2 butt plate is superior, IMHO. Well, compared to a metal, rounded A1. A rubber A1 might be fine though. But the flat on doesn't slip much at all. For me shooting NTCH is not very natural in a standing, offhand position. I have a long neck and I have to crane it to get there. And it puts more strain on the position of my eyeball. Meaning I'm looking up. So, I'm not sure what that's got to do with anything other than I ever have to choose a more natural head position and try to keep my head in the same spot, or I need take an unnatural head position and shoot ntch for consistency. Neither way is optimum, IMHO. With an A2 stock, my head is a bit further back and makes the smaller ap harder to use. Anyways.... making a short story long, for me an A1 is the perfect length stock. I would think I'm in the 5th to 95th percentile (height wise), but maybe not. I am a huge fan of A2 sights though. I think they have no rival in the iron sight world. And several other A2 improvements. View Quote Going to be a splendid morning : Attached File |
|
I was gonna just fade away, and here I am.
|
Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice. You should visit the A2 forum and let us know what you're up to. It will really be appreciated there.
|
|
|
I will-
Just as soon as I find my take-down pin detent. |
|
I was gonna just fade away, and here I am.
|
Guess i'm lucky. I have no problem with the A2 grip, but i have relatively small hands and skinny fingers.
|
|
|
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912 - Thanks to my brother sample for this year's membership
|
Originally Posted By GHPorter:
I think that's been mentioned earlier in this thread, but yes, that's what ColdBlue is saying. Why? My understanding is that Big Army didn't like Soldiers to "waste" ammunition, and the impression the brass had (maybe with good reason) from Vietnam was that a lot of the time Soldiers just "sprayed" instead of employing controlled, carefully aimed fire. View Quote |
|
ColdBlue sends...
|
This thread keeps getting better and better.
|
|
RIP Grin! 10/09/2015
RIP SFC Mike Francis 11/08/2016 NorCal_LEO issued nickname: Tombstone #Never 6.5 #Never G19 |
Originally Posted By coldblue:
Eliminating Full Auto had nothing to do with the Army. It was the Marine Corps Ammunition Branch accessing the negative (in terms of "days of supply," impact of the M249 SAW ammo pack-out on Landing Force Ammo stored aboard amphib shipping known as "L-Form." Needless to say this non-tactical input from the logisticians came out of left field, but played well with senior officers who wanted "to fix" the M16A1, not only its mechanical elements but its perceived operational/training ones as well. View Quote Just how far did this recommendation go? Were any prototype receivers built, tactical and logistical assessments made, etc, as to the impact a fixed semiauto M16 on Army and/or Marine doctrine? Or was the idea to have a sort of M14 approach, issuing rifles that were capable of full auto but had their selectors fixed for SA firing only? Any details you can shed here would be greatly appreciated. It is interesting that a Marine Corp group would stump for SA-only. So was the 3-shot burst a sort of institutional compromise and outgrowth of that goal? Coldblue: Can you give us a summary, rundown, a list of features, a short description of what would describe what the ARMY's "M16A2" would have looked like had the M16A2 been designed completely "in-house" WITHOUT ANY Marine Corps input? Thanks, and thank you so much for your posts. |
|
What are the Rosary, the Cross or the Crucifix other than tools to help maintain the fortress of our faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?
|
Originally Posted By coldblue:
Eliminating Full Auto had nothing to do with the Army. It was the Marine Corps Ammunition Branch accessing the negative (in terms of "days of supply," impact of the M249 SAW ammo pack-out on Landing Force Ammo stored aboard amphib shipping known as "L-Form." Needless to say this non-tactical input from the logisticians came out of left field, but played well with senior officers who wanted "to fix" the M16A1, not only its mechanical elements but its perceived operational/training ones as well. View Quote To me, they're right up there with Air Force brass who think no Airman needs to know more than just "how not to hurt yourself with your rifle." Since my specialty often spends more time outside the wire than in, this sort of thinking (non-tactical, ignoring the way ground combat actually happens, etc.) has a personal impact. |
|
"--you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
Heinlein NRA Life Member Glock Certified Armorer Certified AR15 Armorer Certified M1911 Armorer |
You asked:
"Just how far did this recommendation go? Were any prototype receivers built, tactical and logistical assessments made, etc, as to the impact a fixed semiauto M16 on Army and/or Marine doctrine? Or was the idea to have a sort of M14 approach, issuing rifles that were capable of full auto but had their selectors fixed for SA firing only? Any details you can shed here would be greatly appreciated. It is interesting that a Marine Corp group would stump for SA-only. So was the 3-shot burst a sort of institutional compromise and outgrowth of that goal? AT that point early in 1980, no prototype rifle contracts were in place. The improved rifle only existed on a series of briefing slides, so there were no prototypes at that time. But the SA only was a serious matter that had already been "decisioned" before I was assigned. The 3-RBC was a compromise I brought to the table, along with the fully adjustable rear sight, MB, etc.. I had found them in test rifles from the early 70's that were stored at Picatinny Arsenal, or I the gun vault at Colt's in Hartford. Also important to your question is that at this early phase, the Marine Corps "at large" (or "the Fleet Marine Force") as we referred to it), only knew of an improvement program, not what it consisted of. So at that point no one was assigned to revise doctrine and tactics. Coldblue: Can you give us a summary, rundown, a list of features, a short description of what would describe what the ARMY's "M16A2" would have looked like had the M16A2 been designed completely "in-house" WITHOUT ANY Marine Corps input? The short answer would be they would have kept the M16A1 basically as it was. Their logistics command was against the whole USMC program because they had not been assigned or funded to fix any M16A1 deficiencies. Ft. Benning, the "User" for such Army decisions were not currently funded either, and wosre yet, had no "Requirement". And Picatinny, their material developer, was sitting on their collective hands waiting for "A Requirement Document" and associated funding. That's when the Marines, via the JSSAP program housed at Picatinny, came on the scene with several million $ and an in-place liaison officer to honcho it in the JSSAP office, me. A bit more objectively: about the only real change that the Army would have made was to adopt their developmental XM777 round to replace the M193. Their XM777 had not won the NATO 5.56 ammo selection testing, like the Belgian SS109 had, but it met the minimum NATO armor penetration requirement and did not require a new barrel or twist like the SS109 did. This would have allowed them to "improve" the rifle on the cheap while they developed their next "future rifle firing darts, new revolutionary weapon/ammo technology, objective individual weapons, bursting munitions weapon, etc...(all failed by the way after million$ squandered...) |
|
ColdBlue sends...
|
Originally Posted By coldblue:
You asked: "Just how far did this recommendation go? Were any prototype receivers built, tactical and logistical assessments made, etc, as to the impact a fixed semiauto M16 on Army and/or Marine doctrine? Or was the idea to have a sort of M14 approach, issuing rifles that were capable of full auto but had their selectors fixed for SA firing only? Any details you can shed here would be greatly appreciated. It is interesting that a Marine Corp group would stump for SA-only. So was the 3-shot burst a sort of institutional compromise and outgrowth of that goal? AT that point early in 1980, no prototype rifle contracts were in place. The improved rifle only existed on a series of briefing slides, so there were no prototypes at that time. But the SA only was a serious matter that had already been "decisioned" before I was assigned. The 3-RBC was a compromise I brought to the table, along with the fully adjustable rear sight, MB, etc.. I had found them in test rifles from the early 70's that were stored at Picatinny Arsenal, or I the gun vault at Colt's in Hartford. Also important to your question is that at this early phase, the Marine Corps "at large" (or "the Fleet Marine Force") as we referred to it), only knew of an improvement program, not what it consisted of. So at that point no one was assigned to revise doctrine and tactics. Coldblue: Can you give us a summary, rundown, a list of features, a short description of what would describe what the ARMY's "M16A2" would have looked like had the M16A2 been designed completely "in-house" WITHOUT ANY Marine Corps input? The short answer would be they would have kept the M16A1 basically as it was. Their logistics command was against the whole USMC program because they had not been assigned or funded to fix any M16A1 deficiencies. Ft. Benning, the "User" for such Army decisions were not currently funded either, and wosre yet, had no "Requirement". And Picatinny, their material developer, was sitting on their collective hands waiting for "A Requirement Document" and associated funding. That's when the Marines, via the JSSAP program housed at Picatinny, came on the scene with several million $ and an in-place liaison officer to honcho it in the JSSAP office, me. A bit more objectively: about the only real change that the Army would have made was to adopt their developmental XM777 round to replace the M193. Their XM777 had not won the NATO 5.56 ammo selection testing, like the Belgian SS109 had, but it met the minimum NATO armor penetration requirement and did not require a new barrel or twist like the SS109 did. This would have allowed them to "improve" the rifle on the cheap while they developed their next "future rifle firing darts, new revolutionary weapon/ammo technology, objective individual weapons, bursting munitions weapon, etc...(all failed by the way after million$ squandered...) View Quote That plugs the gap in my knowledge found in the Black Rifle series, materials I've collected on DTIC site, etc. It is interesting to ponder what might have come from the Army had the A1 limped along until the other experimental systems failed and/if the Army then had another look at the A1. Anyway, thank you very much. |
|
What are the Rosary, the Cross or the Crucifix other than tools to help maintain the fortress of our faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?
|
Ooooo, can we get more details on what exactly was the XM777 round?
I've always been intrigued why it took so long to adopt heavier bullets when the Stoner used 68 and 77 grain bullets back in Vietnam. Or something close to that weight. Although it does seem like M193 was pretty much working in regards to lethality. But maybe the longer, heavier bullets would've aided in distance shooting. I would imagine someone had figured that out back then. |
|
|
Originally Posted By JJREA:
Ooooo, can we get more details on what exactly was the XM777 round? I've always been intrigued why it took so long to adopt heavier bullets when the Stoner used 68 and 77 grain bullets back in Vietnam. Or something close to that weight. Although it does seem like M193 was pretty much working in regards to lethality. But maybe the longer, heavier bullets would've aided in distance shooting. I would imagine someone had figured that out back then. View Quote By the time the M855 was adopted (initially only linked for the M249 around 1980ish), the M16A2 was in the works and since new rifles were going to be procured, it was feasible to switch to a different rifling twist. ______________________________ *The few Stoner LMGs procured were 1-12 twist. |
|
|
Be the Person your Dog thinks You Are!
|
Originally Posted By coldblue:
The short answer would be they would have kept the M16A1 basically as it was. Their logistics command was against the whole USMC program because they had not been assigned or funded to fix any M16A1 deficiencies. Ft. Benning, the "User" for such Army decisions were not currently funded either, and wosre yet, had no "Requirement". And Picatinny, their material developer, was sitting on their collective hands waiting for "A Requirement Document" and associated funding. That's when the Marines, via the JSSAP program housed at Picatinny, came on the scene with several million $ and an in-place liaison officer to honcho it in the JSSAP office, me. A bit more objectively: about the only real change that the Army would have made was to adopt their developmental XM777 round to replace the M193. Their XM777 had not won the NATO 5.56 ammo selection testing, like the Belgian SS109 had, but it met the minimum NATO armor penetration requirement and did not require a new barrel or twist like the SS109 did. This would have allowed them to "improve" the rifle on the cheap while they developed their next "future rifle firing darts, new revolutionary weapon/ammo technology, objective individual weapons, bursting munitions weapon, etc...(all failed by the way after million$ squandered...) View Quote |
|
"--you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
Heinlein NRA Life Member Glock Certified Armorer Certified AR15 Armorer Certified M1911 Armorer |
"...That's the kind of thing that gave me (and probably a lot of other people) the impression that Ordnance Corps wasn't in any way tuned in to what the Soldier on the ground needed. And more to the point, how hard Ordnance resisted anything "not invented here..."
That is pretty much true. Whatever the current thing was, the "institution" worked more-harder to keep it in place and unchanged. In my opinion, this was deliberate so the aging current system became more and more out of date. Then this had the result of the "User" supporting program funding for what ever wiz-bang was resident on the developer's powerpoint presentations of the decade. The other major weakness is that the "Green Suits" changing every 2 to 3 years allowed the developers to either lay low from knowledgeable military that had been in place for a couple of years and were seeing through the façade, or flim-flaming newbee's with their powerpoint promises of "leap ahead" technology. If you go back to the 50's and 60's you will see one failed program after another that the developers grew fat on, while the troops were left short-changed... |
|
ColdBlue sends...
|
Originally Posted By GHPorter:
That's the kind of thing that gave me (and probably a lot of other people) the impression that Ordnance Corps wasn't in any way tuned in to what the Soldier on the ground needed. And more to the point, how hard Ordnance resisted anything "not invented here." View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By GHPorter:
That's the kind of thing that gave me (and probably a lot of other people) the impression that Ordnance Corps wasn't in any way tuned in to what the Soldier on the ground needed. And more to the point, how hard Ordnance resisted anything "not invented here." "The troops on the ground", were represented by Ft Benning, ("the user") and they issued no requirement for any improvements to the M16A1, so as far as Picatinny was concerned there were no "official" deficiencies. The other thing is the Office of the Chief of Ordnance was abolished in 1962, and with that, the Ordnance Corps ceased to be the proponent for weapons development. The functions of the Office of the Chief of Ordnance were fragmented among several commands that often had different visions of what direction the Army was going, and also different budget priorities. The Office of the Chief of Ordnance was re-established in 1983, after the M16A2 development was complete. If you go back to the 50's and 60's you will see one failed program after another that the developers grew fat on, while the troops were left short-changed... |
|
|
Originally Posted By lysanderxiii:
XM287 (Ball) and XM288 (Tracer), 69 grain, they were developed in 1970 - 1973. They were dropped with the Stoner 63 weapon system, as they required a 1-9 twist. The Stoner system, not yet type qualified, could have had any twist desired.* In order to switch to the XM287, every M16 in the inventory (some 1.6 million) would have had to be re-barreled, which was not in the budget. By the time the M855 was adopted (initially only linked for the M249 around 1980ish), the M16A2 was in the works and since new rifles were going to be procured, it was feasible to switch to a different rifling twist. ______________________________ *The few Stoner LMGs procured were 1-12 twist. View Quote |
|
|
Why are others not as fat as Colt's?
|
|
FBHO
TK4L "Technique isn't something that can be taught. It's something you find on your own." - Bunta Fujiwara "I am all done farting around with trying to get tiny groups with every load, it doesn't pay off on the far end." - popnfresh |
|
Originally Posted By mcantu:
you consider this fat? https://s17-us2.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http:%2F%2Fimages.gunsinternational.com%2Flistings_sub%2Facc_24163%2Fgi_100770815%2FCOLT-AR-15-A2-SPORTER-HBAR-223-REMINGTON-5-56-NATO-SEMI-AUTO-RIFLE-WITH-20-IN-BBL-and-30-RD-MAGAZINE_100770815_24163_3E7F8F5094A02AFE.jpg&sp=c362795b88928246d8c4d000508959c7 View Quote |
|
RIP Grin! 10/09/2015
RIP SFC Mike Francis 11/08/2016 NorCal_LEO issued nickname: Tombstone #Never 6.5 #Never G19 |
-Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American G.I. ~ One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.
|
There wasn't much on the A2 that was an improvement other than the 1:7 twist for the heavier bullet. Sure the sights are nice for target shooting but all they do in a real war is get moved out of adjustment. If a person (aka infantryman) only shoots one round then once the rifle is zeroed the sights would not normally be changed. The USMC should have been teaching the trajectory and required holdover instead of a silly click adjustable sight. The Canadians got that one right! The A2 stock is too long, the whole rifle is too heavy and horribly out of balance. One can argue the round handguards are of logistical benefit but that is about all. The 3-rd burst is for women and idiots not real soldiers. And, oh the A2 grip was a change so there could be a change to point to and label an "improvement" to justify all the time, dicking around, and wasted money. The Israeli Defense Forces did the right thing, they put a Colt A1 profile 1:7 twist barrel and round handguards on their A1's and switched to 62 gr. NATO ammo and they were good to go. Unfortunately those rifles eventually got worn out and they also liked the idea of new free Colts from the generous USA aid grants.
11B40 Vietnam 67-68 |
|
|
|
Originally Posted By gunnut003:
Pretty sure they aren't holes, they are marring in the finish from the carry handle scopes that use that 2 prong compression spring . https://picturearchive.gunauction.com/2550102736/7869057/cbf3d4f459aa00dd9aa9496dcff3a4fe.jpg View Quote |
|
|
@DeanD
You should really read coldblue's posts in this thread. |
|
|
Originally Posted By joglee:
Can you explain this bit more? How were soldiers left short-changed with the AR-15? View Quote |
|
ColdBlue sends...
|
Because we always fix things that aren't broke.
|
|
|
Another great thread and thank you Col Lutz. Some of the information is new to me and some was common knowledge when I was in the army (89-96)
The biggest improvement with the A2 for me was having the built in brass deflector. I stated out with the A1 then transitioned to the A2 after Desert Storm (when I wasn't carrying the M60) I remember when the M4 was announced in 94 and they had just started issuing them to the 82nd and 101st in late 94/early 95. All of the first M4 carbines had the A2 uppers. I was supposed to get issued the M4 while at NTC in 96 since I was on a M88 recovery vehicle but got out before the arms room got them in. I prefer the A2 pistol grip to this day over anything else. It works well and my hand would not slip off it no matter if my hand was covered in blood ( when I was an engineer) or covered in grease/oil ( after re-classing to a machinist) |
|
|
Just Drop... Buckethead!
|
Originally Posted By DeanD:
There wasn't much on the A2 that was an improvement other than the 1:7 twist for the heavier bullet. Sure the sights are nice for target shooting but all they do in a real war is get moved out of adjustment. If a person (aka infantryman) only shoots one round then once the rifle is zeroed the sights would not normally be changed. The USMC should have been teaching the trajectory and required holdover instead of a silly click adjustable sight. The Canadians got that one right! The A2 stock is too long, the whole rifle is too heavy and horribly out of balance. One can argue the round handguards are of logistical benefit but that is about all. The 3-rd burst is for women and idiots not real soldiers. And, oh the A2 grip was a change so there could be a change to point to and label an "improvement" to justify all the time, dicking around, and wasted money. The Israeli Defense Forces did the right thing, they put a Colt A1 profile 1:7 twist barrel and round handguards on their A1's and switched to 62 gr. NATO ammo and they were good to go. Unfortunately those rifles eventually got worn out and they also liked the idea of new free Colts from the generous USA aid grants. 11B40 Vietnam 67-68 View Quote Sitting on overwatch it was nice to be able to adjust the elevation to the terrain. A poi/POA is much better than Kentucky windage if you have the time. The rear sight is extremely rugged. The square front sight was better too. I find the A2 incredibly well balanced and easy to shoot and I'm only 5'11 |
|
"If you cant do something smart, do something right"
|
My goal was to make the Marine Corps 100% happy with an improved M16. 1980-1983, been there, done that, got the T-Shirt, tattoo, Challenge Coin, Baseball Cap, and Meritorious Service Medal.
So if only 99% of the Army liked it, I'm ok with that too...I mean the Army bought 100.000's of them...that says something to me... |
|
ColdBlue sends...
|
I really enjoyed your YouTube video on the design improvements you supervised for the A2 rifle!! And thank you for your overall service!!!
Can you cut through the fog for me and give tell me the procedure for zero for a M4 flat top carbine with the removable carry handle? There is so much fog between zero distance and rear sight elevation click for zero. I zeroed my 6920 this morning with the elevation wheel bottomed out @ 25m. What will my far zero be? Did I zero correctly? I see so much advise and sometimes I don't know whether they are talking about 20 inch rifle or carbines. Once again, thank you so much! |
|
|
The removable carrying handle has finer click adjustment changes than does an A2 with a fixed carrying handle. And an M4 front sight post, even though identical to an A2, has larger elevation change than it does on a rifle. So, I recommend the 50 yard/meter zero with either, with the rear sight all the way down (300), or better, "slipped" 2 or 3 clicks past that. Only elevation zero adjustments at this point are to the front sight post. Attain a point of aim = point of impact (POA=POI) zero at 50, then test this at 100 where the POI should be a few inches higher. If you have a 200 range, then verify POA=POI. If the 200 POI is either high or low, fine tune with the front sight. If you started with the elevation "slipped" 2 or 3 clicks below the 300 mark, your have a good 200 zero. Subsequently, to engage a 300 target, then elevate the rear sight to the 300 mark and give it a try. Subsequent range adjustments are made with the rear sight elevation if you have positive/accurate feed back of target impact or miss. In reality, this zero stuff is not all exact mathematical science because of various types of ammo, bullet weights, etc., in use; and our human inability to be dead nuts on target with eyes only from shot to shot.
Firing position can change zero as well. When I qualified with M14's over the years, my 200 to 300 zeros (what we called "dope" in those days) changed from 200 offhand to the 200 kneeling. And then at 300 my sitting zero was different by a couple clicks to prone rapid fire...all because my cheek weld was different in each firing position. Another all to common factor at work here is how much training one has had with iron sights (sight alignment, sight picture, etc.) to begin with. I was lucky enough to have been well trained as a Marine Rifleman by expert coaches on live fire ranges out to 500 with hundreds of rounds of live ammo--and in Boot Camp. thousands of rounds "dry-fired"). Not many civilians or LE have been so fortunate. Hope this helps. Good Shooting! |
|
ColdBlue sends...
|
Originally Posted By Bobcatbaseball35:
I really enjoyed your YouTube video on the design improvements you supervised for the A2 rifle!! And thank you for your overall service!!! Can you cut through the fog for me and give tell me the procedure for zero for a M4 flat top carbine with the removable carry handle? There is so much fog between zero distance and rear sight elevation click for zero. I zeroed my 6920 this morning with the elevation wheel bottomed out @ 25m. What will my far zero be? Did I zero correctly? I see so much advise and sometimes I don't know whether they are talking about 20 inch rifle or carbines. Once again, thank you so much! View Quote |
|
ColdBlue sends...
|
LtCol. Sir, your service to the country and Corps is requested one last time. I need your help.
PM sent. S/F |
|
|
Originally Posted By coldblue:
The removable carrying handle has finer click adjustment changes than does an A2 with a fixed carrying handle. And an M4 front sight post, even though identical to an A2, has larger elevation change than it does on a rifle. So, I recommend the 50 yard/meter zero with either, with the rear sight all the way down (300), or better, "slipped" 2 or 3 clicks past that. Only elevation zero adjustments at this point are to the front sight post. Attain a point of aim = point of impact (POA=POI) zero at 50, then test this at 100 where the POI should be a few inches higher. If you have a 200 range, then verify POA=POI. If the 200 POI is either high or low, fine tune with the front sight. If you started with the elevation "slipped" 2 or 3 clicks below the 300 mark, your have a good 200 zero. Subsequently, to engage a 300 target, then elevate the rear sight to the 300 mark and give it a try. Subsequent range adjustments are made with the rear sight elevation if you have positive/accurate feed back of target impact or miss. In reality, this zero stuff is not all exact mathematical science because of various types of ammo, bullet weights, etc., in use; and our human inability to be dead nuts on target with eyes only from shot to shot. Firing position can change zero as well. When I qualified with M14's over the years, my 200 to 300 zeros (what we called "dope" in those days) changed from 200 offhand to the 200 kneeling. And then at 300 my sitting zero was different by a couple clicks to prone rapid fire...all because my cheek weld was different in each firing position. Another all to common factor at work here is how much training one has had with iron sights (sight alignment, sight picture, etc.) to begin with. I was lucky enough to have been well trained as a Marine Rifleman by expert coaches on live fire ranges out to 500 with hundreds of rounds of live ammo--and in Boot Camp. thousands of rounds "dry-fired"). Not many civilians or LE have been so fortunate. Hope this helps. Good Shooting! View Quote |
|
"The M1 Rifle is the greatest battle implement ever devised." General George S. Patton Jr.,US Army
|
|
If this is Neil, emails sent...to your .mil and .com
|
|
ColdBlue sends...
|
|
Originally Posted By HighpowerRifleBrony:
Why are others not as fat as Colt's? View Quote Seriously though, there is a distinct difference between a genuine Colt A2 grip and the aftermarket copies. I have been buying them at Brownells two and three at a time whenever I place an order. I think I'm up to about an even dozen now. . Not only do they seem a bit fatter, but even the texture is somehow different. Just an all around better feeling grip in my opinion. |
|
|
Originally Posted By GS5414:
Nothing has come through yet. Signals stuck in troposphere. Repeat fire mission! S/F View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
|
Roger. Repeat, over...
|
|
ColdBlue sends...
|
End the Political Establishment
Communists&Socialists aren't people |
Originally Posted By Gator57:
Because they're cheap crap? . Seriously though, there is a distinct difference between a genuine Colt A2 grip and the aftermarket copies. I have been buying them at Brownells two and three at a time whenever I place an order. I think I'm up to about an even dozen now. . Not only do they seem a bit fatter, but even the texture is somehow different. Just an all around better feeling grip in my opinion. View Quote |
|
|
Originally Posted By JJREA:
Totally agreee. I don't really like the cheapy A2 grips but the colt one is really nice. You wouldn't think it would make that much of a difference but the thickness really does. I didn't used to mind cheap A2 grips, but one day I did. LOL. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By JJREA:
Originally Posted By Gator57:
Because they're cheap crap? . Seriously though, there is a distinct difference between a genuine Colt A2 grip and the aftermarket copies. I have been buying them at Brownells two and three at a time whenever I place an order. I think I'm up to about an even dozen now. . Not only do they seem a bit fatter, but even the texture is somehow different. Just an all around better feeling grip in my opinion. And it is weird how much better they feel. You wouldn't think it would make much of a difference, but to me it's a definite, noticeable improvement. Well worth the ten bucks. |
|
|
Originally Posted By Gator57:
Yeah, I have been gradually swapping all of mine out to the genuine Colt grips. And it is weird how much better they feel. You wouldn't think it would make much of a difference, but to me it's a definite, noticeable improvement. Well worth the ten bucks. View Quote |
|
What are the Rosary, the Cross or the Crucifix other than tools to help maintain the fortress of our faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God? Sed libera nos a malo.
|
Originally Posted By EVR:
I've never cared about grips much, and had no particular angst about the A2, but I tried the cheapo Tapco SAW grip and promptly got rid of most of my others. I like that thing. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By EVR:
Originally Posted By Gator57:
Yeah, I have been gradually swapping all of mine out to the genuine Colt grips. And it is weird how much better they feel. You wouldn't think it would make much of a difference, but to me it's a definite, noticeable improvement. Well worth the ten bucks. And of all of the various A2 grips out there, only the authentic Colt grip seems right to me. I know it may seem trivial to most, but for me it's one of those small details that make a huge difference. Fortunately, I happen to really like the A2 grip. |
|
|
Originally Posted By EVR:
I've never cared about grips much, and had no particular angst about the A2, but I tried the cheapo Tapco SAW grip and promptly got rid of most of my others. I like that thing. View Quote |
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.