You say that like it's some sort of project that requires millions spent on research and development. Sad part is it probably has been exactly that.

I love mine.

The ELCAN M145 is pretty much despised, and the SPECTRE DR has a lot of naysayers as well.

Have you ever shot an A4 with an interceptor vest, MTV or OTV with SAPI or ESAPI plates?  I have, and the fixed buttstock isn't a big deal.  I'm of average height at just under 6'.

An adjustable stock to shorten the lengthen the LOP for females and males who are below average height would be a convenience, but it doesn't make or break the rifle as a viable weapon.

Speaking purely from logistics it would make sense and save money to have 100% collapsable stocks.  If you are a big guy then fully extend the stock, same LOP as the A2.  Smaller or shorter then collapse it.  Simple as that.



I've shot the USMC annual known distance rifle qual with the A2, A4 and M4.  Did the best with the A4 (at the Camp Horno Range 2009) by a small margin.

I'm curious as to how you did with the m4, I've never really liked qualifying with the m4 using irons, or with the CCO. I'd much rather use an A4 or an A2. It also annoyed me when the NCOs would brag about their high scores using an acog.

The A2 stock is too long for me in a tee shirt, let alone for a female in armor. The Army objected to the M16A2 on a number of grounds, among them they had identified already in the early 1980s that the A1 stock was too long for many Soldiers. There were advocates already then for using the collapsing stock service wide.

The only reason the A2 stock is as long as it is was it's suitability for use by the USMC rifle team for competition.

Is comfort and ease while qualifying an accurate assessment of the utility of a fighting rifle?

No, not really.  But is qual really an dead accurate representation of what combat is like either?

Should have put a gun in the picture.

 

Touche. I misread your post as being in favor of the M16 over the M4.

Ill take the Canadian gun in black with the acog.

Yep. ELCAN makes some NICE glass... puts trijicon glass to shame.

Well, you aren't completely wrong.  I would much rather have a m16 to qualify with, and me personally wouldn't mind an A4 for actual combat use.  But for a line gun across the board an M4 is a much better choice, especially considering just about every unit is mounted these days, whether it be trucks, strykers, or Bradley's. I can't tell you exactly how the m4 handled being deployed as I was a SAW gunner the entire time, but I can tell you I kept that 249 as short as physically possible.

This thread is giving me some interesting ideas for finishing a couple of projects.

To bad the M145s don't hold their zero very well and  have fogging problems

Where does that claim come from anyway, or is it just bandied about because "everyone knows"?





 

I love my uncles gun and the Elcan is great field of view







http://youtu.be/WriIGNW1nKY

Lutz IIRC.

I always understood the ELCAN mounts were the issue, the scope itself is first rate.





 

In 2009 I used an A4 with ACOG RCO and no VFG. I did the best at the 500yd slow fire, got a "possible" meaning 10/10 hits on a man-sized sized target and then did well during tables 2-4 which includes moving targets and close range engagements.



In 2010 I used a virtually new M4 carbine with the appropriate M4 spec'd (yes there is a difference) ACOG RCO and again no VFG. I didn't get a possible at the 500yd slow fire but I got 100% on tables 2-4. So really a wash.



2011 same carbine and shot the USMC(R) abbreviated sustainment course. 100% on tables 2-4.



ETA: as far as your NCOs bragging that's like saying you wrote a better paper with a computer word processor (ACOG) vs a typewritter (Irons).

I agree that most females have a hard time with the A4.  I observed that on multiple ranges over the course of two years.  Females however, should never be in a position to have to use a rifle in combat to defend themselves, but that's a topic for another thread.

The American Rifleman ran a series of articles in the early 1980s on the M16 PIP that resulted in the A2.  The USMC was the lead agency in charge of the program, with the Army tagging along.  The first prototypes were M16A1E1s with a heavy barrel, improved handguards, and three shot burst to replace FA (and I absolutely hate the latter).  Original sights and buttstocks were retained.

Later, the adjustable rear sight from a Colt LMG prototype were added, along with reinforced upper and lower receivers.  The shape of the forward assist was changed from  a teardrop design to round, the ejection port cover was modified to make it stronger, and the buttstock was lengthened and made of a tougher material.  The grip was replaced with one using different materials and more ergonomically shaped.  That rifle was later standardized after testing and was type-classified as the M16A2.

At first, the Army insisted on a 500 meter elevation drum for their rifles, until they figured out the cost savings from just using the same one manufactured for the USMC (which was calibrated out to 800 m).  

At no time in any of those articles did I see anything about the Army objecting to the new buttstock that was 5/8" longer than the older M16 / M16A1 buttstock.  The older buttstock was replaced primarily because the newer design utilized stronger materials.  IOW, it was less prone to crack under operational conditions.  

Personally, I think the original length should have been retained, but at the time, SAPI plates-let alone ESAPIs-were unheard of.  In fact, my unit still utilized Vietnam era body armor before we were issued the newer vests that allowed you to wear LC-1 suspenders under the shoulder pads of the vest.  

I've qualified with both the A1 and A2 on the KD course, and the differences are profound.  The A2 was much easier to qualify with.  I never shot the KD course with the A4, but did Table III with it while wearing all PPE during PTP training.  Super easy, but Table III is hardly a challenge in marksmanship.  Despite the ESAPIs, MTV, and brain bucket, I was still able to utilize the ACOG without difficulty in terms of cheek weld or straining by neck for proper eye relief.  Very doable, even if not ideal.

Colt Canada...

Still they are anti gun commies who refuse to sell any sporterized guns to the public. That and the POS Elcan with the mount made from rubber makes the Diemaco not on my list of guns to get.  There are a few floating occasionally for sale, however thier origins like a lot of CF parts or stuff from Diemaco is dubious at best.  

Elcan might have very clean and clean glass, but a lot of the rest of the optic is not ideal.

Are you really making excuses for an oversight like that? One size does not fit all. Like I said be proud of it all you want. It's still a pretty glaring specification oversight. It's not like collapsible stocks are troublesome or are inferior for anything except maybe repeatedly bashing in the heads of multiple enemies. The Army (and certain Marines that are issued them) work with them just fine. I'm 5' 11" and the A2 stock is too long for me to shoot comfortably with. I will never for the life of me understand why somebody will defend a poor choice when a superior one was so readily apparent. If the Marines had went with a collapsible stock it's not like you'd be on here saying how bad a choice that was and how they should have gone with the A2 stock.

Burst fire is an admission of training failure.  Do the Canuckistanis train in/for full auto fire at the rifleman level at all???

It is not so much a training but a recognition that there is some lose of fine motor skills under stress.

......and costs 2X+ what the rifle does.  Not an efficient use of taxpayer money for the leg infantry.

The Marine Corps has been testing going to collapsible stocks for years, the problem has not been solved yet is there is a reduced margin of reliability.

Can't be that hard to drill into a shooters head that after 3-4 rounds fired in any position other than prone you are almost certainly wasting your limited ammo.  Suppression fire is for belt feds or mounted guns.

I'm not sure I buy that as the reason for not using a collapsible stock. Considering the Army doesn't seem to have an issue with them, every other nation that issues them doesn't, I didn't, and countless members here don't have reliability problems related to the use of a collapsible stock with a shorter receiver extension vs an A2 stock, I'm not buying it.

See, this is where I don't get the whole "The M-16A2 stock is too long".





The M-16A2 LoP I've been able to find is 13.5 inches.   Many people complain about that.
But guns like the Tavor, have a 15.7" LoP and people praise it for being so compact .

Same with they Steyer at 15".





What I can find for Shotguns is that the 870 has a 14" LoP and what is considered a youth length, is 13".
In another conversation, looking up stuff I conveniently can't find now, the USMC testing showed the A2 length stock was acceptable (for the time period) through field and vehicle use, NOT just use on the KD range.
 

Takes about 3-5000 repetitions to build so called muscle memory, even National Mission Force units don't shoot auto that much to build that capability. What you see in combat is ideal 3-6 round belt feed bursts turn to 10-12 round bursts.  

The combination of carbine gas system and shorter buffer tube used in the M4 and the huge stink over reliability sure seems to indicate otherwise.





Notice during the GWOT, the reliability of the M-16A2 and M-16A4 never seemed to come up, only the M4?
Also, I doubt you're using an M4.



 

People who praise the LOP of bullpups are idiots.

You know me, you know my height, you've seen me shoot (though not as well as I can if I train like I should). I use a stock one click out for best control, two if it's a 6 position stock. That's like 3" shorter than a fixed stock. Maybe even more. I find the A2 miserable.

How much full auto do you shoot?





 

Yet that is what the testing done by the Marine Corps showed

The difference in MRBF between M4 and M16 is measurable but it very small. Switching to a collapsing stock on an M16 has a detectable negative effect on reliability, but it is more reliable than the M4. I believe the figure I saw indicated that the M4 was about 97% as reliable as the M16A4, and adding a collapsing stock to the latter put it right in the middle of the two.

The Canadian experience with the C7 indicates it is perfectly acceptable. If the USMC considers the M4 to be reliable enough for issue (and they do, to the people who use their rifles the most) then the M16A4 with an HH, H6 or A5 buffer will still be more reliable than the M4.

Again, what experience do you have firing the A2 or A4 while wearing PPE?  

None, maybe?

And yes, M4 buttstocks are troublesome when they break-which they do.  Whether they're a "superior" choice is a matter of opinion.  If the USMC had chosen an adjustable buttstock, I probably wouldn't be bitching about it because the MARSYSCOM IWB is fairly careful about not adopting some gadget because it looks cool and meets with ARFCOM approval.

I think one thing a lot of people forget, is the features of the M-16 were thoroughly tested before adoption.  It wasn't "oh this sounds good lets do this".

Plus, it comes down to dollars.
Collapsible stocks could be the cats ass.





What is the point of spending money on them for service rifles, if only a FRACTION of people issued a rifle are going to end up shooting at people?





That's why the Marines adopted the M4 in small numbers for people that needed them origionally (I.E. Recon, Vehicle crew, and so on).





Not everyone is a trigger puller.

The Canadian option was considered COA 1).  It was not selected because 1) inability to fulfill the requested contract 2) fielding a buffer that looked like a M4s that could be mistaken for an M4s and 3)  reliability base line was some where between an M4 and an A4.  

The Army did a full official rebuttal on why they did not want the M16A2.  The Marines never tested it with the full range of body armor available then (the M1969 and incoming PASGT), nor with arctic clothing and MOPP equipment.

The only way to get new M16s was to adopt the A2.

The Army training base knew it already had a problem with short soldiers and the M16A1.

The Army OFFICIALLY went around the rosies again starting in 2005 because the outgoing PASGT helmet did not work with the Interceptor and SAPI/ESAPI, whiched helped justify MICH/ACH for everyone.  7 years to get interim approval to put a sliding buttstock on full-length M16A2 and A4.

The buffer in the C7 is identical except in markings to the buffer in an M4A1.

That may have been true in 2004 but things have changed since.  In 2010 when I was in AFG with TF 3/6 & 2/9,  M-4s were prevalent in the equipment density lists.  Per the old/new TOEs M-4s were issued to all fire team leaders, squad leaders, SNCOs, and Officers in line units.  You only saw A4s in the hands of billet riflemen, and your support bubbas in H&S company.



When every rifle and carbine in an infantry battalion has an RCO, PEQ15/16 and the KAC RIS kits, the cost of the collaspsable stock becomes chump change.

No I've never used a "real" Colt M4, but I was referring to collapsible stocks specifically. I didn't mean to imply that everybody should be using an M4 specifically. It's great that the M4 has a collapsible stock, but I'm not saying that that iteration of the AR-15 platform is perfect. I'm saying that the A2/A4 stock is not a one size fits all proposition and the collapsing stocks seem to work fine for us as well as the other nations that use an AR-15 pattern guns with collapsible stocks.

Taped it out, I could go out to a 20-23" LoP if I had to.





My Tommy gun is 17" and I can run it like a fucking champ.
I think the 13.5 LoP of the A2 being too long is way over exaggerated.

I've never shot with body armor on. The A2/A4 stock was already too long for my tastes wearing a T-shirt or polo shirt. I didn't mean to imply that an M4 style stock was indestructible, but I've never heard of them breaking with any regularity either.