M16A4 vs C7A2 - Page 3

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - M16A4 vs C7A2 (Page 3 of 4)

Posted: 7/1/2013 1:38:52 PM EST

[#1]

Quoted:

snip

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.

Whats the distance from your trigger finger in a shooting position to the crook of your elbow?

Posted: 7/1/2013 1:49:25 PM EST

[#2]

Quoted:

Quoted:
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.

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.

An Infantry Battalion rates 330 M4s, 6 M4A1s and 465 M16A4s

Posted: 7/1/2013 1:52:51 PM EST

[#3]

Quoted:

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.

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.

Are you telling me the Army was forced into adopting the A2 over their objections? Or was it one faction within the Army that didn't embrace the M16A1E1 PIP? I'm smelling bullshit here-not from you of course, but from the Army. That rebuttal you speak of wouldn't have coincided with the testing of the XM8 by any chance, would it? As in "the M16A2 doesn't meet the Army's needs, and we need a new rifle" type of thing? I'm speculating here.

Whether the USMC tested the A2 with body armor, arctic clothing, or MOPP gear, I have absolutely no idea. I was no where near Quantico.

I went through boot camp starting 09 July to 28 Sept. 1984 with an M16A1. Many of those rifles in my platoon were rebuilds from ANAD, and some were even marked AR-15. I attended Infantry Training School (Co. C) at Camp Pendleton from 06 Oct. to 28 Nov. of the same year. We were (I believe) the second class there issued early M16A2s, which were among the first 2,000 delivered to the USMC as they had the old M16A1 ejection port cover installed on the upper receiver.

We fired ours with M1 Steel pots and PASGT body armor on the ranges during the day with Iron sights, and at night during one training evolution with the AN/PVS 4 image intensifier sight. Honestly, I just don't remember any complaints about the LOP of the stock. The biggest complaint we had about the rifle was that the forward assist would tear your finger up during bayonet training. It would gouge the hell out of your right trigger finger. Colt sent some engineers out to San Onofre where ITS was located determine the cause of it, and what they could do to fix it. A new forward assist plunger was developed that was smaller in diameter in order to draw less blood.

Certainly, equipment has changed over the last 2.5 decades, so upgrades are inevitable and needed. Whether there's anything out there now in terms of an adjustable buttstock that can withstand the hard use and abuses of the battlefield remains to be seen.

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:00:06 PM EST

[#4]

Quoted:

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.

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.

Are you telling me the Army was forced into adopting the A2 over their objections? Or was it one faction within the Army that didn't embrace the M16A1E1 PIP? I'm smelling bullshit here-not from you of course, but from the Army. That rebuttal you speak of wouldn't have coincided with the testing of the XM8 by any chance, would it? As in "the M16A2 doesn't meet the Army's needs, and we need a new rifle" type of thing? I'm speculating here.

Whether the USMC tested the A2 with body armor, arctic clothing, or MOPP gear, I have absolutely no idea. I was no where near Quantico.

I went through boot camp starting 09 July to 28 Sept. 1984 with an M16A1. Many of those rifles in my platoon were rebuilds from ANAD, and some were even marked AR-15. I attended Infantry Training School (Co. C) at Camp Pendleton from 06 Oct. to 28 Nov. of the same year. We were (I believe) the second class there issued early M16A2s, which were among the first 2,000 delivered to the USMC as they had the old M16A1 ejection port cover installed on the upper receiver.

We fired ours with M1 Steel pots and PASGT body armor on the ranges during the day with Iron sights, and at night during one training evolution with the AN/PVS 4 image intensifier sight. Honestly, I just don't remember any complaints about the LOP of the stock. The biggest complaint we had about the rifle was that the forward assist would tear your finger up during bayonet training. It would gouge the hell out of your right trigger finger. Colt sent some engineers out to San Onofre where ITS was located determine the cause of it, and what they could do to fix it. A new forward assist plunger was developed that was smaller in diameter in order to draw less blood.

Certainly, equipment has changed over the last 2.5 decades, so upgrades are inevitable and needed. Whether there's anything out there now in terms of an adjustable buttstock that can withstand the hard use and abuses of the battlefield remains to be seen.

I have the Army's study done in the 80s on why A2 should not be adopted on my work computer.

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:00:12 PM EST

[#5]

FWIW, looking into it farther, the M16a2 LoP is around average for rifles.

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:07:04 PM EST

[#6]

I'm working on building an M16A4-type rifle, and am currently debating between a fixed and collapsible stock...

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:08:06 PM EST

[#7]

Quoted:
FWIW, looking into it farther, the M16a2 LoP is around average for rifles.

...and would have been fine in the era before body armor with hard plates (when the typical line dog wore TA-50 / 782 gear or maybe even the exotic load bearing vest.

Even in the late 70s-early 80s you'd have thought they'd tested it in MOPP and all the arctic gear the Marines wore for Norway.

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:11:10 PM EST

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
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'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.

I wish we lived closer-I'd run you through Table III with both an A4 clone and an M4gery with some body armor on just for shits and grins (although, I wouldn't want to do it today with temps over 110 degrees this afternoon). I think you'd be surprised how easy an A4 is to get hits with, even with SAPI plates and a kevlar brain bucket. Let me know if you ever make it up to ID.

The buttstock of the A2/A4 does provides some structural reinforcement to the lower receiver extension where it screws into the lower receiver. I wouldn't want to use an M4 for a 250 lb Soldier or Marine to step on while I and another squad member elevated him up so he could enter a building during MOUT; I'd fear the rifle would break behind the receiver. Yet, that's a pretty common way to get inside structures when the doors are locked. I've never attempted it myself, or seen it done with the M4 so maybe it is strong enough to handle that kind of thing.

Putting an adjustable stock on the A4 makes sense if a good design can be found that can withstand the rigors of hard use often found in combat conditions. At the very least, the shorter M16A1 buttstock made of the same materials as used to make the current buttstock should be purchased for immediate retrofit.

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:12:17 PM EST

[#9]

Quoted:

Quoted:

FWIW, looking into it farther, the M16a2 LoP is around average for rifles.

...and would have been fine in the era before body armor with hard plates (when the typical line dog wore TA-50 / 782 gear or maybe even the exotic load bearing vest.

Even in the late 70s-early 80s you'd have thought they'd tested it in MOPP and all the arctic gear the Marines wore for Norway.

So how much does that all add up to in thickness?

I know I never had a problem with an interceptor vest and plates. No one I worked with ever complained about it being too long, or had difficulty hitting targets during field fires, or during contact overseas.

The more people argue about it, and the more I think back on it, the more of a "mountain out of mole hills" issue it seems like.

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:13:11 PM EST

[#10]

Quoted:

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.

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.

Are you telling me the Army was forced into adopting the A2 over their objections? Or was it one faction within the Army that didn't embrace the M16A1E1 PIP? I'm smelling bullshit here-not from you of course, but from the Army. That rebuttal you speak of wouldn't have coincided with the testing of the XM8 by any chance, would it? As in "the M16A2 doesn't meet the Army's needs, and we need a new rifle" type of thing? I'm speculating here.

Whether the USMC tested the A2 with body armor, arctic clothing, or MOPP gear, I have absolutely no idea. I was no where near Quantico.

I went through boot camp starting 09 July to 28 Sept. 1984 with an M16A1. Many of those rifles in my platoon were rebuilds from ANAD, and some were even marked AR-15. I attended Infantry Training School (Co. C) at Camp Pendleton from 06 Oct. to 28 Nov. of the same year. We were (I believe) the second class there issued early M16A2s, which were among the first 2,000 delivered to the USMC as they had the old M16A1 ejection port cover installed on the upper receiver.

We fired ours with M1 Steel pots and PASGT body armor on the ranges during the day with Iron sights, and at night during one training evolution with the AN/PVS 4 image intensifier sight. Honestly, I just don't remember any complaints about the LOP of the stock. The biggest complaint we had about the rifle was that the forward assist would tear your finger up during bayonet training. It would gouge the hell out of your right trigger finger. Colt sent some engineers out to San Onofre where ITS was located determine the cause of it, and what they could do to fix it. A new forward assist plunger was developed that was smaller in diameter in order to draw less blood.

Certainly, equipment has changed over the last 2.5 decades, so upgrades are inevitable and needed. Whether there's anything out there now in terms of an adjustable buttstock that can withstand the hard use and abuses of the battlefield remains to be seen.

I have the Army's study done in the 80s on why A2 should not be adopted on my work computer.

I'll be damned. Was that before 1983?

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:15:37 PM EST

[#11]

Quoted:

snip

Putting an adjustable stock on the A4 makes sense if a good design can be found that can withstand the rigors of hard use often found in combat conditions. At the very least, the shorter M16A1 buttstock made of the same materials as used to make the current buttstock should be purchased for immediate retrofit.

Or just a shorter stock with extensions for longer armed shooters. OR, a thinner backplate and delete the trapdoor.

When you get down to it, very few people NEED an adjustable stock.

Certainly not enough to justify a service wide re-stocking of current issue A2's and A4's.

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:16:01 PM EST

[#12]

Quoted:

snip

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.

Whats the distance from your trigger finger in a shooting position to the crook of your elbow?

Madcap, you're tall and have monkey arms. I'm only slightly shorter and have slightly less monkey arms. You're describing a traditional and decent test for the LOP of a sporting shotgun. That is a world away from the LOP on a fighting weapon.

I use bolt action rifles at 14-14.125" LOP and shotguns at 15" or so, for what it's worth. About 10" LOP on ARs if I had to guess. They are fired in a completely different position.

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:17:44 PM EST

[#13]

My version.
LMT Lower w/ 2 stg trigger and Sopmod Stock.
BCM Upper 20" A2 1:7".
Denny's Super Duty M16 BCG.
DD Omega 12.0
GS2P Sling.
Troy Folding Rear Sight.
20 and 30 rd PMAGS.

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:17:47 PM EST

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
snip
Putting an adjustable stock on the A4 makes sense if a good design can be found that can withstand the rigors of hard use often found in combat conditions. At the very least, the shorter M16A1 buttstock made of the same materials as used to make the current buttstock should be purchased for immediate retrofit.

Or just a shorter stock with extensions for longer armed shooters. OR, a thinner backplate and delete the trapdoor.

When you get down to it, very few people NEED an adjustable stock.

Certainly not enough to justify a service wide re-stocking of current issue A2's and A4's.

I don't need adjustments either, I just need it to be the right length so I don't have to adjust it again.

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:19:48 PM EST

[#15]

Quoted:

Putting an adjustable stock on the A4 makes sense if a good design can be found that can withstand the rigors of hard use often found in combat conditions. At the very least, the shorter M16A1 buttstock made of the same materials as used to make the current buttstock should be purchased for immediate retrofit.

That was the recommendation of the study in question: new forend, same stock and grip but in the new material. They also noted that the A2 was 15% heavier, had no accuracy advantage in firing tests until past 500m, and had significantly more parts, mostly in the burst firing mechanism and the sights, both of which were heavily criticized.

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:20:04 PM EST

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
FWIW, looking into it farther, the M16a2 LoP is around average for rifles.

...and would have been fine in the era before body armor with hard plates (when the typical line dog wore TA-50 / 782 gear or maybe even the exotic load bearing vest.

Even in the late 70s-early 80s you'd have thought they'd tested it in MOPP and all the arctic gear the Marines wore for Norway.

The first time I ever heard of plates was their use by Rangers in Somalia. I never say anyone in SWA with them during ODS. I suppose the HSLD types probably had them.

The gear we get issued now is an order of magnitude better than anything we could ever have imagined in the early '90s-let alone the early 1980s.

In fact, I was reflecting on that very thing this afternoon during my PT run. I was recalling being issued a "speed reload" pouch for my MTV when I went through CIP in 2009. A "speed reload pouch", of all things. That gave me a total load of eight 30 rd magazines if I had one in the rifle.

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:21:13 PM EST

[#17]

I'd take the c7. Collapsible stock and a cold hammer forged barrel. Hammer forged barrel is a big plus for me

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:21:16 PM EST

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
What is that little rail piece mounted on the fsb on the C7 in the first picture posted by the OP? I've been looking for something like that.

The tri rail is a Canadian thing, and is now available from BCM.

There is also the A5 project where the USMC wants to upgrade the A4 to a monolithic upper, and a collapsible stock. Vltor is making the stock system.

The stock system looks like this.

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4101/4895174208_bde489f7f4_b.jpg

There was a thread here a while back about the proposed A5.

Damn that tri-rail is $100, might as well just get a RAS used for that much off the EE.

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:21:41 PM EST

[#19]

Quoted:

snip

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.

Whats the distance from your trigger finger in a shooting position to the crook of your elbow?

Madcap, you're tall and have monkey arms. I'm only slightly shorter and have slightly less monkey arms. You're describing a traditional and decent test for the LOP of a sporting shotgun. That is a world away from the LOP on a fighting weapon.

I use bolt action rifles at 14-14.125" LOP and shotguns at 15" or so, for what it's worth. About 10" LOP on ARs if I had to guess. They are fired in a completely different position.

And with different optics/sights.

Long stock+Short eye relief+body armor+You aren't shooting trap = Put some Vltor A5s on those bitches.

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:23:25 PM EST

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
FWIW, looking into it farther, the M16a2 LoP is around average for rifles.

...and would have been fine in the era before body armor with hard plates (when the typical line dog wore TA-50 / 782 gear or maybe even the exotic load bearing vest.

Even in the late 70s-early 80s you'd have thought they'd tested it in MOPP and all the arctic gear the Marines wore for Norway.

The first time I ever heard of plates was their use by Rangers in Somalia. I never say anyone in SWA with them during ODS. I suppose the HSLD types probably had them.

The gear we get issued now is an order of magnitude better than anything we could ever have imagined in the early '90s-let alone the early 1980s.

In fact, I was reflecting on that very thing this afternoon during my PT run. I was recalling being issued a "speed reload" pouch for my MTV when I went through CIP in 2009. A "speed reload pouch", of all things. That gave me a total load of eight 30 rd magazines if I had one in the rifle.

Body armor was in use early enough that Delta dropped it in 1989 because it slowed them down more than it protected them. They got armor again later.

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:24:26 PM EST

[#21]

I am interested in doing a A4 Clone like the pic below are the parts available?

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:28:01 PM EST

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:

snip

Whats the distance from your trigger finger in a shooting position to the crook of your elbow?

Madcap, you're tall and have monkey arms. I'm only slightly shorter and have slightly less monkey arms. You're describing a traditional and decent test for the LOP of a sporting shotgun. That is a world away from the LOP on a fighting weapon.

I use bolt action rifles at 14-14.125" LOP and shotguns at 15" or so, for what it's worth. About 10" LOP on ARs if I had to guess. They are fired in a completely different position.

I was interested in it as a baseline to compare to myself. As I mentioned I handle my Thompson just fine doing action shooting with a 17" LOP.

With what you're saying it just adds to my confusion as to why so many advocate popular bullpups for service use with 15"+ LOP, yet 13.5" is too much for a traditional rifle?

I agree that having a shorter LOP is MUCH handier for modern stances, my argument is, "Is the juice worth the squeeze".

As in, at what measuerment does an inch or two, and specifically 5/8th of an inch make to dramatically decrease performance. If 5/8th was knocked off an A2 stock, would it dramatically increase performance for all shooters, or only a few? Would dumping the fixed stock for a tele-stock on a 20 inch gun throw off the balance so bad that they handle poorer during dynamic shooting?

What are all the trade offs?

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:30:03 PM EST

[#23]

I find that the A1 stock sucks and the A2 stock sucks more. That said, they should have never made it longer.

Someday I'll get you behind my rifle with an A5/EMOD and you'll see the balance is actually quite good. If anything the stock is too heavy.

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:31:03 PM EST

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Putting an adjustable stock on the A4 makes sense if a good design can be found that can withstand the rigors of hard use often found in combat conditions. At the very least, the shorter M16A1 buttstock made of the same materials as used to make the current buttstock should be purchased for immediate retrofit.

That was the recommendation of the study in question: new forend, same stock and grip but in the new material. They also noted that the A2 was 15% heavier, had no accuracy advantage in firing tests until past 500m, and had significantly more parts, mostly in the burst firing mechanism and the sights, both of which were heavily criticized.

The difference in accuracy within 500 meters is subjective. For the USMC, we shoot at the 200, 300, and 500 yd line using a sling for the prone, sitting, and kneeling position. Sling tension definitely affected POI more in the older M16A1 than it did on the newer M16A2s. The A2 is so much easier to qualify with than the older A1.

The Army uses a different course of fire for their qualification, so I can see where they'd not see the advantage in a reinforced chamber area on the barrel to reduce flexing when using a sling.

The burst mechanism sucks ass. The sights on the A1 are adequate, but I like the A2 sights better for ease of use. The Army is understandably adverse to something that can be fiddled with by bored people, such as adjustable windage and elevation knobs. I've seen Marines do it too. The A1 sights are more Soldier-proof so I can see their point.

I liked the A1 overall (for what it was). The advantages of light weight and simplicity cannot be completely dismissed-especially at close contact ranges. Now we have a much heavier platform, but firing the same cartridge

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:37:20 PM EST

[#25]

Quoted:
I am interested in doing a A4 Clone like the pic below are the parts available?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f0/US_Marine_M16A4.jpg/1024px-US_Marine_M16A4.jpg

Absolutely. The disproportional popularity of the M4 over the A4 means it's easier to acquire the components needed to build the latter.

Biggest single expense is the Trijicon RCO. Marines were still carrying A4s at the front gate of Lejeune with Iron Sights only when I left in 2011. That is, when they weren't carrying shotguns.

Watch "Battle Las Angles" for required A4 porn.

If you do build one, spend the extra $25.00-35.00 dollars for the Matech BUIS. The USMC was BUIS adverse when we were getting them brand-new in the box from FN for some reason. I like the MATECH over the detachable carry handle.

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:39:31 PM EST

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
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.

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'm not positive, but talking to a former marine he said their quals weren't timed. In the army they are, it's not magic that everyone that had acogs on average shot better than those with out, especially in lowlight, overcast and rainy Germany.

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:40:06 PM EST

[#27]

There is an Army hit piece study on the A2 I found and posted someplace. It's HEAVILY jaded, but correct.
It plainly points out the Army should have never adopted the A2, and I agree with it on every point it makes looking at it from that perspective.

That being said, the A2 works well for Marine TTP's because it was spec'd out and tested specifically to do that.

Another factor, is take 1000 guys that have never shot before, teach them to shoot and operate the rifle, and they'll probably never know if the stock is too long of not.

It's easy to criticize when you have options and experiance.

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:41:57 PM EST

[#28]

Quoted:

I find that the A1 stock sucks and the A2 stock sucks more. That said, they should have never made it longer.

Someday I'll get you behind my rifle with an A5/EMOD and you'll see the balance is actually quite good. If anything the stock is too heavy.

Fo' sho'. The A5 looks cool and I love the idea.

One day I will have an 18" side charging AR with somthing like that. :)

That is if I don't blow all my money creating an AR-180 based Ultimax-100 clone.

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:44:44 PM EST

[#29]

Quoted:

snip

I'm not positive, but talking to a former marine he said their quals weren't timed. In the army they are, it's not magic that everyone that had acogs on average shot better than those with out, especially in lowlight, overcast and rainy Germany.

The thing to remember though, is the yearly Army qual is based around a higher level of realism. The Marine qual is basically a yearly high power match, and now has added stages for more realism.

Either way, once it's over, you spend the rest of the year shooting and training realistically (if you're lucky and have a good CoC).

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:48:48 PM EST

[#30]

I always thought the Magpul UBR looked promising for an A4 upgrade. Anyone have any experience with one on their rifle?

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:52:02 PM EST

[#31]

Now the RCO has poor eye relief, but given how many Marines place it all the way to the rear may infact indicate that for many the A2 stock is indeed a bit long.

Now lets see what happens when given an M-4:

Posted: 7/1/2013 2:59:15 PM EST

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Get rid of the Elcan sight.

What are you talking about?

The ELCAN fucking rocks.

Love them on a machinegun...not so much on a rifle/carbine.

Actually they were pure sex on machineguns. I never had issues but the only optic my platoon broke was an M145 on deployment...it banged a door frame (wood) and part of the mounting pieces cracked (metal) and whole m145 fell off. There were many more ACOGs getting much greater abuse and none of them broke.

Posted: 7/1/2013 3:11:31 PM EST

[#33]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You can be proud all you want of the M16A4, but a long fixed stock on a modern general issue weapon (especially taking body armor into account) is fucking stupid.

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.

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.

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.

Dont mean to jump in, but I have an IOTV and a M16A4 clone sitting right here. The stock is too long to use comfortably and I'm 6'2" or 6'3". Add in the short eye relief on the USMC's ACOG and it becomes a cluster fuck.

Posted: 7/1/2013 3:16:30 PM EST

[#34]

Quoted:
I am interested in doing a A4 Clone like the pic below are the parts available?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f0/US_Marine_M16A4.jpg/1024px-US_Marine_M16A4.jpg

Everything but the PEQ-2. Be prepared to shell out 1300+ bucks for the right ACOG though. It's the last part I need for mine.

Posted: 7/1/2013 3:16:56 PM EST

[#35]

Quoted:

Now the RCO has poor eye relief, but given how many Marines place it all the way to the rear may infact indicate that for many the A2 stock is indeed a bit long.

http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/afghan_06_03/afghanistan5.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTFSS38UzEakBE6BqqSUiTH7hPIaBFHi6DHbAp3-qFGJnKeDLL5

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0c/Defense.gov_News_Photo_091020-M-7825S-126.jpg

http://www.middle-east-online.com/meopictures/big/_22627_US_Marines_Iraq.jpg

Now lets see what happens when given an M-4:

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSrD4R4DWb4ZAhYH26AARAwFOlIhVaI_1oODsFJDPQU0nEn54voQQ

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-HmYBfR5u-uk/TsZfdzOYy9I/AAAAAAAAAIQ/w93V54rd6yI/s1600/embed.jpg

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7FVli19vkDJp2L_Dtngdwx6Kq-aMqsThPD5HzTzWNuuNwOkIi

I'd be more interested in seeing what is taught, vs what happens in the field, and what is SUPPOSED to happen.
RCO's were introduced after I got out, with very few a4's with ACOG's being handed out as DMR rifles when I was overseas.
Looking at those pictures, I would venture to guess placement has a LOT more to do with people not knowing what they are doing, and less to do with LOP since most Marines are taught to shoot NTCH in boot, with only a handful of people physiologically incapable of doing it.
Those optics look like they were just slapped on in a "this looks about right" fashion.

ETA- what is the eye relief supposed to be for the ACOG?

Posted: 7/1/2013 3:16:57 PM EST

[#36]

Quoted:

The A2 stock is too long for me in a tee shirt, .

Pffft. Well grow some.

Posted: 7/1/2013 3:19:22 PM EST

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
snip
Putting an adjustable stock on the A4 makes sense if a good design can be found that can withstand the rigors of hard use often found in combat conditions. At the very least, the shorter M16A1 buttstock made of the same materials as used to make the current buttstock should be purchased for immediate retrofit.

Or just a shorter stock with extensions for longer armed shooters. OR, a thinner backplate and delete the trapdoor.

When you get down to it, very few people NEED an adjustable stock.

Certainly not enough to justify a service wide re-stocking of current issue A2's and A4's.

I'm mainly calling into question the decision of the Marine Corps to order the A4 in significant quantities to begin with I remember a few years ago that they placed a significantly sized order for them. There wouldn't be a need to fix it if they had gone with a collapsible stock to begin with was my point.

Posted: 7/1/2013 3:20:26 PM EST

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
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'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.

I wish we lived closer-I'd run you through Table III with both an A4 clone and an M4gery with some body armor on just for shits and grins (although, I wouldn't want to do it today with temps over 110 degrees this afternoon). I think you'd be surprised how easy an A4 is to get hits with, even with SAPI plates and a kevlar brain bucket. Let me know if you ever make it up to ID.

The buttstock of the A2/A4 does provides some structural reinforcement to the lower receiver extension where it screws into the lower receiver. I wouldn't want to use an M4 for a 250 lb Soldier or Marine to step on while I and another squad member elevated him up so he could enter a building during MOUT; I'd fear the rifle would break behind the receiver. Yet, that's a pretty common way to get inside structures when the doors are locked. I've never attempted it myself, or seen it done with the M4 so maybe it is strong enough to handle that kind of thing.

Putting an adjustable stock on the A4 makes sense if a good design can be found that can withstand the rigors of hard use often found in combat conditions. At the very least, the shorter M16A1 buttstock made of the same materials as used to make the current buttstock should be purchased for immediate retrofit.

I wouldn't mind trying it for comparison's sake, but I have probably slightly shorter arms than your average man of my height, not that I have freakish Tyrannosaurus arms or something.

Posted: 7/1/2013 3:35:45 PM EST

[#39]

Quoted:

snip

I'm mainly calling into question the decision of the Marine Corps to order the A4 in significant quantities to begin with I remember a few years ago that they placed a significantly sized order for them. There wouldn't be a need to fix it if they had gone with a collapsible stock to begin with was my point.

You say that like there's something to "fix".

There's only certain people to accommodate.

The question is it worth accommodating them.

Apparently the answer was "suck it up".

Posted: 7/1/2013 3:50:58 PM EST

[#40]

Quoted:
I always thought the Magpul UBR looked promising for an A4 upgrade. Anyone have any experience with one on their rifle?

Heavy, not worth it. Very stable. Would prefer an A5 receiver extension.

Posted: 7/1/2013 3:52:54 PM EST

[#41]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Apparently the Canadians have more ammo than we do too since they left the C7 auto but the A4 is burst.

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

Only for the final clearance of a trench or the first second or 2 of an ambush in my experience.

Posted: 7/1/2013 4:06:48 PM EST

[#42]

Quoted:

snip

I'm mainly calling into question the decision of the Marine Corps to order the A4 in significant quantities to begin with I remember a few years ago that they placed a significantly sized order for them. There wouldn't be a need to fix it if they had gone with a collapsible stock to begin with was my point.

You say that like there's something to "fix".
There's only certain people to accommodate.
The question is it worth accommodating them.
Apparently the answer was "suck it up".

You're missing my point which was that in my opinion it was stupid decision to continue procuring rifles with fixed stocks in this day and age. There wouldn't be a question about accommodation if in the past decade they'd stopped ordering rifles with fixed stocks. It's not like this is the way it is because of a cruel hand fate has dealt the military.

Posted: 7/1/2013 4:09:34 PM EST

[#43]

Quoted:

Quoted:

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.

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

Lutz IIRC.

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.

Fascinating.

Posted: 7/1/2013 4:17:29 PM EST

[#44]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You can be proud all you want of the M16A4, but a long fixed stock on a modern general issue weapon (especially taking body armor into account) is fucking stupid.

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.

I have and it was fucking stupid. Trying to maneuver an A4 length rifle with an MTV, ESAPI's, and an ACOG in the narrow ass hallways of Iraqi mudhuts is not only stupid, it's fucking dangerous.

There is NO EXCUSE for the Corps obstinance on this issue when it comes to adopting a carbine for junior enlisted, the benefits of a carbine with a red dot outstrip any short comings or perceived advantages the A4 may have by FAR.

Issue an RCO if your going to be in the fucking hills of afghanistan.... otherwise, if I'm gonna be in a turret or searching houses give me a god damn carbine with a red dot.

Posted: 7/1/2013 4:21:51 PM EST

[#45]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You can be proud all you want of the M16A4, but a long fixed stock on a modern general issue weapon (especially taking body armor into account) is fucking stupid.

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.

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.

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.

Dont mean to jump in, but I have an IOTV and a M16A4 clone sitting right here. The stock is too long to use comfortably and I'm 6'2" or 6'3". Add in the short eye relief on the USMC's ACOG and it becomes a cluster fuck.

I'm glad you "jumped in", as this is an open discussion forum, not a dick measuring contest.

My question to Alien wasn't meant to be a "call out", but instead I wanted to know if he was arguing from a practical or theoretical standpoint.

Of all the criticisms of the M16A4 I've heard from infantrymen in the various infantry regiments and battalions assigned to provisional infantry missions on the east coast, it's always been the overall length of the rifle itself due to mounting and dismounting armored vehicles, as opposed to ergonomic deficiencies created by an overly long buttstock, or eye relief that was too short.

Posted: 7/1/2013 4:22:32 PM EST

[#46]

Quoted:

snip

I'm mainly calling into question the decision of the Marine Corps to order the A4 in significant quantities to begin with I remember a few years ago that they placed a significantly sized order for them. There wouldn't be a need to fix it if they had gone with a collapsible stock to begin with was my point.

You say that like there's something to "fix".

There's only certain people to accommodate.

The question is it worth accommodating them.

Apparently the answer was "suck it up".

You're missing my point which was that in my opinion it was stupid decision to continue procuring rifles with fixed stocks in this day and age. There wouldn't be a question about accommodation if in the past decade they'd stopped ordering rifles with fixed stocks. It's not like this is the way it is because of a cruel hand fate has dealt the military.

When the decision was made in late 2002, the testing at the time (84 M4s and 84 M16A4s, firing 69,272 total rounds per type) resulting in in A4s having 61 and M4s having 186 stoppages equating to a MRBF of in 1 in 1136 vice 1 in 372

Posted: 7/1/2013 4:47:36 PM EST

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:
You can be proud all you want of the M16A4, but a long fixed stock on a modern general issue weapon (especially taking body armor into account) is fucking stupid.

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.

I have and it was fucking stupid. Trying to maneuver an A4 length rifle with an MTV, ESAPI's, and an ACOG in the narrow ass hallways of Iraqi mudhuts is not only stupid, it's fucking dangerous.

There is NO EXCUSE for the Corps obstinance on this issue when it comes to adopting a carbine for junior enlisted, the benefits of a carbine with a red dot outstrip any short comings or perceived advantages the A4 may have by FAR.

Issue an RCO if your going to be in the fucking hills of afghanistan.... otherwise, if I'm gonna be in a turret or searching houses give me a god damn carbine with a red dot.

The CCO isn't all that. I took a shot at a running coyote from the standing position last year at over 300 meters, and the red dot was less than ideal. I wasn't trying to suppress the coyote until I could call indirect fires or CAS on it-I just wanted to kill it, but the 4 MOA dot was too big to get a good aiming point with.

I say that as a big fan of the Aimpoint M68. For close ranges, the CCO is an awesome and extremely durable, simple-to-use sight. For ranges beyond CQB / MOUT / whatever contact ranges, my opinion is that it's limited. The infantry battalions on the east coast had all sorts of optical sights and other doo-dads like Grip Pods in the armory available to them as COTS items to use for deployments. Some fellers liked the Eotech sights, some liked the Aimpoints, and some preferred the ACOG. Guess which two didn't come out on top for overall use?

Iraq wasn't the only war the US planned to be fighting for the foreseeable future. I can understand the Corps' reluctance to invest all it's procurement in M4s. I had a friend from STA Plt., 3/8 that deployed to Ramadi in 2006 (IIRC), and the longest shot he took with his M40A3 at an insurgent was somewhere around 150 meters. Surely, you're not suggesting we base our entire future warfighting doctrine completely on what transpired in Iraq, are you? As it is, we've been hearing of complaints for quite some time about the lack of range from 5.56mm weapon systems in Afghanistan, when Marines on patrol are engaged with 7.62 mm crew-served weapon such as the PKM. The British too, and they responded by fielding a 7.62 mm NATO LMT AR10 based DMR to deal with it. The M4 isn't the be-all, end-all of infantry weapons.

Posted: 7/1/2013 4:49:15 PM EST

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:

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.

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'm not positive, but talking to a former marine he said their quals weren't timed. In the army they are, it's not magic that everyone that had acogs on average shot better than those with out, especially in lowlight, overcast and rainy Germany.

Not true, every stage of fire or engagement is timed.

From my nearest range data book that I can reach...

Stage One slow fire 200 yds 5 rounds each at sitting, kneeling, and standing 20 minutes total for all three positions

Stage Two 200 yds rapid fire 60 seconds 10 rounds divided by two magazines

Stage Three 300 yds slow fire 5 minutes 5 rounds

Stage Four 300 yds rapid fire 60 seconds 10 rounds divided by two magazines

Stage Five 500 yds slow fire 10 minutes 10 rounds

Then there are tables 2 - 4 with moving targets and close quarter engagements.

Anything past 100m the ACOG is the winner, anything close up like 50m and in then the x 4 magnification becomes a hindrance.

Posted: 7/1/2013 4:59:16 PM EST

[#49]

Quoted:

snip

You're missing my point which was that in my opinion it was stupid decision to continue procuring rifles with fixed stocks in this day and age. There wouldn't be a question about accommodation if in the past decade they'd stopped ordering rifles with fixed stocks. It's not like this is the way it is because of a cruel hand fate has dealt the military.

I'm not missing it, I just don't agree with it and don't think it incorporates the larger picture of small arms procurement.

It's the same argument as the "The military should switch to 6.8SPC" that was popular forever.