User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 5:07:20 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Abomination? You serious, Clark? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I’m not familiar with that exact configuration, but at first glance it looks like it’s superior to the adopted M16A2 rifle. The A2 is an abomination that took many steps back from the A1, which was probably the finest infantry rifle “for its time” ever fielded. Abomination? You serious, Clark? I am serious, and don’t call me Shirley. It is a worse rifle than the A1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 5:07:35 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes. I am around almost daily and am alerted by any mention. Enjoy the host of opinions here and elsewhere. I wrote a Retrospective for the A2 section of the Vicker's Vol. 1 around page 450 or so. Some of the opinionated here might learn something from it. I like my A2.  Attached FileMusket thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 5:09:44 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 711's don't use A2 sights Yes, I'm 100% aware that 711s don't use A2 sights. In the pictures posted, the rifle has A1 sights. I wasn't talking about the 711. Basic English language comprehension applies here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 5:13:11 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol, you wouldn't survive the fleet then Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: And with a paint pen you can tell when your buddy cranked it a few clicks off to mess with you. I've never been in the military and freely admit to not understanding much of the internal culture, but messing with sights, on any gun, anywhere, isn't something a 'buddy' would do. Maybe I'm OCD or a bit of an autist but I'd lose it if someone ever did that to any firearm of mine.  Lol, you wouldn't survive the fleet then I usually try to ignore people when they want to tell you how they would've done stuff IF they'd been in the military. Like the "I almost joined the military, but I would've had to punch a drill sergeant/instructor if they got in my face". 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 5:14:49 PM EST
[#5]
Yes. Simplier sight. Less bulk (no shell deflector). Collaspable stock would be good.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 5:17:16 PM EST
[#6]
I like the skinny 1:7 barrel
guys bitching about the A2 sights,…might be forgetting the excellent 0-200 ghost ring aperture shitcan the 3round burst also |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 5:18:05 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A2 stock is too long if you're a midget Once we were issued IBA and IOTV the A2 stock sucked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 5:20:06 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good, let's accommodate the weakest smallest individuals in our fighting force. That's worked out so well. Makes me want to shoot my M1. Yeah because 5’5 Mexican dudes are shitty soldiers. The A2 stock is too long with gear on and I’m 5’11. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 5:25:32 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’m fixin to start another A2 hate thread. Fuck I hate that gun. What's your experience with the A2? I think it's one of the best rifleman's rifles I've ever been behind. It's comfortable and accurate, the sights are great, and you can shoot it until you run out of daylight or ammo, whichever comes first. It's not great for use when dressed like a turtle with an IOTV and a bunch of other bullcrap on your body, but that's not really what it was designed for. It's also not great for climbing in and out of little HMMWV doors all day, but that's also not really what it was designed for. Waking up at some unholy time, marching through dawn, and hitting some form of range for training? It's a really good rifle for that. And in a world where military grade optics aren't readily available or common, I'd be very comfortable with an A2 in more serious situations. I think this 711 configuration is pretty neat and perhaps a bit more practical, but I'm waiting for a reproduction of the very first rifle I was issued when I was 19: An H&R M16A2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 5:26:54 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good, let's accommodate the weakest smallest individuals in our fighting force. That's worked out so well. Makes me want to shoot my M1. Not a big Audie Murphy fan, huh? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 5:29:02 PM EST
[#11]
Pretty close to perfect. Although even at 6'2 I still prefer the A1 buttstock |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 5:29:34 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But you lose the excellent rifle buffer and spring system. That extra length system and heavy buffer make the full rifle length systems MUCH nicer to shoot than the carbine buffer and springs. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The A2 stock is too long to be useful. The A2 stock is perfect for men over six feet tall. A collapsible stock can be perfect for people of all statures, and also allows easy accommodation for heavy clothing or armor. But you lose the excellent rifle buffer and spring system. That extra length system and heavy buffer make the full rifle length systems MUCH nicer to shoot than the carbine buffer and springs. Now why would all the 6'+ supermen be worried about a little extra recoil? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 5:31:50 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is the "A2" that the army wanted, but with an optic. Proof of concept variants had a British SUSAT from the SA80. But the USMC wanted a target rifle to get high scores on the KD range. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 5:33:49 PM EST
[#14]
I liked the A2 sights.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 5:34:27 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not a big Audie Murphy fan, huh? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Good, let's accommodate the weakest smallest individuals in our fighting force. That's worked out so well. Makes me want to shoot my M1. Not a big Audie Murphy fan, huh? He would have rocked the fuck out of a an A2 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 5:36:07 PM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What's your experience with the A2? I think it's one of the best rifleman's rifles I've ever been behind. It's comfortable and accurate, the sights are great, and you can shoot it until you run out of daylight or ammo, whichever comes first. It's not great for use when dressed like a turtle with an IOTV and a bunch of other bullcrap on your body, but that's not really what it was designed for. It's also not great for climbing in and out of little HMMWV doors all day, but that's also not really what it was designed for. Waking up at some unholy time, marching through dawn, and hitting some form of range for training? It's a really good rifle for that. And in a world where military grade optics aren't readily available or common, I'd be very comfortable with an A2 in more serious situations. I think this 711 configuration is pretty neat and perhaps a bit more practical, but I'm waiting for a reproduction of the very first rifle I was issued when I was 19: An H&R M16A2. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I’m fixin to start another A2 hate thread. Fuck I hate that gun. What's your experience with the A2? I think it's one of the best rifleman's rifles I've ever been behind. It's comfortable and accurate, the sights are great, and you can shoot it until you run out of daylight or ammo, whichever comes first. It's not great for use when dressed like a turtle with an IOTV and a bunch of other bullcrap on your body, but that's not really what it was designed for. It's also not great for climbing in and out of little HMMWV doors all day, but that's also not really what it was designed for. Waking up at some unholy time, marching through dawn, and hitting some form of range for training? It's a really good rifle for that. And in a world where military grade optics aren't readily available or common, I'd be very comfortable with an A2 in more serious situations. I think this 711 configuration is pretty neat and perhaps a bit more practical, but I'm waiting for a reproduction of the very first rifle I was issued when I was 19: An H&R M16A2. I hate it because it represents the only time in this country’s history that we’ve adopted a new rifle as a direct successor to the previous one that is worse in virtually every practical category. 3 round burst and the ass backward barrel weight distribution are the obvious ones. Pistol grip nub and longer stock are personal preference I suppose, but I find few people defend them. The rear sight. It’s heavier and more complex than what it replaced. More fragile too. I guess I’m glad the plastic formulation was strengthened. The A2 aperture is an improvement. The 1:7 barrel is correctly matched to the new ammunition supply. That’s about what I can come up with for improvements. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 5:39:18 PM EST
[#17]
The biggest real improvements were the stock materials, and the brass deflector.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 5:42:39 PM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Once we were issued IBA and IOTV the A2 stock sucked. How did troops manage for 2 decades with A2 stocks and PASGT vests? Those were way more bulky than the IBA and IOTV  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 5:46:40 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How did troops manage for 2 decades with A2 stocks and PASGT vests? Those were way more bulky than the IBA and IOTV https://www.wearethemighty.com/uploads/2021/01/members-of-3rd-plt-co-a-1st-bn-327th-infantry-regt-1st-brigade-airborne-div-f2f39b-1600-1536x1015.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Once we were issued IBA and IOTV the A2 stock sucked. How did troops manage for 2 decades with A2 stocks and PASGT vests? Those were way more bulky than the IBA and IOTV https://www.wearethemighty.com/uploads/2021/01/members-of-3rd-plt-co-a-1st-bn-327th-infantry-regt-1st-brigade-airborne-div-f2f39b-1600-1536x1015.jpg They would have managed with M1 Garands. That’s not an excuse for making our service rifles worse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 5:51:17 PM EST
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How did troops manage for 2 decades with A2 stocks and PASGT vests? Those were way more bulky than the IBA and IOTV https://www.wearethemighty.com/uploads/2021/01/members-of-3rd-plt-co-a-1st-bn-327th-infantry-regt-1st-brigade-airborne-div-f2f39b-1600-1536x1015.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Once we were issued IBA and IOTV the A2 stock sucked. How did troops manage for 2 decades with A2 stocks and PASGT vests? Those were way more bulky than the IBA and IOTV https://www.wearethemighty.com/uploads/2021/01/members-of-3rd-plt-co-a-1st-bn-327th-infantry-regt-1st-brigade-airborne-div-f2f39b-1600-1536x1015.jpg PASGT vest weight: 7.1-11 lbs depending upon size.  IOTV weight: ~35 pounds.  ETA: I only remember using the PASGT vest twice. The first time was at the basic training grenade range, and the assumption was they gave them to us because they were smaller, lighter, and easier to throw the live grenades. The other time was at POG school where we weren't allocated IBAs and the drill sergeants wanted us to wear something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 5:56:34 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: He would have rocked the fuck out of a an A2 Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Good, let's accommodate the weakest smallest individuals in our fighting force. That's worked out so well. Makes me want to shoot my M1. Not a big Audie Murphy fan, huh? He would have rocked the fuck out of a an A2 And he would have done even better with a rifle that properly fit him. It's kinda funny how his favorite weapon was the M1 Carbine, not the M1 Garand, isn't it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 5:58:42 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: They would have managed with M1 Garands. That's not an excuse for making our service rifles worse. We worked out in one of the other big A2 threads that the real difference ended up being in weight distribution. The A2 is only a few ounces heavier than the A1 and the length is almost identical. The reason it "feels" heavier is because the center of gravity was shifted forward (the longer A2 stock is actually lighter than the A1, plus the govt profile barrel) |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 6:01:52 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: We worked out in one of the other big A2 threads that the real difference ended up being in weight distribution. The A2 is only a few ounces heavier than the A1 and the length is almost identical. The reason it "feels" heavier is because the center of gravity was shifted forward (the longer A2 stock is actually lighter than the A1, plus the govt profile barrel) Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: They would have managed with M1 Garands. That's not an excuse for making our service rifles worse. We worked out in one of the other big A2 threads that the real difference ended up being in weight distribution. The A2 is only a few ounces heavier than the A1 and the length is almost identical. The reason it "feels" heavier is because the center of gravity was shifted forward (the longer A2 stock is actually lighter than the A1, plus the govt profile barrel) Correct. It’s not a bad rifle. It’s just that it’s worse than what it replaced. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 6:05:55 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The only thing wrong with the A2 is the barrel profile. This. Stock is fine. Pistol grip is fine. Barrel profile is insane. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 6:13:04 PM EST
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The A2 stock is perfect for men over six feet tall. Average height for males in the late 60's was 5 ft 8 in edit: beat, several times
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 6:17:30 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Average height for males in the late 60's was 5 ft 8 in edit: beat, several times the A2 was a 1980’s PIP program the A1 was a late 1960’s upgrade |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 6:19:58 PM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I hate it because it represents the only time in this country’s history that we’ve adopted a new rifle as a direct successor to the previous one that is worse in virtually every practical category. 3 round burst and the ass backward barrel weight distribution are the obvious ones. Pistol grip nub and longer stock are personal preference I suppose, but I find few people defend them. The rear sight. It’s heavier and more complex than what it replaced. More fragile too. I guess I’m glad the plastic formulation was strengthened. The A2 aperture is an improvement. The 1:7 barrel is correctly matched to the new ammunition supply. That’s about what I can come up with for improvements. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I’m fixin to start another A2 hate thread. Fuck I hate that gun. What's your experience with the A2? I think it's one of the best rifleman's rifles I've ever been behind. It's comfortable and accurate, the sights are great, and you can shoot it until you run out of daylight or ammo, whichever comes first. It's not great for use when dressed like a turtle with an IOTV and a bunch of other bullcrap on your body, but that's not really what it was designed for. It's also not great for climbing in and out of little HMMWV doors all day, but that's also not really what it was designed for. Waking up at some unholy time, marching through dawn, and hitting some form of range for training? It's a really good rifle for that. And in a world where military grade optics aren't readily available or common, I'd be very comfortable with an A2 in more serious situations. I think this 711 configuration is pretty neat and perhaps a bit more practical, but I'm waiting for a reproduction of the very first rifle I was issued when I was 19: An H&R M16A2. I hate it because it represents the only time in this country’s history that we’ve adopted a new rifle as a direct successor to the previous one that is worse in virtually every practical category. 3 round burst and the ass backward barrel weight distribution are the obvious ones. Pistol grip nub and longer stock are personal preference I suppose, but I find few people defend them. The rear sight. It’s heavier and more complex than what it replaced. More fragile too. I guess I’m glad the plastic formulation was strengthened. The A2 aperture is an improvement. The 1:7 barrel is correctly matched to the new ammunition supply. That’s about what I can come up with for improvements. I find it funny that you hate it for those reasons. Yet you never carried it in harm's way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 6:22:04 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: PASGT vest weight: 7.1-11 lbs depending upon size. https://bpldcassets.blob.core.windows.net/derivatives/images/commonwealth:d217qz443/image_access_800.jpg IOTV weight: ~35 pounds. https://live.staticflickr.com/2944/15193009730_2e2dea719a_b.jpg ETA: I only remember using the PASGT vest twice. The first time was at the basic training grenade range, and the assumption was they gave them to us because they were smaller, lighter, and easier to throw the live grenades. The other time was at POG school where we weren't allocated IBAs and the drill sergeants wanted us to wear something. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Once we were issued IBA and IOTV the A2 stock sucked. How did troops manage for 2 decades with A2 stocks and PASGT vests? Those were way more bulky than the IBA and IOTV https://www.wearethemighty.com/uploads/2021/01/members-of-3rd-plt-co-a-1st-bn-327th-infantry-regt-1st-brigade-airborne-div-f2f39b-1600-1536x1015.jpg PASGT vest weight: 7.1-11 lbs depending upon size. https://bpldcassets.blob.core.windows.net/derivatives/images/commonwealth:d217qz443/image_access_800.jpg IOTV weight: ~35 pounds. https://live.staticflickr.com/2944/15193009730_2e2dea719a_b.jpg ETA: I only remember using the PASGT vest twice. The first time was at the basic training grenade range, and the assumption was they gave them to us because they were smaller, lighter, and easier to throw the live grenades. The other time was at POG school where we weren't allocated IBAs and the drill sergeants wanted us to wear something. 35lbs is false. If you add plate and full mag pouches maybe. Plus all extra attachments. I was issued both and currently have 3 interceptors that all way under 12 lbs |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 6:23:00 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: And he would have done even better with a rifle that properly fit him. It's kinda funny how his favorite weapon was the M1 Carbine, not the M1 Garand, isn't it? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Good, let's accommodate the weakest smallest individuals in our fighting force. That's worked out so well. Makes me want to shoot my M1. Not a big Audie Murphy fan, huh? He would have rocked the fuck out of a an A2 And he would have done even better with a rifle that properly fit him. It's kinda funny how his favorite weapon was the M1 Carbine, not the M1 Garand, isn't it? Yeah because it's like 4 pounds lighter |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 6:23:06 PM EST
[#30]
Quoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/14563/C2040CF4-3EF8-4953-B835-D6C0A1540825-2718963.jpg PSA had a few clones for sale yesterday. I guess it's basically an a2 m16 lower with basically an A1 upper but with new handguards. (1/7 barrel I think a newer delta ring) I guess they were for export. I haven't found who bought them I love A2 sights. Only thing I wasn't really crazy about with M16A2s is the rachet 3 round burst. If you control your trigger and only send 2, your next trigger pull will only send 1. It teaches you to not control your trigger. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 6:23:40 PM EST
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Correct. It’s not a bad rifle. It’s just that it’s worse than what it replaced. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: They would have managed with M1 Garands. That's not an excuse for making our service rifles worse. We worked out in one of the other big A2 threads that the real difference ended up being in weight distribution. The A2 is only a few ounces heavier than the A1 and the length is almost identical. The reason it "feels" heavier is because the center of gravity was shifted forward (the longer A2 stock is actually lighter than the A1, plus the govt profile barrel) Correct. It’s not a bad rifle. It’s just that it’s worse than what it replaced. It goes from an abomination to not a bad rifle? WTF |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 6:25:06 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I find it funny that you hate it for those reasons. Yet you never carried it in harm's way. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I’m fixin to start another A2 hate thread. Fuck I hate that gun. What's your experience with the A2? I think it's one of the best rifleman's rifles I've ever been behind. It's comfortable and accurate, the sights are great, and you can shoot it until you run out of daylight or ammo, whichever comes first. It's not great for use when dressed like a turtle with an IOTV and a bunch of other bullcrap on your body, but that's not really what it was designed for. It's also not great for climbing in and out of little HMMWV doors all day, but that's also not really what it was designed for. Waking up at some unholy time, marching through dawn, and hitting some form of range for training? It's a really good rifle for that. And in a world where military grade optics aren't readily available or common, I'd be very comfortable with an A2 in more serious situations. I think this 711 configuration is pretty neat and perhaps a bit more practical, but I'm waiting for a reproduction of the very first rifle I was issued when I was 19: An H&R M16A2. I hate it because it represents the only time in this country’s history that we’ve adopted a new rifle as a direct successor to the previous one that is worse in virtually every practical category. 3 round burst and the ass backward barrel weight distribution are the obvious ones. Pistol grip nub and longer stock are personal preference I suppose, but I find few people defend them. The rear sight. It’s heavier and more complex than what it replaced. More fragile too. I guess I’m glad the plastic formulation was strengthened. The A2 aperture is an improvement. The 1:7 barrel is correctly matched to the new ammunition supply. That’s about what I can come up with for improvements. I find it funny that you hate it for those reasons. Yet you never carried it in harm's way. I guess I don’t see the humor part. I also have opinions on Iowa vs Yamato class battleships. P51s vs Zero fighters. Do you have an opinion on those weapon systems? If so, is it funny, because you didn’t use one in combat? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 6:25:12 PM EST
[#33]
C7 upper (add brass deflector) with that barrel and an A1 stock.. and yes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 6:27:23 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: the A2 was a 1980’s PIP program the A1 was a late 1960’s upgrade Average height difference from late 60's to late 80's was 0.12 cm But point taken. I'll stop digging, put down the shovel and show my way out
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 6:29:07 PM EST
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It goes from an abomination to not a bad rifle? WTF Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: They would have managed with M1 Garands. That's not an excuse for making our service rifles worse. We worked out in one of the other big A2 threads that the real difference ended up being in weight distribution. The A2 is only a few ounces heavier than the A1 and the length is almost identical. The reason it "feels" heavier is because the center of gravity was shifted forward (the longer A2 stock is actually lighter than the A1, plus the govt profile barrel) Correct. It’s not a bad rifle. It’s just that it’s worse than what it replaced. It goes from an abomination to not a bad rifle? WTF I think I’ve explained my reasoning pretty consistently. You don’t have to agree. My contention is that the A2 program was counterproductive, and the result of it was a worse rifle than it replaced. It’s the only example of such a thing in American history to my knowledge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 6:30:25 PM EST
[#36]
It wouldn’t have made any meaningful difference at all.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 6:34:23 PM EST
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've never been in the military and freely admit to not understanding much of the internal culture, but messing with sights, on any gun, anywhere, isn't something a 'buddy' would do. Maybe I'm OCD or a bit of an autist but I'd lose it if someone ever did that to any firearm of mine. You have to understand some of the uniformed rocks we have in the service. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 6:45:59 PM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I love A2 sights. Only thing I wasn't really crazy about with M16A2s is the rachet 3 round burst. If you control your trigger and only send 2, your next trigger pull will only send 1. It teaches you to not control your trigger. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/14563/C2040CF4-3EF8-4953-B835-D6C0A1540825-2718963.jpg PSA had a few clones for sale yesterday. I guess it's basically an a2 m16 lower with basically an A1 upper but with new handguards. (1/7 barrel I think a newer delta ring) I guess they were for export. I haven't found who bought them I love A2 sights. Only thing I wasn't really crazy about with M16A2s is the rachet 3 round burst. If you control your trigger and only send 2, your next trigger pull will only send 1. It teaches you to not control your trigger. Yeah, that is the worst aspect of the A2 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 6:48:03 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I guess I don’t see the humor part. I also have opinions on Iowa vs Yamato class battleships. P51s vs Zero fighters. Do you have an opinion on those weapon systems? If so, is it funny, because you didn’t use one in combat? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I’m fixin to start another A2 hate thread. Fuck I hate that gun. What's your experience with the A2? I think it's one of the best rifleman's rifles I've ever been behind. It's comfortable and accurate, the sights are great, and you can shoot it until you run out of daylight or ammo, whichever comes first. It's not great for use when dressed like a turtle with an IOTV and a bunch of other bullcrap on your body, but that's not really what it was designed for. It's also not great for climbing in and out of little HMMWV doors all day, but that's also not really what it was designed for. Waking up at some unholy time, marching through dawn, and hitting some form of range for training? It's a really good rifle for that. And in a world where military grade optics aren't readily available or common, I'd be very comfortable with an A2 in more serious situations. I think this 711 configuration is pretty neat and perhaps a bit more practical, but I'm waiting for a reproduction of the very first rifle I was issued when I was 19: An H&R M16A2. I hate it because it represents the only time in this country’s history that we’ve adopted a new rifle as a direct successor to the previous one that is worse in virtually every practical category. 3 round burst and the ass backward barrel weight distribution are the obvious ones. Pistol grip nub and longer stock are personal preference I suppose, but I find few people defend them. The rear sight. It’s heavier and more complex than what it replaced. More fragile too. I guess I’m glad the plastic formulation was strengthened. The A2 aperture is an improvement. The 1:7 barrel is correctly matched to the new ammunition supply. That’s about what I can come up with for improvements. I find it funny that you hate it for those reasons. Yet you never carried it in harm's way. I guess I don’t see the humor part. I also have opinions on Iowa vs Yamato class battleships. P51s vs Zero fighters. Do you have an opinion on those weapon systems? If so, is it funny, because you didn’t use one in combat? No I don't really. If I did I wouldn't go all drama llama and say one was an abomination. Then backtrack and say it wasn't bad. I try to stay in my lane with my knowledge and experience. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 6:51:01 PM EST
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think I’ve explained my reasoning pretty consistently. You don’t have to agree. My contention is that the A2 program was counterproductive, and the result of it was a worse rifle than it replaced. It’s the only example of such a thing in American history to my knowledge. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: They would have managed with M1 Garands. That's not an excuse for making our service rifles worse. We worked out in one of the other big A2 threads that the real difference ended up being in weight distribution. The A2 is only a few ounces heavier than the A1 and the length is almost identical. The reason it "feels" heavier is because the center of gravity was shifted forward (the longer A2 stock is actually lighter than the A1, plus the govt profile barrel) Correct. It’s not a bad rifle. It’s just that it’s worse than what it replaced. It goes from an abomination to not a bad rifle? WTF I think I’ve explained my reasoning pretty consistently. You don’t have to agree. My contention is that the A2 program was counterproductive, and the result of it was a worse rifle than it replaced. It’s the only example of such a thing in American history to my knowledge. Lol, no shit I don't have to agree. Thanks for pointing that out. It wasn't worse. There were some major issues with the m16 and a1. The weak plastic, lack of fencing, and front sight were serious negatives. The A2 fixed them. There were some issues withe the A2 but as a whole it was a better rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 6:52:21 PM EST
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No I don't really. If I did I wouldn't go all drama llama and say one was an abomination. Then backtrack and say it wasn't bad. I try to stay in my lane with my knowledge and experience. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I’m fixin to start another A2 hate thread. Fuck I hate that gun. What's your experience with the A2? I think it's one of the best rifleman's rifles I've ever been behind. It's comfortable and accurate, the sights are great, and you can shoot it until you run out of daylight or ammo, whichever comes first. It's not great for use when dressed like a turtle with an IOTV and a bunch of other bullcrap on your body, but that's not really what it was designed for. It's also not great for climbing in and out of little HMMWV doors all day, but that's also not really what it was designed for. Waking up at some unholy time, marching through dawn, and hitting some form of range for training? It's a really good rifle for that. And in a world where military grade optics aren't readily available or common, I'd be very comfortable with an A2 in more serious situations. I think this 711 configuration is pretty neat and perhaps a bit more practical, but I'm waiting for a reproduction of the very first rifle I was issued when I was 19: An H&R M16A2. I hate it because it represents the only time in this country’s history that we’ve adopted a new rifle as a direct successor to the previous one that is worse in virtually every practical category. 3 round burst and the ass backward barrel weight distribution are the obvious ones. Pistol grip nub and longer stock are personal preference I suppose, but I find few people defend them. The rear sight. It’s heavier and more complex than what it replaced. More fragile too. I guess I’m glad the plastic formulation was strengthened. The A2 aperture is an improvement. The 1:7 barrel is correctly matched to the new ammunition supply. That’s about what I can come up with for improvements. I find it funny that you hate it for those reasons. Yet you never carried it in harm's way. I guess I don’t see the humor part. I also have opinions on Iowa vs Yamato class battleships. P51s vs Zero fighters. Do you have an opinion on those weapon systems? If so, is it funny, because you didn’t use one in combat? No I don't really. If I did I wouldn't go all drama llama and say one was an abomination. Then backtrack and say it wasn't bad. I try to stay in my lane with my knowledge and experience. If you’re saying you don’t have opinions about weapons you didn’t use, I hope you’re consistent about that. As for “abomination.” I’ve not backed off on that. The M16A2 program produced an abomination in comparison to what it replaced, and considering the expense/opportunity cost to create it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 6:53:45 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol, no shit I don't have to agree. Thanks for pointing that out. It wasn't worse. There were some major issues with the m16 and a1. The weak plastic, lack of fencing, and front sight were serious negatives. The A2 fixed them. There were some issues withe the A2 but as a whole it was a better rifle. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: They would have managed with M1 Garands. That's not an excuse for making our service rifles worse. We worked out in one of the other big A2 threads that the real difference ended up being in weight distribution. The A2 is only a few ounces heavier than the A1 and the length is almost identical. The reason it "feels" heavier is because the center of gravity was shifted forward (the longer A2 stock is actually lighter than the A1, plus the govt profile barrel) Correct. It’s not a bad rifle. It’s just that it’s worse than what it replaced. It goes from an abomination to not a bad rifle? WTF I think I’ve explained my reasoning pretty consistently. You don’t have to agree. My contention is that the A2 program was counterproductive, and the result of it was a worse rifle than it replaced. It’s the only example of such a thing in American history to my knowledge. Lol, no shit I don't have to agree. Thanks for pointing that out. It wasn't worse. There were some major issues with the m16 and a1. The weak plastic, lack of fencing, and front sight were serious negatives. The A2 fixed them. There were some issues withe the A2 but as a whole it was a better rifle. I’ve already acknowledged the plastic was improved. The A2 did not add any fencing the A1 lacked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 6:56:24 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This. The A2 stock is too long and the A2 sights a bit more complex than needed. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The A2 stock is too long to be useful. This. The A2 stock is too long and the A2 sights a bit more complex than needed. At the range, zero your rifle, then adjust windage and elevation as needed with a pair of knobs as you move to the 300 and 500 yard lines. (OK, be pedantic, elevation is a wheel.) No need to futz around with a tool to adjust elevation at the front sight post or to depress the pin to adjust rear windage. A1 sights suck. I qualified annually with an A2. Easy-peasy... m |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 6:58:16 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If you’re saying you don’t have opinions about weapons you didn’t use, I hope you’re consistent about that. As for “abomination.” I’ve not backed off on that. The M16A2 program produced an abomination in comparison to what it replaced, and considering the expense/opportunity cost to create it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I’m fixin to start another A2 hate thread. Fuck I hate that gun. What's your experience with the A2? I think it's one of the best rifleman's rifles I've ever been behind. It's comfortable and accurate, the sights are great, and you can shoot it until you run out of daylight or ammo, whichever comes first. It's not great for use when dressed like a turtle with an IOTV and a bunch of other bullcrap on your body, but that's not really what it was designed for. It's also not great for climbing in and out of little HMMWV doors all day, but that's also not really what it was designed for. Waking up at some unholy time, marching through dawn, and hitting some form of range for training? It's a really good rifle for that. And in a world where military grade optics aren't readily available or common, I'd be very comfortable with an A2 in more serious situations. I think this 711 configuration is pretty neat and perhaps a bit more practical, but I'm waiting for a reproduction of the very first rifle I was issued when I was 19: An H&R M16A2. I hate it because it represents the only time in this country’s history that we’ve adopted a new rifle as a direct successor to the previous one that is worse in virtually every practical category. 3 round burst and the ass backward barrel weight distribution are the obvious ones. Pistol grip nub and longer stock are personal preference I suppose, but I find few people defend them. The rear sight. It’s heavier and more complex than what it replaced. More fragile too. I guess I’m glad the plastic formulation was strengthened. The A2 aperture is an improvement. The 1:7 barrel is correctly matched to the new ammunition supply. That’s about what I can come up with for improvements. I find it funny that you hate it for those reasons. Yet you never carried it in harm's way. I guess I don’t see the humor part. I also have opinions on Iowa vs Yamato class battleships. P51s vs Zero fighters. Do you have an opinion on those weapon systems? If so, is it funny, because you didn’t use one in combat? No I don't really. If I did I wouldn't go all drama llama and say one was an abomination. Then backtrack and say it wasn't bad. I try to stay in my lane with my knowledge and experience. If you’re saying you don’t have opinions about weapons you didn’t use, I hope you’re consistent about that. As for “abomination.” I’ve not backed off on that. The M16A2 program produced an abomination in comparison to what it replaced, and considering the expense/opportunity cost to create it. Of course I have opinions but I'm not saying one is an abomination. Lol, you literally said the A2 wasn't bad. How is that in line with calling it an abomination. That you never carried and probably never shot. Look at the m60vs 240. I prefer the 240. The m60 isn't an abomination. I prefer the 249 but the new 416 SAW isn't an abomination. I prefer the m9 but the sug isn't an abomination. Please call me out if I do call a weapon an abomination when I have zero experience with it . |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 7:05:11 PM EST
[#45]
All depends upon what kind of war you are fighting and where it is.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 7:14:05 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Of course I have opinions but I'm not saying one is an abomination. Lol, you literally said the A2 wasn't bad. How is that in line with calling it an abomination. That you never carried and probably never shot. Look at the m60vs 240. I prefer the 240. The m60 isn't an abomination. I prefer the 249 but the new 416 SAW isn't an abomination. I prefer the m9 but the sug isn't an abomination. Please call me out if I do call a weapon an abomination when I have zero experience with it . Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I’m fixin to start another A2 hate thread. Fuck I hate that gun. What's your experience with the A2? I think it's one of the best rifleman's rifles I've ever been behind. It's comfortable and accurate, the sights are great, and you can shoot it until you run out of daylight or ammo, whichever comes first. It's not great for use when dressed like a turtle with an IOTV and a bunch of other bullcrap on your body, but that's not really what it was designed for. It's also not great for climbing in and out of little HMMWV doors all day, but that's also not really what it was designed for. Waking up at some unholy time, marching through dawn, and hitting some form of range for training? It's a really good rifle for that. And in a world where military grade optics aren't readily available or common, I'd be very comfortable with an A2 in more serious situations. I think this 711 configuration is pretty neat and perhaps a bit more practical, but I'm waiting for a reproduction of the very first rifle I was issued when I was 19: An H&R M16A2. I hate it because it represents the only time in this country’s history that we’ve adopted a new rifle as a direct successor to the previous one that is worse in virtually every practical category. 3 round burst and the ass backward barrel weight distribution are the obvious ones. Pistol grip nub and longer stock are personal preference I suppose, but I find few people defend them. The rear sight. It’s heavier and more complex than what it replaced. More fragile too. I guess I’m glad the plastic formulation was strengthened. The A2 aperture is an improvement. The 1:7 barrel is correctly matched to the new ammunition supply. That’s about what I can come up with for improvements. I find it funny that you hate it for those reasons. Yet you never carried it in harm's way. I guess I don’t see the humor part. I also have opinions on Iowa vs Yamato class battleships. P51s vs Zero fighters. Do you have an opinion on those weapon systems? If so, is it funny, because you didn’t use one in combat? No I don't really. If I did I wouldn't go all drama llama and say one was an abomination. Then backtrack and say it wasn't bad. I try to stay in my lane with my knowledge and experience. If you’re saying you don’t have opinions about weapons you didn’t use, I hope you’re consistent about that. As for “abomination.” I’ve not backed off on that. The M16A2 program produced an abomination in comparison to what it replaced, and considering the expense/opportunity cost to create it. Of course I have opinions but I'm not saying one is an abomination. Lol, you literally said the A2 wasn't bad. How is that in line with calling it an abomination. That you never carried and probably never shot. Look at the m60vs 240. I prefer the 240. The m60 isn't an abomination. I prefer the 249 but the new 416 SAW isn't an abomination. I prefer the m9 but the sug isn't an abomination. Please call me out if I do call a weapon an abomination when I have zero experience with it . My opinion is that the M16A2 program produced an inferior rifle to the one it was intended to replace. I characterized it as an abomination. The A2 was not a bad rifle by global standards. It was superior to most of its foreign competitors. It still never should have been made. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 7:15:42 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How did troops manage for 2 decades with A2 stocks and PASGT vests? Those were way more bulky than the IBA and IOTV https://www.wearethemighty.com/uploads/2021/01/members-of-3rd-plt-co-a-1st-bn-327th-infantry-regt-1st-brigade-airborne-div-f2f39b-1600-1536x1015.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Once we were issued IBA and IOTV the A2 stock sucked. How did troops manage for 2 decades with A2 stocks and PASGT vests? Those were way more bulky than the IBA and IOTV https://www.wearethemighty.com/uploads/2021/01/members-of-3rd-plt-co-a-1st-bn-327th-infantry-regt-1st-brigade-airborne-div-f2f39b-1600-1536x1015.jpg Don't know, was never issued one. I had ALICE gear, then LBV, then IBA and finally IOTV> |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 7:18:10 PM EST
[#48]
There was nothing wrong with the A1.
A2, stock too long, 3rd burst stupid, 1/7 twist was stupid, pistol grip hump was stupid, barrel profile was stupid, rear sight was kind of stupid. This is what happens when you let the AMU design a rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 7:21:23 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The A2 stock is too long to be useful. Huh? I’ve always loved the A2 stock length. I even built an A2 style rifle because I like the 20” barrel and stock. A real smooth shooter and the perfect size, if I’m not getting in and out of a vehicle. But I’m over 6’ tall though. Is this a short guy problem? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2023 7:21:53 PM EST
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I am serious, and don’t call me Shirley. It is a worse rifle than the A1. I recently finished my A2 clone (complete with a minty Trijicon 1x24 Reflex and NOS gooseneck) and it shoots like a dream. Perhaps it's nostalgia but I always enjoyed carrying it. I'd be lying if I said there weren't miles where I wished it was a pencil barrel but I think it was a great rifle for its time for mass issue. Perfect? Maybe, maybe not. Abomination? Compared to what? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
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.
