AR Sponsor
Posted: 5/29/2014 6:08:41 AM EDT
How the A2 came to be.  |
|
Quoted:
Which one is "Cold Blue"? I am the one on the rifle, if this is the photo you mean: That is a photo taken on Range 3 at Weapons Training Battalion, Quantico, Virginia in about 1988. The other Marine in the picture is Gunnery Sergeant Bob Jensen who was the NCOIC of my little R&D armory/test facility at MARCORSYSCOM we called the ATF. The Gunny was also my main source of bummed Winston’s in those days as well. The scope as I recall was a Steiner, NATO type scope of 1 or 1.5x. As you can see, we had mounter it to a flat-top M16 upper to bring the scope’s line of sight (LOS) as close as possible to the M16’s iron sights LOS. The mount is an ARMS STANAG Throw Lever. The rifle is actually one of my Colt H-Bar’s that I had cut-off the standing front sight because I usually had a 10x scope mounted for varmint work. What I remember most about that day was the extreme difficulty we had getting a starting zero on the scope. We were on Range 3 because that was the only range at Quantico laid out in meters, as was the scope’s reticle. But the Steiner’s exit eye pupil was so large that it was near impossible to shoot a five round group and then determine its true center if impact to make subsequent dope changes to equal point of aim equals point of impact (POA/POI). We repeatedly tried this, but our subsequent groups were not where out dope changes should have moved them. So I called the scope vendor and explained this. He told me to look in the scope carrying case and pull out the “zeroing disk” (there were no instructions with the scope). The disk was like a scope cap you slid over the eyepiece with a small diameter “sighting” hole in its middle. What this did was force the shooter to be dead-nuts behind the scope to see the reticle and target from shot to shot. So it was the scope’s parallax that was making zeroing inconsistent. But with the disk in place, everything worked fine. |
|
Quoted:
I am the one on the rifle, if this is the photo you mean: That is a photo taken on Range 3 at Weapons Training Battalion, Quantico, Virginia in about 1988. The other Marine in the picture is Gunnery Sergeant Bob Jensen who was the NCOIC of my little R&D armory/test facility at MARCORSYSCOM we called the ATF. The Gunny was also my main source of bummed Winston’s in those days as well. The scope as I recall was a Steiner, NATO type scope of 1 or 1.5x. As you can see, we had mounter it to a flat-top M16 upper to bring the scope’s line of sight (LOS) as close as possible to the M16’s iron sights LOS. The mount is an ARMS STANAG Throw Lever. The rifle is actually one of my Colt H-Bar’s that I had cut-off the standing front sight because I usually had a 10x scope mounted for varmint work. What I remember most about that day was the extreme difficulty we had getting a starting zero on the scope. We were on Range 3 because that was the only range at Quantico laid out in meters, as was the scope’s reticle. But the Steiner’s exit eye pupil was so large that it was near impossible to shoot a five round group and then determine its true center if impact to make subsequent dope changes to equal point of aim equals point of impact (POA/POI). We repeatedly tried this, but our subsequent groups were not where out dope changes should have moved them. So I called the scope vendor and explained this. He told me to look in the scope carrying case and pull out the “zeroing disk” (there were no instructions with the scope). The disk was like a scope cap you slid over the eyepiece with a small diameter “sighting” hole in its middle. What this did was force the shooter to be dead-nuts behind the scope to see the reticle and target from shot to shot. So it was the scope’s parallax that was making zeroing inconsistent. But with the disk in place, everything worked fine. Quoted:
Quoted:
Which one is "Cold Blue"? I am the one on the rifle, if this is the photo you mean: That is a photo taken on Range 3 at Weapons Training Battalion, Quantico, Virginia in about 1988. The other Marine in the picture is Gunnery Sergeant Bob Jensen who was the NCOIC of my little R&D armory/test facility at MARCORSYSCOM we called the ATF. The Gunny was also my main source of bummed Winston’s in those days as well. The scope as I recall was a Steiner, NATO type scope of 1 or 1.5x. As you can see, we had mounter it to a flat-top M16 upper to bring the scope’s line of sight (LOS) as close as possible to the M16’s iron sights LOS. The mount is an ARMS STANAG Throw Lever. The rifle is actually one of my Colt H-Bar’s that I had cut-off the standing front sight because I usually had a 10x scope mounted for varmint work. What I remember most about that day was the extreme difficulty we had getting a starting zero on the scope. We were on Range 3 because that was the only range at Quantico laid out in meters, as was the scope’s reticle. But the Steiner’s exit eye pupil was so large that it was near impossible to shoot a five round group and then determine its true center if impact to make subsequent dope changes to equal point of aim equals point of impact (POA/POI). We repeatedly tried this, but our subsequent groups were not where out dope changes should have moved them. So I called the scope vendor and explained this. He told me to look in the scope carrying case and pull out the “zeroing disk” (there were no instructions with the scope). The disk was like a scope cap you slid over the eyepiece with a small diameter “sighting” hole in its middle. What this did was force the shooter to be dead-nuts behind the scope to see the reticle and target from shot to shot. So it was the scope’s parallax that was making zeroing inconsistent. But with the disk in place, everything worked fine. Sorry guys, I hope this photo helps explain: 
|
|
Quoted:
Sorry guys, I hope this photo helps explain: <a href="http://s1357.photobucket.com/user/D_A_Lutz/media/GySgtJensonampDave_zps2168ba83.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i1357.photobucket.com/albums/q759/D_A_Lutz/GySgtJensonampDave_zps2168ba83.jpg</a> Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Which one is "Cold Blue"? I am the one on the rifle, if this is the photo you mean: That is a photo taken on Range 3 at Weapons Training Battalion, Quantico, Virginia in about 1988. The other Marine in the picture is Gunnery Sergeant Bob Jensen who was the NCOIC of my little R&D armory/test facility at MARCORSYSCOM we called the ATF. The Gunny was also my main source of bummed Winston’s in those days as well. The scope as I recall was a Steiner, NATO type scope of 1 or 1.5x. As you can see, we had mounter it to a flat-top M16 upper to bring the scope’s line of sight (LOS) as close as possible to the M16’s iron sights LOS. The mount is an ARMS STANAG Throw Lever. The rifle is actually one of my Colt H-Bar’s that I had cut-off the standing front sight because I usually had a 10x scope mounted for varmint work. What I remember most about that day was the extreme difficulty we had getting a starting zero on the scope. We were on Range 3 because that was the only range at Quantico laid out in meters, as was the scope’s reticle. But the Steiner’s exit eye pupil was so large that it was near impossible to shoot a five round group and then determine its true center if impact to make subsequent dope changes to equal point of aim equals point of impact (POA/POI). We repeatedly tried this, but our subsequent groups were not where out dope changes should have moved them. So I called the scope vendor and explained this. He told me to look in the scope carrying case and pull out the “zeroing disk” (there were no instructions with the scope). The disk was like a scope cap you slid over the eyepiece with a small diameter “sighting” hole in its middle. What this did was force the shooter to be dead-nuts behind the scope to see the reticle and target from shot to shot. So it was the scope’s parallax that was making zeroing inconsistent. But with the disk in place, everything worked fine. Sorry guys, I hope this photo helps explain: <a href="http://s1357.photobucket.com/user/D_A_Lutz/media/GySgtJensonampDave_zps2168ba83.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i1357.photobucket.com/albums/q759/D_A_Lutz/GySgtJensonampDave_zps2168ba83.jpg</a> Was that rifle was what would be the new standard of picatinney railed flat tops? Were there other flat tops before this? |
|
Quoted:
This being a Colt H-Bar and about 1988, It certainly had Colt's rendition of the Picatinny rail. And yes, there were other precursors, the lower profile Canadian rail with the "half-round" cross-grooves for example, and of course the Weaver. Why didn't they go with the Canadian style rail that was lower and allowed use of the standard fsb? |
|
Quoted:
Why didn't they go with the Canadian style rail that was lower and allowed use of the standard fsb? Quoted:
Quoted:
This being a Colt H-Bar and about 1988, It certainly had Colt's rendition of the Picatinny rail. And yes, there were other precursors, the lower profile Canadian rail with the "half-round" cross-grooves for example, and of course the Weaver. Why didn't they go with the Canadian style rail that was lower and allowed use of the standard fsb? I think that Picatinny Arsenal personnel were looking after Army interests and wanted to avoid someone else's proprietary design, as well as wanting to claim some fame. They were also heavily influenced by the near "picatinny" rail then current on the Army's M24 Sniper Rifle with the square profile cross slots, dovetail design, etc., for Leupold Scope Ring mounting. This had done extremely well in scope removal/reinstallation return to zero using a 65 in.lb. T-handle torque wrench. The intent being that the scope would be removed for parachute ops then reinstalled once the Sniper was on the ground. |
|
Quoted:
Few things he didn't mention in the video Making the barrel forward of the handguards thicker The A2 flash suppressor Tapered slip-ring forward assist shape and the A2 grip (I really hated the A2 grip) I actually covered all the changes, including the ones you mention, in the 6-hour+ tape session that day. But obviously this 15 minute film is unable to cover all of them. However, several of the ones on you list have been discussed here on AR15.com over the years. You might find them in SEARCH. For those who didn't like the A2 grip, my advice was to install the interchangeable A1 grip (I mean that is why we designed it like we did: for interchangeability), or take a knife to the A2 finger rest and crave it off. I never hesitated modifying my weapons for what I wanted, needed, of liked. Learned that from an old Marine/Korea Sgt. Maj. who still had his M1911A1 from that war. He had taken a hacksaw and removed the trigger guard so he could fire it with thick gloves/mittens. |
I, for one, always thought the weapon would have been better served by taking the extra A2 barrel weight, and distributing it evenly throughout the entire barrel...not just the very front end. This would engender problems with the M203, requiring a new clamp....but the rifle would would be even better than it is. Water under the bridge now...and the A2 is still the greatest battle implement ever devised...sorry George ! 
|
|
Quoted:
I, for one, always thought the weapon would have been better served by taking the extra A2 barrel weight, and distributing it evenly throughout the entire barrel...not just the very front end. This would engender problems with the M203, requiring a new clamp....but the rifle would would be even better than it is. Water under the bridge now...and the A2 is still the greatest battle implement ever devised...sorry George ! Yeah, the original A1 barrel was under .600 in diamater. Did the army test any barrels that were around .650 - .675 in diamater? Going from .575 to .750 is a huge jump! How were durability tests on the A2 rear sights conducted to see how well they held zero? How much abuse could they take? Were there ever any thoughts to strengthen the aluminum receiver extension / buffer system? That seems to me as if it is the main weakness of the whole platform as if that breaks, the rifle is useless. Maybe making a steel trunnion in the rear of the receiver for the tube to screw into allowing a steel tube to be used. |
|
Quoted:
I, for one, always thought the weapon would have been better served by taking the extra A2 barrel weight, and distributing it evenly throughout the entire barrel...not just the very front end. This would engender problems with the M203, requiring a new clamp....but the rifle would would be even better than it is. Water under the bridge now...and the A2 is still the greatest battle implement ever devised...sorry George ! We considered heavier barrels and I was an advocate for using a larger diameter to better secure/support the M203 (see photo of my 1982 briefing sketch below), whose mounting hardware at the time had a lot of problems. But the bent barrels were at the muzzle end and not the mid-section. And we had engineering test data showing the new thicker muzzle end was like 10 times more resistance to permanent bending in a test fixture compared to an A1 profile. But the bottom line was some key decision makers were reluctant to go much past the 20 or so changes/improvements they were then currently familiar with, so later ideas were rejected. 
|
|
"...How were durability tests on the A2 rear sights conducted to see how well they held zero? How much abuse could they take? Were there ever any thoughts to strengthen the aluminum receiver extension / buffer system? That seems to me as if it is the main weakness of the whole platform as if that breaks, the rifle is useless. Maybe making a steel trunnion in the rear of the receiver for the tube to screw into allowing a steel tube to be used..."
The A2 sights were tested side by side with A1's following standard protocol at Aberdeen. Like drop testing, shake rattle and roll, loose cargo transport, etc. And compared again during the operational testing with three squads. The A2 sights were at least equal. We did increase the lower receiver's thickness around where the receiver extension/buffer tube screws in. That was because that area cracked when launching M14 size rifle grenades with the buttstock supported on a concrete slab at 60 or so below zero. Something like this: 
|
|
Quoted:
We considered heavier barrels and I was an advocate for using a larger diameter to better secure/support the M203 (see photo of my 1982 briefing sketch below), whose mounting hardware at the time had a lot of problems. But the bent barrels were at the muzzle end and not the mid-section. And we had engineering test data showing the new thicker muzzle end was like 10 times more resistance to permanent bending in a test fixture compared to an A1 profile. But the bottom line was some key decision makers were reluctant to go much past the 20 or so changes/improvements they were then currently familiar with, so later ideas were rejected. <a href="http://s1357.photobucket.com/user/D_A_Lutz/media/M203bossHvyBr1982_zps7d09bc10.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i1357.photobucket.com/albums/q759/D_A_Lutz/M203bossHvyBr1982_zps7d09bc10.jpg</a> Quoted:
Quoted:
I, for one, always thought the weapon would have been better served by taking the extra A2 barrel weight, and distributing it evenly throughout the entire barrel...not just the very front end. This would engender problems with the M203, requiring a new clamp....but the rifle would would be even better than it is. Water under the bridge now...and the A2 is still the greatest battle implement ever devised...sorry George ! We considered heavier barrels and I was an advocate for using a larger diameter to better secure/support the M203 (see photo of my 1982 briefing sketch below), whose mounting hardware at the time had a lot of problems. But the bent barrels were at the muzzle end and not the mid-section. And we had engineering test data showing the new thicker muzzle end was like 10 times more resistance to permanent bending in a test fixture compared to an A1 profile. But the bottom line was some key decision makers were reluctant to go much past the 20 or so changes/improvements they were then currently familiar with, so later ideas were rejected. <a href="http://s1357.photobucket.com/user/D_A_Lutz/media/M203bossHvyBr1982_zps7d09bc10.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i1357.photobucket.com/albums/q759/D_A_Lutz/M203bossHvyBr1982_zps7d09bc10.jpg</a> I'm glad that the even heavier barrel ideas were thrown out. The M16A2 was already a pound heavier than the A1 as it is, and it doesn't swing / point nearly as well as the lighter A1. Imagine if the A2 had a front end that was 1/4 lbs. + heavier, it would really kill any lively handling of the rifle. What other improvement ideas to the A2 got thrown out due to the 20 something reasons? What made you decide to have the aperture curve in toward the shooter vs being flat? What do you / did you think of the army's criticism of the A2's sights as being more of a match sight vs. combat sight, and that the sight is not designed so that zero can be visually confirmed? As discussed here pages 18+ http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a168577.pdf Diagram of proposed sight design (figure 6) page 20. Was such a sight design as they advocated ever considered? |
|
Quoted: We did increase the lower receiver's thickness around where the receiver extension/buffer tube screws in. That was because that area cracked when launching M14 size rifle grenades with the buttstock supported on a concrete slab at 60 or so below zero.
Something like this: <a href="http://s1357.photobucket.com/user/D_A_Lutz/media/crack_zps2b5b1a24.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i1357.photobucket.com/albums/q759/D_A_Lutz/crack_zps2b5b1a24.jpg</a> Sir: Your improvements to the platform are much appreciated, and I tread cavalierly in your footsteps. Gig 'em, backbencher Editor the Feinstein Project |
|
"...I'm glad that the even heavier barrel ideas were thrown out. The M16A2 was already a pound heavier than the A1 as it is, and it doesn't swing / point nearly as well as the lighter A1. Imagine if the A2 had a front end that was 1/4 lbs. + heavier, it would really kill any lively handling of the rifle.
What other improvement ideas to the A2 got thrown out due to the 20 something reasons? What made you decide to have the aperture curve in toward the shooter vs being flat? What do you / did you think of the army's criticism of the A2's sights as being more of a match sight vs. combat sight, and that the sight is not designed so that zero can be visually confirmed? As discussed here pages 18+ http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a168577.pdf Diagram of proposed sight design (figure 6) page 20. Was such a sight design as they advocated ever considered?..." I could write a book about what is wrong in that 18+ page report. I have it saved under "Army hose job" if that is any indication. Bottom line is, I can not apologize for the training shortcomings of the Soldiers described in this report, or their apparent lack of shooting, mechanical and mental ability. The report is an insult to Soldiers. Nuf said, that none, I repeat: NONE of their recommendations were ever enacted, and their recommendation that the Army not buy the M16A2...well, I'll let history address that issue. Worst is that it deliberately ignores that the XM855 used in the initial A2 testing (which generates most of their seriously negative criticism) was so ill-manufactured and packaged by FN (the bullets) and Lake City (the loadings), that sabotage was suspected. What saved the day for me was my Canadian counterpart at Picatinny had two 6-by's of linked Belgian SS109 delivered to Aberdeen so the test could re-start. The results using that replacement ammo were day and night difference and highly successful for the A2. Also, key personnel at Fort Benning were all on-board with me on the improvements which I developed with them hand-in-glove, including zeroing and moving their BZO to 300 meters. Those guys and their series of concurrences were obviously ignored by this report. |
|
"...What other improvement ideas to the A2 got thrown out due to the 20 something reasons?
What made you decide to have the aperture curve in toward the shooter vs being flat?..." What alerted the "nay sayers" was that the list of changes/improvements spilled over in a second viewgraph. This alerted them, who were more familiar with a shorted list requiring just one viewgraph, that I was adding things right at the end of the program with all the testing completed. Ironically the last item on the first page was the marking of the SAFE, SEMI and BURST on the right side of the receiver. (That obviously stayed on the list as one of the changes/improvements). But the first item on the second viewgraph (that among others) was dropped, was an a "plug-in" ambo selector, which obviously complemented the new right side receiver marking. Like this: 
Also on the second page was brown plastic parts instead of black, the integral M203 boss on the barrel, a properly A2 barrel thickness dimensioned Side Sling Adapter for the M203 Grenadier, adding a witness mark/pointer to shaft end of the selector, as well as a couple I can't remember at the moment. |
|
What I'm really curious about is how did you come up with the size of the gasport for the thicker .750 barrel to approximate the same reliability of the old .625 barrel with the .0625 gasport?
Someone, through testing / evaluation, decided that .093 was the most comparable with the new barrel thickness to .0625 on the .625 barrel. How was that determination made? What other size gasports were evaluated and what made you decide to settle on the final .093 size? Thanks. |
|
Quoted:
What I'm really curious about is how did you come up with the size of the gasport for the thicker .750 barrel to approximate the same reliability of the old .625 barrel with the .0625 gasport? Someone, through testing / evaluation, decided that .093 was the most comparable with the new barrel thickness to .0625 on the .625 barrel. How was that determination made? What other size gasports were evaluated and what made you decide to settle on the final .093 size? Thanks. Sorry, I don't know. That was something Colt must have done internally. |
|
Quoted:
Coldblue, Great video, wouldn't mind seeing the full-length version. Thank you for your work on improving the AR platform. And, especially -- since I am lefthanded, also -- for the brass deflector.  Yes, this. A great question, how can the full length video be seen? |
|
Quoted:
"...I'm glad that the even heavier barrel ideas were thrown out. The M16A2 was already a pound heavier than the A1 as it is, and it doesn't swing / point nearly as well as the lighter A1. Imagine if the A2 had a front end that was 1/4 lbs. + heavier, it would really kill any lively handling of the rifle. What other improvement ideas to the A2 got thrown out due to the 20 something reasons? What made you decide to have the aperture curve in toward the shooter vs being flat? What do you / did you think of the army's criticism of the A2's sights as being more of a match sight vs. combat sight, and that the sight is not designed so that zero can be visually confirmed? As discussed here pages 18+ http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a168577.pdf Diagram of proposed sight design (figure 6) page 20. Was such a sight design as they advocated ever considered?..." I could write a book about what is wrong in that 18+ page report. I have it saved under "Army hose job" if that is any indication. Bottom line is, I can not apologize for the training shortcomings of the Soldiers described in this report, or their apparent lack of shooting, mechanical and mental ability. The report is an insult to Soldiers. Nuf said, that none, I repeat: NONE of their recommendations were ever enacted, and their recommendation that the Army not buy the M16A2...well, I'll let history address that issue. Worst is that it deliberately ignores that the XM855 used in the initial A2 testing (which generates most of their seriously negative criticism) was so ill-manufactured and packaged by FN (the bullets) and Lake City (the loadings), that sabotage was suspected. What saved the day for me was my Canadian counterpart at Picatinny had two 6-by's of linked Belgian SS109 delivered to Aberdeen so the test could re-start. The results using that replacement ammo were day and night difference and highly successful for the A2. Also, key personnel at Fort Benning were all on-board with me on the improvements which I developed with them hand-in-glove, including zeroing and moving their BZO to 300 meters. Those guys and their series of concurrences were obviously ignored by this report. Do you think they had some valid points with their concepts for the iron sights though? It seems like a neat idea. |
|
I can understand the reasoning behind where they would located the windage adjustment, but can't imagine a simple mechanism to make fine adjustments other than some sort of "slider." Most rear windage adjustments wisely use a cross screw with the knob on one side or the other to simplify the mechanism.
Their recommended .090 front sight post is way too wide. We actually did the Operational Test with .080's. And the troops did not like them. They later preferred the .070's (that became the A2 standard) after selecting from five different post widths. And it seems to me Fort Benning liked the .070 as well because it was the width of an E silhouette at 250 meters. |
|
for their sighting system, I was more interested in their elevation idea with quick meter selects ala the Daewoo K2. Zero it in, and then select the range you want in one fast click.
How wide was the standard a1 post? Did you experiment with any .60 posts? Did you experiment with any other sizes of small rear aperture like .060? |
|
Quoted:
for their sighting system, I was more interested in their elevation idea with quick meter selects ala the Daewoo K2. Zero it in, and then select the range you want in one fast click. How wide was the standard a1 post? Did you experiment with any .60 posts? Did you experiment with any other sizes of small rear aperture like .060? Roger that: Some dimensions to begin discussion: Square Front Sight Post and length increase: Tip Diameter:Thread Length A1:.065.400 A1E1:.080.400 A2:.070.470 Major Bruce Wincensen (aka: Old Dad), Operational Test Director at Quantico took the .080 front sight post width issue that developed during the operational testing in-hand and objectively identified the preferred .070 with members of the three Rifle Squads (one squad were Soldiers from Fort Benning) that were in the test. What Bruce did was have the machine shop At Weapons Training Battalion where Marine Corps 7.62mm M40 Sniper Rifles, .45 Caliber M1911A1 Match Pistols, etc. are built, construct an array of front sight posts on a pie-wedge shaped disk that pivoted via the front sight post threaded hole. So once in firing position, a member of Old Dad’s staff could rotate the disk and thereby present one of five (if I remember correctly) front sight posts as follows: .080, .075, .070, .065, and .060. The .070 was the hands-down favorite, and Colt was so directed to update the developing M16A2 Technical Data Package. These facts help explain just one of the reasons/examples why I consider the latter contractor report/hatchet job such a poor, inaccurate, and subjective evaluation. I mean did they not bother to read the final Marine Corps Test Reports? Or did they conveniently ignore them to further their agenda? Much less interview me or Major Wincensen, who were readily available at the time, to discuss their main issues. |
|
Wow, it's amazing after reading that document you posted the link to, how far back the apparent "rivalries" go when it comes to the USMC and Army.
That document read like the Army was writing a thesis trying to change USMC Marksmanship training, not a reasoning for the incompatibility of the USMC developed M16 changes. Thanks for the video and all the information though, I love history especially anything about firearms. It was very informative. 
I have to ask, do you do a lot of work with Knight's Armament or the Institute of Military Technology? I'd definitely like to watch the 6 hour long video you were talking about that included you covering all of the design changes. |
|
You asked: "...I have to ask, do you do a lot of work with Knight's Armament or the Institute of Military Technology? I'd definitely like to watch the 6 hour long video you were talking about that included you covering all of the design changes..."
I remain a consultant to KAC and the IMT. And I would like all six hours as well. But they have a small, but very talented video staff, and a ton of stuff in the small arms museum and tank collection to document. I was very intimidated by the many hours it took to produce just the 15 minute version you have watched. To edit the six hours would be herculean! That being said, the opportunity of the video, and the very positive responses showing additional interest here and from others, has motivated me to start a detailed history book on my role in the A2 program. I am planning to have a draft finished by end of summer and then do a ton of photography/integration over the fall and winter. So maybe in 2015 I'll have her done. And yea, some in the Army had their noses out of joint for the Marine Corps doing their "Congressionally Assigned" job of improving small arms. And I could not but note that within Fort Benning, between the Infantry School personnel I had very favorable dealings with, and other components housed there, a lot of friction and hostility. They were their own worst enemies. |
|
Quoted:
You asked: "...I have to ask, do you do a lot of work with Knight's Armament or the Institute of Military Technology? I'd definitely like to watch the 6 hour long video you were talking about that included you covering all of the design changes..." I remain a consultant to KAC and the IMT. And I would like all six hours as well. But they have a small, but very talented video staff, and a ton of stuff in the small arms museum and tank collection to document. I was very intimidated by the many hours it took to produce just the 15 minute version you have watched. To edit the six hours would be herculean! That being said, the opportunity of the video, and the very positive responses showing additional interest here and from others, has motivated me to start a detailed history book on my role in the A2 program. I am planning to have a draft finished by end of summer and then do a ton of photography/integration over the fall and winter. So maybe in 2015 I'll have her done. And yea, some in the Army had their noses out of joint for the Marine Corps doing their "Congressionally Assigned" job of improving small arms. And I could not but note that within Fort Benning, between the Infantry School personnel I had very favorable dealings with, and other components housed there, a lot of friction and hostility. They were their own worst enemies. I could definitely see the "own worst enemy part" after I read through the rest of that. A lot of it seemed like they didn't want to take the time to create good marksmanship fundamentals before sticking their guys out on the course shooting at unknown distance small targets. Tossing a rifle at a 18 year old who has never shot one before and then saying, "hey, hit those targets out there" really isn't a good way to create a good rifleman. On another note I asked about your relationship with Knight's because my girlfriend works there and I got a chance to tour the tank museum and arms museums at the Christmas party last year. It was an absolutely awesome experience getting to see how much work has gone into those small arms museums. |
|
Quoted:
What I'm really curious about is how did you come up with the size of the gasport for the thicker .750 barrel to approximate the same reliability of the old .625 barrel with the .0625 gasport? Someone, through testing / evaluation, decided that .093 was the most comparable with the new barrel thickness to .0625 on the .625 barrel. How was that determination made? What other size gasports were evaluated and what made you decide to settle on the final .093 size? Thanks. Gas port is not .0625 on a 20" M16A1. I suspect you're mixing it up with the Carbine. It's only slightly upsized from the M16A1 to M16A2. The answer of how you evaluate it is a balance of bolt carrier velocity, ROF, and of course reliability. |
|
Quoted:
Gas port is not .0625 on a 20" M16A1. I suspect you're mixing it up with the Carbine. It's only slightly upsized from the M16A1 to M16A2. The answer of how you evaluate it is a balance of bolt carrier velocity, ROF, and of course reliability. Quoted:
Quoted:
What I'm really curious about is how did you come up with the size of the gasport for the thicker .750 barrel to approximate the same reliability of the old .625 barrel with the .0625 gasport? Someone, through testing / evaluation, decided that .093 was the most comparable with the new barrel thickness to .0625 on the .625 barrel. How was that determination made? What other size gasports were evaluated and what made you decide to settle on the final .093 size? Thanks. Gas port is not .0625 on a 20" M16A1. I suspect you're mixing it up with the Carbine. It's only slightly upsized from the M16A1 to M16A2. The answer of how you evaluate it is a balance of bolt carrier velocity, ROF, and of course reliability. The original M16 rifle was designed with a .0625 gassport as it was a common drill bit size. Reread your history. |
|
Quoted:
The original M16 rifle was designed with a .0625 gassport as it was a common drill bit size. Reread your history. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What I'm really curious about is how did you come up with the size of the gasport for the thicker .750 barrel to approximate the same reliability of the old .625 barrel with the .0625 gasport? Someone, through testing / evaluation, decided that .093 was the most comparable with the new barrel thickness to .0625 on the .625 barrel. How was that determination made? What other size gasports were evaluated and what made you decide to settle on the final .093 size? Thanks. Gas port is not .0625 on a 20" M16A1. I suspect you're mixing it up with the Carbine. It's only slightly upsized from the M16A1 to M16A2. The answer of how you evaluate it is a balance of bolt carrier velocity, ROF, and of course reliability. The original M16 rifle was designed with a .0625 gassport as it was a common drill bit size. Reread your history. The M16A1 already had a gasport >.090 in 1972 (earliest print I have) long before the M16A2 program. Reread my post. |
AR Sponsor