User Panel
Originally Posted By Wangstang:
ColdBlue, Two questions related to the Burnton Bump... 1) Any reason it wasn't skeletonized or hollowed out to reduce weight? 2) ZM weapons designed there own forging in the late 90s which moved the forward assist up to the Burnton Bump so that the forward assist ended up taking up less area and was more forward of the shooters face when shooting left handed. Any reason this wasn't done with the A2? http://modernfirearms.net/userfiles/images/assault/as97/z-m_lr300axl.jpg Thanks again for the insight. View Quote Carry over to page 5. |
|
|
Originally Posted By coldblue:
The M4 project was started by lt. Col. Jack Muth III after I left the office. He called it the M4 because his requirement was to replace the M3A1 grease Gun that RECON had as their TO weapon at the time. He started with the then Colt Commando, but asked for a longer barrel for enhanced reliability and to support the bayonet...thus the M4 with the A2 upper receiver, M203 shoulder and Ramp Angle changes took life...the first ones Colt delivered were XM marked... View Quote I asked that because there has been much disagreement as to whether the M4 started with an A2 upper or a flat top. |
|
|
Originally Posted By coldblue:
Sorry guys, but connection problems prevented me from logging on for a few days. Here goes more: "...OK, I got to know. Why did you put the nub on there? Does it have anything to do with the trigger guard? ..." Again, the Army's Human Engineering Lab (HEL) entered the equation. They gave me a distance below the trigger guard for the single "finger rest." Went back to my shop at Picatinny and using a thin saw blade, cut a slot at that location perpendicular to the front surface. Then I glued in a slice of red colored flashlight filter in the slot so I had a good centerline reference for the next step. On comes the bondo, and when dried, the shaping and sanding. The outside edge of the red lens marking the center gave me a perfect "parting line" to keep the bondo even on both sides as I shaped the "bump". I also filed-in the sling swivel holes at the bottom of the grip and recurred that surface to provide more room/purchase for the shooter's little finger. Made two of them, one a bit smaller than the first. Painted then black and had Marines at the local reserve Center/I&I try them on two M16's. Their only consensus was they preferred either to the standard A1. These were given to Colt. They rendered an average of the two and that set the mold for the prototypes used in the subsequent Operational testing referenced earlier. View Quote You cannot fold down the trigger guard for mitten use in extreme cold operations with the nub. |
|
|
Having done that with actual arctic mittens in north Norway many times, it folds down more than enough.
Heck, in the Korean war, guys just took a hacksaw to their 1911's so they could shoot with mittens. At least with an M16, your armorer could easily remove the guard without any permanent damage. Also, don't overlook the extra front strap space gained by us eliminating the useless sling swivel feature of the A1. |
|
ColdBlue sends...
|
ColdBlue sends...
|
Originally Posted By Wangstang:
Carry over to page 5. View Quote Making it lighter weight was never discussed. Lorn had the design, I approved its incorporation, and Colt just went with it (the first ones for the testing were glued on the upper). Path of least resistance, lowest risk and no program schedule issues. But best of all, it brought the Army's log center at Rock Island on-board. |
|
ColdBlue sends...
|
This thread is growing better with the never ending treasure trove of information.
Thank you sir. |
|
RIP Grin! 10/09/2015
RIP SFC Mike Francis! 11/08/2016 NorCal_LEO issued nickname: Tombstone Quoting and using the mentions to someone who has you on ignore makes as much sense as wiping your butt before you poop |
|
Originally Posted By coldblue:
Making it lighter weight was never discussed. Lorn had the design, I approved its incorporation, and Colt just went with it (the first ones for the testing were glued on the upper). Path of least resistance, lowest risk and no program schedule issues. But best of all, it brought the Army's log center at Rock Island on-board. View Quote Thanks. After seeing the ZM location I've been curious to know what drove the initial A1 design to place the FA so far back on the upper. Any idea based on your experience? I do a lot of shooting and in the interest of experimental measure I have pushed a Rock River simi auto carbine to 7k over a 10 month window without cleaning and only light oiling of the bolt every 1000 rounds. The only time I had to use the Forward Assist was after doing a chamber check in the 6,500 round area...And that was only a single occurance. When that happened, the bolt carrier group only had to travel less than a half inch. Thanks again for sharing your experience! |
|
|
Forward Assist
Can't comment on its location, but it does function in its current location. However, I think the “need” for the FA was a hold-over from M14 and M1 Rifle “muscle memory” held by the Army at that time. For example in 1968 boot camp, we were instructed to slap the M14’s operating rod handle “home” when we reloaded. (I believe M1 Rifle training was the same.) In the ensuing years, I slapped my M14’s operating handle home hundreds of times, but never once was it needed as the bolt was locked fully forward as per normal operation. SO I think the FA was a “feel good” issue that also allowed the Army to fiddle with the design, making it “theirs.” |
|
ColdBlue sends...
|
Originally Posted By coldblue:
Forward Assist Can't comment on its location, but it does function in its current location. However, I think the “need” for the FA was a hold-over from M14 and M1 Rifle “muscle memory” held by the Army at that time. For example in 1968 boot camp, we were instructed to slap the M14’s operating rod handle “home” when we reloaded. (I believe M1 Rifle training was the same.) In the ensuing years, I slapped my M14’s operating handle home hundreds of times, but never once was it needed as the bolt was locked fully forward as per normal operation. SO I think the FA was a “feel good” issue that also allowed the Army to fiddle with the design, making it “theirs.” View Quote I've used mine hunting before. When you get out of the car, load the weapon really quietly, the bolt doesn't always go home. I suppose the tapping of the FA makes some noise. But a heck of a lot less than allowing the bolt to go forward. |
|
|
Originally Posted By coldblue:
Forward Assist Can't comment on its location, but it does function in its current location. However, I think the “need” for the FA was a hold-over from M14 and M1 Rifle “muscle memory” held by the Army at that time. For example in 1968 boot camp, we were instructed to slap the M14’s operating rod handle “home” when we reloaded. (I believe M1 Rifle training was the same.) In the ensuing years, I slapped my M14’s operating handle home hundreds of times, but never once was it needed as the bolt was locked fully forward as per normal operation. SO I think the FA was a “feel good” issue that also allowed the Army to fiddle with the design, making it “theirs.” View Quote During the second round of tests with the AR10 in 1960, the most common malfunction was a failure of the bolt to lock (FBL). Usually this occurred on the first round of a magazine. I am sure this played a big part in the Army’s insistence on a forward assist. |
|
|
I've always understood that the original idea on a "forward assist" was to reach around the magwell with the left hand and pull the bolt forward with the fingers, grasping the bolt by the port door scoop
|
|
Don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out.
General education should not be mere job training, but training of the mind to reason. http://www.welltrainedmind.com/classical-education/ |
|
Originally Posted By lysanderxiii:
Have you ever tried that? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By lysanderxiii:
Originally Posted By MRW:
I've always understood that the original idea on a "forward assist" was to reach around the magwell with the left hand and pull the bolt forward with the fingers, grasping the bolt by the port door scoop Have you ever tried that? I don't think my fingers are small enough to fit through the ejection port. |
|
|
Don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out.
General education should not be mere job training, but training of the mind to reason. http://www.welltrainedmind.com/classical-education/ |
Don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out.
General education should not be mere job training, but training of the mind to reason. http://www.welltrainedmind.com/classical-education/ |
Originally Posted By MRW:
https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/5205/IMG-0603-152716.jpg View Quote Now, try it after a few full magazines in full auto.... |
|
|
Don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out.
General education should not be mere job training, but training of the mind to reason. http://www.welltrainedmind.com/classical-education/ |
Originally Posted By coldblue: The M4 project was started by lt. Col. Jack Muth III after I left the office. He called it the M4 because his requirement was to replace the M3A1 grease Gun that RECON had as their TO weapon at the time. He started with the then Colt Commando, but asked for a longer barrel for enhanced reliability and to support the bayonet...thus the M4 with the A2 upper receiver, M203 shoulder and Ramp Angle changes took life...the first ones Colt delivered were XM marked... View Quote And there it is - the M4 fixed carry handle model. Thank you very much for the pictures, sir. You just resolved a long continuing controversy on ARFCOM. What do you think of the Army's mod to the M-16A2 of replacing the fixed stock w/ a collapsible one? |
|
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912
|
Originally Posted By backbencher:
And there it is - the M4 fixed carry handle model. Thank you very much for the pictures, sir. You just resolved a long continuing controversy on ARFCOM. What do you think of the Army's mod to the M-16A2 of replacing the fixed stock w/ a collapsible one? View Quote I would follow the lead of the Canadians because they have successfully done it, and I have a lot of respect for their methods and data assessment. And when you consider the data base we should have on record, it should not take a rocket scientist to figure this out. However, our Army logisticians will easily put the numbers together showing that its not cost effective, even though once you replace the receiver extension, one can always go back to a fixed full length stock very easily as Vltor has shown. The Army logisticians also don't trust their armorers to do much of anything, and will make a major production issue of the receiver extension switch that you and I can do in our home workshop...and then the worry of all the excess parts that the switch will generate...I mean look what they just did by the tens-of-thousands switching over to the heavier M4A1 barrel on their carbines, even though this was the PERFECT opportunity to replace the RAS with a free floating barrel rail, key mod, of m-lock rail, or some combo forend, but didn't...da... |
|
ColdBlue sends...
|
The engineers I met in Iraq w/ the collapsible stock A2s had them done by their unit armorer. So maybe we're getting better.
|
|
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912
|
coldblue--
1. About the timing for the A2 flash hider: Is it 1:30 for right-handed and 10:30 for left-handed? 2. Any insight over going to a longer stock on the A2 and if wearing body armor was taken into consideration? |
|
|
Originally Posted By coldblue:
I would follow the lead of the Canadians because they have successfully done it, and I have a lot of respect for their methods and data assessment. And when you consider the data base we should have on record, it should not take a rocket scientist to figure this out. However, our Army logisticians will easily put the numbers together showing that its not cost effective, even though once you replace the receiver extension, one can always go back to a fixed full length stock very easily as Vltor has shown. The Army logisticians also don't trust their armorers to do much of anything, and will make a major production issue of the receiver extension switch that you and I can do in our home workshop...and then the worry of all the excess parts that the switch will generate...I mean look what they just did by the tens-of-thousands switching over to the heavier M4A1 barrel on their carbines, even though this was the PERFECT opportunity to replace the RAS with a free floating barrel rail, key mod, of m-lock rail, or some combo forend, but didn't...da... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By coldblue:
I would follow the lead of the Canadians because they have successfully done it, and I have a lot of respect for their methods and data assessment. And when you consider the data base we should have on record, it should not take a rocket scientist to figure this out. However, our Army logisticians will easily put the numbers together showing that its not cost effective, even though once you replace the receiver extension, one can always go back to a fixed full length stock very easily as Vltor has shown. The Army logisticians also don't trust their armorers to do much of anything, and will make a major production issue of the receiver extension switch that you and I can do in our home workshop...and then the worry of all the excess parts that the switch will generate...I mean look what they just did by the tens-of-thousands switching over to the heavier M4A1 barrel on their carbines, even though this was the PERFECT opportunity to replace the RAS with a free floating barrel rail, key mod, of m-lock rail, or some combo forend, but didn't...da... Originally Posted By backbencher:
The engineers I met in Iraq w/ the collapsible stock A2s had them done by their unit armorer. So maybe we're getting better. Slapping an M16 upper on an M4 lower and getting it to shoot is child's play. Getting the reliability and longevity you need is another thing altogether. From what I have read on the subject their testing showed the best results would be with a buffer with six tungsten weights (each just under 1/2 the length of the current weights, referred to as an H6) to get the best reliability. The H3 buffer had considerable bounce during the time the hammer would fall in full automatic fire. The only other buffer that had acceptable bounce characteristics was the standard H1, but that had a higher cyclic rate, and not recommended. The H6 buffer is not normally available. As far as I can tell all they have stated is yes, it is feasible, but no recommendation as to whether or not it is worth implementing. |
|
|
|
Originally Posted By coldblue:
The M4 project was started by lt. Col. Jack Muth III after I left the office. He called it the M4 because his requirement was to replace the M3A1 grease Gun that RECON had as their TO weapon at the time. He started with the then Colt Commando, but asked for a longer barrel for enhanced reliability and to support the bayonet...thus the M4 with the A2 upper receiver, M203 shoulder and Ramp Angle changes took life...the first ones Colt delivered were XM marked... View Quote |
|
RIP Grin! 10/09/2015
RIP SFC Mike Francis! 11/08/2016 NorCal_LEO issued nickname: Tombstone Quoting and using the mentions to someone who has you on ignore makes as much sense as wiping your butt before you poop |
Originally Posted By coldblue:
I would follow the lead of the Canadians because they have successfully done it, and I have a lot of respect for their methods and data assessment. And when you consider the data base we should have on record, it should not take a rocket scientist to figure this out. However, our Army logisticians will easily put the numbers together showing that its not cost effective, even though once you replace the receiver extension, one can always go back to a fixed full length stock very easily as Vltor has shown. The Army logisticians also don't trust their armorers to do much of anything, and will make a major production issue of the receiver extension switch that you and I can do in our home workshop...and then the worry of all the excess parts that the switch will generate...I mean look what they just did by the tens-of-thousands switching over to the heavier M4A1 barrel on their carbines, even though this was the PERFECT opportunity to replace the RAS with a free floating barrel rail, key mod, of m-lock rail, or some combo forend, but didn't...da... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By coldblue:
Originally Posted By backbencher:
And there it is - the M4 fixed carry handle model. Thank you very much for the pictures, sir. You just resolved a long continuing controversy on ARFCOM. What do you think of the Army's mod to the M-16A2 of replacing the fixed stock w/ a collapsible one? I would follow the lead of the Canadians because they have successfully done it, and I have a lot of respect for their methods and data assessment. And when you consider the data base we should have on record, it should not take a rocket scientist to figure this out. However, our Army logisticians will easily put the numbers together showing that its not cost effective, even though once you replace the receiver extension, one can always go back to a fixed full length stock very easily as Vltor has shown. The Army logisticians also don't trust their armorers to do much of anything, and will make a major production issue of the receiver extension switch that you and I can do in our home workshop...and then the worry of all the excess parts that the switch will generate...I mean look what they just did by the tens-of-thousands switching over to the heavier M4A1 barrel on their carbines, even though this was the PERFECT opportunity to replace the RAS with a free floating barrel rail, key mod, of m-lock rail, or some combo forend, but didn't...da... Do you think that the military went in the right direction with the M4 or do you think that the Canadians had the right idea with the C7A2? |
|
|
Originally Posted By Wangstang:
Thanks. After seeing the ZM location I've been curious to know what drove the initial A1 design to place the FA so far back on the upper. Any idea based on your experience? I do a lot of shooting and in the interest of experimental measure I have pushed a Rock River simi auto carbine to 7k over a 10 month window without cleaning and only light oiling of the bolt every 1000 rounds. The only time I had to use the Forward Assist was after doing a chamber check in the 6,500 round area...And that was only a single occurance. When that happened, the bolt carrier group only had to travel less than a half inch. Thanks again for sharing your experience! View Quote If you take a look at where the notches in the carrier line up when the carrier is all the way back, I don't think you could get the FA any farther forward and still have it do anything. It's gotta have notches to push, and the plunger and pawl have to have a certain amount of length for them to work. So I think that the FA plunger is where it is because you can't have (usable) carrier notches any farther forward than they already are, and the mechanism looks like there isn't any way to make it shorter and still work. (PURELY speculation on my part, but mechanically, that's how I see it.) |
|
"--you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
Heinlein NRA Life Member Glock Certified Armorer Certified AR15 Armorer Certified M1911 Armorer |
Originally Posted By backbencher:
It's a retrofit kit for M16A2s, so not using M4 lowers. Apparently there's an NSN for it, and involves the A4 rails, a heavier buffer than stock, and the buffer tube & stock. Looks like this: View Quote |
|
|
Originally Posted By GHPorter:
If you take a look at where the notches in the carrier line up when the carrier is all the way back, I don't think you could get the FA any farther forward and still have it do anything. It's gotta have notches to push, and the plunger and pawl have to have a certain amount of length for them to work. So I think that the FA plunger is where it is because you can't have (usable) carrier notches any farther forward than they already are, and the mechanism looks like there isn't any way to make it shorter and still work. (PURELY speculation on my part, but mechanically, that's how I see it.) View Quote Negative on that. The striations for the FA to engage go far enough up on the bolt carrier that it can function in the more forward location as seen on the ZM. Vltor also moved it further forward on their CNC'd uppers and several other manufactures do the same. In reflecting on it, I'd tend to think that someone looked at the existing forging dies and the existing machining steps in the original 601 design and determined that locating the FA on the rear was the most affordable approach to adding the revision to the design. |
|
|
ColdBlue,
If you have a few minutes to review this video and provide any thoughts from your own experience, I'd appreciate it: Failed To Load Title |
|
|
Originally Posted By Wangstang:
Negative on that. The striations for the FA to engage go far enough up on the bolt carrier that it can function in the more forward location as seen on the ZM. Vltor also moved it further forward on their CNC'd uppers and several other manufactures do the same. In reflecting on it, I'd tend to think that someone looked at the existing forging dies and the existing machining steps in the original 601 design and determined that locating the FA on the rear was the most affordable approach to adding the revision to the design. View Quote That sounds like a more reasonable idea. I was thinking in terms of "belt and suspenders" engineering, where one might give a little extra tolerance for the plunger mechanism, and "not trust" the forward notches (near the port door notch) to be adequate. On the other hand, I've never thought that the plunger was "too far back" on the upper. It's just been there, and that's where I learned to find it, so my hand finds it without me having to look for it... |
|
"--you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
Heinlein NRA Life Member Glock Certified Armorer Certified AR15 Armorer Certified M1911 Armorer |
Originally Posted By Wangstang:
ColdBlue, If you have a few minutes to review this video and provide any thoughts from your own experience, I'd appreciate it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8boc8aFgfT8 View Quote I think Chris's part knowledge is impressive and clearly shows a way above average of AR interest and understanding. I also applaud his cautions when it comes to mixing and match part sets. I only question the roots of the H2 carbine buffer. My memory is that USSOCOM's heavy use of our QD4 and NT4 sound suppressors (they bought tens-of-thousands of) was the increase in cyclic rate and bolt lug failure that consequently followed. So I think we developed the H2 for that purpose. The USSOCOM heavy M4A1 barrels came later. I might also say that I learn something new every day when it comes to the AR. I had never considered the bolt bounce being exacerbated by changing to a heavier barrel mass... |
|
ColdBlue sends...
|
Very interesting thread. Thank you Coldblue!
|
|
|
posting because I don't want this thread to ever be archived
|
|
|
I have the keep alive set to keep this thread out of the archives.
|
|
|
@coldblue
what was the thinking behind going to the longer A2 stock? Was the increased LoP when wearing body armor (PASGT at the time) seen as a problem? I'm asking because this, and the non-resetting 3 round burst, seem to be the least popular of the A2 changes |
|
|
"The M1 Rifle is the greatest battle implement ever devised." General George S. Patton Jr.,US Army
|
My only complaint with the A2 was the stock length...but I'm a shorty, anyway.
For all the haters, in a few months I'll have an SBR with double A2 grips...one as a VFG. It will be epic |
|
|
Originally Posted By Rick_A:
My only complaint with the A2 was the stock length...but I'm a shorty, anyway. For all the haters, in a few months I'll have an SBR with double A2 grips...one as a VFG. It will be epic View Quote I do love reading some arf hate (don't like what I don't like) while drinking some caffeinated beverage |
|
RIP Grin! 10/09/2015
RIP SFC Mike Francis 11/08/2016 NorCal_LEO issued nickname: Tombstone #Never 6.5 #Never G19 |
Originally Posted By mcantu:
@coldblue what was the thinking behind going to the longer A2 stock? Was the increased LoP when wearing body armor (PASGT at the time) seen as a problem? I'm asking because this, and the non-resetting 3 round burst, seem to be the least popular of the A2 changes View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By mcantu:
@coldblue what was the thinking behind going to the longer A2 stock? Was the increased LoP when wearing body armor (PASGT at the time) seen as a problem? I'm asking because this, and the non-resetting 3 round burst, seem to be the least popular of the A2 changes https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/286422__ARCHIVED_THREAD____why_was_the_buttstock_lengthened_for_the_M16A2_.html&page=1#i2524522 All above references to "the Marine Corps Shooting Team" input as to stock length or anything else re the A2 improvements is pure BS.
We developers checked out the man-machine interfaces of the A1 with the Army's Human Engineering Lab early in the A2 program (1980-83). They had data that supported adding 1 inch to the length of pull to beter fit the 5th to the 95th centile Soldier. However, adding a full inch created issues with standad armory rifle racks, ship board racks (some),etc. So we limited the increased length to 5/8". This lenght of pull data composites body size, arm length, ideal eye position behind the peep sight, body armor thickness of that era, etc. So we asumed it was correct. Our Operational Testing (part of which was "hosted" by Quantico's Weapons Traing Battalion, i.e., MC Shooting Team) proved this out, or at least did not find any deficiencies with it. The Test Officer, Major Bruce Winshenesen (sp) was a foremr Rifle Team member, rated Distinguished Marksman, etc., but was then asigned to us at the Development Center. Bruce was very efective in getting the Quantico belly shooters to cooperate with the support, ranges, personnel, etc., we needed, but at end-game, all their input such as for a full-length heavy barrel were rejected. Testing used two Marine Corps Rifle Squads and one from the Army at Ft. Benning. The added-length design we selected (buttstock spacer on top of the old standard length receiver extension (i.e., buffer tube) was deliberatly selected so M16A1 length butstocks and screws could be substituded for the shooters outside the 5th to the 9th, or when the bulk of cold weather clothing was added to the matrix. However, since no M16A1 length buttsocks of the improved zytell material, larger cleanng gear compatment, etc., improvements to the new longer buttstock were ever stocked or supplied in the "system," that option seems to have slipped into obscurity. However, the Canadian Laisison Officer who shared my ofice at Picatinny during that period picked up on this and it was adopted/institutionalized to supportthe C7 rifles for their Army for althose reasons to include smaller stature women shooters. Even considering the many contrary opinions re the increased length, think about it this way. In 1983 we could just as easily made the buffer tube 5/8" longer, kept the M16A1 (shorter) length buttstock screw, not then needing the A2 spacer. I mean if we had done it that way (which had some support from the Logistics tail) then we'd all be fox trotted up with no other option but to switchout the bubfer tube. |
|
|
Dont like the A2 grip that knub is in the way. Only time an A2 grip will work well for me is if I am wearing gloves. However I can deal with it.
|
|
|
To answer the OP's question: Because Dave Lutz said so.
|
|
|
A2 pistol grips are very comfortable if you file the nub just a little to reduce it's pointiness. A little rounding off goes a long way towards making it a comfortable cheap grip.
My favorite grip is Magpul's MIAD in it's smallest configuration, fingerless off course. |
|
|
On the non-indexing 3-round burst control trigger pack, because it was available and had been tested back in the 70's. More importantly however, because it "saved" some form of full-auto on the rifle which was going to be eliminated until I found this compromise to the full-auto switch. The very short version of why Auto was going way was the near-term fielding of the M249 SAW as the full-auto weapon of the 4-man Fire Team, and the negative impact of shipboard 5.46 (and others) ammo capacity due to a 800-round case of SAW linked ammo displacing a near equal quantity of rifle pack out ammo in stripper clips. Of course this "logic" played well to senior officers at the time whose Viet-Nam experience of excessive M16 ammo consumption was still in recent memory and a true urban legend, so to speak...
|
|
ColdBlue sends...
|
Originally Posted By coldblue:
On the non-indexing 3-round burst control trigger pack, because it was available and had been tested back in the 70's. More importantly however, because it "saved" some form of full-auto on the rifle which was going to be eliminated until I found this compromise to the full-auto switch. The very short version of why Auto was going way was the near-term fielding of the M249 SAW as the full-auto weapon of the 4-man Fire Team, and the negative impact of shipboard 5.46 (and others) ammo capacity due to a 800-round case of SAW linked ammo displacing a near equal quantity of rifle pack out ammo in stripper clips. Of course this "logic" played well to senior officers at the time whose Viet-Nam experience of excessive M16 ammo consumption was still in recent memory and a true urban legend, so to speak... View Quote Maybe I am reading you wrong, but it appears you are saying that there was an actual suggestion/plan/possibility that the A2 would be issued in merely semiauto persuasion. Is that what you meant? I've never read that before, so find it quite fascinating. If that is correct, can you elaborate? |
|
What are the Rosary, the Cross or the Crucifix other than tools to help maintain the fortress of our faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?
|
Originally Posted By coldblue: On the non-indexing 3-round burst control trigger pack, because it was available and had been tested back in the 70's. More importantly however, because it "saved" some form of full-auto on the rifle which was going to be eliminated until I found this compromise to the full-auto switch. The very short version of why Auto was going way was the near-term fielding of the M249 SAW as the full-auto weapon of the 4-man Fire Team, and the negative impact of shipboard 5.46 (and others) ammo capacity due to a 800-round case of SAW linked ammo displacing a near equal quantity of rifle pack out ammo in stripper clips. Of course this "logic" played well to senior officers at the time whose Viet-Nam experience of excessive M16 ammo consumption was still in recent memory and a true urban legend, so to speak... View Quote |
|
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912 - Thanks to my brother sample for this year's membership
|
Originally Posted By EVR:
Very interesting. Maybe I am reading you wrong, but it appears you are saying that there was an actual suggestion/plan/possibility that the A2 would be issued in merely semiauto persuasion. Is that what you meant? I've never read that before, so find it quite fascinating. If that is correct, can you elaborate? View Quote |
|
"--you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
Heinlein NRA Life Member Glock Certified Armorer Certified AR15 Armorer Certified M1911 Armorer |
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.