(Military question) For those that were issued the M16A2 what did you think of it? - Page 1

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - (Military question) For those that were issued the M16A2 what did you think of it? (Page 1 of 4)

Posted: 5/22/2019 9:42:57 AM EDT

So I have both a A1 style and a A2 and just from a civilian perspective I like the A2 slightly more because the weight helps with accuracy. Part from that I like the A1.

I Have This Old Gun: U.S. M16A2 Rifle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2s4lPiT_Yw

Posted: 5/22/2019 9:51:26 AM EDT

[#1]

I was authorized to take it out for shipboardings, but never did it was simply too big. When we wanted a long gun we’d take a 14” 870. Also I never liked the A2 LoP.

Posted: 5/22/2019 9:53:50 AM EDT

[#2]

The M4 with an RDS or ACOG is better in every measurement. I have no nostalgia for the A2.

Posted: 5/22/2019 9:55:36 AM EDT

[#3]

I carried one while in. Hated the stupid three round burst function. Semi auto is generally what you want to be using, but in that rare instance where full auto becomes necessary, you don't want to be resetting the trigger every three rounds.

Posted: 5/22/2019 9:56:41 AM EDT

[#4]

Quote History

Quoted:
The M4 with an RDS or ACOG is better in every measurement. I have no nostalgia for the A2.

View Quote

This 150%.

Posted: 5/22/2019 9:57:03 AM EDT

[#5]

I was issued an A1 as my primary weapon and carried one for years. When the A2's started showing up the marksmanship unit made sure they got the first ones that came in. By that time I had been switched to the Beretta M9 as my primary weapon so I never got to use the A2. But, from what I observed and heard from the troops that were issued the A2 it was a toss up between those that preferred the A1 and those that preferred the A2. For me I could not see enough of a benefit in accuracy of the A2 over the A1 that justified the extra weight. YMMV

Posted: 5/22/2019 9:58:50 AM EDT

[#6]

Mine was made by FN, solid rifle, three round burst was dumb.

Posted: 5/22/2019 10:02:17 AM EDT

[#7]

It went bang. Hate the ammo that came along with it. I never was a fan of the 3 round burst.
On that note, I still like a 20 inch barrel on the rifle.

Posted: 5/22/2019 10:02:45 AM EDT

[#8]

I liked it a lot. It was a Marine Corps led improvement and that was good enough for me...

Srsly tho, I felt like it was a more robust weapon and combined with the new ammo just made the grunt more lethal.

Posted: 5/22/2019 10:03:17 AM EDT

[#9]

My first issued rifle was an A1, but it was old and the upper was loose, it was a GM Hydromantic. The A2's had easier sights, but the 3 round burst was strange. A2 was heavier, but I always shot expert with it, didn't need a round or a nail to adjust the sights.

Posted: 5/22/2019 10:04:30 AM EDT

[#10]

The M4 was and is a better combat rifle, and a lot more versatile, but for pure shooting satisfaction, I definitely prefer the M16A2. All the ones I was ever issued were EXTREMELY accurate, and a lot of fun to shoot as a result.

I'm picking up an FNH M16A4 clone off layaway when I get home, and I plan to strip it down to regular A2 handguards, then go shoot an NRA Service Rifle match with it.

Posted: 5/22/2019 10:09:52 AM EDT

[#11]

I was USMS Infantry when we transitioned from A1 to A2. I loved the A2 still do.

Posted: 5/22/2019 10:11:37 AM EDT

[#12]

I was issued an A1 at Ft Campbell in 1985.

I believe I was issued an A2 when I got to the 25 ID in 1987.

I missed doing mag dumps on full auto. I also seem to remember the A1 was lighter, which was nice.

I did prefer the triangle hand guards on the A1 too.

Posted: 5/22/2019 10:17:08 AM EDT

[#13]

Issued the M16A2 at Parris Island and carried one for 4 years as an 0311 in the fleet (1988-1992). It was like an extension of my body.

This was before optics were commonly issued en masse. I was very good with it and was confident in it as my service rifle.

Good weapon.

Posted: 5/22/2019 10:20:59 AM EDT

[#14]

Quote History

Quoted:
Mine was made by FN, solid rifle, three round burst was dumb.

View Quote

If you read Coldblue's posts on why he made the decisions he did on the A2, he explains that the only options at the time were an off the shelf 3 round burst w/semi or semi only. The Army wanted to shit can full auto all together

Posted: 5/22/2019 10:23:07 AM EDT

[#15]

I loved my M16A2, but I was a POG so I only used it on the range for yearly qualification.

Posted: 5/22/2019 10:23:46 AM EDT

[#16]

Please just get a modern AR.

Posted: 5/22/2019 10:24:32 AM EDT

[#17]

Quote History

Quoted:
The M4 with an RDS or ACOG is better in every measurement. I have no nostalgia for the A2.

View Quote

This. All day long. A2 was just unwieldly and a PITA to carry.

Posted: 5/22/2019 10:25:59 AM EDT

[#18]

I kinda miss my A2.
Of course, I also miss weighing 50 lbs less, and my old machinegun section.

Best,
JBR

Posted: 5/22/2019 10:27:42 AM EDT

[#19]

I was a tanker, so not much actual use.

We liked them because, unlike the A1's they'd turned in just before I got to the unit, they were NEW. I gather the A1's were about shot out.

We disliked them because the place in the turret for the M16 was designed with the triangular handguards in mind and the rifle wouldn't stay put. This lead to a couple of barrels being eaten by the turret monster.

Posted: 5/22/2019 10:27:50 AM EDT

[#20]

Best target rifle ever adopted as a service rifle. Great sights. Can't sling too tight as it is very easy to shift impact. I have spent months of my life coaching Marines during their yearly quals and I can say the shittiest, most abused M16A2s (and M9s) in the armory were always capable of shooting expert. When you hang a M203 off the barrel, the accuracy sucks, so I would always urge somebody showing up Monday with a 203 to come back Tuesday with a regular M16A2.

Posted: 5/22/2019 10:32:10 AM EDT

[#21]

I'd never fired the A1, so I didn't have a frame of reference. I liked the A2 when I had it. S/N 6099916.

Posted: 5/22/2019 10:37:03 AM EDT

[#22]

The A2 was alright for longer ranges. 3 rd burst was sucky. If you need full auto, you need full auto. I carried an M203 attached to mine so it was a little heavy/awkward. It was nice having the 40mm capability though.
I prefer the M4 for most uses though.

Posted: 5/22/2019 10:39:59 AM EDT

[#23]

I was issued an M16A1, M16A2, and M4 at various points in my career.

I preferred the A1 to the A2 (I didn't like the overly complicated sights and it was heavier), but the M4 was the better overall weapon from a grunt standpoint.

Posted: 5/22/2019 10:40:03 AM EDT

[#24]

My first issue rifle was an M16A1 and I shot it extremely well and loved it dearly. When the A2's came along I found that the slightly different LOP was a big deal for me and I didn't shoot the A2 nearly as well and I didn't care much for the 3 round burst either.

When the Colt A1 kits hit the market several years ago I snagged one and built a clone of Raquel (my issue A1) along with an A2 type and several M4-ish rifles, I still shoot the A1 better than any other iron sighted AR type. Tip of the nose just touching the charging handle gives me a perfect sight picture every time.

Posted: 5/22/2019 10:44:23 AM EDT

[#25]

I liked the upgrayyed in the sight department, but disliked everything else, heavier, limited to 3 shot burst, etc. . Honestly id rather have kept my m16a1. lighter weight, shorter stock that fit me better, and full auto. id take a m16a1 over a A2 if offered one right now.

Posted: 5/22/2019 10:46:32 AM EDT

[#26]

Had an A2 for my whole time in the Corps including one deployment to Iraq. It's all everybody had rifle wise so it wasn't a case of the grass is greener on the other side, but I had no complaints. It was accurate and I never had any functional problems with it even though it was used and abused over the years. The sights made sense and were easy to change and then return to zero. Yes it was long, but since we had no optics or anything else hanging off the damn thing it wasn't too heavy and I never had any problems in tight areas. I used burst once and that was just to screw around. Overall I liked it and it did everything I asked it to do. I was never issued an A1 so I can't compare.

Posted: 5/22/2019 10:47:14 AM EDT

[#27]

I went into the Army in 2003 and was issued one in basic as well as in the Infantry Battalion I was assigned to in the FLANG. It was terrible to use with the early IBAs, fucking awful stock design with way too long length of pull. When I went active a couple years later as an officer I only used M4s for the rest of my career and they were better in every way possible. There's a reason why we gave them all away to the Iraqis and Afghans. It's because they suck.

Posted: 5/22/2019 10:51:18 AM EDT

[#28]

Old school here.
I used both. I was issued an A1 for half of my career and an A2/M9 the rest.
I preferred the A1 for actual carry and use and the A2 for range work.

Posted: 5/22/2019 10:54:13 AM EDT

[#29]

Quote History

Quoted:
My first issued rifle was an A1, but it was old and the upper was loose, it was a GM Hydromantic. The A2's had easier sights, but the 3 round burst was strange. A2 was heavier, but I always shot expert with it, didn't need a round or a nail to adjust the sights.

View Quote

My fellow 1980’s brother. Trained on a1 and got a m3a1 and 1911 in my armor BN and a2 after.
Carried an A2 and m9 In Iraq for oif 1 ,an m4 for two years as a contractor an an m4 in Afghanistan.
Preferred m4 getting in an out of vehicles. Liked qualifying with irons and the a2. Never qualified with acog or coco on m4.

Posted: 5/22/2019 10:56:47 AM EDT

[#30]

Marine Corps 0311, started off with the A1 ended with the A2. Liked the A1 better. Couldnt see the extra weight and the 3 rd bust was any benefit.

Posted: 5/22/2019 10:57:04 AM EDT

[#31]

Quote History

Quoted:
I loved my M16A2, but I was a POG so I only used it on the range for yearly qualification.

View Quote

Same. But damn, I loved the A2. That rifle taught me how to shoot. Hits at 500 meters with open sights was child’s play. Never shot below expert.

Eventually, I’m going to buy an A4. Close enough and more flexible. But my heart is still with the A2.

Posted: 5/22/2019 10:57:29 AM EDT

[#32]

Marine Corps 0311, started off with the A1 ended with the A2. Liked the A1 better. Couldnt see the extra weight and the 3 rd bust was any benefit.

Posted: 5/22/2019 10:59:15 AM EDT

[#33]

I really liked it. I had an A1 for two years. I’m a lefty and brass deflectors were never anywhere to be found, so got burned a lot. I shot OK with it but never a perfect score, usually between 34/40 - 36/40. Plus they were old and beat to shit.

The first time a fired an A2 was for qualification in the freezing rain laying in the mud. It was my first perfect 40/40. I know it’s a small thing, but the built-in brass deflector was a huge plus for me. I like the A2.

I can’t compare it to M4’s though because very few people were issued those at the time (late ‘80’s). I saw a couple of AF SP with them once, but that was all I saw of them. We didn’t wear body armor so collapsible stocks didn’t matter.

Posted: 5/22/2019 11:10:53 AM EDT

[#34]

I had both, basic and first unit A1, then we got surplus A2s when one of the Infantry Divisions folded up, so it wasn't going from worn out rifles to new.

The old timers who were incredible marksmen in their stories but had trouble qualifying at the range hated the A2, especially the lack of full auto.

I loved the A2, I didn't mind the extra weight and appreciated the extra accuracy.

As for the triangle handguards, if you didn't have large hands, they sucked. In basic there were only a few A1s that still had triangle guards, at Bragg most of them still had triangle, I asked the admirer to swap mine to round, he did.

Posted: 5/22/2019 11:13:19 AM EDT

[#35]

I was in after the A1 and before the M4 so all I knew was the A2, but I didn't really have any complaints at the time. Of course, we also didn't have body armor, optics, lights, etc, so I didn't mind shooting with a bladed stance (the theory being that a bladed stance provided a narrower target for your enemy). It was kind of a pain for MOUT, but not unworkable. At the time I probably would have given it a 4/5. I've had A1, A2, and M4-style rifles. The A2 is my favorite for actual shooting.

Posted: 5/22/2019 11:16:03 AM EDT

[#36]

It was Meh.

I much preferred my M4.

Posted: 5/22/2019 11:52:30 AM EDT

[#37]

I didn’t like the A2 grip

3 round burst was retarded

Loved the new 0-200 ghost ring rear sight and handgards

Posted: 5/22/2019 11:55:11 AM EDT

[#38]

Quote History

Quoted:
Mine was made by FN, solid rifle, three round burst was dumb.

View Quote

This too.

Posted: 5/22/2019 11:56:57 AM EDT

[#39]

Quote History

Quoted:
I didn’t like the A2 grip

3 round burst was retarded

Loved the new 0-200 ghost ring rear sight and handgards

View Quote

This....

Posted: 5/22/2019 12:02:39 PM EDT

[#40]

S/N 7014693

No idea how I still remember that.

Posted: 5/22/2019 12:03:51 PM EDT

[#41]

I liked mine. It shot well. Spent most of it's time strapped in a rack in the howitzer tho. The lower was an overstamped A1, Colt.

Posted: 5/22/2019 12:05:56 PM EDT

[#42]

Too much shit to go through to set it up for burst.

It was a crewed served weapon on the tank, so no one really carried it.

Posted: 5/22/2019 12:10:52 PM EDT

[#43]

I loved the m16a2, I was usmc 2000-2004, I was a machine gunner so I did not get the A4 still trickling into the fleet when i got out. I compare the A2 to the m4 ( ARNG 2006-2011 ) I like the full stock and Iron sights the A2 had but Im 6'0 tall so that makes sense, I was not a fan of m68, most of which did not work. I qualified with back up irons entire time in Army national guard. The only positive I can think of, was the m-4 compact design was superior for vehicle ops and weapons crews.

Posted: 5/22/2019 12:12:04 PM EDT

[#44]

I grew up tracking the development of the AR15/M16 in detail.

I used to study everything I could find, read all the articles, get all the books I could, and finally got a Colt AR15A2, which was really a slick side lower with an A1 upper and A2 furniture at the time.

All the articles talked about this and that improvement with the M16A2, so I thought it was the cat's meow based on reading.

We had FN M16A2s in Infantry OSUT, which were beat to hell.

When I got to my first unit, they still had M16A1s with A2 furniture, which wasn't a bad set-up. Very handy, accurate, easy to carry and hold on-target, consistent trigger weight.

We then got brand new A2s, and the weight, trigger, LOP differences were noticeable in a bad way.

The M16A1 feels pretty much like a carbine since the barrel is light and the LOP about ideal.

Only practical advantages with the A2 were:

* Brass deflector for LH shooters
* Rate of twist for M855
* Adjustable windage when zeroing without need of tools, but also not necessary
* Handguards did crack as easily ( I cracked my A2 handguards in Korea)

Posted: 5/22/2019 12:18:08 PM EDT

[#45]

Quote History

Quoted:
The M4 with an RDS or ACOG is better in every measurement. I have no nostalgia for the A2.

View Quote

SPNI. A2 was big to lug around, not easy to combat sling (add 550 cord and 100 mph tape), and three round burst blows.

Good for Pass In Review formations and shooting from the prone. Maybe. Length of pull is probably my biggest gripe though, and I am 6' (72" for the Army types...). No nostalgia.

Posted: 5/22/2019 12:24:23 PM EDT

[#46]

Barrel and stock too long.

Posted: 5/22/2019 12:30:06 PM EDT

[#47]

Two years with the A1 and two with the A2. I preferred the A1. It was lighter. We hardly ever shot, so what mattered was weight. We carried them everywhere. All the time.

Posted: 5/22/2019 12:36:53 PM EDT

[#48]

39/40 every single time.

It worked.

Posted: 5/22/2019 12:43:23 PM EDT

[#49]

In '85 I qualed on old, beat up A1's and 1911's. I was in Germany when we got A2's, around'86 or '87. I just remember they were brand new and great shooters compared to the old beat up rifles we had.
My issued weapon though was an M3 grease gun cause I was an M88 driver

Posted: 5/22/2019 12:49:16 PM EDT

[#50]

I started out as a Reservist in high school being handed an M16A1 at 17yrs old, man what a feeling!

Was issued the A2 for qualification in AIT 1988, then active duty in Berlin 89-90, 92-94 we had Colt A2s, FN A2s stateside in Ft Polk and Ft Carson.

I had a Colt 4x BDC Scope on my A2 when we deployed to Macedonia under the UN, UNPROFOR so I was Plt Designated Marksman and Plt Sergeant's bodyguard.

Carried the A2 with fixed M9 Bayonet during Parade Season in Berlin 89-90, 92-94, all we did from Memorial Day until June 16th was practice marching in a 9x9 man formation for the Allied Forces Day Parade from the Brandenburg Gate to Tiergarten District in Berlin, then a 4th of July Parade next to our Barracks in Lichterfelde.

Qualification was easier with the A2 than the A1, even though we didn't routinely mess with the rear sight assy unlike the USMC Rifleman Training. All you had to do was hit the man-sized silhouette to knock it down where they had different point rings for USMC qual.

M16A2 with M203 was even easier to qualify with, just lay it on one sandbag and it would hardly move when fired, some would shoot qualification with the 203 barrel left open but I just set it on the sandbag and plinked away.

Berlin Brigade's mission was to defend the city from communist invasion. We had the largest MOUT complex in the world until the late 1990s. The Berlin University of Urban Warfare is what we called Doughboy City. But we trained for MOUT with the full-sized A2s, M249s with the fixed tubing stock and full-sized M60s in the Weapons Squad of each Rifle Platoon. Long rifle but doable, tucked under armpit at times, or angled across your bicep and tricep in tight quarters. Not like we had a choice at the time only Rangers and SF had the 723, 727 then M4 Colt Carbines.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - (Military question) For those that were issued the M16A2 what did you think of it? (Page 1 of 4)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us