Quoted:

Based on your past post, you clearly didn't know ColdBlue, an arfcom member, designed it when you called him an idiot, nor did you know he had more combat experience as an infantryman that you did, and you sure didn't know the requirements at the time and why decisions made were made. You're still just regurgitating internet myth. Search ColdBlue and read his posts, he was quite candid about the history about the why of everything on the weapon system.

And stop using the idea of longevity of the A2 as some sort of indication of effectiveness when the shorter M4 became in vogue because body armor and MOUT, two factors not exactly prevalent in early 1982-3. 

And the mid length gas system wasn't even invented until the early 90s, either by KAC or by Armalite (they argue about who did it). So its kind of hard to have used it for a rifle designed in 1983? Or should they invented a time machine first?

Quoted:

Look, I was there; there were better weapons on the world market, in a lot of respects besides the ergonomics. I owned a Valmet M76 in 5.56mm that was a damn tack driver out past what I could do with my issue Colt M16A2. It had a shorter barrel, built-in night sights, and was impossible to jam. It was also a folding stock, and a hell of a lot more compact. So, yeah... There actually were better weapons available, although I still prefer the human engineering on the M16 series.

The handwriting was on the wall as early as the Son Tay Raid--The issue M16 was too big, too bulky, and there were superior sights available. Even the Israelis and Finns were smart enough to put luminous night sights on their standard-issue weapon, something that apparently was a bridge too far for the A2 program.

The A2 looked really good to me, as a Sergeant helping run the company arms room. It was new, not worn out, and it sure seemed cool. When we got our first ones there around '88, it was the latest, greatest thing--But, looking back at it, from the vantage point of today, after spending 25 years on active duty? It was emphatically not what it should have been.

The major things wrong with the A2 design was that it failed to take into account a lot of the actual lessons of Vietnam, namely that even the M16A1 was too damn big, especially for what the cartridge offered. As well, there were a bunch of things that were added that were entirely useless, like that sight they took from the Colt LMG. The premise of that thing is flatly insane--Probably 90% of your shots in combat are taken at fleeting glimpses of the enemy at random ranges out to around 300-400m max, and they're giving us an insanely adjustable sight that's only really superior to the A1 sights past those ranges? Oh, and they didn't bother to give us any sort of night sight, when they had the opportunity? Don't even get me started on all the other things that a real "Product Improvement Program" should have meant, like better corrosion-proofing and coatings. Or, as another example that the Canadians were putting on their version of the M16, cold hammer-forged barrels with superior accuracy and life.

Let's face the facts of the matter: The A2 program was tasked with producing a better combat rifle. What it actually provided the troops was a superior range toy that didn't address many of the problems of the A1 at all effectively. And, when a better combat rifle came along, by accident, the A2 was dropped like a hot potato--That's how "right" the A2 program got it. The A2 actually had one of the shortest service lives as a front line combat weapon in American history, when you get down to it--It was finally fielded in mass numbers by the late '80s, and was undergoing mass replacement in the infantry formations with the M4 by about '95. That tell you anything?

The M4 itself is another travesty of poor program management; it was originally intended as a handier, more easily-carried weapon for self-defense by support troops. Because of that, they really never did thorough ballistic testing to see if it maintained lethality to the full range that the A2 did with the standard ammunition. Turns out, it did not--And, we didn't really discover that until the 2000s, when we finally did something about it. In the middle of a freakin' war. What year was Somalia, when that first appeared in combat situations, and what year did we get M855A1 into mass issue, again...?

There were apocryphal reports of lethality issues with the M4 and some of the similar weapons that the Rangers and Delta were using in Somalia. Nobody in the procurement system thought to do anything effective about it until reports started coming back in from Afghanistan, over ten years later, and the military started getting bad  press about it. Thus, the M855A1, which itself has some issues.

Then, there's the pathway by which the M4 became our standard individual weapon for front-line combat troops. If you recall, the thing was supposed to be for support troops like artillery and engineers, as well as drivers and such-like in infantry units. The original plan was, A2 for line infantry, M4 for support troops.

Only thing is, that's not how it worked out. Once the M4 started coming into the line units, and people got their hands on it, all of a sudden we're diverting them from the support bubbas over to the front-line combat troops.

Huh. Funny, that. Kinda makes you wonder about the whole "The A2 is the ultimate expression of the M16 as a combat weapon..." idea, doesn't it?

To me, looking back, it appears as though the A2 program was a rathole we never should have gone down--And, if you go back and look at the available information, that should have been clear. Just like the idea of an intermediate-caliber assault rifle should have been clear to the guys who adopted the M14...

There is copious literature available in DTIC from Army Research Laboratories, discussing the shortcomings of the M16A1 that were identified in Vietnam--With the recommendations that it be replaced with something shorter and handier.

For more handwriting on the wall, you can look where they tested and prototyped red-dot sights shortly after Vietnam. Colonel Bull Simon was the guy who put those on his men's carbines for the Son Tay Raid, where they proved themselves under fire. Post-Son Tay Raid reports recommended that such sights be investigated for general issue and use.

Took Big Army until the 2000s to pay attention, and realize the superiority of that sighting system over iron sights, especially under combat conditions where fussy little adjustable iron sights aren't really of use until you're in a situation where you really ought to be engaging with either your indirect fire, or your damn snipers in the first place.

No, to be honest, I'm going to stick to my position that the A2 and M4 should never have happened in the first place, and they should have paid attention to the actual lessons of Vietnam, developing something that would have looked a lot more like the M27 than anything else. Hell, Colt was even offering pistons back in the 1980s and 1990s, if we'd have wanted them...

TL;DR--The M16A2 was a mistake we shouldn't have made, and the M4 just compounded the error. Marines finally got the individual weapon right with the M27, in terms of size/barrel length. Piston, maybe not so much. Cost? Sure as hell not...

Quoted:

It's a mistake to assume that the greater popularity of the M4 automatically means it is superior.  Soldiers are virtually guaranteed to prefer a lighter, shorter weapon over a longer, heavier one unless they find themselves in a fight where the smaller one proves itself inferior.  Most of us spend a lot of time carrying our weapons and little if any time firing them in combat.

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

Quoted:
S/N 7014693

No idea how I still remember that.

Quoted:


https://media.giphy.com/media/9EqAVJFMFId3y/giphy.gif

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

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

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

Quoted:

This 150%.

Quoted:

What if I told you...scopes such as the ACOG up to 4.5x and the M5 RAS rail for the M16A4 sre authorized for service rifle matches now?

To answer the OP- I didn't mind my A2 as a private. I liked my M16A4 I got later better.  I actually liked the A4 over the M4 at first, but I am very tall and the M4 was weird to get used to. I now very much appreciate the Mk18 over all of the above.

Quoted:

The M4 isn't what we ought to be carrying, either. I never said it was superior, only that it was less flawed than the A2 version of the M16.

There's a design principle in civil engineering, where you let the users do your sidewalk layouts. Because you can't predict the paths they're going to take using your buildings, you build them, and then go back after a year to observe where all the paths are cut through your landscaping. Then, you build your sidewalks to match...

With small arms, the geniuses in procurement keep theorizing and buying; then the users, out on the line, figure out what they really need, and that's what they do. In WWII, the M1 Carbine was supposed to be the thing for support troops alone; what did it become? A de facto precursor assault rifle, used by a lot of line infantrymen. Why? Size and handiness... Sounds sorta... Familiar, doesn't it?

Likewise, the theorists in Germany thought "Oh, we'll issue this Sturmgewehr, and we can take the MG42 out of the line squads, keep 'em up at company...". Nope; didn't work, and the idea of a pure-fleet intermediate cartridge solution in the line squads died a quiet death. Soviets, after the war? Tried the same shit; didn't work, and we now see where they've been using a dual-cartridge solution since forever, and appear to be planning on keeping it.

US Army and Marines thought they'd pure-fleet on an M14/M15 solution; didn't work, went to a belt-fed M60 and the M16A1. Kept that until the M249 came in, and then after a bit, decided that no, we really do need that heavier belt-fed 7.62mm.

You can see where I'm going with this, right? While the M4 wasn't planned as a replacement for the M16A2, that's what it became--Because it answered the needs of the user better than what the brilliant planners gave those users.

It's those friggin' users, man... The designers and architects keep making these idealized plans, and then reality slaps the crap out of them, and we find out what is really necessary. What's unfortunate is that we keep wasting money on things that we really should know better than to do--And, I'll contend that the A2 and the M4 were both things we should have known better about doing, even with what information was available.

I know it's hard to believe, but I can't find anywhere that they did comparative ballistic testing of the M4, in order to see if it still produced the same effective lethality of the A2 with M855--Not before procurement, not after they shifted it over to the front-line individual weapon role, and not until mid-way through the current unpleasantness. Which is flatly mind-boggling, to me. If anyone can point to where they did do that, I'd love to see it, because I've never seen where such testing was conducted. Ever.

http://www.thenewrifleman.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/FB_IMG_1441374133275.jpgArmy Strong

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

Quoted:
Thread does need more pics, though.
https://i.imgur.com/19Esh8S.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/UIrrPIW.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/SpabNkc.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/51MImbJ.jpg

Quoted:
https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/365646/wert_jpg-955168.JPG

I can't get my head around why the USMC loves such a long length of pull. I am 5'11" and A2 stocks and the Benelli M4 C-stock are a bit long for me not wearing armor. I like my SP1 length a lot better.

I always wondered why they didn't go with a shorter LOP and offer a spacer kit for anyone who wants it longer. I believe that's what Canada did with the C7/C7A1 until they just put a collapsible stock on every rifle (the C7A2.)

Quoted:
If you want a gun to shoot irons, the A2 is the way to go.  I wasn't crazy about the gooseneck mounts when the M68's got fielded Army wide, or mounting the ACOG to the carrying handle.  LOP has never been an issue for me, even with an IBA or IOTV.  The guys bitching about its 3-round burst are hilarious, everything had 3-round burst until a couple years ago.