Burst settings are a throw back to the original bolt action military rifles with a magazine cut-off. It was for logistical bureaucrats to micro-manage soldiers back then and is for logistical bureaucrats today.
At least the cut offs had a purpose. In an era of early repeaters and logistical efforts still grappling with how to supply them, cut offs had some use beyond "micro-managing"
The burst setting is a response to troops in Vietnam sticking their M16A1’s over a wall or around trees and firing off entire magazines completely blind. It would have been better just to train people not to do stupid things like that, but why use a better software solution when you can make an inferior hardware solution.
Listening to Eugene Stoner talk about considerations he had towards the M-16, they echo exactly the same ones that Mikhail Kalashnikov and the Soviet brass had towards the AK, AKM and later AK-74. Keep things as simple as possible, make things easier to manufacture, reduce the amount of things soldier can muck around with. Make it soldier-proof and at the same time easy to learn. Looking at the original M-16A1 it's obvious just how much simpler lighter and soldier-friendly it is compared to more advanced models.
The only branch that wanted the more complicated rear sight was the USMC. No other branch was trained to use it the way Marines were. They just set the rifle for battlesight zero and they were done. My dad was USAF CATM for nearly 20 years and told me that's all they did with them.
@Trap Lord Ghost not really due to the complexity, more due to manufacturing quality increase and development in materials. If you make the old configuration with modern methods and materials that have the modern research behind them, you get extremely similar performance. So similar that the difference is pretty much negligible. Aside from the difference in use of optics due to implementation of the flat top, the difference with just irons is damn near identical. Which basically means the only legitimate development was the flat top. Beyond that it's just materials and manufacturing improvements.
What I really appreciated about Stoner and Kalashnikov too is that they both cared about the lives of soldiers and wanted to give them the best rifles they could.
The 3 shot burst was a mechanical solution to a training problem. My experience in the service is weapons training and range time is below minimum for reasonable competence
I'm a service member currently serving(74D). The weapons training is a joke I remember in basic training I was showing guys while in the bay how to shoot because our ds were crappy shots.
I served as an Infantryman, and I was one of the handful of joes that qualified expert on the first go. Most of us shot 40/40. That meant we got to tutor the city boys, so they could just get the minimum. "How come you shoot so good?" "Well, because I've been shooting almost 20 years." I was the old guy at 24. Even as my enlistment dragged on, and we had a couple real world deployments, most of those guys were really only good for barely effective suppressing fire. The only times they saw dramatic increases in accuracy, was when we were assigned the PAQ-4C, but those were only used for night operations. Kinda hard to miss when you have an infrared laser that is zeroed to the rifle. I would have loved to have still been in when they introduced the ACOG. I've been using similar optics in recent years, and I really do appreciate the increase in accuracy, quick ranging, and distance guesstimation. I would hope that the addition of such an easy to use optic would improve the effectiveness of the average soldier, but from some of the comments, that's not necessarily the case.
@@ericg7183 To my understanding sq leaders get acogs and the rest of the guys get reddots these days. (I'm nbc though not infantry so take that with a grain of salt) In reality its up to the unit to order optics and such. There are still units out there, (mostly NG) that still issue m16a2s. My unit gave everyone red dots, but we have a few guys who hate the reddots and don't use em. Our cmd dosn't care because their qual scores are better without the optics.
Yeah my experience was there was some instruction in marksmanship but virtually no training on weapon handling, to include recoil control and effective followup shots.
depends on the unit and the people and your MOS, if you're a cook then yeah your training is gonna be a joke, but if you're an 11B, most of your day is revolved around tactics and technique training with your weapon. I was a medic for infantry and they would come grab me to run rifle drills with the new guys as the baseline, "if you can't beat Doc at this, we're gonna drill the shit outta you." but I spent hundreds of hours on the range with my line unit, they made sure I qualified expert before teaching me anything else, and these are people who were in the Army for 12-15 years and had been to Iraq and Afghanistan a few times by then
The medical unit I was in during 2018 had a M16A2 built on a Harrington and Richardson A1 lower. They ground off the 1 and stamped it with a 2. That was an interesting piece of history to hold.
I carried a General Motors built by one of their Divisions M16 Rifle in the USAF Security Police. It was at Eielson AFB, Alaska in Summer 1989. When the NCOIC of the Security Police Squadron handed me that Rifle for my issue, I was WTF! It was a worn out rattle trap. I carried it for a month when working on the Resource Security side on the Aircraft Ramp. I wish I had taken a photo of it . Right before I had to qualify on the Range. I was reissued a Colt M16 Rifle.
Army Inf. '86-'92. I transitioned to the A2 while stationed in Panama in '87. My A1 was basically spray painted by the armorer a few times a year and was a broken down rattletrap. Probably a great rifle 20 years prior but badly in need of replacement. Same with our 1911s that were also replaced in '87 with the M9. Great design, just worn out and we were glad to get something new- no matter what it was. We loved the A2s. Everyone shot better and had more confidence in the functionality of their weapon. We actually didn't mind the extra weight. The most common comment I recall from back then was "now this feels like a real weapon and not a toy." 203 gunners shot better too. We humped more than any light inf unit in the Army back then- up the mountain, down the mountain, all night long more times than I can count. My feet and knees are still a wreck 30 years later. Nobody bitched about the A2 weighing too much. 2 NCOs from the AMU came down and ran a weeklong course on the KD range down there at Empire. By the end of the week we were hitting 40 for 40 at 800 meters with the A2. I was amazed. I had laughed at the start of the week when the instructors said we'd be hitting regular at 800m by the end of the week. We were taught to do all that "turning and fidgeting" with the sights to utilize them from beyond the usual 300m out to 800m. When that was mated up with our prior 0-300m training we were good. The officers that talked with Stoner were full of it IMO. Typical low opinion of EMs by officers with superiority complexes. We handled the "complicated" rear sight just fine. Just in time too as Just Cause went down a year later and we were in it up to our eyeballs as one of the 2 inf. battalions permanently stationed down there. Desert Storm was soon after that for me as I had PCS-ed to the 101. A2 was fine in both and nobody was wrecking their sights in combat. Yeah, the 3 round burst was a let down and we were PO-ed in the beginning. We fired semi 90% of the time in combat anyway I soon found out. The need for a full auto rifle in combat is overrated. The SAWs and 60s took care of that. In mech units you had the weaponry on the vehicle that was full auto as well. We can nitpick 40 years later but for a guy who was there on the ground with it in 2 wars, I was glad to have it. Have a civ version Colt A2 in my safe to this day next to my M1 and the usual old guy hunting rifles and shotguns.
I doubt that anyone would argue that Eugene Stoner was a great designer. So no disrespect intended by my comments. I spent 9 years active duty and 14 years in the Marine Corps Reserve. My MOS’s were Infantry Weapons Repair, Artillery Repair, and Marksmanship Instructor / Competitor. I Earned the Marine Corps Distinguished Rifle Badge in 1997 and Distinguished Pistol Shot Badge in 1999. Which makes me 1 of less than 500 Marines in the history of the Competition in Arms Program to earn the title Double Distinguished. The CIAP started in 1901. I spent 28 plus years in LE and have a ton of training under my belt from that. So I’m qualified to speak on this from the point of view of the end user, armorer, and instructor. Overall the M16A2 filled the anticipated mission. This was the beginning of the 1980’s and the fight was going to be with the Warsaw Pact in Western Europe. So they wanted the capability to penetrate a Soviet helmet at 800 meters. That led to the SS109 / M855 round. And probably had something to do with the 800 Meter marking on the elevation knob. The flash suppressor being replaced by a compensator from the end users view was a non-issue. They never really noticed a difference. Barrel profile was an issue due to bending. But what they changed didn’t fix the problem. The A2 sights were NEVER a serious maintenance issue. The most common problem was the elevation knob losing its distinct clicks due to the holes in the bottom of the knob wearing. And that was rare. Never saw any sights broken from being dropped on them. As for the mythical FIDGET factor. The M1903, M1917, M1, M14, and later variants of the M1, and M2 Carbines, the M16A2, A3, A4, M4’s, Mark 18’s all had fully adjustable Sights. And Stoner himself designed the AR in the beginning with adjustable sights. Now I never saw Marines diddling their sights. And I believe the Corps has a lock on the title of MOST ADD / ADHD people in any organization! Marines knew that the rifle they had was theirs, and they knew what the windage and elevation settings were. We even trained them how to mark their sights with paint pens or White Out. In the fall of 1990 every 2 Mar Div unit went to Stone Bay and zeroed their rifles on the 300 line before they deployed to SWA. That’s how serious the issue is in the Corps. We universally hated the 3 shot burst mechanism. But it was reliable. The forward assist while rarely needed is useful. I’ve witnessed numerous times where the bolt didn’t full rotate into the locked position. The forward assist handled that. The new composite plastic was a welcome change from a durability stand point. The grip wasn’t liked for the shelf they added. Didn’t fit most Marines. While I understand lengthening the stock it was a mistake. They should have kept it where it was. Thank God for the more aggressive checkering on the buttplate. In the end the M16A2 cost more than new M16A1’s. Don’t care. The Congress pisses away millions. The rifle was about 2 pounds heavier. Not ideal, but not the end of the world. As they say in the Corps, I’d you think it’s to heavy then you need to workout more. The only thing that made the M16A2 less reliable than the M16A1 was the M855 round. That’s because the projectile on the new round had a sharp point. When Marines would try to chamber the first round on a fresh mag, the tip would go straight into the seam where the barrel extension fits into the upper receiver. That caused the bullet to stub. If the Marine performed immediate action they would then cause a double feed. They did 2 things to fix the problem. Changed the profile on the tip of the bullet to a slightly more rounded one like on the M193 round. And they eventually extended the feed ramps adding a chamfer to the upper receiver that blended into the ramps on the barrel extension. Not sure when that change occurred. Marine Corps Marksmanship doctrine up until around 1990 broke training into 3 phases. Preparatory Phase; that was all the classroom instruction and dry firing on the snapping in drums. Known Distance Firing which was a week of firing the KD course. And the last phase that was rarely conducted was Field Firing which was the units responsibility. In the end Marines understood the basic fundamentals of marksmanship better than any other service. Heres where the rule of: You cant do, what you don’t know, comes into play. I’d much rather have Marines who know how to fire a precise shot and the skills to do it. As opposed to being in a gunfight with someone only capable of launching a cone of fire. It’s easy to be sloppy, and hard to be precise. Especially if you never learned the skills to be precise. A big short coming in our doctrine was at close quarters battle. That’s because prior to 911 it wasn’t taught to anyone outside the Recon, Security Forces / FAST Teams, MP, or Infantry units. For the most part the only CQB experts were the Force Recon Marines, and SOTG instructors. And they didn’t have time to teach all that High Speed / Low Drag stuff to regular Marines. Nor did the Marine Corps have enough CQB Ranges. Marksmanship Instructors and some switched on Marines knew when it comes to engagement under field conditions iron sights left a lot to be desired. Marines had tried to get red dots and optics like the ACOG adopted well before 2004. Force Recon did a little work with the Armeson OEG reflex sight in the late 80’s. Echo Company 2/24, 4th Mar Div deployed to SWA in Dec of 1990 with ACOGS on squad leaders rifles. Fire Team Leaders had OEG reflex sight on theirs. Saw that with my own eyes. They were billeted in B Range barracks at Stone Bay, Camp Lejeune while going through training which was where I lived. Last point I want to make is this; to make a top notch weapon or anything for that matter requires teamwork. The designer, the engineer with the 50 pound brain, and the subject matter expert who knows how to use it and will teach others how to use it. All to frequently the SME is left out of the equation or ignored. PS: At the end of the day Stoner could take heart in this. Most of our soldiers and Marines that died because their M16 failed were carrying M16’s or M16E1’s during Vietnam. The cause being lack of a chrome lined barrel, lack of proper training and cleaning kits with regards to operator level maintenance, and early ammo loaded with ball powder which caused clogging of the gas system. That was the fault of people above his pay grade who thought they knew better. Kind of the way Admirals made Grumman use the Pieces Of Shit TF 30 engine in the F14A.
Having converted from M14/M1s to M16A1s, in the Marines, I agree. We even had the 3-prong in Vietnam. They worked just fine but too many Marines were using the open flash hider to twist off the wire on c-ration cases and twinking the barrels. I was out when A2s came along but shot them later, I wandered why the change. The 3-round burst was a bust without a full auto option (although, if a burst was used, I liked a 2-round burst better to keep rounds on target. I fired A2s and felt it would be dangerous for any GIs. A change in twist (like the Canadians did) would have fixed the issue of the M855 round. Red dots, etc. work great on the A1 handle (as folks are finding on the RETROs). Nice to hear others think the A2 was misthought. I have also heard others say that if they wanted to take a M16 back to a combat situation, they would rather have a M16A1. I built an AR version while the A1 was still in issue. She still shoots just fine. She also wears an original Colt 3x scope. I was RETRO before it was retro. Thanks for the video.
Fun fact: The Army actually was very skeptical of the M16A2 burst feature and removal of the full-auto mode, even citing the G11 Rifle beign developed by Germany at the time, which had the 2100RPM 3-round hyperburst but DID NOT remove full-auto. They also noted that a 5-Round burst would be the optimal round count for hit probability if they aren't doing any high-ROF/Low-Recoil solutions like the G11. And also they really disliked the burst mechanism added complexity and how it had a janky reset.
The engineers in my neighborhood worked for Mellonics and Natick to improve the M16A1 at Rock Island. These engineers worked on an Army (not Marines) contract. The goal was to make the M16 better for the Army Soldiers, females, and smaller allies. There were many arguments between the engineers and the Army on one side and the Marines on the other side. Dirty tricks were played, and the Marines got their way. Thank you for giving a balanced point of view about the M16A2. Some of the A2 "improvements" were backwards. 30 years later... We got many of the improvements made available. This review is so much more beneficial than the brainwashing that many get in the military and police training circles. Who cares about the truth when confidence in the M16 is more important? The Stoner videos are pretty cool. Stoner wasn't perfect, but his interviews are cool. P.S. I really appreciate Chris' more accurate info about the AR, much better than the History Channel.
There really wasn't any dirty tricks on the Marines part because the Marines weren't the ones marketing the rifle to the other branches it was Colt. the 3 round burst limiter was a Colt idea to appeal to the bean counters in the pentagon who wanted to save money at any cost.
@@bBlaF i mean aside from the burst limiter which everyone agrees was a bad idea even the military the M16A2 was objectively a better rifle than the A1. 1. Better muzzle device. 2. Thicker barrel reduced point of impact shift when the barrel got hot 3. Furniture that did crack and break when it took a hard fall 4. Longer length of pull for taller American shooters (the A1 length of pull was designed for smaller stature soldiers) 5. Even though adjustable sight are largely only for rifle qualification and area fire they are still slightly better than having a rear sight that requires you to use a tool to change the elevation. All he changes on the A2 aside from rear sight where on the C7 yet people praise that rifle but condemn the former.
@@nemisous83 A2 birdcage and furniture are better. POI still shifts with heat, just maybe a bit less and it takes a few more shots to get that hot. The increased length of pull might be a bit of a service to those 6'2" and up, and a neutral change for those 5'10" to 6'1", but it is an outright detriment to anyone 5'9" and below, which is an overwhelming majority of those who had to use the thing. A1 length serves far better as a universal LOP. I don't mind the more complex sight, but I never needed the adjustment to shoot as far as I can identify targets without magnification.
I got issued an FN-made M16A2 when I went through basic training at Ft. Benning in 1996. I qualified expert on it, but then it was _not_ taken away and replaced with an M16A1 for the rest of training. While I was at the 30th AG, after inprocessing was completed, but still waiting to be assigned to a training company, I and several of my fellow recruits were detailed to the post armory for a couple of days to work as gofers for the people who ran it. They were mainly DOD civilians who were retired army. I did see a lot of M16A1s in that building, and even racks of M1911A1s. One old Vietnam vet who worked there stated flatly that he thought the M16A1 was a superior combat rifle to the A2, and for precisely the reasons explained here.
@@tedbaxter5234 Congrats on being the sort of person who just can't pass up an opportunity to make a snide, condescending remark to a complete stranger. On Christmas day no less. Nice to see that holiday spirit.
Eugene Stoner, is an AMERICAN LEGEND!!! 🙏🏻 I love watching his old interviews from the 90s, you can really tell What all of his work meant to him, Little did we know at the time how much it would mean to all of us!🇺🇸 AMERICA STRONG STAY FREE LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC
Qualified with and carried the A2 from 97 to 03, as Marine 0612 (formerly 2512). I have some nostalgia for it, but I was always conscious that it wasn’t built for me. As an Asian mutt, the stock was way too long for my arms, especially with a flak jacket or Interceptor armor vest on. Also, the overall length was a pain while laying wire or installing field phones. I would have preferred an M4 for convenience and fit, but back then only high-speed low-drag units got M4s, and only E-5s and up were issued pistols, at least at my unit.
Qualified in Marine Corps with M-16A1 in 1985. That thing rattled and was nearly worn out. I liked the front post on the A1 but qualified much better with the A2. (86-89). Thank you for sharing this material.
I qual in the Marines with the A1 in '81. My unit switched over to A2 in '85. The A2 was a godsend. Then after I got out of the USMC and a few years in between, went into law enforcement...and was issued a patrol rifle...an ancient M16A1😄
My unit made the switch in 1984. I always thought the 3 shot burst was stupid . Also the rear elevation adjustment increment markings were over complicated.
I shot an A1 at basic to qualify in the Air Force back in 2001😂I thought it was pretty cool, but the instructor was giving me crap about getting the crappy old one.
My experiences and impressions are similar to yours, just backed up 15 years. Being a southpaw, the first time I fired the M16, a hot ejected case hit my neck and went down my shirt, leaving two burn marks. A range officer saw it happen and installed a brass deflector for me. I would like to add one small clarification to you excellent review. The Air Force never standardized the M16A1. We used the M16, which we kept rebuilding (I once saw an arsenal refinished XM16 in our inventory). The M16 had no forward assist. Like you, I did not care for it. The only time I ever tried to use one was on a CAR-15 I owned. The retaining pin broke and the spring and plunger fell out of the rifle. Around 1998 the Air Force began acquiring a limited number of M4 carbines for our special operations members, dog handlers, and some security forces to replace our aging GAU/GUU series of short barreled M16 type carbines and SMGs. When 911 occurred, the demand for M4s quickly skyrocketed. I was responsible for writing a letter of explanation regarding our options for acquiring more M4s or updating existing firearms to M4 specs for our forward deploying support units. The immediate result was that we got some M4s loaned to us from our Security Force. At the same time the Air Force had begun an M16 upgrade program to make our rifles M16A2 compatible, but the only organization I knew which had actually funded and begun this transition were our Civil Engineers. All other Airmen were deploying with unmodified M16s. This created a supply issue because the Army was responsible for in-theater small arms ammunition. The Army no longer had stockpiles of M193 ammo and were only issuing M885. The latter round had proven to be inaccurate and unstable when fired through our 1:12 twist barrels at all but the closest range. It took about a year to resolve this problem. Regarding the features of the M16A2, I was in a rather unique position in the mid-1980s to evaluate it because I had privately acquired an actual Colt M16A2 from a class 3 friend. At the time I placed the order I requested the three-shot burst feature. What showed up was a Canadian version - at least that is what we called it because it had every A2 feature except the burst. It was even marked "Burst". Over time I was glad mine was FA instead burst. The longer stock fit me better than the M16 stock (this was before body armor became standard). I also much preferred the A2 rear sight when sighting in at 100 yards because it was much easier to make fine sight adjustments for different loads. I confess it never dawned on me this might be a liability to the average soldier under combat conditions. I also agree it takes practice to use this sight at extended ranges because it is a confusing setup if you are not familiar with how to adjust it. I loved the built-in brass deflector, but did not care for the extra weight of the rifle. My only real complaints were that it lacked an ambidextrous safety and night sights. I read an article a few years later where the project officer claimed he was forced to limit the number of slides he could show senior officers in a selection board presentation, so the last slide was dropped. On it were the night sights and ambi safety.
My father was in Vietnam, he said, they never used the sights. He was on a 106 recoil-less rifle, so they'd set up a fire base, therefore his whole "infantry like" combat was in patrolling. So, other people probably had different experiences, but... He said they'd walk around on patrol. When someone started shooting at them they would simply pull the trigger and dump a mag as they hit the dirt. No matter where it was aimed (of course this means, carrying the weapon pointed in the general direction you're supposed to have it, but maybe pointed at the ground 10 yards down range, or at the horizon). Anyway, the point was to start shooting back regardless. Then while trying to get to cover or staying put on the ground firing off mag after mag in you sector of fire until the bad guys ran away. He said he got a gas mask carrier and filled it with magazines just for patrols. The effectiveness of this strategy is hard to gauge, while he made it home, he told me his unit had a high casualty rate.
As a Jarhead from ‘87 thru ‘91. I recall being told 3 round burst was in an effort to minimize the whole squad dumping there mags at the same time in an ambush. Having everyone change mags at the same time is no bueno in an ambush. 😢 thanks for the videos. Sub’d 👍🏻
"This was designed for the Marine Corps to qualify on their precision shooting which had no bearing on real combat", my Crayola eating brain is insulated but understanding. We started doing more close range and urban related training recently (went through in 2013) but even then it was a bit frustrating to have the M16A4s during urban terrain stuff because the length was so long. Yeah, you can do it, and God bless anyone that did, but it was not the best rifle for every role. Still love it to death death I prefer the way carry handles and 20" barrels look compared to all the red dots and 16" or shorter barrels we see in the general population.
Everybody has M4s and M27s now. M16s are basically relegated to training roles, and in boot camp the M16s get collapsing stocks and H6 buffers (yes, are still 20" rifle uppers)
I used both theA1 and A2 qualified expert with the A2. It was the A2 that saw me through the first gulf wars! I personally found it to be an absolutely reliable, accurate rifle!! Didn't care much about the 3 round burst, would have preferred 2 round.. That being said I loved this rifle, never let me down !! 🇺🇸☠️🇺🇸
It is interesting to hear such an opinion about M16, from a man who used it in combat, in the Russian Federation there are still myths that M16 is extremely unreliable and wedges from a grain of sand.
6:19 "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." The Soviets themselves knew by 1974 that a smaller caliber, at higher velocity, was the way to go. Hence their AK-74/caliber reduction from 7.62 to 5.45.
Funny enough Kalashnikov personally opposed the change of caliber and preferred the penetration and “stopping power” of the 7.62x39. It seems no likes it when others less mess with their babies for better or worse.
@@notbadsince97 Most of the bullets energy doesn't dump in a 7.62x39, it flies right thru. 5.56 practically pops people compared to it, human targets are not steel plates kalashnikov
As a target rifle, I have to agree with Henry from 9-hole Reviews as I also prefer the A2 sights. As a combat rifle? I can see why folks like LAV preferred the "set and forget" solution the A1 sights offer. But what do I know. I was a 19K. If I needed to resort to using a rifle (or carbine), it meant there was BIG trouble in little China, so to speak.
Great video. Agreed completely on the A2 sights. It's why when I set out to build a "classic" 20", I went with a C7 upper for the A1 sight along with the benefits of some of the A2 revisions. And it's probably my favorite AR in my collection.
I just built the C7, A1, also..used a light weight barrel, A2 front sight, original A1 handguards and A1 butt stock. Finally@ 51 years later! Class of 1972!
In Desert Storm my personal weapon was an XM16E1. The Marines all had the A2 and liked some features of the A1 such as sights that can't be misadjusted once set and the full-auto. I was in NMCB-74, Seabees at Raas Al Mishab for quite a few months. The gear we had was from war-stores at Camp Shields, Okinawa.
I was in the Marines in the mid 80s.I qualified with the A1 and while in the fleet the A2 was issued. In my opinion, this episode was completely correct. With the A1, once the site was zeroed, leave it alone. With the A2, since the rear sight was easy to adjust, I was changing every so often to get the perfect shot. Thanks for the information.
I went to basic training in Fort Leonard Wood in 2007. Some of our m16s were a1/a2 conversions that even still had a1 light weight barrels and over stamped a1 lowers.
I got issued the M16A2 in October of 91 when I went to Paris Island. I shot expert. That surprised my drill instructors, but it didn’t surprise me. I loved that rifle. I wish I had one.
First I would like to complement you on your information very accurate. I am 75 years old I arrived in vietnam November of 1966 before we got off the ship we were issued the add on selector switch for our m14 the rifle fired really fast on full auto and hard to control I was in m 42 ai self propelled twin 40mm duster sometime in 1967 the first m16 arrived the infantry soldiers said the buffer was to light and they would attempt to double feed one fix was to only put 18 rounds in 20 round magazine the barrel and chamber were not chrome lined cartridges tended to stick in chamber infantry all carried cleaning rods assembled to knock stuck rounds out of chamber the bolt was made out of steel but the bolt carrier was aluminum and as most know similar when heated in motion seizing was a problem also the rifle was designed to use stick powder which is much cleaner burning than ball powder so cleaning kits at first weren't issued the army was using ball powder with calcium carbonate preservative it was stopping up the gas tube some infantrymen were found dead with their weapons apart trying to fix them also the first one in 14 twist didn't really stabilize 55 grain bullet soldiers were asking family's to send them guns some guys were even carrying leveraging rifles sent from home army bean counters probably killed as many men as THE VC I am glad I have lived long enough to tell the story very sad after the improvements done to the m16 it is now a good weapon but only for close combat sadly nothing will bring back the soldiers rat died because of the first ones
I had an M-16A1 in basic/AIT and then in my reserve unit in the early 1990s, I didn't see an A2 until ROTC in the early 90s. Interestingly, all out our M16A1s had the A2 butt plate and some had the A2 front stock/handguard. I suppose those were unit level changes that armorers could make. 6:28 - Not really. You can put down a hell of a rate of fire just by pulling the trigger as fast as you can on semi. Moreover the A2 came in after the M249 entered service and that weapon was issued everywhere, but most of all two per infantry squad. So, really, volume of fire was not an issue.
Semi does not work in an ambush. That was proven in several Army studies. This is the reason the BURST was finally got rid of. Troops with semi M14 could not match the AK47 fire in the early days of Vietnam. Lots of things work good on a target range but not in the real world.
@@SmallArmsSolutions Near ambush or far ambush. The fact that burst lasted nearly thirty years proves it was not a problem and semi works fine in a firefight, ambush or not. Suppressive fire is suppressive fire whether you are pulling the trigger repeatedly or holding it down. The volume of fire and accuracy is what matters and you can achieve both on semi, never mind the fact that, once again, the Army gave it's squads not one, but two belt fed M249s for that job.
Actually no. When the A2 came out in 85, it never saw somewhat real combat on any scale till Gulf War 1. It was not till GWOT where there a was a lot of real ground fighting. We no have omitted the BURST because of that. Another interesting tie bit for you, while at Colt, they never sold BURST guns to any customer other than the US Govt. Every foreign sale used AUTO. BURST was a dumb idea and invented during peace time but proven ineffective in war. Check out the reports from the early Vietnam War, I believe Hitch and Crossman reports showing how few troops engaged in an ambush with semi-auto M14’s. The semi auto M14 could not match the AK47 in an ambush.
Thank you for a wonderful presentation. This rifle is literally a history read of various generations of American soldiers. I used the "mattel toy version" LOL! Back in boot camp at Ft. Knox in 1987. For all its issues, it is still an enduring design.
USMC ret 94-2014.. 03MOS.. i went through the A2 to M4..lol Expert.. I had no idea soo many things went into this .. this was such a wonderful video to learn. WoW thanx !!!!
It would be interesting to discuss how the M1 Carbine influenced the designs of both the M16 and AK-47. The idea of the “light rifle/PDW” combined with the assault rifle concept directly influenced facets of the M16 design. The AK’s rotating bolt design and charging handle came directly from the M1.
I love how there are so many different answers to why they made the A2 barrel profile. My favorite is that marines use their rifle as a pry-bar and bend barrels, which is stupid.
Best description of the FA I ever read. People who understand the purpose and limitations of the FA like ‘em. People who use them to smash a malfunction deeper into the upper, think they’re useless.
@@jcoolG192- I've literally never used my forward-assist to correct a malfunction, neither as a infantryman in combat or as a civilian in competition. It's literally useless and was only added as a feel-good feature because "we've always had guns with some form of a forward-assist." Show me a malfunction that was completely resolved by the use of the forward-assist, I'll wait.
@@TrueOpinion99 that's the point. It does nothing to fix malfunctions, except when the bolt fails to completely go into battery. It serves the same purpose as a charging handle on an AK, M-14 or any other rifle with a reciprocating handle in that circumstance. The most famous, and most recent case is Kyle Rittenhouse. If you watch the blown up video, Huber's hand looks like it was on the receiver when Rittenhouse fired. If Huber's hand was in contact with the bolt, it may have robbed the recoil spring of the energy needed to fully seat the bolt. Rittenhouse pushed the FA with his thumb, seating the bolt fully, and allowing him to engage Grosskreutz. There was no time for SPORTS. The FA probably saved his life.
Lol I just inspected over 300 M16A2's to send back to depot. A lot of early Armalite original 601 lowers with no fencing and the role pin at the receiver extension. Also the front pivot pin came completely out. Ive got some pics if interested.
I had an A1 in ROTC summer camp in 1980. It was very worn, but was one of the most accurate rifles I have ever fired...sort of! It would cut incredibly small groups at any range until you moved your cheek weld. The barrel was loose on the upper receiver, the upper was loose on the lower, and the butt stock was loose on the lower. As long as you held it all tight it was great, but as soon as you, say, lifted your head to see what was going on, it shifted everything, including the point of impact by 8 to 10 inches at 100 yards! Then it was back to tiny groups...somewhere else. Good times!
As an old Corps veteran of the 1960s-70s I got to carry and annually requalify with the M-14 and M-16. The M16A1 and A2 didn't get to me before I was discharged. So I appreciate the insight and discussion of the A1 and A2 pro and con which followed my service time. I agree that the adjustable rear sight makes it more of a target rifle for the Marine Corps. During my time in Vietnam we had the hard to adjust (Stoner preferred) rear/front sight, use the tip of the cartridge.
What you describe between the XM855 and M193 ammo and groups/accuracy is exactly what I recently went through trying to zero a 16" upper. The 855 was all over the place at only 25 yards (!), zeroing for 100 in a .223 Wylde chambered upper and a 1-6X. I thought there had to be something wrong with the gun, or the scope, or baffle strikes with my suppressor. I happened to have a box of 193, loaded up changing nothing else and got one ragged hole the size of a small grape. The XM855 was from a Federal green can, with the Lake City stamps on rims. Someone suggested that it may have been QC rejects just sold off. But man, that's just dangerous. Never mind missing a man-sized target at 100 yds, that's almost missing the entire berm!
11:59 minutes. I appreciate your opinion and thank you for the perspective you bring from the army. It would be interesting to have a similar long form presentation from a Marine. I can only tell that this rifle kept me alive. My buddy and I were able to effectively engage combatants at over 450 yards with no optics. Range verified with old ass rangefinder that picked up on a whim and threw into my lce Buttpack at last minute.
Thank you. Engagements usually occur within 300 yards, but that is not an ironclad fact. Relying on generalisations is just inviting Murphy to ruin your day. I can vaguely recall reading a report from Vietnam of troops armed with M16A1s getting pinned down by VC or NVA forces with SKSs. While 5.56 has a flatter trajectory than 7.62x39, the SKS sight allows them to compensate for the range, unlike the M16 armed troops who were guesstimating due to their rudementary sights. The A2 rear sight doesn't add that much weight nor complexity for the advantage it brings
eugene stoner was a great guy . i knew him in the late 70's when he lived down the street from me . he was working at cadillac gage in warren mi on the stoner 64 to update it for the 80's . he gave me my first ar15 in 78 . sadly it was stolen in 86 . taught me the in's and out's of the ar 15 .
Im glad to hear you state the 1:9 twist is ideal. Out of my Colts I have an a1 topped 20 inch 1/7 and my 6920 M4 1/7, but I have an oddball Colt Govt carbine out of the 90s with an m4 profile barrel, fixed a2 carry handle stamped 4, and the 1/9. As Jayne Cobb would say, "This is my very favorite gun."
I was serving in the Canadian military when we transitioned from the FNC1 to the C7. I for one am very glad our military didn't adopt the burst limiter and chose to adopt the rifle with the A1 type rear sight instead of the A2 sight. As to the weight issue, the C7 at just under 8 lbs was noticeably lighter than the FN, which was 9/12 lbs empty and closer to 11 when fully loaded. I never heard anyone complain about the weight of the C7.
Mostly he has said that he doesn't agree with the pencil barrel as something Stoner would have done, mainly because the AR family barrels only got heavier with time.
@@Scott-qq9jd that's the thing the original reason for the ar was a very light rifle, the combat style and the action on the person carrying it eventually determines the style of barrel they will need
Two things about the A2 barrel Chris was apparently unaware of: First; the reason the barrel was "original" under the handguards was the desire to not have to redesign the M203 grenade launcher to fit a larger barrel diameter ... like that from the rear of the front sight base to the flash suppressor. Second: the reason it had been enlarged in the front had to do with "grunts" using their rifles and bayonets to pry open crates, bending the barrel by doing so. My source for this "trivia"? 🤔 No less than Colt's Rob Roy himself. 😏 There was also a change to the A2 lower receiver not revealed here: a change in the magazine well itself. Exactly what that change was ... well, Rob never would get specific on that apparently significant change. It would be interesting to do an A-B comparison between A1 and A2 receivers on a CCMM and reveal "the secret". 🤫
I am quite aware dude of every change and why. There was no change to the magazine well. I know this tdp very well. The heavy profile of the front of the barrel served no logical purpose. The barrel bends in the middle under nearly all conditions.
@@SmallArmsSolutions : You say there was no change in the magazine well ... Rob Roy told me there was. I'll leave it at that. Same about the A2 barrel. BTW: at that time I was an ATF licensed Title II, SOT-paying NFA Machine Gun Manufacturer; that's why Rob and I got along so well.
No change to mag well, only the front pivot pin was reenforced. Don’t know what you heard. But the drawings and engineering change orders don’t lie. The reason given for the front of the barrel was to prevent damage during parachuting. It never worked because the barrel bent under the handguard. The crate prying was the reason going from a 3-prong to the birdcage flash hider in the Vietnam war.
When it comes to accuracy in combat, it comes down to the operator of the weapon. As a none combat former trooper, my statements might not be as solid, but I seen many utubes of troops in action still do the spread and prey (I might do it too out of panic). The M16 was made as an assault weapon of up to 350 meters because after action info showed that most combat was in this range and if closer where your charging the enemy to take his ground from him, it's putting the rifle on rock and roll for the CQC. But now their replacing the M16 M4 series with a rifle with bigger bullet for the long range stuff like in Afghanistan from the long range ambushes. That's because the political leadership is taking our military out of it's true job roles and back into police in a far off land AGAIN.
I entered active duty with the Marines in 1975, transferred to the Army in 1980, and retired from the National Guard in 2010. I missed the M14 rifle in basic training by two weeks, used the M16A1 until 1988, and then it was the M16A2 until retirement. I was service/support (avionics, electronic warfare, multichannel communications) and in 1984 graduated at the top of my class from the Fort Riley Unit Armorer Course (I knew the weapons, but the paperwork and security procedures were something I needed to learn, especially AR 190-11) and I was often range cadre when my units qualified. The slip rings and hand guards were decided improvements. I had trouble when soldiers mixed up the 300- and 800-meter settings on the rear sight. On both the M16A1 and M16A2 the flip-up sight routinely caused problems because some of the soldiers were just not paying attention. Their ASVAB scores indicated that they could learn--they didn't because they qualified once or twice a year and that was it. The closed bottom of the flash suppressor did help keep firing signature low by kicking up less dust, but one of the results of firing rifles from prone was the muzzle blast would dig a shallow trench. I had little problem with the "improved" sights because I had a bit more training than the other soldiers--if rifle training was longer and better quality, those issues would have gone away. Never did like the burst control device--especially the progressive three-shot device Colt made. My first experience with the M16A2 on the range was being called in off leave to provide remedial instruction. The trigger had six different trigger pulls depending upon cam position. My solution was teaching trigger control. I had been called in because there was a high percentage of UNQUAL and no experts. After my class the rest of the company went to the range (I wasn't invited) and the scores went back up to 20% expert, 40% sharpshooter and 40% marksman. Just switching the trigger dumped those scores. Training in proper semi-auto trigger control fixed it.
I was a US Marine infantryman from '83 to '87 who served as an automatic rifleman in his fireteam. I carried an M16A1 to fulfill my duties as an automatic rifleman up until 1985 as my unit hadn't yet been issued the FN M249 SAW. I was even still allowed to qualify with it when we did our annual qualification at the rifle range. Once we got the M249's, my only experience with the M16A2 in service was during qualification. But I did buy the civilian version when it was available. It was a Bushmaster rifle and I still own it today.
Great evaluation. Though I disagree with a few of your evaluations, "personal preference," I find your evaluations, thoughts and concerns well thought out and very well produced. Thank you.
Shows that the US is more interested in money and outcome rather than the person behind the weapon! God bless Stoner and thanks small arm solutions for the vid
My M16 basic training rifle in 1978 was a Harrington & Richardson with a Lion logo! I think looking into this would make an interesting segment as I have never heard it mentioned anywhere.
Only comment I’m going to make is; you’re exactly correct about that barrel. The change doesn’t do a thing to improve it. If they were going to add thickness, and therefore weight, they should’ve kept the barrel the same diameter the whole length. All the heat collects right where it tapers down and it’s a failure point. Otherwise, it’s a great rifle and someone like me will never shoot enough rounds through it probably in it’s lifetime for it to fail during one situation.
I have to say that I completely agree with mr stoners opinion of the strong points of the original design regarding weight and full auto selection. As a former Marine 2002-2006, I qualified with the M16A2 and I personally detested the forward assist and the 3 round burst. I felt the burst left a LOT to be desired. Now as a civilian all of my rifles resemble the early retro style simple ones. Great video. 😎
I believe the greatest accomplishment of the m16a2 was the placebo effect of having a new rifle in production and in the hands of combat troops re establishing confidence in the m16 family of rifles post Vietnam. The m16 did not have a good reputation post Vietnam….BS or not
The A2 sights are really like the forward assist. most of the time you are never going to use them for their intended purpose but its nice to have them regardless. There isn't any recorded instances of GI's throwing off their zero because the sights where too adjustable because frankly they never messed with them unless they where conducting area fire. The concern that the sights will be too adjustable is just conjecture similar to army concerns that full auto would enable GI's to blow through their ammo instead of accurately aiming at the target. The thickened barrel profile on the A2 did help with point of impact shift caused by the pencil barrel of the A1 so it wasn't a useless addition as you pointed out.
It also adds weight on the end, slightly helping you arrest recoil, but this is an unintended benefit. In my opinion, the barrel profile is really the only goofy thing on the M16A2 other than burst. And, well, the barrel profile may be silly... but it did give the Marine Corps confidence to keep doing bayonet training when they might have stopped over something stupid like faux bent barrels. Is that really such a bad price to pay? I don't think so. The M16A2, other than the burst setting, is no grand catastrophe like purists say. I prefer collapsible stocks obviously, but even in body armor A2 length wasn't a problem. Burst, which I went into the military expecting to hate, I was actually able to chain together as essentially a more-involved full automatic. Lt. Col Lutz's compromise kept automatic fire in the rifle, instead of idiots making it semi-only.. If you care, you can make it work.
@@superfamilyallosauridae6505 yeah I've never found the M16a2 all that bad its a natural evolution of the devicencies of the M16a1 people just like to hate on it for no reason to the point of grasping at some pretty weird straws like saying adjustable sights is bad.
@@nemisous83 But the Marine 500 yard target is the size of a jeep! Obviously that's impractical and stupid! (Completely ignore that such big targets let you know where you missed and then learn how to shoot, in a very low tech version of those fancy ranges with screens showing you where you hit)
@@superfamilyallosauridae6505 well yeah the whole target itself is but the black is about the size of an average man standing in theory the point is to practice area fire if you hit thats good but if you miss around the target its still counts as suppression if you miss the target then you need to work on your fundamentals.
I qualified w/ the A1 in mid -84..and later that year had to qualify again w/ the A2. I have always loved the A2 round foregrips coz that is what I was shooting most of my adult life. To this day - I have a love for the A2 rifle. I am just not a fan of the quad rails of today.
want to make the M16/M4 better? several options 1. 30 cal bullet 2. AR-10 3. M-14 4. 20" barrel, get rid of the M4 Carbine 5. better ammo design, similar to the AK-74
My first unit still had M16A1's when I arrived in '87, and was issued an old Harrington & Richardson. The only thing that rifle needed was a set A2 handguards, which eventually became a common thing to see on A1's in the late 80's.
As a former USAF Security Policeman, the USAF was carrying M-16s, not M-16A1s, and they were mostly pre-1969 built. The difference between an M-16 & an M-16A1 can be noted by its lack of a forward assist. Some of our GAU-5s had forward assists, and some of our M-16s were originally cast as A1s, but had the forward assist "bump" machined off prior to it being drilled to accept the forward assist mechanism. The rifle shown at the 0:54 mark is a Colt Model 602 AR-15, as noted by its lack of a fence below the ejection port & around the magazine well, & the image at 1:02 proves it. Also the weapon in shown ABSOLUTELY was a select fire AR-15 intentionally built that way at the factory, and in caliber .223. There were only 3 features on the A2 worth a damn. 1. The pistol grip. 2. The handguards. 3. The square front post. All three could be retrofitted to either the M-16 or the M-16A1. Also the USMC had been RELIGIOUSLY wearing body armor of one type or another since the Korean War, so I have no idea what those morons were thinking when they extended the stock.
90’s.. My Band Rehearsed across the Way From Stoners’ Armalite /Howa Shop in Costa Mesa.. Ol’ Gene gave us the m18 sign to hang up.. and A bunch of scrap parts.. (Cool stuff, heavy)..They were all so cool. They would hang out and listen some times..🤙🏻My Other friend, Mike McHugh Made great Microphones with the Preamps all built into an Ammo can.. I miss Those Days..Surfing, Playing music, Cute Girls, Cool Military gear and a lot of Generals, Cols. And Retired Military big wigs in Newport/Mesa..
Fellow graduate of Ma Benning's School For Wayward Boys - Sand Hill Campus. I carried an A2 for most of my enlistment, though we were transitioned into the M4 in 1998. Aside from a couple of very specific times at the range, we never fired in burst mode. We all hated it, and constantly bemoaned the lack of full auto. And we all loved shooting the SAW, we just hated humping it. Well, those guys that had never been an AG or M60/M240B gunner. We loved the lighter weight. I remember one time, we did a huge dog and pony show for AUSA, and St. Stoner was scheduled to attend. However, that was about the time he fell ill, which would result in his passing. As far as the rear sights, not having used the A1, I have nothing to compare it to. However, I don't ever recall "fidgeting" with knobs and dials. I do recall adjusting the elevation on an as needed basis to engage point targets out to 500m. Lastly, I have two 20rd magazines that saw service in Vietnam. Several of us failed our sham check, and got roped into a hey you detail. We had to help the supply clerk clear out the supply cage, and there was a ton of old stuff. I liberated the two magazines, and though I've since replaced the followers and springs, I still use them. Fantastic video. I already knew the bulk of the material, but it's always nice to learn something that you slept next to more frequently than your ex-wife, back in the day. That, and I had never seen those videos of St. Stoner before. Thanks again.
I was in the Army from '84-'92 and I used the A1 until the last year or so. I qualified with the A1 throughout my career save for the last time I qualified.
Thanks again Chris! I love sitting around at Christmas watching your great gun videos. I was a late bloomer with the AR platform but have built several of late Love your insights and opinions! God bless you and yours and have a GREAT holiday season!
I was stationed at Marine Barracks MP battalion at China Lake Ca in 1961, one day we had a class from either an engineer from Armalite or Colt now what's called the M 16 rifle, as I remember it was green or brown . The engineer was very enthusiastic stating this was to become the next battle rifle of the US Armed Forces, stating no lubrication was needed from the Artic to the Jungles and that the metallurgy was special and had some sort of silicone built in and had a chrome line chamber . As I remember as the rifle was passed around it did seem slick to the touch . Only base engineers tested it along with a couple Sergeants that shot it. Back then we were issued Ml Garand's, we were not impressed it seemed more like a toy than real . The AR stands for Armalite Rifle not Assault Rifle . I have never found any information on the AR coating the engineer explained but is a fact as I remember .
around 75 we started seeing rifles cycling back from southeast asia with a tin stamped piece inserted into the fire control area that would prevent flipping the selector into the full position. our guys were breaking them off. we were still using the GAU/5 for K9s on the fenceline and in the alert pad. the clearing barrel was the only thing getting shot and for that they posted an NCO and made us use one yellow mag on post and the rest were regular 20 rounders. they still shot the clearing barrel. i did 4, 12 month tours in the weapons storage area.
As an old guy who shoots paper targets, I don't need a battle rifle anymore, I NEED an A2! Thank you USMC! Mine are a real pleasure to use at the range!
Good Presentation. I remember handling an original AR-10B that used a steel and aluminum composite barrel. Disaster waiting to blow as it did during extensive testing. NSGA show in Chicago back area out of public view along with some other interesting weapons up to 20mm by other companies. Family Friend Elemr Keith was my pass to see all the goodies. I still have my 1974 production SP-1 with the Colt Scope.
When i was in Marines (México, 1999-2002), we have the "M-16 A2 (model 701, and 30 rounds magazines)" like Primary Weapon, the mechanics has "Safe, 1 shoot, Full Auto", and be training to make a "Double Tap" over target, for the 5.56mm x .45 NATO small caliber than the 7.62mm x .51 NATO and 7.62mm x .39 caliber. It´s light weight for long range patrols, we can carrying 7 magazines instead the 5 magazines of 7.62mm x .51 NATO caliber weapon (HK G3). Was a basic and not complicated Assault Rifle to use and maintenaince in the field, but now exist better AR like the German HK-416 (M27 IAR), and others. AB
One quick note that I read years ago as far as the heavier contour of the A2 barrel in the front end was that Marines were bending barrels during bayonet training.
First time I qualified on M16A2 I was having issues keeping rounds on target. They told me to try shooting the rifle, left-handed. Boom qualified as Marksman the next round. Turns out I am left eye/hand dominant, but my parents forced me to be right-handed. Then the next year, they told me I needed glasses, when I went shooting again. Now I always shoot left handed with prescription glasses.
I used the Canadian version (The C7) in 2 wars, I FULLY credit it's accuracy for saving my life on many occasions!!! I got out with only some 81mm mortar fragments in one calf...
Burst settings are a throw back to the original bolt action military rifles with a magazine cut-off. It was for logistical bureaucrats to micro-manage soldiers back then and is for logistical bureaucrats today.
At least the cut offs had a purpose. In an era of early repeaters and logistical efforts still grappling with how to supply them, cut offs had some use beyond "micro-managing"
The burst setting is a response to troops in Vietnam sticking their M16A1’s over a wall or around trees and firing off entire magazines completely blind. It would have been better just to train people not to do stupid things like that, but why use a better software solution when you can make an inferior hardware solution.
Listening to Eugene Stoner talk about considerations he had towards the M-16, they echo exactly the same ones that Mikhail Kalashnikov and the Soviet brass had towards the AK, AKM and later AK-74. Keep things as simple as possible, make things easier to manufacture, reduce the amount of things soldier can muck around with. Make it soldier-proof and at the same time easy to learn. Looking at the original M-16A1 it's obvious just how much simpler lighter and soldier-friendly it is compared to more advanced models.
Stoner tape's is pretty good watch and insight into Mr Stoner's mindset when creating M16 :)
Now I need to watch Kalashnikov tapes :)
I prefer my early style sight to the A2 style .
The only branch that wanted the more complicated rear sight was the USMC. No other branch was trained to use it the way Marines were. They just set the rifle for battlesight zero and they were done. My dad was USAF CATM for nearly 20 years and told me that's all they did with them.
@Trap Lord Ghost not really due to the complexity, more due to manufacturing quality increase and development in materials. If you make the old configuration with modern methods and materials that have the modern research behind them, you get extremely similar performance. So similar that the difference is pretty much negligible. Aside from the difference in use of optics due to implementation of the flat top, the difference with just irons is damn near identical. Which basically means the only legitimate development was the flat top. Beyond that it's just materials and manufacturing improvements.
What I really appreciated about Stoner and Kalashnikov too is that they both cared about the lives of soldiers and wanted to give them the best rifles they could.
The 3 shot burst was a mechanical solution to a training problem. My experience in the service is weapons training and range time is below minimum for reasonable competence
I'm a service member currently serving(74D). The weapons training is a joke I remember in basic training I was showing guys while in the bay how to shoot because our ds were crappy shots.
I served as an Infantryman, and I was one of the handful of joes that qualified expert on the first go. Most of us shot 40/40. That meant we got to tutor the city boys, so they could just get the minimum. "How come you shoot so good?" "Well, because I've been shooting almost 20 years."
I was the old guy at 24. Even as my enlistment dragged on, and we had a couple real world deployments, most of those guys were really only good for barely effective suppressing fire. The only times they saw dramatic increases in accuracy, was when we were assigned the PAQ-4C, but those were only used for night operations. Kinda hard to miss when you have an infrared laser that is zeroed to the rifle. I would have loved to have still been in when they introduced the ACOG. I've been using similar optics in recent years, and I really do appreciate the increase in accuracy, quick ranging, and distance guesstimation. I would hope that the addition of such an easy to use optic would improve the effectiveness of the average soldier, but from some of the comments, that's not necessarily the case.
@@ericg7183 To my understanding sq leaders get acogs and the rest of the guys get reddots these days. (I'm nbc though not infantry so take that with a grain of salt)
In reality its up to the unit to order optics and such. There are still units out there, (mostly NG) that still issue m16a2s. My unit gave everyone red dots, but we have a few guys who hate the reddots and don't use em. Our cmd dosn't care because their qual scores are better without the optics.
Yeah my experience was there was some instruction in marksmanship but virtually no training on weapon handling, to include recoil control and effective followup shots.
depends on the unit and the people and your MOS, if you're a cook then yeah your training is gonna be a joke, but if you're an 11B, most of your day is revolved around tactics and technique training with your weapon. I was a medic for infantry and they would come grab me to run rifle drills with the new guys as the baseline, "if you can't beat Doc at this, we're gonna drill the shit outta you." but I spent hundreds of hours on the range with my line unit, they made sure I qualified expert before teaching me anything else, and these are people who were in the Army for 12-15 years and had been to Iraq and Afghanistan a few times by then
The medical unit I was in during 2018 had a M16A2 built on a Harrington and Richardson A1 lower. They ground off the 1 and stamped it with a 2. That was an interesting piece of history to hold.
My last M4 in the 82nd, circa 2007, was an FM M16 lower ground down and restamped M4.
I saw one of those in the hands of a TXARNG soldier in Iraq in 09....
My "new" M4A1 in 2016 was an M4 with XX stamped over the M4 and M4A1 cut into the reciever under that. Some things never change in the US Army lol
I carried a General Motors built by one of their Divisions M16 Rifle in the USAF Security Police. It was at Eielson AFB, Alaska in Summer 1989. When the NCOIC of the Security Police Squadron handed me that Rifle for my issue, I was WTF! It was a worn out rattle trap. I carried it for a month when working on the Resource Security side on the Aircraft Ramp. I wish I had taken a photo of it . Right before I had to qualify on the Range. I was reissued a Colt M16 Rifle.
Army Inf. '86-'92. I transitioned to the A2 while stationed in Panama in '87. My A1 was basically spray painted by the armorer a few times a year and was a broken down rattletrap. Probably a great rifle 20 years prior but badly in need of replacement. Same with our 1911s that were also replaced in '87 with the M9. Great design, just worn out and we were glad to get something new- no matter what it was. We loved the A2s. Everyone shot better and had more confidence in the functionality of their weapon. We actually didn't mind the extra weight. The most common comment I recall from back then was "now this feels like a real weapon and not a toy." 203 gunners shot better too. We humped more than any light inf unit in the Army back then- up the mountain, down the mountain, all night long more times than I can count. My feet and knees are still a wreck 30 years later. Nobody bitched about the A2 weighing too much. 2 NCOs from the AMU came down and ran a weeklong course on the KD range down there at Empire. By the end of the week we were hitting 40 for 40 at 800 meters with the A2. I was amazed. I had laughed at the start of the week when the instructors said we'd be hitting regular at 800m by the end of the week. We were taught to do all that "turning and fidgeting" with the sights to utilize them from beyond the usual 300m out to 800m. When that was mated up with our prior 0-300m training we were good. The officers that talked with Stoner were full of it IMO. Typical low opinion of EMs by officers with superiority complexes. We handled the "complicated" rear sight just fine. Just in time too as Just Cause went down a year later and we were in it up to our eyeballs as one of the 2 inf. battalions permanently stationed down there. Desert Storm was soon after that for me as I had PCS-ed to the 101. A2 was fine in both and nobody was wrecking their sights in combat. Yeah, the 3 round burst was a let down and we were PO-ed in the beginning. We fired semi 90% of the time in combat anyway I soon found out. The need for a full auto rifle in combat is overrated. The SAWs and 60s took care of that. In mech units you had the weaponry on the vehicle that was full auto as well. We can nitpick 40 years later but for a guy who was there on the ground with it in 2 wars, I was glad to have it. Have a civ version Colt A2 in my safe to this day next to my M1 and the usual old guy hunting rifles and shotguns.
Damn 2 wars
Awesome testimony, great read.
I have basically the same opinion without the proofs of two wars. Thx!
Thank you for your service.
Agreed was in from 88-94 .
I doubt that anyone would argue that Eugene Stoner was a great designer. So no disrespect intended by my comments.
I spent 9 years active duty and 14 years in the Marine Corps Reserve. My MOS’s were Infantry Weapons Repair, Artillery Repair, and Marksmanship Instructor / Competitor.
I Earned the Marine Corps Distinguished Rifle Badge in 1997 and Distinguished Pistol Shot Badge in 1999. Which makes me 1 of less than 500 Marines in the history of the Competition in Arms Program to earn the title Double Distinguished. The CIAP started in 1901.
I spent 28 plus years in LE and have a ton of training under my belt from that. So I’m qualified to speak on this from the point of view of the end user, armorer, and instructor.
Overall the M16A2 filled the anticipated mission. This was the beginning of the 1980’s and the fight was going to be with the Warsaw Pact in Western Europe.
So they wanted the capability to penetrate a Soviet helmet at 800 meters. That led to the SS109 / M855 round. And probably had something to do with the 800 Meter marking on the elevation knob.
The flash suppressor being replaced by a compensator from the end users view was a non-issue. They never really noticed a difference.
Barrel profile was an issue due to bending. But what they changed didn’t fix the problem.
The A2 sights were NEVER a serious maintenance issue. The most common problem was the elevation knob losing its distinct clicks due to the holes in the bottom of the knob wearing. And that was rare. Never saw any sights broken from being dropped on them.
As for the mythical FIDGET factor. The M1903, M1917, M1, M14, and later variants of the M1, and M2 Carbines, the M16A2, A3, A4, M4’s, Mark 18’s all had fully adjustable Sights. And Stoner himself designed the AR in the beginning with adjustable sights.
Now I never saw Marines diddling their sights. And I believe the Corps has a lock on the title of MOST ADD / ADHD people in any organization! Marines knew that the rifle they had was theirs, and they knew what the windage and elevation settings were. We even trained them how to mark their sights with paint pens or White Out. In the fall of 1990 every 2 Mar Div unit went to Stone Bay and zeroed their rifles on the 300 line before they deployed to SWA. That’s how serious the issue is in the Corps.
We universally hated the 3 shot burst mechanism. But it was reliable.
The forward assist while rarely needed is useful. I’ve witnessed numerous times where the bolt didn’t full rotate into the locked position. The forward assist handled that.
The new composite plastic was a welcome change from a durability stand point. The grip wasn’t liked for the shelf they added. Didn’t fit most Marines. While I understand lengthening the stock it was a mistake. They should have kept it where it was. Thank God for the more aggressive checkering on the buttplate.
In the end the M16A2 cost more than new M16A1’s. Don’t care. The Congress pisses away millions. The rifle was about 2 pounds heavier. Not ideal, but not the end of the world. As they say in the Corps, I’d you think it’s to heavy then you need to workout more.
The only thing that made the M16A2 less reliable than the M16A1 was the M855 round. That’s because the projectile on the new round had a sharp point. When Marines would try to chamber the first round on a fresh mag, the tip would go straight into the seam where the barrel extension fits into the upper receiver. That caused the bullet to stub. If the Marine performed immediate action they would then cause a double feed. They did 2 things to fix the problem. Changed the profile on the tip of the bullet to a slightly more rounded one like on the M193 round. And they eventually extended the feed ramps adding a chamfer to the upper receiver that blended into the ramps on the barrel extension. Not sure when that change occurred.
Marine Corps Marksmanship doctrine up until around 1990 broke training into 3 phases. Preparatory Phase; that was all the classroom instruction and dry firing on the snapping in drums. Known Distance Firing which was a week of firing the KD course. And the last phase that was rarely conducted was Field Firing which was the units responsibility.
In the end Marines understood the basic fundamentals of marksmanship better than any other service. Heres where the rule of: You cant do, what you don’t know, comes into play. I’d much rather have Marines who know how to fire a precise shot and the skills to do it. As opposed to being in a gunfight with someone only capable of launching a cone of fire. It’s easy to be sloppy, and hard to be precise. Especially if you never learned the skills to be precise.
A big short coming in our doctrine was at close quarters battle. That’s because prior to 911 it wasn’t taught to anyone outside the Recon, Security Forces / FAST Teams, MP, or Infantry units. For the most part the only CQB experts were the Force Recon Marines, and SOTG instructors. And they didn’t have time to teach all that High Speed / Low Drag stuff to regular Marines. Nor did the Marine Corps have enough CQB Ranges.
Marksmanship Instructors and some switched on Marines knew when it comes to engagement under field conditions iron sights left a lot to be desired. Marines had tried to get red dots and optics like the ACOG adopted well before 2004. Force Recon did a little work with the Armeson OEG reflex sight in the late 80’s. Echo Company 2/24, 4th Mar Div deployed to SWA in Dec of 1990 with ACOGS on squad leaders rifles. Fire Team Leaders had OEG reflex sight on theirs. Saw that with my own eyes. They were billeted in B Range barracks at Stone Bay, Camp Lejeune while going through training which was where I lived.
Last point I want to make is this; to make a top notch weapon or anything for that matter requires teamwork. The designer, the engineer with the 50 pound brain, and the subject matter expert who knows how to use it and will teach others how to use it. All to frequently the SME is left out of the equation or ignored.
PS: At the end of the day Stoner could take heart in this. Most of our soldiers and Marines that died because their M16 failed were carrying M16’s or M16E1’s during Vietnam. The cause being lack of a chrome lined barrel, lack of proper training and cleaning kits with regards to operator level maintenance, and early ammo loaded with ball powder which caused clogging of the gas system. That was the fault of people above his pay grade who thought they knew better.
Kind of the way Admirals made Grumman use the Pieces Of Shit TF 30 engine in the F14A.
Too long, didnt read
Great points but it wasn't just the jarheads
Interesting info, thanks
Interesting and highly informative
It was interesting, but if you can find a leather neck magazine from Dec 79, I guess that the 3 round was my fault.@@planetcaravan2925
Having converted from M14/M1s to M16A1s, in the Marines, I agree. We even had the 3-prong in Vietnam. They worked just fine but too many Marines were using the open flash hider to twist off the wire on c-ration cases and twinking the barrels. I was out when A2s came along but shot them later, I wandered why the change. The 3-round burst was a bust without a full auto option (although, if a burst was used, I liked a 2-round burst better to keep rounds on target. I fired A2s and felt it would be dangerous for any GIs. A change in twist (like the Canadians did) would have fixed the issue of the M855 round. Red dots, etc. work great on the A1 handle (as folks are finding on the RETROs). Nice to hear others think the A2 was misthought. I have also heard others say that if they wanted to take a M16 back to a combat situation, they would rather have a M16A1. I built an AR version while the A1 was still in issue. She still shoots just fine. She also wears an original Colt 3x scope. I was RETRO before it was retro. Thanks for the video.
Fun fact: The Army actually was very skeptical of the M16A2 burst feature and removal of the full-auto mode, even citing the G11 Rifle beign developed by Germany at the time, which had the 2100RPM 3-round hyperburst but DID NOT remove full-auto.
They also noted that a 5-Round burst would be the optimal round count for hit probability if they aren't doing any high-ROF/Low-Recoil solutions like the G11.
And also they really disliked the burst mechanism added complexity and how it had a janky reset.
Retro before it was retro.
That's just old, soldier.
Thanks for your service and comment.
Brownells now has a 4x and 3x scopes for fixed handle. Made by same company in Japan that made the originals.
Best retro optic is a armson OEG
The engineers in my neighborhood worked for Mellonics and Natick to improve the M16A1 at Rock Island. These engineers worked on an Army (not Marines) contract. The goal was to make the M16 better for the Army Soldiers, females, and smaller allies. There were many arguments between the engineers and the Army on one side and the Marines on the other side. Dirty tricks were played, and the Marines got their way. Thank you for giving a balanced point of view about the M16A2. Some of the A2 "improvements" were backwards. 30 years later... We got many of the improvements made available. This review is so much more beneficial than the brainwashing that many get in the military and police training circles. Who cares about the truth when confidence in the M16 is more important? The Stoner videos are pretty cool. Stoner wasn't perfect, but his interviews are cool.
P.S. I really appreciate Chris' more accurate info about the AR, much better than the History Channel.
Check out my comment and the Marine that immediately popped up to say "f*** you and your facts, A2 is better because feelings".
I do know this, as a Marine we marked our zero and remembered it. The rifle was our most cherished and loved piece of gear.
There really wasn't any dirty tricks on the Marines part because the Marines weren't the ones marketing the rifle to the other branches it was Colt. the 3 round burst limiter was a Colt idea to appeal to the bean counters in the pentagon who wanted to save money at any cost.
@@bBlaF i mean aside from the burst limiter which everyone agrees was a bad idea even the military the M16A2 was objectively a better rifle than the A1.
1. Better muzzle device.
2. Thicker barrel reduced point of impact shift when the barrel got hot
3. Furniture that did crack and break when it took a hard fall
4. Longer length of pull for taller American shooters (the A1 length of pull was designed for smaller stature soldiers)
5. Even though adjustable sight are largely only for rifle qualification and area fire they are still slightly better than having a rear sight that requires you to use a tool to change the elevation.
All he changes on the A2 aside from rear sight where on the C7 yet people praise that rifle but condemn the former.
@@nemisous83 A2 birdcage and furniture are better. POI still shifts with heat, just maybe a bit less and it takes a few more shots to get that hot. The increased length of pull might be a bit of a service to those 6'2" and up, and a neutral change for those 5'10" to 6'1", but it is an outright detriment to anyone 5'9" and below, which is an overwhelming majority of those who had to use the thing. A1 length serves far better as a universal LOP. I don't mind the more complex sight, but I never needed the adjustment to shoot as far as I can identify targets without magnification.
I got issued an FN-made M16A2 when I went through basic training at Ft. Benning in 1996. I qualified expert on it, but then it was _not_ taken away and replaced with an M16A1 for the rest of training. While I was at the 30th AG, after inprocessing was completed, but still waiting to be assigned to a training company, I and several of my fellow recruits were detailed to the post armory for a couple of days to work as gofers for the people who ran it. They were mainly DOD civilians who were retired army. I did see a lot of M16A1s in that building, and even racks of M1911A1s. One old Vietnam vet who worked there stated flatly that he thought the M16A1 was a superior combat rifle to the A2, and for precisely the reasons explained here.
Military Expert is equal to the lowest Civilian qualification - Congrats on your Expert Military qualification.
He was right
@@tedbaxter5234 Congrats on being the sort of person who just can't pass up an opportunity to make a snide, condescending remark to a complete stranger. On Christmas day no less. Nice to see that holiday spirit.
@@Hibernicus1968 Agree that was pretty douchey by Ted
@@Pwj579 Some people are just like that. I don't lose sleep over it.
The cartridge case deflector is such a simple and elegant solution to managing ejection issues.
Eugene Stoner, is an AMERICAN LEGEND!!! 🙏🏻
I love watching his old interviews from the 90s, you can really tell What all of his work meant to him, Little did we know at the time how much it would mean to all of us!🇺🇸
AMERICA STRONG
STAY FREE
LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC
🦅🇺🇸🌟
@@tyjax5119
AMERICA STRONG
STAY FREE
LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC
Qualified with and carried the A2 from 97 to 03, as Marine 0612 (formerly 2512). I have some nostalgia for it, but I was always conscious that it wasn’t built for me. As an Asian mutt, the stock was way too long for my arms, especially with a flak jacket or Interceptor armor vest on. Also, the overall length was a pain while laying wire or installing field phones.
I would have preferred an M4 for convenience and fit, but back then only high-speed low-drag units got M4s, and only E-5s and up were issued pistols, at least at my unit.
Qualified in Marine Corps with M-16A1 in 1985. That thing rattled and was nearly worn out.
I liked the front post on the A1 but qualified much better with the A2. (86-89).
Thank you for sharing this material.
I qual in the Marines with the A1 in '81. My unit switched over to A2 in '85. The A2 was a godsend.
Then after I got out of the USMC and a few years in between, went into law enforcement...and was issued a patrol rifle...an ancient M16A1😄
My unit made the switch in 1984. I always thought the 3 shot burst was stupid . Also the rear elevation adjustment increment markings were over complicated.
Mine rattled too. That's because they were Vietnam era.
I shot an A1 at basic to qualify in the Air Force back in 2001😂I thought it was pretty cool, but the instructor was giving me crap about getting the crappy old one.
My experiences and impressions are similar to yours, just backed up 15 years. Being a southpaw, the first time I fired the M16, a hot ejected case hit my neck and went down my shirt, leaving two burn marks. A range officer saw it happen and installed a brass deflector for me.
I would like to add one small clarification to you excellent review. The Air Force never standardized the M16A1. We used the M16, which we kept rebuilding (I once saw an arsenal refinished XM16 in our inventory). The M16 had no forward assist. Like you, I did not care for it. The only time I ever tried to use one was on a CAR-15 I owned. The retaining pin broke and the spring and plunger fell out of the rifle.
Around 1998 the Air Force began acquiring a limited number of M4 carbines for our special operations members, dog handlers, and some security forces to replace our aging GAU/GUU series of short barreled M16 type carbines and SMGs. When 911 occurred, the demand for M4s quickly skyrocketed. I was responsible for writing a letter of explanation regarding our options for acquiring more M4s or updating existing firearms to M4 specs for our forward deploying support units. The immediate result was that we got some M4s loaned to us from our Security Force. At the same time the Air Force had begun an M16 upgrade program to make our rifles M16A2 compatible, but the only organization I knew which had actually funded and begun this transition were our Civil Engineers. All other Airmen were deploying with unmodified M16s. This created a supply issue because the Army was responsible for in-theater small arms ammunition. The Army no longer had stockpiles of M193 ammo and were only issuing M885. The latter round had proven to be inaccurate and unstable when fired through our 1:12 twist barrels at all but the closest range. It took about a year to resolve this problem.
Regarding the features of the M16A2, I was in a rather unique position in the mid-1980s to evaluate it because I had privately acquired an actual Colt M16A2 from a class 3 friend. At the time I placed the order I requested the three-shot burst feature. What showed up was a Canadian version - at least that is what we called it because it had every A2 feature except the burst. It was even marked "Burst". Over time I was glad mine was FA instead burst. The longer stock fit me better than the M16 stock (this was before body armor became standard). I also much preferred the A2 rear sight when sighting in at 100 yards because it was much easier to make fine sight adjustments for different loads. I confess it never dawned on me this might be a liability to the average soldier under combat conditions. I also agree it takes practice to use this sight at extended ranges because it is a confusing setup if you are not familiar with how to adjust it.
I loved the built-in brass deflector, but did not care for the extra weight of the rifle. My only real complaints were that it lacked an ambidextrous safety and night sights. I read an article a few years later where the project officer claimed he was forced to limit the number of slides he could show senior officers in a selection board presentation, so the last slide was dropped. On it were the night sights and ambi safety.
My father was in Vietnam, he said, they never used the sights. He was on a 106 recoil-less rifle, so they'd set up a fire base, therefore his whole "infantry like" combat was in patrolling. So, other people probably had different experiences, but... He said they'd walk around on patrol. When someone started shooting at them they would simply pull the trigger and dump a mag as they hit the dirt. No matter where it was aimed (of course this means, carrying the weapon pointed in the general direction you're supposed to have it, but maybe pointed at the ground 10 yards down range, or at the horizon). Anyway, the point was to start shooting back regardless. Then while trying to get to cover or staying put on the ground firing off mag after mag in you sector of fire until the bad guys ran away. He said he got a gas mask carrier and filled it with magazines just for patrols. The effectiveness of this strategy is hard to gauge, while he made it home, he told me his unit had a high casualty rate.
Did UR father make it home?
"Surely the next war will be fought on the Camp Lejune KD range." -USMC since the beginning of time.
As a Jarhead from ‘87 thru ‘91. I recall being told 3 round burst was in an effort to minimize the whole squad dumping there mags at the same time in an ambush. Having everyone change mags at the same time is no bueno in an ambush. 😢 thanks for the videos. Sub’d 👍🏻
"This was designed for the Marine Corps to qualify on their precision shooting which had no bearing on real combat", my Crayola eating brain is insulated but understanding. We started doing more close range and urban related training recently (went through in 2013) but even then it was a bit frustrating to have the M16A4s during urban terrain stuff because the length was so long.
Yeah, you can do it, and God bless anyone that did, but it was not the best rifle for every role. Still love it to death death I prefer the way carry handles and 20" barrels look compared to all the red dots and 16" or shorter barrels we see in the general population.
Ni...
Everybody has M4s and M27s now. M16s are basically relegated to training roles, and in boot camp the M16s get collapsing stocks and H6 buffers (yes, are still 20" rifle uppers)
Lots of precision "flat range style" shots being taken in Ukraine rn
I used both theA1 and A2 qualified expert with the A2. It was the A2 that saw me through the first gulf wars! I personally found it to be an absolutely reliable, accurate rifle!! Didn't care much about the 3 round burst, would have preferred 2 round.. That being said I loved this rifle, never let me down !! 🇺🇸☠️🇺🇸
But the Burst was never meant for point targets. It was meant for area suppressing fire. We got the A2s in Dec 86.
Hearing the buffer move in the A2 stock during qual, it is different than a carbine buffer when doing target practice
It is interesting to hear such an opinion about M16, from a man who used it in combat, in the Russian Federation there are still myths that M16 is extremely unreliable and wedges from a grain of sand.
@@ДнищеВтундре the myth is all over the world...its never gona go away i guess
This man knows more about the black rifle than anything I've seen or heard. Great job !
6:19 "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." The Soviets themselves knew by 1974 that a smaller caliber, at higher velocity, was the way to go. Hence their AK-74/caliber reduction from 7.62 to 5.45.
Funny enough Kalashnikov personally opposed the change of caliber and preferred the penetration and “stopping power” of the 7.62x39. It seems no likes it when others less mess with their babies for better or worse.
@@notbadsince97 Most of the bullets energy doesn't dump in a 7.62x39, it flies right thru. 5.56 practically pops people compared to it, human targets are not steel plates kalashnikov
@@AR15andGOD No disagreement here, hence the air quotes
As a target rifle, I have to agree with Henry from 9-hole Reviews as I also prefer the A2 sights.
As a combat rifle? I can see why folks like LAV preferred the "set and forget" solution the A1 sights offer.
But what do I know. I was a 19K. If I needed to resort to using a rifle (or carbine), it meant there was BIG trouble in little China, so to speak.
Excellent! I never understood why they made the A1 sights so hard to change. Now I know and that’s why I enjoy your channel!
Hard? The side wagon wheel?
You make the best gun videos on UA-cam. No flash, no goofy jokes hijinks or annoying music. Just straight information
I am a stoner and I think that the M16 is a great firearm, that covers a wide variety uses. Great video!
My Army days were spent packing M-16A1 1973, I have both & still prefer A1. Old habits, great vid thanks 🪖🇺🇸🪖
Great video. Agreed completely on the A2 sights. It's why when I set out to build a "classic" 20", I went with a C7 upper for the A1 sight along with the benefits of some of the A2 revisions. And it's probably my favorite AR in my collection.
I for sure favor A1 sights over A2 . I kick myself in the ass for not buying Diemaco C7 Stripped Upper couple years ago .
I just built the C7, A1, also..used a light weight barrel, A2 front sight, original A1 handguards and A1 butt stock. Finally@ 51 years later! Class of 1972!
In Desert Storm my personal weapon was an XM16E1. The Marines all had the A2 and liked some features of the A1 such as sights that can't be misadjusted once set and the full-auto. I was in NMCB-74, Seabees at Raas Al Mishab for quite a few months. The gear we had was from war-stores at Camp Shields, Okinawa.
I was in the Marines in the mid 80s.I qualified with the A1 and while in the fleet the A2 was issued.
In my opinion, this episode was completely correct. With the A1, once the site was zeroed, leave it alone. With the A2, since the rear sight was easy to adjust, I was changing every so often to get the perfect shot.
Thanks for the information.
Fascinating stuff! I appreciated your comments and the Stoner interviews were illuminating. Thanks!
I went to basic training in Fort Leonard Wood in 2007. Some of our m16s were a1/a2 conversions that even still had a1 light weight barrels and over stamped a1 lowers.
This is the best video on UA-cam explaining this particular weapon…factual information…saved, shared and subbed.
I got issued the M16A2 in October of 91 when I went to Paris Island. I shot expert. That surprised my drill instructors, but it didn’t surprise me. I loved that rifle. I wish I had one.
Congratulations fron Brazil...
The best channel with technical content around the AR platform
Watching Stoner shoot the rifle in a suit and tie….. priceless !!!! 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
First I would like to complement you on your information very accurate. I am 75 years old I arrived in vietnam November of 1966 before we got off the ship we were issued the add on selector switch for our m14 the rifle fired really fast on full auto and hard to control I was in m 42 ai self propelled twin 40mm duster sometime in 1967 the first m16 arrived the infantry soldiers said the buffer was to light and they would attempt to double feed one fix was to only put 18 rounds in 20 round magazine the barrel and chamber were not chrome lined cartridges tended to stick in chamber infantry all carried cleaning rods assembled to knock stuck rounds out of chamber the bolt was made out of steel but the bolt carrier was aluminum and as most know similar when heated in motion seizing was a problem also the rifle was designed to use stick powder which is much cleaner burning than ball powder so cleaning kits at first weren't issued the army was using ball powder with calcium carbonate preservative it was stopping up the gas tube some infantrymen were found dead with their weapons apart trying to fix them also the first one in 14 twist didn't really stabilize 55 grain bullet soldiers were asking family's to send them guns some guys were even carrying leveraging rifles sent from home army bean counters probably killed as many men as THE VC I am glad I have lived long enough to tell the story very sad after the improvements done to the m16 it is now a good weapon but only for close combat sadly nothing will bring back the soldiers rat died because of the first ones
I hate bean counters
I had an M-16A1 in basic/AIT and then in my reserve unit in the early 1990s, I didn't see an A2 until ROTC in the early 90s. Interestingly, all out our M16A1s had the A2 butt plate and some had the A2 front stock/handguard. I suppose those were unit level changes that armorers could make.
6:28 - Not really. You can put down a hell of a rate of fire just by pulling the trigger as fast as you can on semi. Moreover the A2 came in after the M249 entered service and that weapon was issued everywhere, but most of all two per infantry squad. So, really, volume of fire was not an issue.
Semi does not work in an ambush. That was proven in several Army studies. This is the reason the BURST was finally got rid of. Troops with semi M14 could not match the AK47 fire in the early days of Vietnam. Lots of things work good on a target range but not in the real world.
@@SmallArmsSolutions Near ambush or far ambush. The fact that burst lasted nearly thirty years proves it was not a problem and semi works fine in a firefight, ambush or not. Suppressive fire is suppressive fire whether you are pulling the trigger repeatedly or holding it down. The volume of fire and accuracy is what matters and you can achieve both on semi, never mind the fact that, once again, the Army gave it's squads not one, but two belt fed M249s for that job.
Actually no. When the A2 came out in 85, it never saw somewhat real combat on any scale till Gulf War 1. It was not till GWOT where there a was a lot of real ground fighting. We no have omitted the BURST because of that. Another interesting tie bit for you, while at Colt, they never sold BURST guns to any customer other than the US Govt. Every foreign sale used AUTO. BURST was a dumb idea and invented during peace time but proven ineffective in war. Check out the reports from the early Vietnam War, I believe Hitch and Crossman reports showing how few troops engaged in an ambush with semi-auto M14’s. The semi auto M14 could not match the AK47 in an ambush.
Thank you for a wonderful presentation. This rifle is literally a history read of various generations of American soldiers. I used the "mattel toy version" LOL! Back in boot camp at Ft. Knox in 1987. For all its issues, it is still an enduring design.
"Look how they massacred my boy!" -Eugene 'Corleone' Stoner
Wow, Stoner was thee "man" with the knowledge & the foresight into the future. My only regret is I didn't have the chance to meet this gentleman 😢
I served 12 years in the National Guard, just recently got out. My unit still had the M16A2 until 2019.
USMC ret 94-2014.. 03MOS.. i went through the A2 to M4..lol Expert.. I had no idea soo many things went into this .. this was such a wonderful video to learn. WoW thanx !!!!
When I was a SeaBee, I qualed with the A1 from 87-91. 92 we finally got A2's, which, as a lefty, I loved!
It would be interesting to discuss how the M1 Carbine influenced the designs of both the M16 and AK-47. The idea of the “light rifle/PDW” combined with the assault rifle concept directly influenced facets of the M16 design. The AK’s rotating bolt design and charging handle came directly from the M1.
I love how there are so many different answers to why they made the A2 barrel profile. My favorite is that marines use their rifle as a pry-bar and bend barrels, which is stupid.
Best description of the FA I ever read.
People who understand the purpose and limitations of the FA like ‘em.
People who use them to smash a malfunction deeper into the upper, think they’re useless.
They are useless, even when you're not smashing a malfunction into the chamber.
@@TrueOpinion99 you fall into the second group.
@@jcoolG192- I've literally never used my forward-assist to correct a malfunction, neither as a infantryman in combat or as a civilian in competition. It's literally useless and was only added as a feel-good feature because "we've always had guns with some form of a forward-assist."
Show me a malfunction that was completely resolved by the use of the forward-assist, I'll wait.
@@TrueOpinion99 that's the point. It does nothing to fix malfunctions, except when the bolt fails to completely go into battery. It serves the same purpose as a charging handle on an AK, M-14 or any other rifle with a reciprocating handle in that circumstance.
The most famous, and most recent case is Kyle Rittenhouse. If you watch the blown up video, Huber's hand looks like it was on the receiver when Rittenhouse fired. If Huber's hand was in contact with the bolt, it may have robbed the recoil spring of the energy needed to fully seat the bolt. Rittenhouse pushed the FA with his thumb, seating the bolt fully, and allowing him to engage Grosskreutz. There was no time for SPORTS. The FA probably saved his life.
Lol I just inspected over 300 M16A2's to send back to depot. A lot of early Armalite original 601 lowers with no fencing and the role pin at the receiver extension. Also the front pivot pin came completely out. Ive got some pics if interested.
I had an A1 in ROTC summer camp in 1980. It was very worn, but was one of the most accurate rifles I have ever fired...sort of! It would cut incredibly small groups at any range until you moved your cheek weld. The barrel was loose on the upper receiver, the upper was loose on the lower, and the butt stock was loose on the lower. As long as you held it all tight it was great, but as soon as you, say, lifted your head to see what was going on, it shifted everything, including the point of impact by 8 to 10 inches at 100 yards! Then it was back to tiny groups...somewhere else. Good times!
Very good Video as always. My perception has always been, that the Marine Corps tried to make the M16 more like a rifle and less a Sturmgewehr.
This channel is a gold mine of firearms knowledge
As an old Corps veteran of the 1960s-70s I got to carry and annually requalify with the M-14 and M-16. The M16A1 and A2 didn't get to me before I was discharged. So I appreciate the insight and discussion of the A1 and A2 pro and con which followed my service time. I agree that the adjustable rear sight makes it more of a target rifle for the Marine Corps. During my time in Vietnam we had the hard to adjust (Stoner preferred) rear/front sight, use the tip of the cartridge.
The foreword assist was a necessary improvement. I have had to use it quite a few times using the M16.
You should not ride the charging handle forward
What you describe between the XM855 and M193 ammo and groups/accuracy is exactly what I recently went through trying to zero a 16" upper. The 855 was all over the place at only 25 yards (!), zeroing for 100 in a .223 Wylde chambered upper and a 1-6X. I thought there had to be something wrong with the gun, or the scope, or baffle strikes with my suppressor. I happened to have a box of 193, loaded up changing nothing else and got one ragged hole the size of a small grape.
The XM855 was from a Federal green can, with the Lake City stamps on rims. Someone suggested that it may have been QC rejects just sold off. But man, that's just dangerous. Never mind missing a man-sized target at 100 yds, that's almost missing the entire berm!
11:59 minutes. I appreciate your opinion and thank you for the perspective you bring from the army.
It would be interesting to have a similar long form presentation from a Marine.
I can only tell that this rifle kept me alive. My buddy and I were able to effectively engage combatants at over 450 yards with no optics.
Range verified with old ass rangefinder that picked up on a whim and threw into my lce Buttpack at last minute.
Thank you. Engagements usually occur within 300 yards, but that is not an ironclad fact. Relying on generalisations is just inviting Murphy to ruin your day. I can vaguely recall reading a report from Vietnam of troops armed with M16A1s getting pinned down by VC or NVA forces with SKSs. While 5.56 has a flatter trajectory than 7.62x39, the SKS sight allows them to compensate for the range, unlike the M16 armed troops who were guesstimating due to their rudementary sights. The A2 rear sight doesn't add that much weight nor complexity for the advantage it brings
eugene stoner was a great guy . i knew him in the late 70's when he lived down the street from me . he was working at cadillac gage in warren mi on the stoner 64 to update it for the 80's . he gave me my first ar15 in 78 . sadly it was stolen in 86 . taught me the in's and out's of the ar 15 .
the m16 in its raw natural form is one of the most gorgeous rifles out there
I'm glad this video popped up in my recommended, you are a wealth of knowledge, sir.
Im glad to hear you state the 1:9 twist is ideal. Out of my Colts I have an a1 topped 20 inch 1/7 and my 6920 M4 1/7, but I have an oddball Colt Govt carbine out of the 90s with an m4 profile barrel, fixed a2 carry handle stamped 4, and the 1/9. As Jayne Cobb would say, "This is my very favorite gun."
but did you name it "Vera"?
Does a shorter barrel like 16in for example not need more twist?
I was serving in the Canadian military when we transitioned from the FNC1 to the C7. I for one am very glad our military didn't adopt the burst limiter and chose to adopt the rifle with the A1 type rear sight instead of the A2 sight. As to the weight issue, the C7 at just under 8 lbs was noticeably lighter than the FN, which was 9/12 lbs empty and closer to 11 when fully loaded. I never heard anyone complain about the weight of the C7.
You're making me feel nostalgic. Now I want to clone the a2 like I had in basic.
I would love to see your thoughts on the InRange WWSD rifles!
I am most interested in the KP15 lower portion on that review. I have come to love the KP15 and have half a dozen of them.
Unfortunately he hasn't been too kind to it previously. Though Id still be interested to hear his opinion.
Mostly he has said that he doesn't agree with the pencil barrel as something Stoner would have done, mainly because the AR family barrels only got heavier with time.
@@Scott-qq9jd that's the thing the original reason for the ar was a very light rifle, the combat style and the action on the person carrying it eventually determines the style of barrel they will need
@@Scott-qq9jd important to note, those barrels only really got heavy on the models Stoner and co. Didn't work on.
Two things about the A2 barrel Chris was apparently unaware of: First; the reason the barrel was "original" under the handguards was the desire to not have to redesign the M203 grenade launcher to fit a larger barrel diameter ... like that from the rear of the front sight base to the flash suppressor. Second: the reason it had been enlarged in the front had to do with "grunts" using their rifles and bayonets to pry open crates, bending the barrel by doing so. My source for this "trivia"? 🤔 No less than Colt's Rob Roy himself. 😏
There was also a change to the A2 lower receiver not revealed here: a change in the magazine well itself. Exactly what that change was ... well, Rob never would get specific on that apparently significant change. It would be interesting to do an A-B comparison between A1 and A2 receivers on a CCMM and reveal "the secret". 🤫
I am quite aware dude of every change and why. There was no change to the magazine well. I know this tdp very well. The heavy profile of the front of the barrel served no logical purpose. The barrel bends in the middle under nearly all conditions.
@@SmallArmsSolutions : You say there was no change in the magazine well ... Rob Roy told me there was. I'll leave it at that. Same about the A2 barrel. BTW: at that time I was an ATF licensed Title II, SOT-paying NFA Machine Gun Manufacturer; that's why Rob and I got along so well.
No change to mag well, only the front pivot pin was reenforced. Don’t know what you heard. But the drawings and engineering change orders don’t lie. The reason given for the front of the barrel was to prevent damage during parachuting. It never worked because the barrel bent under the handguard. The crate prying was the reason going from a 3-prong to the birdcage flash hider in the Vietnam war.
When it comes to accuracy in combat, it comes down to the operator of the weapon. As a none combat former trooper, my statements might not be as solid, but I seen many utubes of troops in action still do the spread and prey (I might do it too out of panic).
The M16 was made as an assault weapon of up to 350 meters because after action info showed that most combat was in this range and if closer where your charging the enemy to take his ground from him, it's putting the rifle on rock and roll for the CQC.
But now their replacing the M16 M4 series with a rifle with bigger bullet for the long range stuff like in Afghanistan from the long range ambushes. That's because the political leadership is taking our military out of it's true job roles and back into police in a far off land AGAIN.
I entered active duty with the Marines in 1975, transferred to the Army in 1980, and retired from the National Guard in 2010. I missed the M14 rifle in basic training by two weeks, used the M16A1 until 1988, and then it was the M16A2 until retirement. I was service/support (avionics, electronic warfare, multichannel communications) and in 1984 graduated at the top of my class from the Fort Riley Unit Armorer Course (I knew the weapons, but the paperwork and security procedures were something I needed to learn, especially AR 190-11) and I was often range cadre when my units qualified.
The slip rings and hand guards were decided improvements. I had trouble when soldiers mixed up the 300- and 800-meter settings on the rear sight. On both the M16A1 and M16A2 the flip-up sight routinely caused problems because some of the soldiers were just not paying attention. Their ASVAB scores indicated that they could learn--they didn't because they qualified once or twice a year and that was it. The closed bottom of the flash suppressor did help keep firing signature low by kicking up less dust, but one of the results of firing rifles from prone was the muzzle blast would dig a shallow trench. I had little problem with the "improved" sights because I had a bit more training than the other soldiers--if rifle training was longer and better quality, those issues would have gone away.
Never did like the burst control device--especially the progressive three-shot device Colt made. My first experience with the M16A2 on the range was being called in off leave to provide remedial instruction. The trigger had six different trigger pulls depending upon cam position. My solution was teaching trigger control. I had been called in because there was a high percentage of UNQUAL and no experts. After my class the rest of the company went to the range (I wasn't invited) and the scores went back up to 20% expert, 40% sharpshooter and 40% marksman. Just switching the trigger dumped those scores. Training in proper semi-auto trigger control fixed it.
I was a US Marine infantryman from '83 to '87 who served as an automatic rifleman in his fireteam. I carried an M16A1 to fulfill my duties as an automatic rifleman up until 1985 as my unit hadn't yet been issued the FN M249 SAW. I was even still allowed to qualify with it when we did our annual qualification at the rifle range. Once we got the M249's, my only experience with the M16A2 in service was during qualification. But I did buy the civilian version when it was available. It was a Bushmaster rifle and I still own it today.
Great evaluation. Though I disagree with a few of your evaluations, "personal preference," I find your evaluations, thoughts and concerns well thought out and very well produced. Thank you.
History of the M16A2 video and its Christmas eve? What a gift!
Very informative. Thank you!
Shows that the US is more interested in money and outcome rather than the person behind the weapon! God bless Stoner and thanks small arm solutions for the vid
My M16 basic training rifle in 1978 was a Harrington & Richardson with a Lion logo! I think looking into this would make an interesting segment as I have never heard it mentioned anywhere.
I saw an A2 overstamped H&R A1 in Iraq. Ancient lower with a brand new upper. You could see the difference in finish.
Always love these historical videos regarding the AR/M16. Thanks for the upload
I agree and I love that logo.
Only comment I’m going to make is; you’re exactly correct about that barrel. The change doesn’t do a thing to improve it. If they were going to add thickness, and therefore weight, they should’ve kept the barrel the same diameter the whole length. All the heat collects right where it tapers down and it’s a failure point. Otherwise, it’s a great rifle and someone like me will never shoot enough rounds through it probably in it’s lifetime for it to fail during one situation.
I have to say that I completely agree with mr stoners opinion of the strong points of the original design regarding weight and full auto selection. As a former Marine 2002-2006, I qualified with the M16A2 and I personally detested the forward assist and the 3 round burst. I felt the burst left a LOT to be desired. Now as a civilian all of my rifles resemble the early retro style simple ones. Great video. 😎
Issued the A1 in Army,1974...thought it was a toy ,until range time,Expert badge.
I believe the greatest accomplishment of the m16a2 was the placebo effect of having a new rifle in production and in the hands of combat troops re establishing confidence in the m16 family of rifles post Vietnam. The m16 did not have a good reputation post Vietnam….BS or not
The A2 sights are really like the forward assist. most of the time you are never going to use them for their intended purpose but its nice to have them regardless. There isn't any recorded instances of GI's throwing off their zero because the sights where too adjustable because frankly they never messed with them unless they where conducting area fire. The concern that the sights will be too adjustable is just conjecture similar to army concerns that full auto would enable GI's to blow through their ammo instead of accurately aiming at the target.
The thickened barrel profile on the A2 did help with point of impact shift caused by the pencil barrel of the A1 so it wasn't a useless addition as you pointed out.
It also adds weight on the end, slightly helping you arrest recoil, but this is an unintended benefit. In my opinion, the barrel profile is really the only goofy thing on the M16A2 other than burst.
And, well, the barrel profile may be silly... but it did give the Marine Corps confidence to keep doing bayonet training when they might have stopped over something stupid like faux bent barrels. Is that really such a bad price to pay? I don't think so. The M16A2, other than the burst setting, is no grand catastrophe like purists say. I prefer collapsible stocks obviously, but even in body armor A2 length wasn't a problem. Burst, which I went into the military expecting to hate, I was actually able to chain together as essentially a more-involved full automatic.
Lt. Col Lutz's compromise kept automatic fire in the rifle, instead of idiots making it semi-only.. If you care, you can make it work.
@@superfamilyallosauridae6505 yeah I've never found the M16a2 all that bad its a natural evolution of the devicencies of the M16a1 people just like to hate on it for no reason to the point of grasping at some pretty weird straws like saying adjustable sights is bad.
@@nemisous83 But the Marine 500 yard target is the size of a jeep! Obviously that's impractical and stupid!
(Completely ignore that such big targets let you know where you missed and then learn how to shoot, in a very low tech version of those fancy ranges with screens showing you where you hit)
@@superfamilyallosauridae6505 well yeah the whole target itself is but the black is about the size of an average man standing in theory the point is to practice area fire if you hit thats good but if you miss around the target its still counts as suppression if you miss the target then you need to work on your fundamentals.
@@nemisous83 Yep, I know. I qualed. Felt the surprisingly weak effect of wind at 500 on 62gr M855. It has a use.
Really great video Chris and Heather. When I was duty armorer on my ship I always issued myself the ONE A4 with M203 that we had, just for fun!
Thank you again for another high information episode! Merry Christmas
I qualified w/ the A1 in mid -84..and later that year had to qualify again w/ the A2. I have always loved the A2 round foregrips coz that is what I was shooting most of my adult life. To this day - I have a love for the A2 rifle. I am just not a fan of the quad rails of today.
Yep I'm with ya on the rear sight. I had mine on the open apriture and left it there
want to make the M16/M4 better?
several options
1. 30 cal bullet
2. AR-10
3. M-14
4. 20" barrel, get rid of the M4 Carbine
5. better ammo design, similar to the AK-74
My first unit still had M16A1's when I arrived in '87, and was issued an old Harrington & Richardson.
The only thing that rifle needed was a set A2 handguards, which eventually became a common thing to see on A1's in the late 80's.
Yea, we had to do the handguard switchover in our unit.
As a former USAF Security Policeman, the USAF was carrying M-16s, not M-16A1s, and they were mostly pre-1969 built. The difference between an M-16 & an M-16A1 can be noted by its lack of a forward assist. Some of our GAU-5s had forward assists, and some of our M-16s were originally cast as A1s, but had the forward assist "bump" machined off prior to it being drilled to accept the forward assist mechanism.
The rifle shown at the 0:54 mark is a Colt Model 602 AR-15, as noted by its lack of a fence below the ejection port & around the magazine well, & the image at 1:02 proves it.
Also the weapon in shown ABSOLUTELY was a select fire AR-15 intentionally built that way at the factory, and in caliber .223.
There were only 3 features on the A2 worth a damn.
1. The pistol grip.
2. The handguards.
3. The square front post.
All three could be retrofitted to either the M-16 or the M-16A1.
Also the USMC had been RELIGIOUSLY wearing body armor of one type or another since the Korean War, so I have no idea what those morons were thinking when they extended the stock.
90’s.. My Band Rehearsed across the Way From Stoners’ Armalite /Howa Shop in Costa Mesa.. Ol’ Gene gave us the m18 sign to hang up.. and A bunch of scrap parts.. (Cool stuff, heavy)..They were all so cool. They would hang out and listen some times..🤙🏻My Other friend, Mike McHugh Made great Microphones with the Preamps all built into an Ammo can.. I miss Those Days..Surfing, Playing music, Cute Girls, Cool Military gear and a lot of Generals, Cols. And Retired Military big wigs in Newport/Mesa..
Fellow graduate of Ma Benning's School For Wayward Boys - Sand Hill Campus. I carried an A2 for most of my enlistment, though we were transitioned into the M4 in 1998. Aside from a couple of very specific times at the range, we never fired in burst mode. We all hated it, and constantly bemoaned the lack of full auto. And we all loved shooting the SAW, we just hated humping it. Well, those guys that had never been an AG or M60/M240B gunner. We loved the lighter weight. I remember one time, we did a huge dog and pony show for AUSA, and St. Stoner was scheduled to attend. However, that was about the time he fell ill, which would result in his passing. As far as the rear sights, not having used the A1, I have nothing to compare it to. However, I don't ever recall "fidgeting" with knobs and dials. I do recall adjusting the elevation on an as needed basis to engage point targets out to 500m. Lastly, I have two 20rd magazines that saw service in Vietnam. Several of us failed our sham check, and got roped into a hey you detail. We had to help the supply clerk clear out the supply cage, and there was a ton of old stuff. I liberated the two magazines, and though I've since replaced the followers and springs, I still use them.
Fantastic video. I already knew the bulk of the material, but it's always nice to learn something that you slept next to more frequently than your ex-wife, back in the day. That, and I had never seen those videos of St. Stoner before. Thanks again.
Merry Christmas from Wisconsin
I was in the Army from '84-'92 and I used the A1 until the last year or so. I qualified with the A1 throughout my career save for the last time I qualified.
Thanks again Chris! I love sitting around at Christmas watching your great gun videos. I was a late bloomer with the AR platform but have built several of late Love your insights and opinions! God bless you and yours and have a GREAT holiday season!
I was stationed at Marine Barracks MP battalion at China Lake Ca in 1961, one day we had a class from either an engineer from Armalite or Colt now what's called the M 16 rifle, as I remember it was green or brown . The engineer was very enthusiastic stating this was to become the next battle rifle of the US Armed Forces, stating no lubrication was needed from the Artic to the Jungles and that the metallurgy was special and had some sort of silicone built in and had a chrome line chamber .
As I remember as the rifle was passed around it did seem slick to the touch . Only base engineers tested it along with a couple Sergeants that shot it. Back then we were issued Ml Garand's, we were not impressed it seemed more like a toy than real .
The AR stands for Armalite Rifle not Assault Rifle . I have never found any information on the AR coating the engineer explained but is a fact as I remember .
around 75 we started seeing rifles cycling back from southeast asia with a tin stamped piece inserted into the fire control area that would prevent flipping the selector into the full position. our guys were breaking them off. we were still using the GAU/5 for K9s on the fenceline and in the alert pad. the clearing barrel was the only thing getting shot and for that they posted an NCO and made us use one yellow mag on post and the rest were regular 20 rounders. they still shot the clearing barrel. i did 4, 12 month tours in the weapons storage area.
Great video and THAT is why I subscribe. Love your personal story as well. Great shooting by the way!
As an old guy who shoots paper targets, I don't need a battle rifle anymore, I NEED an A2! Thank you USMC! Mine are a real pleasure to use at the range!
Good Presentation. I remember handling an original AR-10B that used a steel and aluminum composite barrel. Disaster waiting to blow as it did during extensive testing. NSGA show in Chicago back area out of public view along with some other interesting weapons up to 20mm by other companies. Family Friend Elemr Keith was my pass to see all the goodies. I still have my 1974 production SP-1 with the Colt Scope.
When i was in Marines (México, 1999-2002), we have the "M-16 A2 (model 701, and 30 rounds magazines)" like Primary Weapon, the mechanics has "Safe, 1 shoot, Full Auto", and be training to make a "Double Tap" over target, for the 5.56mm x .45 NATO small caliber than the 7.62mm x .51 NATO and 7.62mm x .39 caliber.
It´s light weight for long range patrols, we can carrying 7 magazines instead the 5 magazines of 7.62mm x .51 NATO caliber weapon (HK G3).
Was a basic and not complicated Assault Rifle to use and maintenaince in the field, but now exist better AR like the German HK-416 (M27 IAR), and others. AB
Fascinating! It's especially cool to see video of Gene Stoner himself commenting on changes.
One quick note that I read years ago as far as the heavier contour of the A2 barrel in the front end was that Marines were bending barrels during bayonet training.
First time I qualified on M16A2 I was having issues keeping rounds on target.
They told me to try shooting the rifle, left-handed. Boom qualified as Marksman the next round. Turns out I am left eye/hand dominant, but my parents forced me to be right-handed.
Then the next year, they told me I needed glasses, when I went shooting again. Now I always shoot left handed with prescription glasses.
A2 , and 727 are in my top 5 favorite 556s. My dad gave me 723 and 727 uppers . He said they fell off the back of truck in N.C. .
I used the Canadian version (The C7) in 2 wars, I FULLY credit it's accuracy for saving my life on many occasions!!! I got out with only some 81mm mortar fragments in one calf...