Is the A2 obsolete?

Does the A2(handle type) upper receiver have any advantages over the current Flat top?? If not would you consider it an obsolete type of upper receiver??

Yes it is obsolete.

Well, it seems the marketing types think it's obsolete because they aren't making them anymore.

But a simple observation is, if you never plan on using an optic, the A2 is always going to be greater than the A4. Nothing to come loose, nothing to potentially lose. I know, fat chance, right? Well, the handle comes off.. and that means somehow, somewhere, someone has lost one.

I like the A2 setup a great deal, and an A2 with irons will always work.. no batteries or attachments to fail...

For a dedicated iron sight rifle, the A2, in my opinion, is superior to the A4. The A2 offers elevations adjustments out to 800 meters as opposed to the A4's elevation adjustments out to 600 meters. As far as mounting optics go, the A4 is superior.

The sights are great for target shooting but for a fighting rifle the A1 will always be better.

That's your opinion, as that would come down to user preference.

I love my A2's, but unfortunately I have to say yes.

This is likely because demand for flat top uppers is higher than that for carry handle uppers.


That said if you've finally managed to find something that can destroy an aimpoint, nightforce, ACOG etc - and the BUIS you bought as well? Then the odds of the rifle still being serviceable are likely not very good, and the user may be in worse* shape

You give the optics too much credit. I love my ACOG, but it's never going to be as durable as iron sights. It's tough as nails, but still, it's not the same. And to move that forward a bit, in the last 6 months, I've probably seen at least 30 posts like "my aimpoint went tits up" and "the reticle in my eotech quit working" etc...oh and my fav from the magpul carbine class, "see an eotech go down every time we have a class" and these are all just regular arfcom folk, no banging around in the desert. Those posts are actually broken optics too, not just the batteries died. Which is another advantage to the A2...

On the other hand, I haven't seen anyone post there A2 sights quit working unexpectedly... and please note, I'm not singling out eotech and aimpoint, i mean optics in general. Those quotes just came to mind. I know both of those companies make fine products.

Play it out like in the film The Book Of Eli - so called end of the world, no more power, no more gas. Want an aimpoint or irons to last you the rest of your life? Time will break all of those optics you mentioned, without even so much as a scratch on them. Just a thought... again just pointing out the advantages of an A2 setup as per OP question.

On the A1 sights, got mad love for my A1, but I prefer the A2 setup if I had to pick.

It's not obsolete at all, considering it's being used in current conflicts around the globe.

So is the Mosin Nagant.

Ice cream comes in different flavors for a reason. As stated it's personal preference. They still work pretty well in service rifle competition and as also stated fixed carry handle sights have advantages for really reaching out over the removeable carry handle. Doubt if they will be regarded obsolete any time in the near future. Heck A-2 just got it's own space on AR15.com this year.

Because we were unable to decide if it belonged in AR discussions or retro.

The A2 rear sight was designed for the Colt Automatic Rifle and for area fire it is fine, but I have little enough need for iron sights let alone sights optimized for fire beyond 200m. I consider the range of most iron sighted rifles to be 250m on the long end due to issues with seeing the target.

Again, this is based on your personal preferences, and what you feel is the standard range for an iron sighted rifle. Not everyone agrees with your assessment.

When shooting at unknown distance, at camoflaged targets that take care to be exposed as little as possible, and without wind flags or decent lighting, how far can you engage point targets?

"Three weeks after TEOWAWKI, iron sights and simple glass tubes will dominate the battlefield."

What says that you'll be shooting at camouflaged targets? I'm talking about range use and match competitions as well. How many civilians you know do actual engagement shooting? I know I don't.

ETA: Read my first post in this thread. Sums everything up nicely.

Manufacturers are trying to make them become so but the A2 is better than the A4 for those who know irons. ...and there will always be those who know irons.

I am among them.

Read my first post. I give the A2 to the target shooters. It was procured by them, for them, and should belong to them. Those of us with iron sighted fighting rifles should have an A1 rear sight.

LOL the threads not about combat specifically. Go shoot Hi-power with A1 sights and see how "Obsolete" the A2 sights are.

On your own with that one, I had a2 sights in Iraq and loved them, but then again, in the Marines they teach us how to use them, something the Army is realizing they need to catch up on.

Shooting at 500m? Use ACOGs and M240s for that.

Just this past weekend at Camp Perry I saw a company of National Guard troops qualifying. They were carrying standard M16A2 rifles, no flat-tops (or optics) that I could see.

I don't think they're obsolete. You can mount an optic on one effectively. I do all my ammo testing for competition shooting with my A2 with a carry handle mounted scope. It's not the absolute best setup ever, but it works.

Don't get me wrong, an A4 is nice if you just want to use a scope, but the A2 still has its place.

Matt

I prefer the A2 upper myself, so I don't feel it's obsolete at all.

It's simple, lighter then a flat top with optics, doesn't have much to catch or hang up on gear, doesn't require batteries, won't shut off in a critical moment, and just plum works.

I've seen a renewed interest in people wanting some form of a A2 platform for the reasons stated above. The A3/A4 platform does have advantages when optics come into play, but IMHO that's about it.

BT

If optics really had that many issues that frequently, they would not be used by those with fighting rifles.
If optics didn't give any real advantages over iron sights, then they would not be used by those who need them most, be it in competition or in the field.They would be purely extra weight and just ditched entirely if irons were really that great. For the majority of shooters, optics are an improvement.

A2 sights have advantages in the following situations: Shooting at stationary targets on flat ranges in competition, shooting at stationary targets on flat ranges for fun, having more parts than an A1 setup, and they look good to the nostalgic.

In terms of the SHTF: A2 sights have more parts than A1 sights, FYI. Further: can you identify, from a distance, if an old man is carrying a mosin, or just a walking stick? It would help to be running an optic at that distance, now wouldn't it? Especially when "opponents" (in this entirely theoretical scenario) could be carrying bolt guns wearing glass.

That said, i'm waiting to see pictures of a busted nightforce that was hit by anything under an IED. I've seen one with a bullet hole through it, literally an AK round punctured the tube, it was still working. There are occasional hiccups, but many sight systems are shockingly durable.


On time breaking optics: There are guys buying *singlepoint* sights for retrobuilds, time is not some mythical beast that hides and lives to eat battle optics

A participant at the Son Tay Raid told me that their hit ratio on NVA in combat increased five fold when they taped Armson OEGs to their carry handles.

Jack, seriously, how much combat experience do you have to base this on? Couple tours in 'Stan? How many times have you gone to the range with an issue A2 or A4? Not a pimped out civ weapon but a fresh from the armory weapon (which means used, beaten)? The A2, because it has iron sights is a no fail weapon, when it comes to sights.

Asking for personal scorecards on service time doesn't suddenly change the fact that iron sights are yesterday's tech, and a backup for more capable sight systems in the context of battlefield use.
Most 21st century warriors believe this. Shockingly, some on the internet do not.

Compared to what?

If you can buy parts for it, it's not obsolete...
If you can find ammo easy, it's not obsolete.
If it hits what you aim at, it's not obsolete.
If your other choice is a rock, it's not obsolete.
If it is capable of defending your life, it's not obsolete.

You'll never misplace the iron sights...

Is the 1911 obsolete?
Is the M2 .50 cal obsolete?
Both of those are twice as old or more then a 'A2...

If it shoots it's never obsolete.

I wonder how we won WW2 without all the reddots, ACOGs, etc...
I wonder how we won WW1 without optics....

Am I anti-optics? no, I love them.

A well trained solider will excel with the high quality battle optics we have today. I'm sure no one will dispute that.
But let's face facts, the youth of yesterday used rifles to put food on the table, too survive...
Today's youth doesn't have that sort of background, optics shorten the learning curve needed to bring them up to speed.

I guess I'm old school.
In my opinion, a warrior trained to use irons sights, well trained to use them, is a better "weapon system" when then given the added advantage of optics then one trained to use optics first and iron sights as a backup only. A well trained warrior who can use iron sights, expertly use them, can pick up any rifle off the battlefield and use it effectively with no delay. Because shit fails, optics break. If we depend too much on technology, when, not if, but when it fails we're worse off and less capable. But time moves forward, technology improves, fail to adapt and you adapt to fail.

But in the end, we win wars by killing our enemy. And the best weapon for that is the man behind the rifle, not what is bolted to the rifle. We should of course give him whatever he needs to make that killing easier and more effective.

Someone who never trains, plans, or foresees on using iron sights beyond 200m -300m, is leaving them self open to someone that did take that time to learn to do just that. Give your enemy an advantage and he will use that to kill you. You will not like death, train to avoid it, you will not be given a do-over.

Not everyone has ACOG's or 240's. Especially in 2003.


In fact just because ACOG's exist does not make iron sights obsolete. ACOG's might be a BETTER sighting system but they don't make anything obsolete by any means.



Also, not everyone in the civilian sector can get their hands on ACOG's and the like. Some people prefer Irons. That's why companies still produce A2 uppers.

No one's fought optics harder than the military!

That actually is kind of what obsolete means. There are better more, effective systems out there.

As Gunner Harris always said, the weapon is in the degraded mode of operation without its RCO.

For military use the 1911 is obsolete and the M2 is obsolescent. Which is to say it is obsolete but still fielded.

I do not have to tell you who won the war. You know, the artillery did.
Gen George S. Patton


In many situations that seemed desperate, the artillery has been a most vital factor.
Gen Douglas MacArthur

The speed, accuracy and devastating power of American Artillery won confidence and admiration from the troops it supported and inspired fear and respect in their enemy.
Gen Dwight D. Eisenhower

The World War demonstrated the importance of Field Artillery. The majority of casualties were inflicted by the arm.
Gen John J. Pershing

"The artillery was my strongest tool. Often it was my only reserve .... I repeatedly said it was more a matter of the infantry supporting the artillery than the artillery supporting the infantry.... I wish I knew the countless times that positions were taken or held due solely to TOT's ...."
Major General R. 0. Barton
Commanding US 4th Infantry Division World War II

Artillery is the god of war.
Stalin

"Our artillery . . . The Germans feared it almost more than anything we had."
- Ernie Pyle "Brave Men", 1944




Under that logic, black powder guns are not obsolete on the battlefield because I can go to the gun store and buy parts and ammo.  

One must ask oneself, why do scout snipers use optics since they are better trained shooters than most trained riflemen and in fact most of their engagements occur under 500 meters and all the proponents claim that within that distance iron sighted fire is all that is required.  

Whoa, dude, wait, what? Have *you* ever shot with such a weapon?

I love the M16A2, I have a USGI upper waiting on a lower to complete my clone, the look, to me, is classic; but I also learned to shoot on exactly the weapons to which you are referring, and I've seen several M16A2s that were damn near impossible to keep zeroed.

Neverminding the dumbass factor of every person who ever wants to fingerfuck your rifle will immediately go for that windage knob and give it a big ol' twist, the springs and detents and myriad of small parts are disaster waiting to happen. Apparently you've never seen the entire sight housing pop off a USGI M16A2? I have. Windage screws that begin to come loose so the aperture flops around in a stiff breeze? An ACOG is made of the same machined aluminum that the rifle's receivers are, anything that's going to do significant damage to the optic is probably going to do significent damage to the rifle as well. The reticule is etched, and the adjustments are internal. Honestly, I trust an ACOG to be more durable and hold zero better than A2 sights. Far fewer exposed moving parts.

Like I said, I like "kicking it old school" and going back and playing with irons occasionally, it's fun, it keeps me sharp, and since I've got multiple rifles, just to train and stay practiced, I don't have to yank my optics off my more serious rifles. Plus, any new shooters I take to the range learn on irons on a KISS, fixed carry handle rifle before they ever graduate to optics and magnification and vertical grips, teach fundamentals first.

As for preference for iron sights, I agree with CombatJack, that the A1 sights are superior as combat sights, "set it and forget it," the elevation knob on the A2 only works if you're matching the ammunition and barrel length.

And +1 to whomever mentioned that it was the military that fought the general issue of optics the hardest. But I'd say nowadays, if the Marine Corps, which is responsible for the absurd decision to put 800m adjustable target sights on a Standard A rifle is beginning to let people qualify with optics, that the heyday of that particular configuration has come and gone.

~Augee

I have an M16A2 and have had an M4 with M68. Guess which is better?

36/40 with the A2 by the way.

Except we still train on Iron sights, some units still use weapons with iron sights, and we have to be able to train our allies, who we gave a SHIT ton of A2's to, with iron sights.


So, sure, one could go strictly by definition and call the A2 sights obsolete in most cases, but they are still in wide use, still manufactured, and still trained on.

Don't forget the M1 Garand, M1 carbine and 1903 Springfield. I still shoot mine and love 'em

Correct answer here

SHTF battery powered optics go bye bye as time goes by. I have a 20" A2 which rocks. Also have a number of 16" flat-tops...which I prefer....but the A2 is by no means outdated.

I really like the A2 for some applications:
On the range.
At close range, it is really fast.
Makes a good trunk/truck gun.
Nothing to eat batteries.

Yes, I have AR's with optics but I still keep my A2 around for all around GP use.

Obsolete NO. I'll give you a head start but you'll only die tired.

I forgot to mention I killed a white tail on the move with an A2, the rest of the herd didn't move fast enough so I shot another. Two rounds two deer for the freezer.

Semper Fi,
Old Marine

As a military arm, I believe the M-16 A2 is obsolete.
The term obsolete does not equal worthless, unusable, or without merit.

As a Rsqhobbs arm, I believe the A2 is far from obsolete.
I use it at the range, and enjoy it very much.

Enjoyment of shooting is still a valid reason for gun ownership, yes?

Using the rationale expressed here the AK, FN FAL, M1A, HK91, 93, Mp5, etc are all obsolete.

Do people feel the same about rails on handguns too?

They are, and I don't care for pistol mounted lights.

Everyone should know how to shoot well with irons. I have some optics, and they are neat, but after service rifle matches, I think I'm pretty ok with irons. They just work. Never had to turn them on, or remember to take out batteries before storage.

I do like my ACOG a lot though. But more than half my AR's have just irons.

Kinda like an all metal Aimpoint.

Not oblslete to me. I shoot mine regularly.

Some of you talk like it's impossable to mount an optic on an a2! We've been mounting optics of all flavors on carry handles since there WHERE carry handles! Ideal? No..... but very servicable. And the current trend of "co-witnessing" an Aimpoint or similar piece of glass can be easilly done with a "gooseneck" mount.

And let's not forget the superior ballistic advantage you have with a 20" barrel (as opposed to a 14.5 or 16" tube).

Obsolete? By my definiton, "obsolete" means a replacement has come out that offers a significant improvement over "last year's model" of "xyz". An M-16a4 allows one to mount an optic closer to the bore centerline..... and in trade, gives up a permanently attached rear sight. "Significant" improvement? I'm not seeing it.

I didn't know they made those. I'd always assumed they had glass and other components in them.

So, I guess the general conclusion is that there are newer alternatives, that are sworn by by some folks, but the A2 is still well loved, and used. Each with it's own advantages.

I somewhat doubt that answer is going to fly for you though :)

Just saying, Aimpoints are the new iron sights.

I don't know how anyone could honestly say that they could be faster or more accurate at say 300m with an A2 carry handle over an AGOG/Aimpoint given the same level of training with each.

Copyright © 1996 - 2013 :: AR15.Com LLC :: All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.