Thank You!
Not many people know about those Studies done from 1991 when I retired from the Marines, till the end of 1994 when I went to work for KAC.

Every M14 I had been issued previously had the parkerization of its rear flat face of its aperture rubbed completely off.  (Seems to my memory they were also finely checkered as well, I assume to “matte” its appearance.)  So when on the requalification range, we had to “smoke” them with carbide lamps to reduce the glare off their worn shinny surface to enhance our sight picture.  I wanted the rear of the A2 to be concave to help prevent such non-reflective finish wear from rubbing or friction with cleaning brushes, etc.  I know it looks backwards to some folk’s but for my intent is worked pretty well.

I lucked-out.  Something very similar was installed on a rack of test rifles stored in Picatinny’s bunker.  These were the same rack of weapons where I found the original “4-Position Burst Controls” installed.
The muzzle brakes on those rifles was adjustable for left or right-handed shooters by lifting a stout leaf spring and indexing it is the appropriated marked “L” or “R” notched washed trapped between the muzzle brake and the barrel.  

This design was a little too expensive to copy exactly for my A2 program; and some considered it a “moving part” that could adversely affect reliability; as well as adding two new parts to the assembly.  But the muzzle brake’s positive effect on muzzle rise was demonstrable, as well as its closed bottom reducing position disclosure when firing prone.  Then when Colt introduced me to the Peel Washer, and its ability to adjust to a shooter’s strong side if desired, it became a no cost, no brainer improvement.  It’s just unfortunate that the Services never picked-up on the left or right-handed options that any Armorer could perform.

Jollyroger1969, you are very welcome.
Nice to meet folks who enjoy the details.

Above, where I stated: "...The muzzle brakes on those rifles was adjustable for left or right-handed shooters by lifting a stout leaf spring and indexing it is the appropriated marked “L” or “R” notched washed trapped between the muzzle brake and the barrel..."

This "notched washer" was pretty thick and had a slot at about 10:30 o'clock (for left-handed shooter) and an opposing one at about 1:30 o'clock (right-handed shooter).  When in either the L or R position, the middle slot would be at either 10:30 or 1:30 accordingly.
This offset was intended to minimize dispersion of the 3-round burst, especially with firing off-hand/standing as your support arm is usually out at an angle to one side, (hardly ever exactly at 6 o'clock straight down), so as to drive the muzzle into the support arm in a straight line.  Whereas with the compensator set as they left the factory at a 12 o'clock position (i.e., middle slot straight up) the muzzle energy would tend to move the muzzle to the weak side and open up the grouping.
The option then existed for one to have an Armorer remove the compensator and then add or subtract some of the peel washer shims so as to "re-clock" or "time" the compensator's middle slot when reinstalled.  
Does this help explain?

By the way, the peel washed, by design had its shim segments glued together so they could be delaminated in-the-field by heating them with a match.  The peel washer was replaced a while back by the so-called "crush washer" as a cost cutting move.  I still time my compensators for my left-handed orientation with a peel washer or KAC Shim Kit.

[Jump To Reply]Originally Posted By 21BoomCBTENGR:
LTC Lutz,

Was there any discussion during the design process for the A2 of getting rid of or modifying the carry handle? I know during my short period of service (2003-current) and use of the A2 the carry handle was NEVER to be use as such and you rarely see the detachable versions in use nowadays on A4s. We're carry handles used back then?

Secondly, was any consideration given to possibly making the platform more adaptable to using optics by removal or modification of the carry handle, as using the carry handle mount hole is uncomfortable at best for most uses with either NV, magnified or non-magnified optics.


Not coldblue, but there have been several "attempts" at introducing an accessory rail to the upper receiver before the M4 and M16A4 were standardized - notably the Colt R656 and ACR among others. The ACR program also saw use of the ACOG and ELCAN C79.

I'm sure he can comment more on what if any discussion was included insofar as the A2's development process is concerned, which I would be very interested to hear from him.

~Augee

Since the carrying handle was literally the “receiver” for the M16A2’s 300-800 meter fully adjustable rear sight, we did not officially consider its elimination for the “basic” Service Rifle.  But that being said, I was very impressed with the then brand new AUG-1 which had an integral low power optic sight.  And it was not hard for me to visualize a “Marksman’s” A2 based rifle with such an optic attached to a Weaver Rail upper receiver in place of the carrying handle.  Somewhere around the house here I have a “concept sketch” of such a rifle, but not sure where to put my hands on it at the moment.
My “partner in crime” at Picatinny at the time (1980-83) was Mr. Vince Desiena (Sp?), and one Sunday we stopped at Rienhart’s Gun Shop somewhere in New Jersey and bought the longest Weaver Rail we could find.  Then cut the handle off an M16A1 and attached the Weaver Rail to it and added a few more cross cuts to accommodate eye relief adjustments.
I combined a steel tube Khales 1.5x scope that was pretty short in length with a pair of “enlarged to 26mm see-through” Weaver Rings.  This placed the scope’s centerline about where you wanted it for a good cheek weld.
About the same time, Canada was conducting new Service Rifle trials that included M16’s.  Those efforts were moving them to an optical sight (eventually the Elcan) which necessitated a non-carrying handle upper.  When Vince and I became aware of this it encouraged our A2 Marksman concept to a point where we were loaned one of the Canadian uppers with the help of the Picatinny’s Canadian Army Liaison Office, Maj. Rick Wilson who shared my office and secretary in Building 151.
At a subsequent Picatinny ALCON meeting with Ft. Benning’s representative to our rifle product improvement program Mr. Jack Pritchard,  he was able to see the writing on the wall as well, and in this discussion he began referring to the Canadian upper’s rail as the Canadian Rail and the one Vince and I had made as the “Picatinny Rail.”
However, Jack being aware of numerous failed “advanced optical sight” projects that had been conducted over the years by the Infantry School cautioned that the Services were not ready for an optical sighted service weapon, and that the product improvement program’s requirement did not list a deficiency relating to the lack of an optical sight nor an accessory rail.  
Then Jack’s opinion was reinforced by a key Colonel in my chain of command at Headquarter and this all became a closed subject for fear that we were changing too many  things and increasing “program risk.”
In fact, there was a continuation list (i.e. Page 2) of such new options on a second viewgraph briefing slide that was eventually culled out of my final Headquarters Marine Corps briefing at the specific direction of this Colonel.  But then that’s another story…

On the other question, I think the subsequent ACR program certainly helped introduce the “general issue” optic service rifle and helped give that concept momentum subsequent considerations that culminated with the introduction of the Modular Weapon System (MWS), which saw the “light of day” with the development and introduction of the SOPMOD M4 Kit.  So thanks to the USSOCOM Operators like MSGT Walt Mitten), even us poor Grunts now have an optically enhanced Service Rifle.

Morg, it took awhile to find these, and also jog my memory.
As you can see, the scope/mount is dove tailed from rear to front like my old Sako rifles back then.
The second photo is of the optional carrying handle/M16A2 iron sight base, also showing the dove tail.
I had forgotten about the dovetails this morning.

Notice the date on this one, and also the absence of the case deflector.  I don't think that was an option at that point in 1981.

Very informative.  Thanks for posting all this!