User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 12:14:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Lancelot]
I've never been a fan of the "stock" pistol grips. They've always come off immediately in favor of MIAD's or MOE's. And a quick browse on the EE seems to mimic the same sentiment. (They're like awful stocking stuffers that no one wants)
I'm building an XM177'ish carbine, and just got in an A1 grip to slap on it. Holy smokes...it's still too small to be "comfortable" compared to a MOE+, but it's world's more comfortable (and seemingly universal) than the A2. It's wider, and doesn't have that annoying ridge right where you want to put your middle finger (unless of course you have truck driver/bass player hands). Other than the stippling, how was the A2 grip considered an "upgrade"? For that matter, how was that grip (in A1 or A2 configuration) ever considered large enough for American's hands to begin with? |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 12:26:33 AM EDT
[#1]
It was a USMC request, the grip, handguard, and stock were part of a durability upgrade they'd requested. The materials were made out of a different more stronger nylon, the grip "nub" was to enhance stability and reduce slippage in the hands. At least that's how I've had it been told,
William |
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 12:29:48 AM EDT
[#2]
this the a2 sucks compared to the a1
|
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 12:37:30 AM EDT
[#3]
The A2 handguard is the only part of the A2 that I would consider an upgrade over the A1.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 12:39:53 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By schaz42:
It was a USMC request, the grip, handguard, and stock were part of a durability upgrade they'd requested. The materials were made out of a different more stronger nylon, the grip "nub" was to enhance stability and reduce slippage in the hands. At least that's how I've had it been told, William This, basically. The materials upgrade to DuPont Zytel polymer was the biggest "upgrade," and it extended to all the furniture, not just the pistol grip. The sling mount was deleted because it had been a non-functional feature in all but the earliest prototype AR15s. Remember, too, that Americans have been gradually growing in the last fifty years as well, from a variety of factors. Whether that has anything to do with the pistol grip size, I don't know, but the A1 and A2 pistol grip dimensions are perfectly fine with me, and I actually dislike the oversized backstraps of many aftermarket grips, though overmolded ones are better than hard plastic ones, IMHO. I suppose I"m not the biggest guy with the biggest hands, either. I actually rather like the A2 "finger bump," but I can fit two fingers above the bump, though they're not both flush to the frontstrap of the pistol grip, but slightly staggered - the A2 bump allows me to "lock in" to a nice, high grip. ~Augee |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 1:29:11 AM EDT
[#5]
As a user who went too Basic with an A1, entered active with an A2, A4, then the M4, I'm still failing to see the problem. In 21 years, no one has ever complained about the grip. Now I've been in many units, two MOS's, and had even been sent to talk with DA civy's who asked what we wanted changed and out of a theatre packed, not one cried about the grip. It was always the compensator, the stock on the M4 having a shitty cheek weld, and the magazine.
Now with all that being said, I have four AR's and only one of them has the A2 grip, because I like a variety of what works and ditch what suck's ass. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 1:46:26 AM EDT
[#6]
I put two fingers over the bump when shooting with an A2 and at the end of the day it hurts.
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 2:10:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 556NAT0]
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GSL:
As a user who went too Basic with an A1, entered active with an A2, A4, then the M4, I'm still failing to see the problem. In 21 years, no one has ever complained about the grip. Now I've been in many units, two MOS's, and had even been sent to talk with DA civy's who asked what we wanted changed and out of a theatre packed, not one cried about the grip. It was always the compensator, the stock on the M4 having a shitty cheek weld, and the magazine. Now with all that being said, I have four AR's and only one of them has the A2 grip, because I like a variety of what works and ditch what suck's ass. That surprises me. IMO the pistol grip is the worst. The A2 fh is extremely outdated, but I could live with it. And the stock, it again something I could live with. But my hands and fingers actually get a little sore shooting with the stock grips. If was told I had to go back to a standard stock, A2 flash hider and an a2 grip but I could change one later on the grip would definitely be there first thing changed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 2:30:02 AM EDT
[#8]
I just cut & file the bumps off the front of the grips. Along with a Magpul trigger guard it works for me. There's a company that sells an A2-like grip that doesn't have the bump.
Big grips are more tiring to hold for long periods of time, and move the hand too far back to work the safety correctly (instead of the contortions that most people do). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 2:39:40 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 556NAT0:
That surprises me. IMO the pistol grip is the worst. The A2 fh is extremely outdated, but I could live with it. And the stock, it again something I could live with. But my hands and fingers actually get a little sore shooting with the stock grips. If was told I had to go back to a standard stock, A2 flash hider and an a2 grip but I could change one later on the grip would definitely be there first thing changed. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 556NAT0:
Originally Posted By GSL:
As a user who went too Basic with an A1, entered active with an A2, A4, then the M4, I'm still failing to see the problem. In 21 years, no one has ever complained about the grip. Now I've been in many units, two MOS's, and had even been sent to talk with DA civy's who asked what we wanted changed and out of a theatre packed, not one cried about the grip. It was always the compensator, the stock on the M4 having a shitty cheek weld, and the magazine. Now with all that being said, I have four AR's and only one of them has the A2 grip, because I like a variety of what works and ditch what suck's ass. That surprises me. IMO the pistol grip is the worst. The A2 fh is extremely outdated, but I could live with it. And the stock, it again something I could live with. But my hands and fingers actually get a little sore shooting with the stock grips. If was told I had to go back to a standard stock, A2 flash hider and an a2 grip but I could change one later on the grip would definitely be there first thing changed. |
|
|
|
KY, USA
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 2:51:07 AM EDT
[#10]
I like the feel of the A2. Like the A1 a tad better perhaps. MOE feels good, but i dont like the look of it. Since I dont mind the A2, thats what I use. I have big burly hands and fat fingers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 2:59:48 AM EDT
[#11]
I'm not prior service, nor have ever been in a capacity to "carry" an AR platform for extended periods other than a hiking trip.
I find it interesting that one gentleman here said it's actually more comfortable to carry the A1/A2 grip compared to overmolded grips for long periods. Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I find I have the best results (shooting and weapon manipulation) with an overmolded grip (especially rubberized ones like the MOE+). I grip an AR like I do a pistol: I find the highest purchase I can get with the webbing of my hand, and an overmolded grip like the MOE allows me get the tip of my finger on the trigger. Whereas with an A2 grip, I feel like it's a strain to move my trigger finger "away" from the trigger to connect the tip of my finger with the trigger. Furthermore, I find that an overmolded grip places my thumb in the optimum position to run the safety without losing purchase on the grip. (And this is probably why the MOE and other overmolded grips were invented.) I know there are other factors at play, but it seems to me that the military would be giving troops an advantage by going with a larger grip. I don't have large or small hands. I think I wear a size 7 (medium) glove. Even with gloves on, the MOE style grips feel better, and A2 grips still feel small to me. At the very least, having something like a MIAD grip allowing troops to modify the grip to what gives them the best purchase on the weapon would be a good thing. And yet, as I scour over the SOPMOD Block II clone thread, every weapon I see in the hands of our troops they're running an A2 grip. If anything I would imagine those guys have the most leniency to modify their weapons, and yet they don't seem to. Is changing out the pistol grip considered an "armorer level" modification? Also, thanks for the history re: the USMC decision--interesting stuff, and is why I really appreciate this section of ARFCOM :) |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 3:13:00 AM EDT
[#12]
A2 with the nub ground off for me...although i do like the rubbery ergo type grips..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 3:14:30 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ankratz:
I'm not prior service, nor have ever been in a capacity to "carry" an AR platform for extended periods other than a hiking trip. I find it interesting that one gentleman here said it's actually more comfortable to carry the A1/A2 grip compared to overmolded grips for long periods. Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I find I have the best results (shooting and weapon manipulation) with an overmolded grip (especially rubberized ones like the MOE+). I grip an AR like I do a pistol: I find the highest purchase I can get with the webbing of my hand, and an overmolded grip like the MOE allows me get the tip of my finger on the trigger. Whereas with an A2 grip, I feel like it's a strain to move my trigger finger "away" from the trigger to connect the tip of my finger with the trigger. Furthermore, I find that an overmolded grip places my thumb in the optimum position to run the safety without losing purchase on the grip. (And this is probably why the MOE and other overmolded grips were invented.) I know there are other factors at play, but it seems to me that the military would be giving troops an advantage by going with a larger grip. I don't have large or small hands. I think I wear a size 7 (medium) glove. Even with gloves on, the MOE style grips feel better, and A2 grips still feel small to me. At the very least, having something like a MIAD grip allowing troops to modify the grip to what gives them the best purchase on the weapon would be a good thing. And yet, as I scour over the SOPMOD Block II clone thread, every weapon I see in the hands of our troops they're running an A2 grip. If anything I would imagine those guys have the most leniency to modify their weapons, and yet they don't seem to. Is changing out the pistol grip considered an "armorer level" modification? Also, thanks for the history re: the USMC decision--interesting stuff, and is why I really appreciate this section of ARFCOM :) Now I'm not saying you're doing it wrong, just do it as it feel's good for you since you're the shooter. I've tried these bigger grips, and it slow's down or degrades my ability to use that weapon more appropriately. My trigger finger placement is not where it's supposed to be, and it's further out to engage the safety. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 4:19:52 AM EDT
[#14]
Here is a report from the US ARMY Research Institute dated February 1986. It does not mention much about why the improvements were made to the pistol grip, other than what has already been mentioned in this post. Analysis of M16A2 Rifle Characteristics and Recommended Improvements
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 4:48:10 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AR-4C:
Here is a report from the US ARMY Research Institute dated February 1986. It does not mention much about why the improvements were made to the pistol grip, other than what has already been mentioned in this post. Analysis of M16A2 Rifle Characteristics and Recommended Improvements Thank's for sharing. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 6:33:37 AM EDT
[#16]
OP, I could not agree with you more. Carried an M16 once and an M4 later for two deployments, and the A2 grip is the bane of my existence. MOE+ is my jam, though.
|
|
|
|
NJ, USA
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 7:50:28 AM EDT
[#17]
love the a1 grips best of all
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 7:50:32 AM EDT
[#18]
After 3 years of carrying M16, M4 and the M27, I actually kinda like the nub. I have large hands but I still manage to jam two fingers above the nub like I was taught in boot camp. However, after countless patrols in training and on deployments, the only real improvement I want is a straighter, reduced angle grip. It kills my wrists having them over extended downwards
 PS and change the damn magwell on the M27 so it's compatible with my older PMAGS!
 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 8:15:14 AM EDT
[#19]
I have used both in the service, and either will do.
The nod goes to a "no-nub" grip when I need to wear real winter gloves. And I prefer a MOE on my precision rifle. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 8:24:59 AM EDT
[#20]
I've tried many aftermarket grips and I always go back to the A2.
I guess I'm the army type |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 9:10:36 AM EDT
[#21]
I don't mind the A2, I can't imagine getting two fingers over the nub. I have changed them out but only to try to get an easier more comfortable trigger finger placement when shooting groups.
As for why the military goes with them, if I were to guess, it's easier to make a large hand fit too small of a grip than a small hand fit a large one, there are some tiny service members, of course the A2 stock defies that logic. Also, try it out with some issue arctic trigger finger mitts or other heavy gloves and see if you still think it's too small. Something like a MIAD seems like a great idea for a service weapon that has to adapt to every size hand and every environment, until you accept that anything and everything that is not bolted down can and will be lost, you'd have to issue a new pack of parts everytime you handed out rifles. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 9:46:46 AM EDT
[#22]
A1 grip or A2, I have no preference and can use either. I do prefer the MOE on my personal carbine.
The only thing I don't like about the A1/A2 stock switch is the A2 Buttstock. It is too long for me, plus the checkered, square profile buttplate catches on clothes. I very much prefer the shorter A1 Buttstock with its rounded profile buttplate. |
|
|
WV, USA
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 9:57:50 AM EDT
[#23]
It's a one size fits all solution so there is always that. Nothing is perfect for everyone.
Also most people don't hold the grip correctly, pushing their hand too far around and putting the trigger paddle low on their finger. The bump on the a2 grip is there to help prevent or stop that. And it does just that. I've found as I've learned more and started focusing on my trigger control and hand position that I appreciate the a2 grip more than I did when I first started shooting an ar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 10:05:20 AM EDT
[#24]
a2 with nub ground off FTW
at least thats what i do to all mine |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 10:06:55 AM EDT
[#25]
Because the USMC wanted to turn a perfectly suitable combat rifle into a KD target rifle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/2/2013 11:31:13 AM EDT
[#26]
I have an A1 and A2 grip and like them equally.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2013 1:07:41 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AR-4C:
Here is a report from the US ARMY Research Institute dated February 1986. It does not mention much about why the improvements were made to the pistol grip, other than what has already been mentioned in this post. Analysis of M16A2 Rifle Characteristics and Recommended Improvements That's pretty interesting, thanks for posting that. I agree with essentially everything there. Some of their critique is still applicable to current weapon systems. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2013 4:12:49 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gamma762:
That's pretty interesting, thanks for posting that. I agree with essentially everything there. Some of their critique is still applicable to current weapon systems. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gamma762:
Originally Posted By AR-4C:
Here is a report from the US ARMY Research Institute dated February 1986. It does not mention much about why the improvements were made to the pistol grip, other than what has already been mentioned in this post. Analysis of M16A2 Rifle Characteristics and Recommended Improvements That's pretty interesting, thanks for posting that. I agree with essentially everything there. Some of their critique is still applicable to current weapon systems. Yeah, I just read this in its entirety. Cliff notes: M16A2 is garbage and a waste of money. M16A1 is what we want and will give us better performance. I did find it interesting that XM855 was 48 cents per round, whereas he listed M193 "available locally" for 14 cents per round. (Those were the days, eh?) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2013 5:55:19 PM EDT
[#29]
I guess I have extra-large hands. The A2 grip fits me better than the A1 - by FAR. I have a MIAD on one rifle, and I'm seriously considering messing with the various options until I either really like one or just change it out for a different grip, maybe an MOE. But I won't feel bad if I go back to the A2 grip I have from the LPK I used on that build.
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 11/3/2013 6:09:50 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RUTGERS95:
love the a1 grips best of all Same here. |
|
|
NJ, USA
|
Posted: 11/3/2013 6:34:23 PM EDT
[#31]
I've tested a three different types of AR grips. The Moe is too large for my taste, The Mako Israeli four finger grip seems awkward. I still like the A2 grip but haven't tried all 25 styles that are available
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/3/2013 6:37:19 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dlagrua:
I've tested a three different types of AR grips. The Moe is too large for my taste, The Mako Israeli four finger grip seems awkward. I still like the A2 grip but haven't tried all 25 styles that are available |
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 11/5/2013 1:05:08 PM EDT
[#33]
The A2 furniture is an answer to a question that no one asked, except perhaps the Marine marksmanship group.
The bump is in the wrong place for me, and the A2 stock is just too damn long for me to get close enough to the sight aperture. Actually, I'm pretty happy with the A1 furniture, including the triangle handguards; interestingly enough, the new MagPul stuff feels somewhat like it. The current adjustable stocks make perfect sense; between varying statures and varying amounts of clothing, being able to adjust it for the individual soldier is great. But they need to do something about that damned bump... Moon |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/5/2013 1:13:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: GSL]
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By halfmoonclip:
The A2 furniture is an answer to a question that no one asked, except perhaps the Marine marksmanship group. The bump is in the wrong place for me, and the A2 stock is just too damn long for me to get close enough to the sight aperture. Actually, I'm pretty happy with the A1 furniture, including the triangle handguards; interestingly enough, the new MagPul stuff feels somewhat like it. The current adjustable stocks make perfect sense; between varying statures and varying amounts of clothing, being able to adjust it for the individual soldier is great. But they need to do something about that damned bump... Moon But since I've used the A1 and the A2, I'm good to go with either or. But I must admit that while moving at combat speed, that bump does enhance your hand from losing control during any unseen obstacles or clumsiness. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 11/10/2013 6:41:14 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By vicious_cb:
Because the USMC wanted to turn a perfectly suitable combat rifle into a KD target rifle. This |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2013 8:53:09 AM EDT
[#36]
The US Army had millions of A1s in the late Seventies, plenty of spares, years of combat experience with it, and no reason to ditch a rifle that fit their doctrine.
Politics. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2013 9:56:02 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By schaz42:
It was a USMC request, the grip, handguard, and stock were part of a durability upgrade they'd requested. The materials were made out of a different more stronger nylon, the grip "nub" was to enhance stability and reduce slippage in the hands. At least that's how I've had it been told, William Yes, that was the requirement and I did it as the project officer. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2013 10:17:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: coldblue]
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ankratz:
Yeah, I just read this in its entirety. Cliff notes: M16A2 is garbage and a waste of money. M16A1 is what we want and will give us better performance. I did find it interesting that XM855 was 48 cents per round, whereas he listed M193 "available locally" for 14 cents per round. (Those were the days, eh?) Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ankratz:
Originally Posted By Gamma762:
Originally Posted By AR-4C:
Here is a report from the US ARMY Research Institute dated February 1986. It does not mention much about why the improvements were made to the pistol grip, other than what has already been mentioned in this post. Analysis of M16A2 Rifle Characteristics and Recommended Improvements That's pretty interesting, thanks for posting that. I agree with essentially everything there. Some of their critique is still applicable to current weapon systems. Yeah, I just read this in its entirety. Cliff notes: M16A2 is garbage and a waste of money. M16A1 is what we want and will give us better performance. I did find it interesting that XM855 was 48 cents per round, whereas he listed M193 "available locally" for 14 cents per round. (Those were the days, eh?) The report (done by a hired contractor) was a real hose job per the direction "we can't let the Marines make us look this bad...". To be brief: 1. Some in the Army had real bad heartburn that we Marines were "doing their job" by fixing known A1 deficiencies. 2. The test lot of M855 ammo used in the early 1980's tests was so defective prone it was thought to have been sabotaged in favor of Picatinny's M777 round which had the M855's (actually the Belgian SS109's) steel insert, but was stabilized by the A1's 1:12 twist, ergo, not barrel change required to conform with NATO. Canada came to the rescue as the first test was terminated because of the bad Lake City crap ammo and delivered 10's of thousands of Belgian SS109 which was used to repeat the testing and proved superior to the A1 testing in all respects. (Something ignored by these report writers.) 3. If I wanted to take the time, I can counter every one of their listed deficiencies. Bottom line is, the Army did not agree with this report and adopted the A2 and it became the standard service rifle. Nuf said! And on the A2 grip, I actually built the first two (using Bondo) in my shop at Picatinny, and then Colt used them to prototype the production item. So now you know who to blame. The only part of the A2 program I regret was the longer buttstock, that ironically the Army's Human Engineering Lab endorsed; and of course the 3-round burst control. But adding the burst control "saved" a degree of full-auto capability that was planed to be eliminated as the SAW was going to replace the automatic rifle in the fire teams. And the provisioning of belted SAW ammo aboard amphibious shipping supporting 27 SAW's in each Marine Infantry Company was displacing tons of "rifle pack-out" 5.56 to the point that a 3-day supply was adversely effected. The SAW ammo pack-out of 800 rounds taking the same cubic space as 1680 rifle pack-out 5.56 in stripper clips and bandoliers. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2013 10:35:17 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By coldblue:
The report (done by a hired contractor) was a real hose job per the direction "we can't let the Marines make us look this bad...". To be brief: 1. Some in the Army had real bad heartburn that we Marines were "doing their job" by fixing known A1 deficiencies. 2. The test lot of M855 ammo used in the early 1980's tests was so defective prone it was thought to have been sabotaged in favor of Picatinny's M777 round which had the M855's (actually the Belgian SS109's) steel insert, but was stabilized by the A1's 1:12 twist, ergo, not barrel change required to conform with NATO. Canada came to the rescue as the first test was terminated because of the bad Lake City crap ammo and delivered 10's of thousands of Belgian SS109 which was used to repeat the testing and proved superior to the A1 testing in all respects. (Something ignored by these report writers.) 3. If I wanted to take the time, I can counter every one of their listed deficiencies. Bottom line is, the Army did not agree with this report and adopted the A2 and it became the standard service rifle. Nuf said! And on the A2 grip, I actually built the first two (using Bondo) in my shop at Picatinny, and then Colt used them to prototype the production item. So now you know who to blame. The only part of the A2 program I regret was the longer buttstock, that ironically the Army's Human Engineering Lab endorsed; and of course the 3-round burst control. But adding the burst control "saved" a degree of full-auto capability that was planed to be eliminated as the SAW was going to replace the automatic rifle in the fire teams. And the provisioning of belted SAW ammo aboard amphibious shipping supporting 27 SAW's in each Marine Infantry Company was displacing tons of "rifle pack-out" 5.56 to the point that a 3-day supply was adversely effected. The SAW ammo pack-out of 800 rounds taking the same cubic space as 1680 rifle pack-out 5.56 in stripper clips and bandoliers. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By coldblue:
Originally Posted By ankratz:
Originally Posted By Gamma762:
Originally Posted By AR-4C:
Here is a report from the US ARMY Research Institute dated February 1986. It does not mention much about why the improvements were made to the pistol grip, other than what has already been mentioned in this post. Analysis of M16A2 Rifle Characteristics and Recommended Improvements That's pretty interesting, thanks for posting that. I agree with essentially everything there. Some of their critique is still applicable to current weapon systems. Yeah, I just read this in its entirety. Cliff notes: M16A2 is garbage and a waste of money. M16A1 is what we want and will give us better performance. I did find it interesting that XM855 was 48 cents per round, whereas he listed M193 "available locally" for 14 cents per round. (Those were the days, eh?) The report (done by a hired contractor) was a real hose job per the direction "we can't let the Marines make us look this bad...". To be brief: 1. Some in the Army had real bad heartburn that we Marines were "doing their job" by fixing known A1 deficiencies. 2. The test lot of M855 ammo used in the early 1980's tests was so defective prone it was thought to have been sabotaged in favor of Picatinny's M777 round which had the M855's (actually the Belgian SS109's) steel insert, but was stabilized by the A1's 1:12 twist, ergo, not barrel change required to conform with NATO. Canada came to the rescue as the first test was terminated because of the bad Lake City crap ammo and delivered 10's of thousands of Belgian SS109 which was used to repeat the testing and proved superior to the A1 testing in all respects. (Something ignored by these report writers.) 3. If I wanted to take the time, I can counter every one of their listed deficiencies. Bottom line is, the Army did not agree with this report and adopted the A2 and it became the standard service rifle. Nuf said! And on the A2 grip, I actually built the first two (using Bondo) in my shop at Picatinny, and then Colt used them to prototype the production item. So now you know who to blame. The only part of the A2 program I regret was the longer buttstock, that ironically the Army's Human Engineering Lab endorsed; and of course the 3-round burst control. But adding the burst control "saved" a degree of full-auto capability that was planed to be eliminated as the SAW was going to replace the automatic rifle in the fire teams. And the provisioning of belted SAW ammo aboard amphibious shipping supporting 27 SAW's in each Marine Infantry Company was displacing tons of "rifle pack-out" 5.56 to the point that a 3-day supply was adversely effected. The SAW ammo pack-out of 800 rounds taking the same cubic space as 1680 rifle pack-out 5.56 in stripper clips and bandoliers. OK, I got to know. Why did you put the nub on there? Does it have anything to do with the trigger guard? Unfortunately the A2 grip never fit my hand and the nub "wears" on me. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2013 10:37:42 AM EDT
[#40]
In fact, Colt had a similar "heartburn" as well, as we brought our designs to the table, like the square front sight post, pistol grip, etc.
At a meeting with them subsequent to our submitting my pistol grip samples, they awarded me this memento: 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2013 10:47:42 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By coldblue:
In fact, Colt had a similar "heartburn" as well, as we brought our designs to the table, like the square front sight post, pistol grip, etc. At a meeting with them subsequent to our submitting my pistol grip samples, they awarded me this memento: <a href="http://s1357.photobucket.com/user/D_A_Lutz/media/coltaward_zpsf763b813.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i1357.photobucket.com/albums/q759/D_A_Lutz/coltaward_zpsf763b813.jpg</a> 
That is hilarious! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2013 10:49:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: coldblue]
[#42]
"...OK, I got to know.
Why did you put the nub on there? Does it have anything to do with the trigger guard? Unfortunately the A2 grip never fit my hand and the nub "wears" on me. .." Part of my strategy to get the Army to adopt the Marine Corps improved rifle (so it was more affordable for us over the long run) was to involve as many Army elements, voters at the table, nay sayers, etc., as possible, like their human Engineering lab (HEL) at Aberdeen Maryland. (See my comment above re: buttstock length.) So in looking to improve the pistol grip (which is a major human to machine contact/control surface to begin with), which we were going to change anyway (i.e., buy a new pistol grip mold) taking the sling swivel provision from the bottom of the front grip, we looked at a fully contoured pistol grip with grooves for all three fingers. But HEL objected as this would only fit the 45% percentile Soldier. But adding just one groove to support the middle finger would fit the 85th to the 90th % Soldier. They also liked removing the sling swivel feature as we contoured that area actually increasing the front gripping are slightly. So our over-riding criteria took over from there, which was: if a change does not adversely effect performance, we would consider it. And in the Operational testing with the Soldiers from Ft. Benning and two infantry squads from Camp Lejeune, NC, all preferred the A2 grip. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2013 10:57:27 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cheesebeast:
That is hilarious! Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cheesebeast:
Originally Posted By coldblue:
In fact, Colt had a similar "heartburn" as well, as we brought our designs to the table, like the square front sight post, pistol grip, etc. At a meeting with them subsequent to our submitting my pistol grip samples, they awarded me this memento: <a href="http://s1357.photobucket.com/user/D_A_Lutz/media/coltaward_zpsf763b813.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i1357.photobucket.com/albums/q759/D_A_Lutz/coltaward_zpsf763b813.jpg</a>
That is hilarious! Yes, their engineers that made the award though it was quite funny. In fact, one of them quit after his "square front sight post," which was kind of "pyramid like" in profile was rejected in favor of our parallel sided post. This reminds me of some of the bs in the Army report above, I mean how is the A2 post any easier "to bend" than their favored A1? And no 'night sight.' More bs, as the reason we left the thread pitch of the A2 front sight post same as the A1's was so the Army could install their luminous low light level front sight post. Of course this resulted in the non-standard (read; non metric) front sight adjustment detent values, another of their subjective criticisms. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2013 11:00:10 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By coldblue:
"...OK, I got to know. Why did you put the nub on there? Does it have anything to do with the trigger guard? Unfortunately the A2 grip never fit my hand and the nub "wears" on me. .." Part of my strategy to get the Army to adopt the Marine Corps improved rifle (so it was more affordable for us over the long run) was to involve as many Army elements, voters at the table, nay sayers, etc., as possible, like their human Engineering lab (HEL) at Aberdeen Maryland. (See my comment above re: buttstock length.) So in looking to improve the pistol grip (which is a major human to machine contact/control surface to begin with), which we were going to change anyway (i.e., buy a new pistol grip mold) taking the sling swivel provision from the bottom of the front grip, we looked at a fully contoured pistol grip with grooves for all three fingers. But HEL objected as this would only fit the 45% percentile Soldier. But adding just one groove to support the middle finger would fit the 85th to the 90th % Soldier. They also liked removing the sling swivel feature as we contoured that area actually increasing the front gripping are slightly. So our over-riding criteria took over from there, which was: if a change does not adversely effect performance, we would consider it. And in the Operational testing with the Soldiers from Ft. Benning and two infantry squads from Camp Lejeune, NC, all preferred the A2 grip. Thank you! I have been curious about how that grip came about for years. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2013 1:40:48 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By coldblue:
<snip> Well, OP, it's not often that you ask "why did..." and someone comes along to say "because of me." 
Thanks again, Lt. Col. Lutz for your insight, knowledge, and experience. ~Augee |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2013 3:03:31 PM EDT
[#46]
Thank you for letting us know, and I just knew that report was full of raging butthurt and I had even said so.
Thank you LTC Lutz. |
|
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 11/11/2013 3:24:59 PM EDT
[#47]
I like the A2 pistol grip. I installed a Magpul MIAD grip on my AR and made sure to have the A2 front "nub" on the grip. For me it feels comfortable, might offer more stability, and feels more natural to me. I am not used to shooting with an A2 styled grip.
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 11/11/2013 3:34:18 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By coldblue:
The only part of the A2 program I regret was the longer buttstock, that ironically the Army's Human Engineering Lab endorsed; and of course the 3-round burst control. What about the heavy profile in front of the fsb? I was under the impression that the reasons for adding the extra meat at the front was in error. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2013 3:40:58 PM EDT
[#49]
Col. Lutz, how are the A2 sights advantageous to the Army? In Army use they are not adjusted from zero intentionally.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2013 10:10:00 PM EDT
[#50]
Sorry guys, but connection problems prevented me from logging on for a few days.
Here goes more: "...OK, I got to know. Why did you put the nub on there? Does it have anything to do with the trigger guard? ..." Again, the Army's Human Engineering Lab (HEL) entered the equation. They gave me a distance below the trigger guard for the single "finger rest." Went back to my shop at Picatinny and using a thin saw blade, cut a slot at that location perpendicular to the front surface. Then I glued in a slice of red colored flashlight filter in the slot so I had a good centerline reference for the next step. On comes the bondo, and when dried, the shaping and sanding. The outside edge of the red lens marking the center gave me a perfect "parting line" to keep the bondo even on both sides as I shaped the "bump". I also filed-in the sling swivel holes at the bottom of the grip and recurred that surface to provide more room/purchase for the shooter's little finger. Made two of them, one a bit smaller than the first. Painted then black and had Marines at the local reserve Center/I&I try them on two M16's. Their only consensus was they preferred either to the standard A1. These were given to Colt. They rendered an average of the two and that set the mold for the prototypes used in the subsequent Operational testing referenced earlier. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
