Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/7/2005 8:47:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/7/2005 8:51:43 PM EDT by FUZ1ON]
Cause I just wanna know the opinions of others vs my own..specifically?...

I'm a former U.S. Marine from 20+ years back...therefore I have a rough idea of what sort of bad treatment and rough handling ones primary firearm may encounter in reality...while in "The Field" and it's a far cry from what your average "all the aftermarket bells and whistles" range or closet queen type AR's are exposed to...and we're talking crawling under barbed wire rocks, mud, grime get down and dirty rough handling here...matter of fact?...I suspect many here would burst out into tears if they saw what their highly modified pet AR might look like after a full rough day in the real field....point being...an active duty rifle see's more rough handling and extreme environments in one day than most civilian owned rilfes might see in a decade...if ever at all.

That said?...The sad fact is that active duty field rifles get bounced around and knocked about quite frequently...at times absorbing out and out impacts to various areas of the rifle and all to frequently it's the carry handle/rear sight assy that "Get's It"...which with an A3 removable type carry handle doesn't give me a warm fuzzy that my sights will be on the mark the next time I need it as opposed to the A2 solidly fordged rear sight/carry handle assy.

Conversly?...the A3 configuration offers up a plethora of aftermarket sighting systems and options...but again...even they are exposed to the extreme elements of rough field handling as an active duty rifle and...I'm not real keen on any type of sighting system that requires batteries or...that hasta be "Turned On" before use..there's just too much to go wrong there and seems like quite a delicate arrangement to stake your life on imho.

So...I find myself leaning heavily towards selecting and actually prefering the A2 type over the A3 in the respect that I'd have more confidence in such an arm retaining it's zero during rough handling in the field...however...it does limit ones options on sighting systems..and right now I'm thinking a Trijicon front post with the possible adaptation of a button actuated laser for evening wear on an A2...and am very open to listening to any other options that may be available for the A2.

Rails are cool but...I don't like them either as I'm also intending to keep my A2 M4 carbine as un-encumbered and light as possible...fast handling and free of "All The Bells and Whistles"...I know...it's not very exciting but...it is practical.

Does anyone else here feel this way or am I alone on this train of thought?

L8R, Bill.



Link Posted: 8/7/2005 8:51:47 PM EDT
You're not alone. Doesnt mean your wrong, or right for that matter, but you're not alone.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 8:55:43 PM EDT
A good carry handle or optics mount will stay where you put it. That is what they are designed to do and they work. That is why you see A3's in Iraq. A Chinese carry handle or optics mount will not stay were you put it.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 9:00:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
You're not alone. Doesnt mean your wrong, or right for that matter, but you're not alone.



Cool...and let me make it clear that I'm NOT trying to ignite a "My Gun Is Better Than Your Gun Because...yada,yada,yada" flame fest...just intelligent discussion on the virtues and/or short-comings of both....and the thoughts/experiences/opinions of WHY we make these certain decisions/selections/preferences.

This way we all get to learn something from each other and see how others think/feel and why.

Cool?

L8R, Bill.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 9:11:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FUZ1ON:
Cool?

L8R, Bill.




Cool with me. Im not one to bash another man's choice in weapons as long as he choses quality and reliability in the gun itself and what he puts on it.

I know people from both schools who by vocation abuse their weapons. I respect the ability, not the tools.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 9:15:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By YELLOWV:
A good carry handle or optics mount will stay where you put it. That is what they are designed to do and they work. That is why you see A3's in Iraq. A Chinese carry handle or optics mount will not stay were you put it.



See...I agree to a point but lets be honest here...the misson environment in iraq is a far cry from that of actually having to get down and dirty in the bush...such as we saw in Nam...or even here on our own nations soil...in iraq?..I see alot of riding around in apv's, walking urban open streets or traversing the desert where very little "Bush Action" is found...and I think/feel that a man would only hafta fight his way through one brier patch before you'd find him on the other side searching his pack for the allen wrenches to get all that stuff that hung up his railed out rifle...OFF!

I know the acogs are cool and seem extremely solid but I do see a lot of aftermarket flat-top mounts that leave scopes and dot sights extended precariously out in space where I suspect one small light impact might greatly affect their ability to hold zero as...there's only so much mating/contacting clamp surface between the two where the A2 is fordged as a single piece...hence my mind tells me it's GOT to be far stronger, more solid and more resilent to absorbing impacts/rough handling.

And like I said...just wondering how many others might feel this way...or not.

T.I.A. and L8R, Bill.

Link Posted: 8/7/2005 9:24:05 PM EDT
Optics = A3
No optics = A2 / A1

Next
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 9:43:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/7/2005 9:44:31 PM EDT by SSeric02]

Originally Posted By FUZ1ON:

Originally Posted By YELLOWV:
A good carry handle or optics mount will stay where you put it. That is what they are designed to do and they work. That is why you see A3's in Iraq. A Chinese carry handle or optics mount will not stay were you put it.



See...I agree to a point but lets be honest here...the misson environment in iraq is a far cry from that of actually having to get down and dirty in the bush...such as we saw in Nam...or even here on our own nations soil...in iraq?..I see alot of riding around in apv's, walking urban open streets or traversing the desert where very little "Bush Action" is found...and I think/feel that a man would only hafta fight his way through one brier patch before you'd find him on the other side searching his pack for the allen wrenches to get all that stuff that hung up his railed out rifle...OFF!



Never spent much time jumping over rubbled walls, through windows, etc have you? Not trying to start a pissing contest, and I understand your point on foliage messing with your weapons sights. But, I'm of the opinion that the urban environment is as hard if not harder on a weapon than the green side. Lot's of concrete, lots of asphalt, lots of bricks, you get the picture. Also, having worked in light armored vehicles for a while, I can tell you that they aren't any easier on your rifle either.

Just another point of view for the discussion.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 9:45:56 PM EDT
I put my first AR together (M4gery w/A2 upper) and swore I would only get flattops after that but it just hasn't worked that way. I ended up putting together an A4 20"er, but the build after that was an M16A2 upper....and I'm looking for another one. The mid-length I have planned will have a flattop, but I might build another Gov't clone 20" A2 after that.

Bells and whistles never attracted me much either other than the EOTech I have on the A4.

WIZZO
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 9:50:32 PM EDT
I completely agree with your point but I also disagree.

I learned my BRM and handled an A2 for most of my life, that being said I prefer the A3.

Whilst everything you stated are exactly the kind of concern I have I have also find other viewpoints contrary to yours and my own; some of which I chose to adopt. The A2 is a great system, a basic par down rifle great for handling with the KISS mentality. But you have to weight the idea of inherent toughness with actual usage and function. I would love to keep an A2 if it had a sight system I am comfortable with; but I am not, far from it considering modern day optics. So that leaves me with the A3 flat top and the various optical sights.

So now the concern of reliability and durability comes in.

Now let's place your (and mine) perspective and reality into check.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=2&f=134&t=142962

That thread from MSTN has some real life M4's in the field right now. While some of them looks like pretty toys that has never been used (or babied by people who were never used the buttstock to go into prone) some however has seen heavy usage. I have crossed path with a few of these M4's myself on deployment and through MOB station. I have seen M4's with Aimpoint worn down to the aluminum from contact points from 3 years of deployment. I talked to various individuals deployed in the tough mountains of Afghanistan and they have only had minor problems with their setup. The main gripes obviously are from the Aimpoint and Eotech dependency on batteries and having to be turned on. But this minor gripe does not effect combat efficiency. The fact that they are easily cowitness (and are almost always do) negate the risk of not being able to retun fire accuratelywhen engaged. And most of us military people know that you have more than enough time to turn a knob or push a button after the initial volley of fire. The ACOG solves this problem completely and IMO as good as any iron sight setup.

I have used Aimpoint, Eotech and ACOG and you can guess what I have mounted on my rifle...ACOG. While I prefer the Aimpoint and Eotech for several reason over the ACOG, I use the ACOG because I know it's always on and the inherent toughness in the design. If you have ever seen and handled an ACOG, the chance of it failing is as likely as having a bent carry handle and worthless A2 sights. Which some of us have seen before in our service and frankly, your rifle is junked. The A3 has this other advantage of being able to use several aiming system versus dependent only on one.

But back to the point of actual usage. If you think those boys in the mounatins of Afganistan, Northern Iraq and in the Phillipines are not seeing conditions as bad as Vietnam than you need to get a real reality check. The fact is, these new fangled A3 and optics perform more than adequately in the field. The force multiplier these optics imbues far outweight any negative factor one can come up with.

If you further have any doubt of reliability, realize what the Marine Corp is issuing to the young Marines in Iraq. The Army, Airforce and Navy also issues ACOG, AIMPOINT and EOTECH to various individuals. If these do not perform up to spec we would have heard something to that magnitude by now. I spent the last 2 years dealing with individuals fresh from engagements and I have not heard of any significant trend that would have me worry. There do exist anomalies and stories of freak accident, of which occurs no matter what gear is used.

So ask yourself: Will you be inflicting more damage and wear on your rifle RIGHT NOW than the Active Duty armed forces is doing?

If you are one of the few users that punish their gears more than Force Recon Marines, MI soldiers, "special" individuals, high speed "operators" and the grunts on the ground than yes an A2 might be your thing.

I am definately not at that level of abuse. Therefore, however I hold my opinions dear to myself, I have to admit wisdom in the bigger picture versus my own perspective.

(Now if you want to discuss Slings I have a whole other opinion as to the quality of the issued stuff.)
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 9:56:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SSeric02:

Originally Posted By FUZ1ON:

Originally Posted By YELLOWV:
A good carry handle or optics mount will stay where you put it. That is what they are designed to do and they work. That is why you see A3's in Iraq. A Chinese carry handle or optics mount will not stay were you put it.



See...I agree to a point but lets be honest here...the misson environment in iraq is a far cry from that of actually having to get down and dirty in the bush...such as we saw in Nam...or even here on our own nations soil...in iraq?..I see alot of riding around in apv's, walking urban open streets or traversing the desert where very little "Bush Action" is found...and I think/feel that a man would only hafta fight his way through one brier patch before you'd find him on the other side searching his pack for the allen wrenches to get all that stuff that hung up his railed out rifle...OFF!



Never spent much time jumping over rubbled walls, through windows, etc have you? Not trying to start a pissing contest, and I understand your point on foliage messing with your weapons sights. But, I'm of the opinion that the urban environment is as hard if not harder on a weapon than the green side. Lot's of concrete, lots of asphalt, lots of bricks, you get the picture. Also, having worked in light armored vehicles for a while, I can tell you that they aren't any easier on your rifle either.

Just another point of view for the discussion.



Oh hey...I certainly didn't intend to demean in any way the conditions in iraq...just point out some of the environmental differences a rifle/weapon system may be expected to encounter as opposed to iraq...primarily the foilage thing...mud...rain...living in the bush sorta thing and no...I haven't jumped through any windows lately...thank god. LOL!!!
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 9:59:48 PM EDT
I see you're point and agree with you. Now as far as reliability of the optics in combat, I don't know as I have zero experience in that area. I just prefer a fixed carry handle, flat tops look funny to me. Also, I'm just not attracted to all of the rails, lights, lasers, red dots, cook tops, drink dispensers and everything else that you can add to Ar's. I just want it simple and effective and the A2 with no optics offers that to me for my uses. But, I have no problem with the guys that do deck their's out, it's just not my thing.

I think the A2 config works great and gets the job done, and it's not like you can't add optics to them. Granted it does look a little funny and it's uncomfortable but it is possible. I have a carry handle mount for mine to use with a scope when me and friends have fun shooting long distances with our Ar's, but it stays off of it and in the safe otherwise.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 10:00:46 PM EDT
Rgr FUZ1ON, but my point is that conditions there ARE very demanding and rough on the weapons. Yeah, less bush although it certainly is present in some locales. But much more hard stuff that can knock into the weapons and do damage to sights and optics. Plenty of dirt, sand, grit, and mud too depending on where you are at.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 10:02:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bobfried:
I completely agree with your point but I also disagree.

I learned my BRM and handled an A2 for most of my life, that being said I prefer the A3.

Whilst everything you stated are exactly the kind of concern I have I have also find other viewpoints contrary to yours and my own; some of which I chose to adopt. The A2 is a great system, a basic par down rifle great for handling with the KISS mentality. But you have to weight the idea of inherent toughness with actual usage and function. I would love to keep an A2 if it had a sight system I am comfortable with; but I am not, far from it considering modern day optics. So that leaves me with the A3 flat top and the various optical sights.

So now the concern of reliability and durability comes in.

Now let's place your (and mine) perspective and reality into check.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=2&f=134&t=142962

That thread from MSTN has some real life M4's in the field right now. While some of them looks like pretty toys that has never been used (or babied by people who were never used the buttstock to go into prone) some however has seen heavy usage. I have crossed path with a few of these M4's myself on deployment and through MOB station. I have seen M4's with Aimpoint worn down to the aluminum from contact points from 3 years of deployment. I talked to various individuals deployed in the tough mountains of Afghanistan and they have only had minor problems with their setup. The main gripes obviously are from the Aimpoint and Eotech dependency on batteries and having to be turned on. But this minor gripe does not effect combat efficiency. The fact that they are easily cowitness (and are almost always do) negate the risk of not being able to retun fire accuratelywhen engaged. And most of us military people know that you have more than enough time to turn a knob or push a button after the initial volley of fire. The ACOG solves this problem completely and IMO as good as any iron sight setup.

I have used Aimpoint, Eotech and ACOG and you can guess what I have mounted on my rifle...ACOG. While I prefer the Aimpoint and Eotech for several reason over the ACOG, I use the ACOG because I know it's always on and the inherent toughness in the design. If you have ever seen and handled an ACOG, the chance of it failing is as likely as having a bent carry handle and worthless A2 sights. Which some of us have seen before in our service and frankly, your rifle is junked. The A3 has this other advantage of being able to use several aiming system versus dependent only on one.

But back to the point of actual usage. If you think those boys in the mounatins of Afganistan, Northern Iraq and in the Phillipines are not seeing conditions as bad as Vietnam than you need to get a real reality check. The fact is, these new fangled A3 and optics perform more than adequately in the field. The force multiplier these optics imbues far outweight any negative factor one can come up with.

If you further have any doubt of reliability, realize what the Marine Corp is issuing to the young Marines in Iraq. The Army, Airforce and Navy also issues ACOG, AIMPOINT and EOTECH to various individuals. If these do not perform up to spec we would have heard something to that magnitude by now. I spent the last 2 years dealing with individuals fresh from engagements and I have not heard of any significant trend that would have me worry. There do exist anomalies and stories of freak accident, of which occurs no matter what gear is used.

So ask yourself: Will you be inflicting more damage and wear on your rifle RIGHT NOW than the Active Duty armed forces is doing?

If you are one of the few users that punish their gears more than Force Recon Marines, MI soldiers, "special" individuals, high speed "operators" and the grunts on the ground than yes an A2 might be your thing.

I am definately not at that level of abuse. Therefore, however I hold my opinions dear to myself, I have to admit wisdom in the bigger picture versus my own perspective.

(Now if you want to discuss Slings I have a whole other opinion as to the quality of the issued stuff.)



Outstanding post. Thanks.
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 10:02:18 PM EDT
Bill,

I've carried both fixed and detachable on active service (XM16E1, A1,A2 and M4A1. Since 95' have carried the flat top it all over the US, Hati, Europe, Africa, and Middle East. Its been dove down to 30', jumped, alpin skiing, rucked, bounced around weeks on end cross country. Temps have been from 120+ down to -20. Haven't lost my zero with my ACOG, Aimpoint or EOTech. Do however carry a BUIS. Urban warfare is hard on weapons for there is a lot of concrete and stone that the weapons get knocked into. There is also allot of vegetation between the Tigris and Eurprates river valley. Afganistan is very rocky, no soft ground to dive onto.

However adding all that does add weight to the carbine. Last night I removed my ARMS SIR #50, EOTech and M3 Surefire. Placed the standard handguards back on, kept the ARMS #40L BUIS and mounted the PVS-17 (2X red dot Night Scope) on the carbine. I was consistently ringing steel at 300m last night. That's the option a flat top gives you. Also have a standard M16A2 next to the carbine for when the mode sets in.



CD
Link Posted: 8/7/2005 11:25:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/7/2005 11:28:50 PM EDT by ryanSD]
Different situations/operations call for different equipment.

Personally if I'm going to be engaging targets over 400 meters away, id personally would like an Luepold. But if I'm going to be clearing room to room houses in a run down barrio, id much rather engage with an ACOG (I own an acog and an aimpoint, both have never failed once) or an EOTECh or an aimpoint, it depends on the situation and the individual's needs to be a combat efficient soldier.

Terrain changes, equipment changes, even rifles change, but what remains constant as the northern star is the soldier stairin through opensights, an acog, an aimpoint, whatever.

I guess what I'm saying is that it boils down to individual needs/abilities and also the operation and situation. Bottom line that remains a must is for a soldier to make target aquisitions and engagments quickly and effeciently.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 12:19:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 12:20:45 AM EDT by Zardoz]

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
You're not alone. Doesnt mean your wrong, or right for that matter, but you're not alone.

True enough. For the ultimate in AR sight durability though, what ya want is an A1 upper. And this, coming from a guy with a flattop; go figure, lol.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 12:54:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 12:59:19 AM EDT by Lumpy196]

Originally Posted By Zardoz:

Originally Posted By Lumpy196:
You're not alone. Doesnt mean your wrong, or right for that matter, but you're not alone.

True enough. For the ultimate in AR sight durability though, what ya want is an A1 upper. And this, coming from a guy with a flattop; go figure, lol.




Personally, the A2 system is at home on a DCM gun in my opinion. Not that they break regularly, but they are more complex than I need a rear sight to be.

I have no doubt that either of these systems could take any abuse that could be thrown at them:


Link Posted: 8/8/2005 2:01:42 AM EDT
Nice shootin' irons, Lumpy. I am confident in my setup, which is an LMT rear (no optic, yet). I'd probably be better off with a Larue, but I do like the LMT, even if it is more complex and susceptible to damage if it takes a hit.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 2:46:20 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 10:01:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2005 10:02:44 AM EDT by FUZ1ON]
First I wanna thank bobfried, Combat_Diver and Lumpy for bringing forth some outstanding points here...most notably bobfrieds point concerning secondary cowitness sighting arrangements on the A3 and for sharing their first hand experience and testamonials concerning the true, battle proven durability of acog, aimpoint and eotech sighting systems and their ability to hold zero under actual field conditions as their testimonials and experience have greatly improved my faith in the reliability of such....in this thread....thank you for that gentlemen....well done.

That said?...I'm still not going to let such valuable knowledge deter me from my planned purchase of a BM A2 M4 Carbine that I'm aqquiring this week as for $830+ Tax I still believe it a real fair deal (for my area) and a welcome addition to my gun safe. If for nothing else?..as a great knock around plinker...however...I still believe that the oh so stealthy, dead-nuts reliable A2 M4 Carbine, (sans any and all aftermarket bells and whistles) is still one light-weight, easy to slip through the bush, fast-handling mofo and has earned it's place as such.

But like I said...thanks to the input here?...my faith in the A3's durability/reliability is vastly increased. I have three young daughters...the two oldest of which are coming of shooting age...and the M4 Carbines diminutive size, collapsable stock and low recoil will make an excellent starter rifle (they've already been range trained with dads old marlin bolt .22) and a family heirloom to hand down...and having 3 daughters means that sooner or later dad will hafta aqquire 1 for each...over time...hopefully before I kick it. LOL!!! And the next 2 might very well be A3's.

btw...I also got a chuckle out of luckypunks response of...

Optics = A3
No optics = A2 / A1

Next


Thanks again, Semper Fi and L8R, Bill.

Link Posted: 8/8/2005 11:25:50 AM EDT
Wow, this thread has actually stayed quite civil and there is some excellent info.

Here's one point that I haven't seen mentioned. The A3 style gives you options - you can mount all the high-speed, low-drag things on there very easily or stick with the good old carry handle. I know you can mount things on the A2 but hanging them off of that little hole in the carry handle doesn't seem as reliable as the railing on an A3. I would think the ability to upgrade the A3 would be a strong selling point. I know after shooting with my Dad, there comes a point where the eyes deteriorate and shooting with a scope is much, much easier than with iron sights. I think the A3 would allow many more options in that regard...

Oh, and I haven't heard the ARFcom catch phrase yet - get both!

Spooky
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 1:50:17 PM EDT
I am sure the A3 system is as sound as it can be but personally I feel better with the A2 configuration. Heck, I feel fine with an M1 Garand so I guess I am a bit old fashioned.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 2:07:21 PM EDT
FUZ1ON, I shoot an A2 Bushy in IPSC with an Aimpoint on the carry handle. Since ther eis no paralex error, the check weld is not as important as with regular optics. If you want to, it pops off easy and holds zero going back on. Pretty simple.

Bill
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 4:58:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Spooky130:
Wow, this thread has actually stayed quite civil and there is some excellent info.

Here's one point that I haven't seen mentioned. The A3 style gives you options - you can mount all the high-speed, low-drag things on there very easily or stick with the good old carry handle. I know you can mount things on the A2 but hanging them off of that little hole in the carry handle doesn't seem as reliable as the railing on an A3. I would think the ability to upgrade the A3 would be a strong selling point. I know after shooting with my Dad, there comes a point where the eyes deteriorate and shooting with a scope is much, much easier than with iron sights. I think the A3 would allow many more options in that regard...

Oh, and I haven't heard the ARFcom catch phrase yet - get both!

Spooky



Just how solid are the irons on the A3?
If I got a 6920 and never intended to use optics, wouldn't it be better
to get an A2 upper like the RO750 or 777?
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 5:05:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By YELLOWV:
That is why you see A3's in Iraq.



No you don't, there have probably only been a hand full of A3s in the country since the war and all them carried by SeaBeas.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 6:00:09 PM EDT
I have carried the M16A2 in Iraq and also the M16A4 as well. I liked the A4 better since I mounted my Aimpoint on it and pistol grip. It came in handy on the foot patrols, convoys and vehicle patrols as well.

The entire Marine Corps is switching to the M16A4. It is a good rifle and I have no complaints. Also we are starting to field ACOGs as well.

It will be interesting to see where Marine Corps Marksmanship goes with the introduction of the A4, Combat Optic and 3 point Sling.

Max

Link Posted: 8/8/2005 6:13:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By maxell27:
I have carried the M16A2 in Iraq and also the M16A4 as well. I liked the A4 better since I mounted my Aimpoint on it and pistol grip. It came in handy on the foot patrols, convoys and vehicle patrols as well.

The entire Marine Corps is switching to the M16A4. It is a good rifle and I have no complaints. Also we are starting to field ACOGs as well.

It will be interesting to see where Marine Corps Marksmanship goes with the introduction of the A4, Combat Optic and 3 point Sling.

Max



Max


MARADMIN 353/05 IMPLEMENTATION OF FY05 MARINE CORPS MARKSMENSHIP



IN APRIL 2005 THE MARINE CORPS
MARKSMANSHIP SYMPOSIUM WAS HELD AT QUANTICO, VA TO DISCUSS
CHANGES TO THE MARINE CORPS MARKSMANSHIP PROGRAM. THE
ATTENDEES INCLUDED REPRESENTATIVES FROM 9925 RANGE OFFICER AND
0306 GUNNER COMMUNITIES, GROUND TRAINING BRANCH, AND ALL
ELEMENTS OF THE MAGTF. THE SYMPOSIUM'S PROPOSAL INCLUDED
REPLACING THE CURRENT ANNUAL SUSTAINMENT LEVEL-RIFLE PROGRAM
WITH A FIVE DAY TRAINING PROGRAM THAT INCLUDES BOTH FUNDAMENTAL
RIFLE TRAINING AND BASIC COMBAT SHOOTING FOR ALL MARINES IN THE
OPERATING FORCES AND SUPPORTING ESTABLISHMENTS. THIS ANNUAL
TRAINING REQUIREMENT WILL BE FURTHER ENHANCED BY FUTURE
IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERMEDIATE AND ADVANCED COMBAT SHOOTING
SKILLS FIRING TABLES REQUIRED FOR MARINES AND UNITS,
AS APPLICABLE, AS PROGRESSIVE, MISSION ORIENTED UNIT TRAINING.
2. OUTCOME: DURING THE MOST RECENT (27-30 JUN) EXECUTIVE
OFF SITE, CMC, WITH UNANIMOUS SENIOR LEADER CONCURRENCE,
APPROVED THE PROPOSAL OUTLINED IN PARA 1.
3. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
CURRENT PROGRAM APPROVED PROGRAM
PHASE I PREPARATORY TRAINING*
PHASE II TABLE 1 (FUND MARKSMANSHIP TRNG)
PHASE III TABLE 2 (BASIC COMBAT SHOOTING SKILLS)
NA TABLE 3 (INTERMEDIATE CMBT SHTNG SKILLS)
NA TABLE 4 (ADV CMBT SHOOTING SKILLS)
(NOTE: * PREPARATORY TRAINING WILL BE CONDUCTED OVER A 2-DAY
PERIOD PRIOR TO TABLE 1).
TABLE 1 WILL BE CONDUCTED MONDAY, TUESDAY, AND WEDNESDAY.
QUALIFICATION DAY FOR TABLE 1 WILL BE CONDUCTED ON WEDNESDAY;
THERE WILL BE NO PREQUALIFICATION DAY. TABLE 2 WILL BE
CONDUCTED ON THURSDAY AND FRIDAY. FRIDAY WILL BE QUALIFICATION
DAY FOR TABLE 2. TABLE 3 IS AN ADDITIONAL ANNUAL REQUIREMENT
AND WILL BE CONDUCTED BY UNIT COMMANDERS. TABLE 4 WILL BE
REQUIRED ANNUALLY FOR ALL MARINES WITH THE 03XX MOS.
MCO 3574.2_ EXEMPTIONS AND WAIVERS WILL REMAIN APPLICABLE.
4. IMPLEMENTATION: TABLES 1 AND 2 WILL BE CONDUCTED FOR ALL
MARINES IN THE OPERATING FORCES AND SUPPORTING ESTABLISHMENT
ON ALL USMC KNOWN DISTANCE RANGES COMMENCING 1 OCT 2005.
DETERMINATION ON WHEN TO INTRODUCE TABLE 2 AT THE MCRDS IS TBD.
TESTING AND VALIDATION OF TABLES 3 AND 4 IS ONGOING AND IS
PROJECTED FOR A 1 JAN 2006 START DATE. THIS IMPLEMENTATION
SCHEDULE IS APPLICABLE TO THE MARINE CORPS RESERVES.
AN IMPLEMENTATION CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD AT QUANTICO DURING
AUGUST 2005. ALL RANGES SHOULD PLAN TO SEND AT LEAST ONE
REPRESENTATIVE. SPECIFIC DETAILS CONCERNING FUNDING,
BILLETING, AND AGENDA WILL FOLLOW VIA SEPARATE CORRESPONDENCE.
PLANNING FOR MOBILE TRAINING TEAMS TO TRAIN-THE-TRAINERS
FOLLOWING THE IMPLEMENTATION CONFERENCE IS ONGOING. SPECIFIC
GUIDANCE WILL BE PUBLISHED VIA SEPARATE CORRESPONDENCE.
5. ADMIN AND LOGISTICS
5.A. ADMIN
5.A.1. MARKSMANSHIP CENTER OF EXCELLENCE, WTBN, QUANTICO HAS
LEAD FOR SERVICE-WIDE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS
PROGRAM UNDER THE AUSPICES OF CG, TECOM.
5.A.2. AMPLIFYING GUIDANCE CONCERNING DETAILS OF
IMPLEMENTATION WILL BE PROVIDED IN A FUTURE MSG FROM CG, TECOM.

Link Posted: 8/8/2005 9:48:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By STLRN:

Originally Posted By YELLOWV:
That is why you see A3's in Iraq.



No you don't, there have probably only been a hand full of A3s in the country since the war and all them carried by SeaBeas.



Your confusing the civilian A2 and A3 nomenclare with the M16A2,M16A3 and M16A4.

Civilian A2 and M16A2, M16A3 and some M4 have the fixed carrying handle. (M16A2 burst mode and M16A3 full auto).

The civilian A3 and M16A4/M4A1 and majority M4 have the detachable carrying handle.

His post is about the carrying handle not M16 nomenclature.

CD
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 10:02:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By luckypunk:
Optics = A3
No optics = A2 / A1

Next



A2/A1 with compact acog = Great!
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 10:11:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Combat_Diver:

Originally Posted By STLRN:

Originally Posted By YELLOWV:
That is why you see A3's in Iraq.



No you don't, there have probably only been a hand full of A3s in the country since the war and all them carried by SeaBeas.



Your confusing the civilian A2 and A3 nomenclare with the M16A2,M16A3 and M16A4.

Civilian A2 and M16A2, M16A3 and some M4 have the fixed carrying handle. (M16A2 burst mode and M16A3 full auto).

The civilian A3 and M16A4/M4A1 and majority M4 have the detachable carrying handle.

His post is about the carrying handle not M16 nomenclature.

CD



CD I think you have it the other way round, he stated that is why you are seeing A3 in Iraq, aren't any AR15A3s in Iraq maybe a few M16A3s, but most of those in the hands of the CBs.
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 11:44:41 PM EDT
I never saw use for "bells and whistles" either. I suppose they have their applications in one way shape or form. What I am curious about is what are all the civy owners doing with their AR's that prompt attaching lights lasers scopes dots rails etc. etc. ???
Link Posted: 8/8/2005 11:49:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By jdixon22:
I never saw use for "bells and whistles" either. I suppose they have their applications in one way shape or form. What I am curious about is what are all the civy owners doing with their AR's that prompt attaching lights lasers scopes dots rails etc. etc. ???

Lights can be used at night (strangely enough) for target ID, if your rifle is used as a home-defense weapon. Dot sights allow you to bring the weapon to bear with more precision & speed (generally speaking) than iron sights. Scopes are handy for even MORE precision. Rails are handy for mounting these kinds of things, along with vertical foregrips, which aid in control.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 1:08:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zardoz:

Originally Posted By jdixon22:
I never saw use for "bells and whistles" either. I suppose they have their applications in one way shape or form. What I am curious about is what are all the civy owners doing with their AR's that prompt attaching lights lasers scopes dots rails etc. etc. ???

Lights can be used at night (strangely enough) for target ID, if your rifle is used as a home-defense weapon. Dot sights allow you to bring the weapon to bear with more precision & speed (generally speaking) than iron sights. Scopes are handy for even MORE precision. Rails are handy for mounting these kinds of things, along with vertical foregrips, which aid in control.



I would counter such an explaination by stating that...

I find these fully railed out forgrips/handgards (made available from every tom, dick and harry in the aftermarket) almost laughable and suggest that anyone who thinks they need that much versitility to accessorize stop wasting money on aftermarket crap and instead spend it on range time, ammo and learning how to be proficient WITHOUT $2,000 worth of bells and whistles hanging off their railed out $800 Carbine as...I think that just the addition of a trijicon front post and a quality button actuated laser (for evening wear) should be sufficient and I'd be d@mned before I'd mount a spotlight to my carbine to announce my position like a used car lot having a weekend special....but...that's jmho and personal thoughts on the matter cause...if I can't identify it at night?....and it's heade in my direction in a threatening mannor?..and dosen't give a quick and correct answer to a whistle or "Halt! Who Goes There!!!"???......it's dead....and the last thing they saw was a little red light...for about 1/4 of a second...then?...after that?...it's lights out nappy time.

But I would like to add this...I know all to well the virtues of a "Single Point Sighting System" vs iron sights....and properly mounted and with a little practice they are very fast to the eye (target aqquisition wise) but...if I had a dollar for every ipsc competitor I saw completely blow a tactical rifle stage of fire over such issues as..."I couldn't find my dot on the first shot".....or..."My Batteries Went Dead"....or?..."The sunlight washed out my dot"....or the worst?....."I forgot to turn it on."?....I'd be a rich man.

That said?....I picked up a Colt 4X at a gun show for a song....for my old and long ago sold 20" N.M. Colt H-bar A2 and it was a great little scope but even with the tensioner adjusted just right (for mounting in the through hole of my A2's carry handle)?....the first few shots would always be slighty off...then after a couple shots it would be right back to dead nuts zero...then a bud made the following suggestion to me by suggesting that...

"After mounting the scope into the carry handle...slam the butt-stock downward on a piece of wood several times to induce/replicate several rounds of recoil"

and I did...and after putting that little piece of advice into practice?....every time I mounted up that little colt 4X to the carry hand and gave the buttstock several sharp raps on a piece of wood the scope was dead nuts zero first shot every time...and I could stake my life on it....with utter confidence.

Thanks again gents and...L8R, Bill.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 4:05:16 AM EDT
A2-------------------Looks so cool----------------------------No optic-----------A3-Optics
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 4:23:21 AM EDT
I have both types of rifles. Personally I have always felt that in a true SHTF situation, I am going with my A2 rifle. My reasons are the same. Rugged and dependable. No batteries to depend on. Another factor is that I am 52 years old. While I am in top shape for a guy my age, if I have to hump long distances, I want a weapon as light as possible so I can carry more ammo and other survival stuff. If I was stuck with my A3, I would remove all accessories except my LMT BUIS.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 5:30:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FUZ1ON:
I would counter such an explaination by stating that...

I find these fully railed out forgrips/handgards (made available from every tom, dick and harry in the aftermarket) almost laughable and suggest that anyone who thinks they need that much versitility to accessorize stop wasting money on aftermarket crap and instead spend it on range time, ammo and learning how to be proficient WITHOUT $2,000 worth of bells and whistles hanging off their railed out $800 Carbine as...I think that just the addition of a trijicon front post and a quality button actuated laser (for evening wear) should be sufficient and I'd be d@mned before I'd mount a spotlight to my carbine to announce my position like a used car lot having a weekend special....but...that's jmho and personal thoughts on the matter cause...if I can't identify it at night?....and it's heade in my direction in a threatening mannor?..and dosen't give a quick and correct answer to a whistle or "Halt! Who Goes There!!!"???......it's dead....and the last thing they saw was a little red light...for about 1/4 of a second...then?...after that?...it's lights out nappy time.

But I would like to add this...I know all to well the virtues of a "Single Point Sighting System" vs iron sights....and properly mounted and with a little practice they are very fast to the eye (target aqquisition wise) but...if I had a dollar for every ipsc competitor I saw completely blow a tactical rifle stage of fire over such issues as..."I couldn't find my dot on the first shot".....or..."My Batteries Went Dead"....or?..."The sunlight washed out my dot"....or the worst?....."I forgot to turn it on."?....I'd be a rich man.

That said?....I picked up a Colt 4X at a gun show for a song....for my old and long ago sold 20" N.M. Colt H-bar A2 and it was a great little scope but even with the tensioner adjusted just right (for mounting in the through hole of my A2's carry handle)?....the first few shots would always be slighty off...then after a couple shots it would be right back to dead nuts zero...then a bud made the following suggestion to me by suggesting that...

"After mounting the scope into the carry handle...slam the butt-stock downward on a piece of wood several times to induce/replicate several rounds of recoil"

and I did...and after putting that little piece of advice into practice?....every time I mounted up that little colt 4X to the carry hand and gave the buttstock several sharp raps on a piece of wood the scope was dead nuts zero first shot every time...and I could stake my life on it....with utter confidence.

Thanks again gents and...L8R, Bill.



Strictly speaking from a leader of Marines prospective, those "bells and whistles" are combat multipliers. The A2 was in many ways was designed more for the range work than for combat, but that is what you get when you have the proponents for Marine Corps shooting as the rifle team and not the Infantry Weapons Officers. The simple fact was the proponents fought the implementation of Rifle Combat Optics, because they didn’t need them at Camp Perry, so some 19 year old LCpl didn’t need them either when he moved onto an unknown distance two way range.
Link Posted: 8/9/2005 6:16:17 AM EDT
Agreed about being a combat multiplier. The Army has for many years been a heavy armor oriented force, the infantry were an afterthought as it was felt they would be operating in the closed confines of their Bradley's and fighting would be done mounted. The Army now is realizing that we don't need as much armor in today's conflicts and the guys on the ground should have every tool they need to help them accomplish a mission.

The Crunchies are the ones getting it done and the heavy forces are now stuck doing light infantry duty with some exceptions. When used properly I a light is a great tool for breaching and room clearing operations, the PEQ IR and visible lasers are some of the most valuable things out there IMHO. Ever tried using an A2 at night with no NVG's or lasers, you aint hitting shit. These things all have their purpose and as has been said, the A2 was made for range work doubling as a battle rifle, the A4's and M4's now are true battle rifles for this day and age and they work damn well at what they do.

As for civvies having them, simple answer is because they can. Who cares if some weekend shooter wants to hang all sorts of shit on his M4gery, thats his perogitive and who are we to look down on that. I agree however that to be truly effective in the use of one's weapon, they need to be very profficient in irons, that should never change. As always my opinion is worth what you paid for it

Steve
Top Top