Quoted:
Quoted: Since The M16A2 Product Improvement Program (1980-1983) was my program, this is the down & dirty on the barrel thickness issue.
|
Coldblue, Incredible story! Thanks for sharing this piece of M16 history with us. I remember reading about the then new version of the M16 in an issue of Marine Corps Gazette in my High School library at the time.
With the benefit of 20+ years of hindsight, are there any features that you wish you had or hadn't added to the A2?
|
Oh Yea!
1. Lose the burst control. We were forced into this because the Logisticians who were planning on buying the M249 SAW were saying the rifleman did not need the auto option. And the Ammo people made a great case of removong auto from the Rifleman because the 800 SAW rounds per case was going to significantly reduce the rifle ammo pack out per case at 1680 rds.
2. Ever wonder why Safe, Semi, and Burst are marked on the starboard side of the receiver? Well as the list of improvements increased to a point some 2 1/2 years into the program spilled over onto a second viewgraph, the last thing on the first page was the starboard side marking, the first thing on the second slide was a "mirror image" selector that pulged-in from the right side for us left-handed Marines.
3. One Colonel who shall remain un-named insisted that I "lose everything on the second slide." Well the second thing on that list was a "step" at the rear of the front large diameter barrel area to provide a more robust interface for the front of the M203 receiver. (Something we sorely need today.)
4. An M203 Side Sling Adapter that would fit around the larger diameter barrel. This one bit us in the ass when we fielded the A2's when everyone else on the planet discovered the old Side Sling Adapter would not fit.
5. Then there was a railed uper receiver that eventually became the Picatinny rail (remember, I was stationed at Picatinny at the time), and then a receiver concept drawing that looks very much inspired by the then brang new AUG-1.
...the Colonel's reasoning: "Major, you were sent to Picatinny to Product Improve the current Service Rifle, not to develop the Futue Rifle--that is another program entirely, which the Marine Corps & Army are currently funding as you well know because Picatinny is doing it and you are monitoring in on-site."
Well, all I got to say is Future Rifle failed to deliver and improed rile, then became the Advanced Combat Rifle (ACR) that failed to deliver as well, then that was followed by the like ill fated OICW.
Oh, I guess I got one more thing to say, THANK YOU MR. STONER and f___ y__ Colonel.