Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 8/17/2001 9:13:24 PM EDT
Which is better, the A1 or A2?
Link Posted: 8/17/2001 9:18:12 PM EDT
I like the A2 for the sights myself, better for long range shooting, easier to adjust BUT, not as idiot proof or sturdy as the A1s BrenLover
Link Posted: 8/17/2001 9:26:18 PM EDT
i dont think A1 has any advantages, in ARs at least.
Link Posted: 8/17/2001 9:35:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/17/2001 9:31:54 PM EDT by Getsome]
This is a trick question as M-16's and AR's are different in some respects. Concerning AR rifles most people will never use the A-2 sights to their full potential. They are set up so you can sight in from 25 to 300 yards and then rotate the elevation sight wheel and be calibrated clear up to 800 yards. More significant in the barrel twist rate. A-1's had a 1 in 12 twist rate for 55 grain ammo. A-2's had a 1 in 7 twist rate designed for steel core ss109 62 grain ammo which is expensive and hard to find. Modern A-2's usually have a 1 in nine twist rate which will cover most types of ammo. Which one is better....hell if I know? Going with A-1 sights on an AR will save you some money but avoid a 1 in seven barrel twist rate as it will cause 55 grain ammo to spin too fast and fragment.
Link Posted: 8/17/2001 10:12:17 PM EDT
I know I personally am much more accurate with an A2 than I am an A1.
Link Posted: 8/18/2001 9:10:39 AM EDT
An A1 can carry out easily to 400 yards without Kentucky windage I prefer the A1 set up my self. GG
Link Posted: 8/18/2001 12:17:37 PM EDT
For combat and carrying, between the two I'll take the A1. For G.P. the A2 as it handles various weights of bullets.
Link Posted: 8/18/2001 12:24:25 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/18/2001 9:04:21 PM EDT
It's always seemed to me that the A1 was more of a true "assault rifle" along the same line of thought as the original Nazi types. Sort of a hulked-out submachine gun with 300 or 400 yard rifle capabilities. With the A2, it seems like they moved back towards the older "battle rifle" concept somewhat, restricting the full auto to burst fire and putting more emphasis on the long range accuracy end of it. I'm not saying this is regression, by any means, just different priorities. I've never fired an A2, but from what I hear of the way the trigger pull varies from shot-to-shot in a 3-round cycle, I'd have to say they botched the job a bit if a precision rifle was the goal. That would drive me nuts. I also wonder about the ruggedness of the fancier back sight. I think I would prefer the A1 for most use. But maybe they got both the A1 and the A2 wrong. For well-trained, intelligent marksmen who baby their equipment, the A2 range-adjustable rear sight and the A1 full-auto option could both be put to their best use. The great unwashed and undisciplined masses might be best off with the "baby-sitter" 3-round burst limitation of the A2 and the more idiot-proof sight setup of the A1. [:\]
Link Posted: 8/18/2001 9:06:51 PM EDT
A2. [moon]
Top Top