Just read through this thread for the 3rd or 4th time. I referenced it in a video I just made (uploading today) on the M16A2 and can never not read just one or two excerpts from @coldblue . Gotta love the no BS matter-of-fact pointedness of his responses; no hearsay, no scuttlebutt, just the facts.

I appreciate your comment. Thank you.
Attached File

I only use the A2 grip on my M4, A4, and A2 clones. I used the A1 grip on my 20" rifles that clone the A1.

I use the MIAD almost exclusively. I wear an XL glove and use the largest back strap. It fits my hand well.

I started on the A1, carried one in Beirut for nearly six months. Shot it in anger one time. I late '84 we got the A2. I didn't like it as much as the A1. The A1 was lighter, and had less complicated sights.

Sir, while we have you here - what is your opinion on the SKS as a Cold War draftee mass-issue rifle?

My only experience with the SKS was on the "receiving" end.  And I am damn glad that the VC/NVA had only limited ammo logistics to support sustained fire fights out in the bush, whereas we carried tons of ammo and therefore could "wait" for our Air or Artillery to turn the tide. But personally, I would not have impaired each rifle with the weight/bulk of an on-board bayonet.

Thank you, sir.  I'll point out that if the Army had insisted on such a feature in the A2/M4, she might still be doing bayonet drills.  

That was one of the features the Soviets dropped as they transitioned to a standard fleet of AKs - though the Chinese, w/ their less educated army, kept it.

Yes, for the weight and bulk of this:
Attached File


One could carry an additional loaded magazine. Just say'n...

Perhaps the Soviets had an eye to their limited logistics train you were referencing you benefitted from?  

the a2 grip was designed so that average joe would have to stack their fingers in such a way that they would never be comfortable shooting until they got out of the service and ground that hump off the grip. kinda like the nazis running around in itchy wool shirts 24/7 365 and the soviets running around with hunter orange bakelite mags in their akm rifles. keeps soldiers on edge so they dont get too comfy. lol.

OP..., after nearly a decade - - - The answer to your question has arrived.

Why are the handguards tapered?

@coldblue

Before my question(s), just want to say a sincere thank you for leaving a trail of information over the last decade about the M16A2 development program. It's been great to be able to hear directly from the source the what/why/how about how the A2 was developed. History would be lost without your contributions here. Thank you.

Unless I missed this earlier, I haven't seen a direct answer for why the elevation window in the back of the receiver, in my opinion one of the more interesting features from the M16A1E1, didn't make it in to the final M16A2 design. I can appreciate that it requires an extra machining operation which has some cost associated, but in terms of experience for the rifleman, it seems like pennies-per-upper well spent to be able to quickly see your range setting without having to remove your head from the rifle. What was your opinion of this feature? One downside I could think of is that since the FOV of the window is so small, if you're set for 550m for example, you're about 2 clicks past 500 and still 3 clicks from 600 so the dial would be blank, in which case you'd have to tip the rifle anyway if you wanted to check. That could be solved by just having another 2-3 intermedial range markings added though, albeit at again, an extra cost. Or was there confusion since the markings were timed differently between the top and side of the dial to allow for correct range numbers to be viewed at either the side of the rifle or the window. Example photos below. Were there other issues with that design?

Could you share more on how the windage/elevation rear sight design was chosen? Clearly the window was inspired, or even straight up copied off the original Armalite AR-10 design. Did Colt propose that as a feature or was that requested? Also, was there ever a consideration to add just the elevation adjustment, but keep the windage adjustment the same as on the M16A1? When Eugene Stoner was interviewed about the A2 rifle and its changes, he mentioned that he preferred the A1 style of windage adjustment since it was less prone to fidgety fingers messing with the sight zero. Do you agree?

Example photos of M16A1E1 rear sight window shortcomings:






AR-10 rear sight for reference:

Ringer706, you sort of answered your question, re: the intermittent range/click locations not being visible via the rear window; although "window" makes it sound much larger than they were, really more of a little "peep" hole. The main issue with the rear window was it becoming filled with mud during infiltration course drills that were part of our Operational Testing (OT) that the Marine and Soldiers went through. And not only was is filled in with mud, but was very difficult to clean out under pressure while laying in a muddy trench without a bunch of cleaning kit options. Whereas when we moved the reference to the port side, you could pretty well wash off mud with water from a puddle or your canteen. The port side also made the intermittent range/click locations more user friendly as you reference (by the way, great photos).
The rejection of the A1 type windage drum was half to avoid making for a complete safe weapon during rifle requalification (as per range regulations of the day) in order to make windage adjustments with a tool, like a nail and being required to take the rifle out of your shoulder. The other half was for Marines to carry over their rifle marksmanship principles (like reading the wind and making adjustments, or taking those dope adjustments from a Unit Leader via a Fire Command) that they had mastered during annual rifle requalification to combat shooting. That was long standing Marine Corps doctrine (i.e., our Religion) of mastering principles and then transitioning them to practical applications. Remember this was the early 80's, long before anyone imagined widespread use of combat optics in lieu of iron sights. And we were trying to tweak as much practical range out of the new rifle/ammo as possible
And although I have the upmost respect for Mr. Stoner, I thing the "Soldier twiddling" thing is over played. I mean near every American combat rifle since 1900 (and some before) had adjustable rear rights with windage knobs, the 1903 Springfield for example. And I think if this was such a big issue, the M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, M14,etc. would have never been designed with "ease of adjustment" windage knobs. I believe that the Army Colonels on the Infantry Board that made twiddling an issue were actually referencing their perception of ill trained Soldiers who barely understood marksmanship principles because they were rushed through such training with limited ammunition or coaching. Their zeroing technique at 25 meters was also a fault here because as I learned later, too many shooters don't understand or trust how their rifle could be zeroed by hitting a mark well below their aim point as was their zeroing target technique of the day. That's why I designed and implements a point of aim equals point of impact zeroing target. These were the same Colonels who rejected Mr. Stoners initial 25-round magazine in lieu of a 20-rounder as their "burst control device--a decision Mr. Stoner had major heartburn with in the face of 30-round AK's. So just how "smart" was this Board and their "forward thinking..."

Attached File


Such changes were made because Coaches were afraid using the 0-200 large aperture would degrade range scores, so they were having shooters go to "complete safe weapons" to make front sight adjustments between the 200 and 300 meter/yard lines which was anathema to me. So I changed the Manual on a subsequent final review.

To be fair to them, sir, the Colonels who rejected the 25 rnd magazine were a generation before those who complained about the A2 sight.  The next generation dropped bayonet training.  

Thank you for continuing to lay down the history of this rifle.

"Their" complaints about the A2 rear sight were from a contractor tasked with trashing the whole program in favor of maintaining the status-quo and waiting for the "next" leap-ahead concept rifle from Picatinny that never evolved, as "didn't" so many other "advanced combat rifles" Million$ were wasted on by their internal R&D command, one after the other...and Colonels being Colonels...

From several years ago I poster here on AR15.com: "...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, a minority in the Army with an agenda did not agree with this report, but the Department of the Army, Chief of Staff: General Myer, adopted the A2 and it became the standard service rifle for the majority.
Nuf said!..."

Because no matter how good you make it the first time someone is going to come along who is authorized to fuck it up. And they will.
( I guess they never considered everyone has different sized fingers. but the original had that covered)

A soldier will never be a complete soldier, without learning the Spirit of the Bayonet. Bought my own for my deployments. Wore it on my chest.
Spent hours grinding it down and making it sharp, with the idea that I might have to cut seatbelts if I was disabled and upside down.  The
afghan kids all wanted to steal it, it was the object of their fascination. The ANA no better than the kids. I still have it.

I can prob whoop most mens ass with an empty gun, still today. (no bayonet needed)

Whoever decided that our troops didnt need that training is obviously a shill.
Learning the Spirit of the Bayonet is a rite of passage.

Tell me; what is the Spirit Of The Bayonet?

Is there anyone, who still knows the Spirit Of The Bayonet?
What is it?

What a thread!  I need to get Eddie Gleason on here.

I am honored to have known Col. Anthony "Cold Steel" Walker, USMC Ret   RIP, Colonel.

Walker Bio  

Fun fact:  I borrowed a book from Col. Walker about the early USMC, since I had an ancestor who served amongst the US Marines during the Revolution.  I think he was more than a little surprised when I returned it promptly.

Something occurred to me this morning as I was catching up on this discussion. As some have issues with what I did with the M16A1 to M16A2 rear sight, as well as the pistol grip changes between the two, I find it interesting that years latter, when the Army came up with the M4/M4A1 Carbine, they obviously had ample opportunity to completely change the A2 rear sight into something else, but instead, they only changed the pitch of the A2 elevation mechanism for a 200-600 meter max range, retained the A2 windage knob (all be it in the form of a removeable carrying handle), and also kept the A2 pistol grip. Also interesting, is this occurred well into the Army having M16A2 rifles as their standard. So this all indicates an actual preference for the A2 changes.

Or bureaucratic inertia and utter lack of institutional memory, both Army attributes.

To my surprise I'm discovering that I actually prefer the A2 pistol grip over the A1 after putting together A1, A2 and A4 clone type builds over the last few years. The A2 grips absolutely have to be the discontinued chalky Colt's though.

I also prefer the A2 handguards over the A1 handguards and the improved polymer of all the polymer parts. Best A2 stock is the CS stock though.

I don't have any major issues with the A2 rear sights vs. the A1 rear sights. The biggest issue that I do have with the A2 is the heavier barrel. Of course my A2 and A4 "clones" have it, but the original lightweight barrel is better.

I’ve carried both the M16A1 and M16A2 while in the Army. Without question, the A2 was far superior to the A1 in every aspect MINUS the complex and stupid three round burst feature… They should have stayed with the full auto feature for both the Army and Marines.  I’m sure all the studies from the Vietnam War played a part in going with the three round burst due to Joe’s going through a mega shit ton of ammo to take out one VC.

ANYWAY!!  For me and the size of my hands, the A2 grips fit perfectly and honestly I prefer them over most other available grips on the market today. With that said, the A1 grip was fine too, but I’m glad that the military decided to ditch the A1 style grip and go  with the on the A2 rifles, carbines and the later M4 carbines, which I also carried as well in my 30 year career in the Army (1980-2010).

@Coldblue, thank you for your info in this thread.  Really great insight.

If you don't mind, .....

Regarding the barrel and understanding a different ammunition being used for the A2, was there an accuracy expectation with the A2 barrel different from the A1, or were the standards the same?

I don't remember the Colt factory/Gov. Tech Data Package being changed in that regard. I also remember asking, as I witnessed accuracy testing of A2's at Colt, if they could "mark" the rifles that grouped particularly well. That was considered, but found to be impractical due to the increased cost of assigning a different part number, etc., and then in-factory/post factory discrete handling, issue and recovery costs. Practical accuracy wise, our annual rifle requalification scores went much higher which in a course way can be attributed to more accurate rifles and ammo. However, those initial results were fired with the older M193 ammo. The M855 certainly had its "growing pains" in over coming its initial application in light machine guns and that inherent dispersion allowances. Luckily, Canada helped in a big way by suppling a  batch of Belgian/FN SS109 (i.e., the M855's parent round) for the "round 2" A2 testing at Aberdeen Proving Ground that proved very accurate and exceeded requirements.
The "round 1" ammo was Lake City's first M855 attempt using surplus FN SS109 projectiles assembled with existing LC components at that US Army ammo plant. It performed so poorly it nearly cancelled the whole A2 project. So if you ever want to go conspiracy hunting, you might go there as it was so blatant it appeared to be deliberate sabotage...

I just stumbled into this thread tonight. What a fascinating read!

@coldblue

Thank you very much for sharing so many details of your experience.

As someone who spent his 20’s as an Infantryman fighting two wars I can say I have an appreciation for your efforts. The first rifle I was ever issued was an M16A2(though by 2001 they had some miles on them) at Ft Benning. So a always have had something of a soft spot for the A2.

I always wondered what was going on with all of the changes that were the M16A2. Granted, that was really before my time, as it had been in service for quite a while by the time I enlisted. But it was very interesting to hear about the how’s and why’s of all of the changes from the A1.

Not going to lie, there were many times that I cussed the 3rd burst mechanism. BUT, in hearing the reason you added it to the rifle, I must tell you that I very much appreciate your efforts there. There are tactical situations where some kind of automatic fire is absolutely essential, and your compromise (as aggravating as I found it) was greatly preferable to semi auto only.

Being left handed, I definitely appreciate that brass deflector as well. The only brass burns I ever got in the Army were from a 249.

I have a close friend of mine, who is a fair bit older than I am, he’s also left handed. He carried an A1 on his first combat tour, and still has some scars from brass burns. He ended up re-enlisting just in time to go again in 1991(had an M16A2 that go around). He’s always been an A2 fan in the time I’ve known him. He had a lot of experience of the shortcomings of the A1.

We both like the longer stock, both being over 6’ tall-though I will grant that my military experience with the A2 didn’t involve a whole lot of body armor use.

Anyway, it was very interesting to hear about how all that came to be.

Thanks again for sharing your story.

You are very welcome. You might enjoy reading in the Vicker's AR15 Vol. I pages 435-461 where I contributed more history and retrospect to that volume. Attached File

the fang is for gloves in artic weather

Have you tried a BCM? It's all I buy now.

This is absolutely one of the best, most informative thread here on Arfcom.

Thank you @coldblue

You are most welcome.
Semper Fidelis

I finally bought a copy. It was WELL WORTH the money for a fascinating look into the rifles development.

I enjoyed your contributions and honest retrospective.

Thank you Kalahnikid. Your comments are most appreciated.

I heard it was because of their child like hands...

Wife and I were both issued A2s in boot camp.
She didn't like the tribute I built her but it shot great.

Is there a story behind the A2 port door? The IMT video and Vicker's Guide mostly talk about the physical differences between it and the earlier A1 port door, but I was curious whether it was a Colt or USMC design, if you knew the designer, how it came up as an item that needed improvement, etc. I was also wondering why the interior detent latch housing became rounded, though that might be a stupid question - the AR-15 platform is all very new to me!
And to echo what others have said, thank you for sharing all of this.

Did we do this one already?

In some instances, you could trap the A1 port door between the upper and lower when closing them. So I asked Colt to look at this. They came up with the A2 detent latch housing that had a "bump" that cammed the door out of the way. Thus its slightly different design. However, the replaceable parts of the latch mechanism remained the same, as minimizing logistic changes was a guiding principle of the program. Attached File

And years later I came up with this idea:
Attached File

I like that

Thanks to Pat Rogers, I trained to close the ejection port and now it is such an ingrained habit, I do it instinctively.

M-16/AR-15 owes a great deal of its reliability to the Ejection Port cover, and its easy use.  Without such EP cover, or user failing to secure it, the AR platform suffers.

Both Germans and Brits during WW I (and afterwards) had cloth action covers for their bolt action rifles.  Japs had a clanky, noisy metal cover for some of their bolt action rifles, which is seldom seen as many were discarded.

The Main Point of preventing crud ingress into the rifle's action is still quite valid, no matter the rifle used.  Owners of M1, M-14, M1A, Mini 14/30 rifles may benefit from securing a small piece of tape over the open portion of the receiver where crud ingress is possible.  Such tape can be "blown-off" with the first shot and replaced.  Kinda like a plastic muzzle cap.  Much more bother than the AR's EP cover, but can be done.

I've seen the "mud tests" of various rifles, including the M-14/M1A/M1 rifles.  A small 2" long bit of even common masking tape would have gone a long way towards preventing crud ingress, and likely significantly changing results of the "mud tests".  Granted that users would need to have such tape available and be damn well trained in applying it.  Once troops understand that such measures may mean their life or death, I reckon most troops will do the right thing.

The FN49 had a sliding cover behind the op handle for the same reason.  

Look at the MP44 also.
Attached File

Attached File
Attached File


Definitely some 'inspiration" here...

Thanks for that left picture Cold Blue.  
Attached File