AR Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - A2 Retro Vote (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 4/6/2009 6:54:42 PM EDT
|
Ok, we did this in the past and I guess it looks like it needs to be done again. We can leave it up to the members of the Retro forum. Please vote for how you feel about A2's being considered retro.
Doc |
No, the A2 is NOT retro.
|
Although early M4's using A2 uppers are interesting, and I love reading BHD threads, and seeing pics of early A2 builds, The comment was recently made by a service member that many A2's are still in service overseas. As long as the US government is still issuing them, I don't consider them to be retro.
I will suggest however, that Arfcom might consider an A2 forum for awhile to gauge response, as they did with the retro forum, which has been an overwhelming success - perhaps a 'child board' of the retro forum? There seems to be a lot of interest in A2s, and obviously there are a lot out there - but retro? No. Just my .02 |
|
Although early M4's using A2 uppers are interesting, and I love reading BHD threads, and seeing pics of early A2 builds, The comment was recently made by a service member that many A2's are still in service overseas. As long as the US government is still issuing them, I don't consider them to be retro.
This. Are A1s still in wide-spread use in the current-day military? (I honestly don't know; not being sarcastic.) I don't mean USAF mix-masters with slab-side lowers; I mean actual M16A1 rifles, complete with triangular handguards, 1-12 twist, etc. If the answer is "no," then, well, that's why we have the Retro forum! 
|
|
Quoted:
Although early M4's using A2 uppers are interesting, and I love reading BHD threads, and seeing pics of early A2 builds, The comment was recently made by a service member that many A2's are still in service overseas. As long as the US government is still issuing them, I don't consider them to be retro.
This. Are A1s still in wide-spread use in the current-day military? (I honestly don't know; not being sarcastic.) I don't mean USAF mix-masters with slab-side lowers; I mean actual M16A1 rifles, complete with triangular handguards, 1-12 twist, etc. If the answer is "no," then, well, that's why we have the Retro forum! You can still order an M16A2 from an NSN, you can't do taht with an M16A1. That in my book renders the M16A1 as retro, the M16A2 as not. |
|
Quoted:
Although early M4's using A2 uppers are interesting, and I love reading BHD threads, and seeing pics of early A2 builds, The comment was recently made by a service member that many A2's are still in service overseas. As long as the US government is still issuing them, I don't consider them to be retro. I will suggest however, that Arfcom might consider an A2 forum for awhile to gauge response, as they did with the retro forum, which has been an overwhelming success - perhaps a 'child board' of the retro forum? There seems to be a lot of interest in A2s, and obviously there are a lot out there - but retro? No. Just my .02 +1. I think that an A2 forum should be created. 
|
|
Quoted:
The comment was recently made by a service member that many A2's are still in service overseas. As long as the US government is still issuing them, I don't consider them to be retro. This will muddy the waters, but I've seen 723s, 733s, and (possibly) re-barreled 653s in Afghanistan as recently as last year, as well as plenty of franken carbines with slab side or partial fence lowers and M4 uppers. |
|
Retro - a term used to describe, denote or classify culturally outdated or aged trends, modes, or fashions, from the overall postmodern past, but have since that time become functionally or superficially the norm once again.
I'd say they are considered Retro. I'm 30 and when I was "IN" I loved my M16A2. Now that I'm out I bought a M4 wannabe and now I miss my RIFLE. My 19 y/o cousin who was raised on GWOT and CoD4 recently asked me "I thought the Army gave out M4's with grenade launchers and Acogs, why is yours so long?" when looking at a picture of me holding an A2 back in '98. Today I'd trade this 16" POS for an A2 in a heartbeat. If the genuises of the next generation of soldiers can't i.d. an A2 before enlistment through pop culture and the internet, I think it's safe to say the old A2 has faded into obscurity. (underfunded units and real world operators excluded of course) |
|
Quoted:
Why cant it be retro where is the line? That is the $64 question. Some people only accept "retro" as what was used in Vietnam, some say 25 years old and older, some say anything with a fixed carry handle and A1 sights, some say anything pre A2, and some don't really care. |
|
Quoted:
Ok, we did this in the past and I guess it looks like it needs to be done again. We can leave it up to the members of the Retro forum. Please vote for how you feel about A2's being considered retro. Doc Doc, you know as well as I, that this can only lead to trouble. |
|
I am not one hung up on the Vietnam era determining what is retro and what isn't. The M16A1 clone I built was to represent one I had been issued post Vietnam during my time in the Army in the early 80's using a C MP Chrome Bore marked barrel which would have been made 1974 or later. Looks like a retro but if you get into the details it isn't if using Vietnam as the cut off, 30 Apr 75. It would have been highly unlikely one with such late features would have been common in Vietnam, however common they were in the early 80s..
My vote is to have a sub forum area for the A2 since it is on its way out from common issue. This also provides the advantage of providing an area for people to start exchanging information now instead of waiting 20 years and playing the guessing game we do now with the earlier versions of the M16 and M16A1. |
|
I guess one would have to define RETRO... When used to dscribe something, RETRO is defines as, "modeled on something from the past". So, that being said, the A2 is a retro piece based on it's historical contribition to military history. First combat use was in Panama, then the Gulf War. I was issued my first A2 in 1987 in Korea and carried one into Iraq during the Gulf War.
My .02... 101 |
| I like the number of people who voted and didn't provide any sort of reason. In the United States the age requirement for something to be classified as antique (such as a car) is around 25 years. The M16A2 as a design easily fits into that category. I'm sure you can still find A1's in unit armories in various services, does that make them any less "retro"? I find it absurd to deal in pre-M4 carbines all developed at the same time as the A2 and not the A2. The fear here is opening the door to all sorts of tacticool gear and accessories as well, since M16A2s are still very much in use and people are still adding new things to them, etc. I think we should let it in, but with the caveat that the A2 and only the A2 is valid. New accessories and discussion of whether they're compatible should be left elsewhere. |
|
Quoted:
I guess one would have to define RETRO... When used to dscribe something, RETRO is defines as, "modeled on something from the past". So, that being said, the A2 is a retro piece based on it's historical contribition to military history. First combat use was in Panama, then the Gulf War. I was issued my first A2 in 1987 in Korea and carried one into Iraq during the Gulf War. My .02... 101 A2s aren't Retro. Retro is just the name of this forum. It wasn't meant to be literal. For our purposes, we are studying the Vietnam era M16 and the origin of the Colt/Armalite AR-15 |
|
Quoted:
I am not one hung up on the Vietnam era determining what is retro and what isn't. The M16A1 clone I built was to represent one I had been issued post Vietnam during my time in the Army in the early 80's using a C MP Chrome Bore marked barrel which would have been made 1974 or later. Looks like a retro but if you get into the details it isn't if using Vietnam as the cut off, 30 Apr 75. It would have been highly unlikely one with such late features would have been common in Vietnam, however common they were in the early 80s.. My vote is to have a sub forum area for the A2 since it is on its way out from common issue. This also provides the advantage of providing an area for people to start exchanging information now instead of waiting 20 years and playing the guessing game we do now with the earlier versions of the M16 and M16A1. This. I draw the line at the representation of issue weapons from the 601 to date. We should document the various models in order to assist in identification and build for those who come after us. |
|
Quoted:
My vote is to have a sub forum area for the A2 since it is on its way out from common issue. This also provides the advantage of providing an area for people to start exchanging information now instead of waiting 20 years and playing the guessing game we do now with the earlier versions of the M16 and M16A1. We have that. It is one forum above the Retro Forum |
|
Quoted:
+1. I think that an A2 forum should be created. There is, it is right here.
An A2 is definitely not Retro, why do we have to beat this same horse every time a "new guy" comes to the Retro Forum asking about A2s? 
|
|
By Coctailer:A2s aren't Retro.
Retro is just the name of this forum. It wasn't meant to be literal. For our purposes, we are studying the Vietnam era M16 and the origin of the Colt/Armalite AR-15 Agreed The M16 basically came about because of the Vietnam war, it was refined to meet the needs of that war. To me a retro/original AR15/M16 will alaways be the the first prototypes through the A1 series. A period of refinement. Then you have the A2 period onward. The A2 receiver is still the basis for all models today. The latest M4's, A3, A4 are still using an A2 receiver. Many if not most of the A2 features are still standard today, no matter the configuration. Literally everything about the A1 is phased out or changed. And your 1974/75 issue M16A1 is 99% the same weapon issued in the second part of Vietnam. Unlike the A2 which is radically different in several areas than A1. Yes you will open a can of worms with people coming in next month saying, "Why isn't my A3A4 considered retro"? Changes to a basic A2 Diff. Receiver Diff. FCG, 3 round burst Diff. Rear Sight Diff Front Sight Diff Grip Diff. Stock Diff. Handguards Diff Barrel Twist Diff. Barrel weight/profile Diff. Flash Hider Diff. Ammo/Bullet weight |
|
I see people saying NO because the A2 is still in service, but we have carbines that are OK that were never issue. As was pointed out, many of these carbine variations are the same age as the A2. We've had SHOTGUN threads in the Retro AR section and the world didn't end!
The AR discussion area has a poor signal to noise ratio if you are looking for history. The Retro section is where the people who research this stuff hang out. Even if it's judged that the A2 is not (yet) retro, we should still answer the questions. I think that it is ready to be made retro. But with some caveats; it's only retro as first issued c.1985. No optics. No rails. If this is really the "Nam Era" forum, then it needs a name change. And that would mean that nothing post '74 is allowed. If 25 is the cut off for a classic car, then the A2 is retro next year. 
|
|
Quoted:
For our purposes, we are studying the Vietnam era M16 and the origin of the Colt/Armalite AR-15 This is the statement in the rules of the Retro Forum - 4) The Retro Forum was started for those members interested in discussions covering the early models of the AR15 / M16 and its related equipment. While we do not have a set rule regarding what is considered “retro”, posts involving other firearms or equipment may be moved to a more suitable discussion forum at the discretion of the Moderators or Site Staff. No mention of Vietnam being the cutoff. However, if Vietnam is the decided cutoff then all of the discussions about post war carbines need to moved to the other areas. |
|
Quoted:
The M16 basically came about because of the Vietnam war, it was refined to meet the needs of that war. I would have to disagree with both parts of that statement. The US Army began investigating small caliber rifles in 1957. In May 1957 after Eugene Stoner demonstrated the system to General Wyman, CONARC requested 10 AR-15s for further tests. By May 1958 the US Army has published an initial report on testing of the weapon. The infantry board had concluded that the AR-15 was a potential replacement for the M14 in that report, 3 years before ARPA tries to get them for the ARVN (and has the request rejected). It takes until October 1961, 4 years after the first demonstration of the weapon to the US government as a part of an series of US Army experiments in high velocity small caliber weapons for the AR-15 to even be tested by ARPA in Vietnam. The US Army doesn't even begin serious testing of the system for its own purposes until late 1962. At this point the USAF has already adopted it and both ARPA and MACV support its introduction into service with the ARVN. To summarize, the US Army had already decided it was a viable replacement for the M14 based on no combat evaluation and a separate push toward small caliber ammunition by 1958. In fact, the United States military consistently blocked major introduction of the system into southeast Asia, until beginning to issue the XM16E1 in 1964. The ARVN only began to receive their M16s in 1967, 6 years after the first attempt was made to get a hold of them. As to the latter point about it being refined to meet the needs of that conflict, I would have to say it was refined to meet the needs of basic functionality. The quality control issues of the weapons supplied in the early period of issue, between the original small batches and the later refinements, was such that these refinements were needed for basic functionality. There was nothing about the modifications that could be specifically related to the environment with the exception of the change in flash hider design, which was changed before most of the other refinements to the pattern. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I guess one would have to define RETRO... When used to dscribe something, RETRO is defines as, "modeled on something from the past". So, that being said, the A2 is a retro piece based on it's historical contribition to military history. First combat use was in Panama, then the Gulf War. I was issued my first A2 in 1987 in Korea and carried one into Iraq during the Gulf War. My .02... 101 A2s aren't Retro. Retro is just the name of this forum. It wasn't meant to be literal. For our purposes, we are studying the Vietnam era M16 and the origin of the Colt/Armalite AR-15 This whole conundrum could probably be solved if this was an actual rule that was posted someplace for the rest of us to read. Wait, what's this? 4) The Retro Forum was started for those members interested in discussions covering the early models of the AR15 / M16 and its related equipment. While we do not have a set rule regarding what is considered “retro”, posts involving other firearms or equipment may be moved to a more suitable discussion forum at the discretion of the Moderators or Site Staff.
Who wrote that? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I guess one would have to define RETRO... When used to dscribe something, RETRO is defines as, "modeled on something from the past". So, that being said, the A2 is a retro piece based on it's historical contribition to military history. First combat use was in Panama, then the Gulf War. I was issued my first A2 in 1987 in Korea and carried one into Iraq during the Gulf War. My .02... 101 A2s aren't Retro. Retro is just the name of this forum. It wasn't meant to be literal. For our purposes, we are studying the Vietnam era M16 and the origin of the Colt/Armalite AR-15 Oh' come on man!  Is there no love for the A-2s
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The M16 basically came about because of the Vietnam war, it was refined to meet the needs of that war. I would have to disagree with both parts of that statement. The US Army began investigating small caliber rifles in 1957. In May 1957 after Eugene Stoner demonstrated the system to General Wyman, CONARC requested 10 AR-15s for further tests. By May 1958 the US Army has published an initial report on testing of the weapon. The infantry board had concluded that the AR-15 was a potential replacement for the M14 in that report, 3 years before ARPA tries to get them for the ARVN (and has the request rejected). It takes until October 1961, 4 years after the first demonstration of the weapon to the US government as a part of an series of US Army experiments in high velocity small caliber weapons for the AR-15 to even be tested by ARPA in Vietnam. The US Army doesn't even begin serious testing of the system for its own purposes until late 1962. At this point the USAF has already adopted it and both ARPA and MACV support its introduction into service with the ARVN. To summarize, the US Army had already decided it was a viable replacement for the M14 based on no combat evaluation and a separate push toward small caliber ammunition by 1958. In fact, the United States military consistently blocked major introduction of the system into southeast Asia, until beginning to issue the XM16E1 in 1964. The ARVN only began to receive their M16s in 1967, 6 years after the first attempt was made to get a hold of them. As to the latter point about it being refined to meet the needs of that conflict, I would have to say it was refined to meet the needs of basic functionality. The quality control issues of the weapons supplied in the early period of issue, between the original small batches and the later refinements, was such that these refinements were needed for basic functionality. There was nothing about the modifications that could be specifically related to the environment with the exception of the change in flash hider design, which was changed before most of the other refinements to the pattern. The AR15 did yes. But the XM16/M16 came about after a need for a newer lighter weapon system due to the Vietnam Conflict. You say so in red. Plus remember we were over there several years before 64 in an advisory role. Remember that DOD fought tooth and nail against the AR15 in favor of the M14 which was then in full swing under contracts. After AGILE and seeing that the conflict in Vietnam was about to escalate, McNamara pushed for the adoption of the AR15. Hence the M16. I am not suggesting the weapons design is a result of the war, but that it was adopted and refined as issued because of the war. See: Page 99 The Black Rifle top of the page, 4th paragraph right side. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I guess one would have to define RETRO... When used to dscribe something, RETRO is defines as, "modeled on something from the past". So, that being said, the A2 is a retro piece based on it's historical contribition to military history. First combat use was in Panama, then the Gulf War. I was issued my first A2 in 1987 in Korea and carried one into Iraq during the Gulf War. My .02... 101 A2s aren't Retro. Retro is just the name of this forum. It wasn't meant to be literal. For our purposes, we are studying the Vietnam era M16 and the origin of the Colt/Armalite AR-15 Very eloquent Sir, I agree wholeheartedly. Definitley NO! I also vote to give these fellas their own forum called: The Classic A2 and Friends |
|
A new forum would be good,but as to my thoughts......
The original A2's,A2 carbines,733 and whatnot are retro to me,yes there still in use to some extent but the design is getting shoved back if it wasn't for the free-for-all in the mideast these guns would probably be stuck in the training rack. So any changes made in the AR/M16 from,say,the late 70's to the late 80's should be started to be classified as "retro" But if too many get hot under the coller make a new forum. |
|
Quoted:
But the XM16/M16 came about after a need for a newer lighter weapon system due to the Vietnam Conflict. You say so in red. The US Army was already looking at the pattern. The XM16E1 did not come about because of the Vietnam War, it came about because of things already in motion. And no I don't say that it was because of the Vietnam war in the red. I say they blocked deploying it to southeast Asia until the decision had been made to deploy the weapon across the US Army, and even then only to select units. Quoted:
Plus remember we were over there several years before 64 in an advisory role. Yes, and the US military constantly blocked requests for the AR-15 by those advisers. I'd like to see a picture of any US service person in southeast Asia with an AR-15 pattern rifle before 1961. Quoted:
Remember that DOD fought tooth and nail against the AR15 in favor of the M14 which was then in full swing under contracts. After AGILE and seeing that the conflict in Vietnam was about to escalate, McNamara pushed for the adoption of the AR15. Hence the M16. I am not suggesting the weapons design is a result of the war, but that it was adopted and refined as issued because of the war. Yes, and DoD did quite well in resisting, but it doesn't change the fact that the system was already being explore by the US Army and other services before the deployment of major troops in 1965. The simple fact of the matter is that the US Army had already begun phasing out the M14 before major deployments to Vietnam, a decision that US Army Board had supported 6 years before it happened based at the time on no major combat deployments and no combat evaluation. To convince me the M16's adoption was based on the Vietnam war, you'll have to wish away the fact that the Infantry Board had already green-lighted the AR-15 as a possible replacement for the M14 6 years beforehand. You'd also have to wish away the Combat Developments Command report in December 1962, which found in a comparison of the M14 versus the AR-15 that the rifle was better suited to world-wide use than the M14, not just for use in the jungles of Vietnam. The only reason it suggested continued issuance of the M14 was because the AR-15 was not fully developed yet. Airborne and Special Forces units in Europe were recommend to be given the same priority for receiving the new rifles as Airborne, Airmobile, and Special Forces everywhere else in the world. In fact, the report recommended slowing transition to the M14 from the M1 in places where it had not yet taken place, so as to skip the M14 all together. To add to this by the time McNamara cancels further production of the M14 in 1963, he does so in response to an OSD report that was still talking about adoption of the SPIW in 1965. McNamara sided with the JCS in March 1963 rejecting yet another proposal from MACV for the AR-15. Another request in April 1963 is rejected, even as the discussion of procurement of the AR-15 for the US Army and USAF is discussed. Into July 1963 he's still hoping that the SPIW could be in some way field tested in Vietnam. Colt even threatened in October 1963 to scrap the whole thing over a lack of orders. You'd also have to consider that there's a lot of evidence to suggest Kennedy was looking to reduce involvement in southeast Asia as a whole or otherwise shift the focus of the conflict into Laos. His assassination and the various decisions made by the Johnson government after November 1963 are generally cited as the reasons for the escalation in the conflict. This would mean McNamara, who's support for the M16 was fervent when compared to the M14, but lukewarm when compared to the SPIW, would have had to have been clairvoyant when making the decisions supported by various elements within the US Army by 1963 to go with the M16 until something else came along. The M16 was never intended to be anything more than an interim weapon at the beginning, and its adoption was only influenced by the conflict in Vietnam in a very minor way. To summarize, you're suggesting that experiences by advisers to troops who didn't even have M14s, a year long trial of well under 1000 AR-15s (which according to your post isn't even what we're talking about) under Project AGILE, and McNamara's clairvoyance about Vietnam contributed to the adoption of the M16? I think it has far more to do with the failure of the M14, McNamara's attachment to the newest best thing (and the AR-15 was positively space-age compared to the M14), the fallout from the General Inspector finding that the USAIB tests were fixed against the AR-15 in many ways, and the wide array of other factors that led to the decision to adopt the M16 as an interim weapon until the super-new-fangled SPIW was finished. You'll note the US Army wasn't 100% sold on the M16 even after it was adopted, deciding to conduct the SAWS test, which involved a wide array of weapons. As for refinements, I maintain that any protracted use of the weapon in combat in any environment would've exposed the issues resulting from the initial choices made in terms of ammunition, and no doubt would've led to the chrome chamber and other things. The Vietnam war helped that along only because it was the war being fought at the time. War, not necessarily the Vietnam war, was the impetus for refinement. |
|
Some have stated good reasons I agree with in saying NO to A2s.
To me, if it has an A2 lower, not retro. I forgive new guys who build on an already-owned A2 lower. Or someone who collects all the parts but is waiting for NDS. If it has a brass bump on the upper, not retro. Although again, someone building on a C7 upper or something rare or only prototyped shouldn't be moved. 20 years from now, maybe we should have a "Retro" and then a "Classic" forum for the A2s and M4s. |
|
I'm not suggesting that the need for a lighter rifle or the design of the AR15 was a direct result of the Vietnam war. Your splitting hairs here.
I'm suggesting that the escalation of the war in SEA led to increased purchase orders and the eventual adoption and speedy refinement of the M16 as issued to the Army. I have no doubt that it or something equal to it would have been adopted anyway. It just so happens that the war was now. From Page 99, The Black Rifle: "At length the stalemate was broken by the hand of fate. Amid an escalating atmosphere of US armed forces' "advisor" activity in support of the Army of the Republic of South Vietnam(ARVN), in Bobby Mcdonald's words, "...Finally we got the ARPA order, December 27, 1961, for 1000 rifles. It was this conflict that was that catalyst that spawned (sped up) adoption. To say that it was already on the books and developed is understood. But it's my contention that the war really gave the DOD the green light, and put aside any further delay or hopes for a SPIW program, and resulted in the M16 being adopted or accepted. Page 100: Armed with these positive results, ARPA re-submitted it's original request, clearly stating that the AR15's required were to be used to arm special US advisor units and their Vietnamese allies only, and were not to beconsidered as a general issue item for regular US troops. Page 107: Despite the best efforts of those still loyal to the 7.62mm M14, the AR15 simply refused to go away. Over the summer of 1962 came the request from the commander of the US advisor group in Vietnam for 20,000 rifles as a head start on the implementation of the reccommendations of project AGILE. I see where your interpreting my statement as the rifle "came about" because of the war. Again I'm stating that the war was the catalyst that sped up this adoption. And who can argue that the M16 was under constant refinement, especially with chrome-lined chambers and bores, etc. |
|
In my mind, the brass bump and A2 sights is the cutoff.
That said, there's a lot of grey area, as far as transitional models and so on, so pure A2 stuff in here doesn't really bother me. As an example, what about the early SP2s with the slabsided upper and lower, but A2 barrel and handgaurds (and an AR15A2 rollstamp!)? That's arguably A2, but I don't think it's out of place in the retro forum either. A2s may not be retro, but they are approaching the point where they are classic, and vanilla A2 stuff does get short shift in the general A2 forum. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
We have that. It is one forum above the Retro Forum You would think someone selected to be a moderator would not be so quick to post something so rude. Didn't mean to hurt your feelings................I was pointing out that there is already a forum for AR Discussions. We could get rid of the Retro forum all together if it becomes just like another forum. |
|
Quoted:
I'm not suggesting that the need for a lighter rifle or the design of the AR15 was a direct result of the Vietnam war. Your splitting hairs here. I don't really think of it as any more splitting hairs than the entire subject of this thread. Quoted:
But it's my contention that the war really gave the DOD the green light, and put aside any further delay or hopes for a SPIW program, and resulted in the M16 being adopted or accepted. Except that it wasn't. The SPIW wasn't shelved until 1966, 2 years after the decision for large purchases of the XM16E1 was made. Even then attempts were made to leverage technology from the SPIW program into new programs. Quoted:
Page 100: Armed with these positive results, ARPA re-submitted it's original request, clearly stating that the AR15's required were to be used to arm special US advisor units and their Vietnamese allies only, and were not to be considered as a general issue item for regular US troops. Yes, this was done to get around resistance to challenges to the M14. ARPA had wanted to test the weapon regardless. I can see your point here though, that Vietnam presented an opportunity to push the weapon forward, but I contend that ARPA or someone else would've found a loop hole. Like I said, the Infantry Board had already decided that the AR-15 was a possible replacement for the M14 in 1958, and the M14's deficiencies quickly became apparent. The AR-15's supporters were already looking for ways to get it tested and into service in my opinion and things were already in motion well before 1962. Quoted:
Page 107: Despite the best efforts of those still loyal to the 7.62mm M14, the AR15 simply refused to go away. Over the summer of 1962 came the request from the commander of the US advisor group in Vietnam for 20,000 rifles as a head start on the implementation of the reccommendations of project AGILE. This request is promptly denied because of a lack of funding. Make of that what you will. |
|
This from the DARPA Website: http://www.darpa.mil/other-tech.html
The M16 is based on a design (the Colt AR-15) that had already been rejected by the Chief of Staff of the Army in favor of the heavier 7.62 mm M14. Colt brought the weapon to DARPA in 1962. Through Project AGILE, DARPA purchased 1,000 AR-15s and issued them to combat troops in Southeast Asia for field trials, to prove that the high-velocity 5.56 mm round had satisfactory performance. The subsequent DARPA report, documenting the lethality of the AR-15, was instrumental in motivating the Secretary of Defense to reconsider the Army’s decision and eventually adopt a modified AR-15 as the U.S. military individual weapon of choice.
|
|
How about this: the Retro forum is devoted to AR15-type rifles & carbines that had a 1:12 (or 1:14) twist, and were designed to fire the M193 55-grain round.
If it has a 1:7 or 1:9 twist and is designed to fire the M855 62-grain round, then it isn't retro. Does that work?
|
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - A2 Retro Vote (Page 1 of 2)
AR Sponsor