User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/16/2011 1:06:00 PM EDT
[#1]
Basically anything with a fixed A2 carry handle, preferably with standard USGI type furniture.
(Option B) Obviously some of the rebuilds that the USAF/Army/etc may have done (601/602/603/604 lowers with A2 uppers) are sort of a crossover and could probably be discussed in either forum. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2011 1:17:23 PM EDT
[#2]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2011 1:50:05 PM EDT
[#3]
I would say the upper is what makes it an A2.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2011 2:24:18 PM EDT
[#4]
i'd say the sight/carry handle and upper all one piece. should include any barrel length.just my .02
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2011 2:34:00 PM EDT
[#5]
This is what defines an A2:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2011 2:38:04 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
This is what defines an A2: http://www.ar15howto.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/P1010009.jpg This 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2011 2:45:10 PM EDT
[#7]
Should be like an of the A2 style rifles and carbines used by the militaries. I know there were quite a few M16A2 styled carbines used.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2011 3:40:55 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
This is what defines an A2: http://www.ar15howto.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/P1010009.jpg Yep |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2011 4:28:34 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is what defines an A2: http://www.ar15howto.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/P1010009.jpg Yep +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2011 7:51:48 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
This is what defines an A2: http://www.ar15howto.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/P1010009.jpg Agreed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/16/2011 7:52:39 PM EDT
[#11]
I thought it was the A2 style lower
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2011 4:01:03 AM EDT
[#12]
Some info and photos here from Wikipedia
M16A2 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2011 8:37:44 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
This is what defines an A2: http://www.ar15howto.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/P1010009.jpg agreed, and the C7's are A2's also imho.... despite the A1 backsight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2011 1:03:44 PM EDT
[#14]
"Dedicated Forum For A2 Rifles"
Notice it doesn't say "Rifles & Carbines." 
Really, though, it could be any rifle or carbine using an A2 upper &/or A2 lower that isn't "Vietnam-era" (Retro forum) or tacticool-approved (AR Discussions). |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2011 1:25:14 PM EDT
[#15]
Here we go again with a forum that's too limited in scope, so will degenerate into disputes over "what is an A2".
Quoted:
This is what defines an A2: http://www.ar15howto.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/P1010009.jpg What's the rationale for only considering the upper receiver, instead of the lower? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2011 1:40:04 PM EDT
[#16]
I believe that any rifle that would qualify as an A2 needs not one but two qualifying factors. As already mentioned, the A2 upper with adjustable sights and fixed carrying handles are a "should have" item (I say this for the inclusion of the Canadian C7 rifles) but a "must have" item for me would be the 1:7 twist barrel. This was the big push for the adoption of the A2 was the tighter twist ratio to stabilize both the M855 and M856 rounds to improve long range performance. While not really "correct" for an A2 or A2 carbine build, I would also include the 1:8 and more common 1:9 twist rate barrels with an A2 profile simply because it would be "in the spirit of A2s" for an A2 build.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2011 10:04:32 PM EDT
[#17]
I voted for option B. Without being snobbish, we can politely nudge the inevitable "tacticool" posts in the right direction. the same way we do on Retro forum when the "whats it worth" questions come up. AND, now we can ask questions and not have to hear, "That ain't retro!!!" . And if someone does ask an A2 question on retro (someone who knows the answer will probably still give it) the retro guys will be able to politely nudge the poster to the A2 forum! win- win
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2011 10:17:44 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: I kind of agree. I still the definition of retro should have been expanded instead, but hey, at least we have a place to discuss rifles without the inevitable "LOL IRONS SUCK WTFBBQ HERPITY DERPITY" from AR tech or the "not retro" from retro. Here we go again with a forum that's too limited in scope, so will degenerate into disputes over "what is an A2". What's the rationale for only considering the upper receiver, instead of the lower? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 4:49:18 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
This is what defines an A2: http://www.ar15howto.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/P1010009.jpg +1 A2 Upper: Really only fits here. (Retro: "Not retro!" M4/A4: "Buy a flat top, irons suck, unless they're BUIS!" A2 Lower: seems to fit anywhere. Retro (until you can pick up a NoDak lower or modify it with your drill press) M4/A4 sections it fits there too A2 20" Barrel: belongs here, A4 sections, Retro (606). A2 <20" Barrel: belongs here and A4/M4 sections A2 Pistol Grip: fits here and in A4/M4 sections. Note: You can find free ones in the Retro Section.
A2 stock: Here and in A4 sections. What have I missed? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 5:12:31 AM EDT
[#20]
I honestly don't understand why an M4 fits in the A2 forum.
Whenever I talk with the other guys on my unit;s marksmanship team, an "A2" refers to an M16A2 or civilian copy. A carbine with an A2 upper is an M4 or clone........ To me an A2 is a 20" A2 upper rifle. If it doesn't closely follow an M16A2 its different. Something else. The difference between an M16 A1 and A2 are more than just the sights. A2 Barrel, A2 sights/upper, A2 stock, A2 hand guards and pistol grip....... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 5:19:00 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
I honestly don't understand why an M4 fits in the A2 forum. Whenever I talk with the other guys on my unit;s marksmanship team, an "A2" refers to an M16A2 or civilian copy. A carbine with an A2 upper is an M4 or clone........ An M4 doesn't fit in here, but an A2 carbine is not an M4. Historically the type-classification of the M4 carbine coincides with the development of the flat-top receiver. There was a thread where it was researched and debated extensively on the retro forum whether there were ever any M4s made with fixed carry handles, and while it seems that a few of the very earliest production ones may have been, the M4 in a purely technical sense is a creature of the flat-top era. Carbines such as the Model 727 are clearly not M4s except in the loosest colloquial sense, but are not really at home in the retro forum for the same reason that the A2 rifle is not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 5:20:07 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is what defines an A2: http://www.ar15howto.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/P1010009.jpg +1 A2 Upper: Really only fits here. (Retro: "Not retro!" M4/A4: "Buy a flat top, irons suck, unless they're BUIS!" A2 Lower: seems to fit anywhere. Retro (until you can pick up a NoDak lower or modify it with your drill press) M4/A4 sections it fits there too A2 20" Barrel: belongs here, A4 sections, Retro (606). A2 <20" Barrel: belongs here and A4/M4 sections A2 Pistol Grip: fits here and in A4/M4 sections. Note: You can find free ones in the Retro Section.
A2 stock: Here and in A4 sections. What have I missed? Good breakdown, Tex.
There are complete retro upper assemblies mated to A2 lower receivers. Does that make them A2's? No. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 6:25:31 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is what defines an A2: http://www.ar15howto.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/P1010009.jpg +1 A2 Upper: Really only fits here. (Retro: "Not retro!" M4/A4: "Buy a flat top, irons suck, unless they're BUIS!" A2 Lower: seems to fit anywhere. Retro (until you can pick up a NoDak lower or modify it with your drill press) M4/A4 sections it fits there too A2 20" Barrel: belongs here, A4 sections, Retro (606). A2 <20" Barrel: belongs here and A4/M4 sections A2 Pistol Grip: fits here and in A4/M4 sections. Note: You can find free ones in the Retro Section.
A2 stock: Here and in A4 sections. What have I missed? Pretty much it - given the C style uppers, I'd say meet at least 2 of the following criteria in terms of lower = A2 upper = A2 barrel = GI profile 1/7 |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 6:34:35 AM EDT
[#24]
I don't think that the A2 lower is a make or break point for defining an A2. I say this because the air force for example did a major upgrade program around 2001 where old A1 rifles were upgraded to A2 specifications to include an entire new upper, A2 stock, grip and fire control group. Today it's not uncommon here to see an A2 with a slick side, partial fence or A1ower but oherwise satisfying every other criteria that defines an A2.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 7:00:57 AM EDT
[#25]
Any fixed handle carry upper with the A2 sights, regardless of barrel length.
IMHO. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 7:16:34 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
I honestly don't understand why an M4 fits in the A2 forum. Whenever I talk with the other guys on my unit;s marksmanship team, an "A2" refers to an M16A2 or civilian copy. A carbine with an A2 upper is an M4 or clone........ To me an A2 is a 20" A2 upper rifle. If it doesn't closely follow an M16A2 its different. Something else. The difference between an M16 A1 and A2 are more than just the sights. A2 Barrel, A2 sights/upper, A2 stock, A2 hand guards and pistol grip....... Gotta disagree with the part in bold. Colloquially that may be the case in your unit, but it is inaccurate as there are many A2 designated weapons made for the USG. There were even models of the M16A2 that used A1 profile barrels (707, 711, 719), as well as AR15 A2 models. For example, my Colt 6520 has A2 rollmarked onto the receiver and has an A1 profile barrel (as did other M16A2 rifles and carbines), A2 FH, A2 upper, A2 sights, 3rd gen. A2 stock, A2 handguard, and is called an AR15 A2 government carbine. It can't be called an M4 or a clone because it doesn't even look like an M4 or have the same features, and was developed years before the M4. They are patterned after the M16A2 government carbine and use the same components except for the FA FCG. Even the XM4 was an A2 variant that used an A2 upper, A2 sights and A2 components. The common M4 we know today was introduced years later and has very distinct features from the A2 carbines. The rest of what you say is correct - an M4 does not belong in this forum. The A2 carbines that have the features you mentioned are A2's. If you want to call and apple an orange, or a cat a dog - knock yourself out. M16A2 can be a rifle or a carbine - the US Military uses and has used both. Here is a comprehensive table of the various models of the M16 and AR15 that have been produced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_variants |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 7:20:17 AM EDT
[#27]
Anything with an integral carry handle and fully adjustable rear sight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 8:03:41 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Anything with an integral carry handle and fully adjustable rear sight. This less rails, P mags, lasers and a whole host of tacticool stuff. Ralph |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 8:10:28 AM EDT
[#29]
I think the Colt M16A1E1 might darn well be put in the A2 bucket as well. Or do we need a transitional model forum too
 Let's face it, the A2 upper is one thing but defining what an A2 lower is and the features that came with them is a very complicated issue that only AR Junkies would even bother to try to argue about but hey this is ARFCOM! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 9:04:33 AM EDT
[#30]
If there ain't no arguing, it ain't ARFCOM.
I think the M16A1E1 belongs here, as well as in the Retro Forum, because it has various A1 & A2 components. It is the "missing link."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 5:34:48 PM EDT
[#31]
A2 would be limited to 20" A2 profile Brls with fixed CH w/ a2 sights.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 5:36:30 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Anything with an integral carry handle and fully adjustable rear sight. Including early M4 Carbines? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 5:43:01 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Quoted: Anything with an integral carry handle and fully adjustable rear sight. Including early M4 Carbines? LOL, does it have the reinforced lower? http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=123&t=294264 If so, then it is an A2 as there is no such thing (yet) as an A3 lower |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 6:44:50 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Anything with an integral carry handle and fully adjustable rear sight. What about a 723, or C7/C8? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 7:02:49 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anything with an integral carry handle and fully adjustable rear sight. Including early M4 Carbines? Quoted:
Quoted:
Anything with an integral carry handle and fully adjustable rear sight. What about a 723, or C7/C8? Why not? Personally I would consider the integral carry handle with fully adjustable rear sight as the defining feature. The reinforcements on the lower are simply PIP features. Barrels are easily changed so you can have all sorts of govt. profiles, HBARs, M4, whatever profile. Although as soon as I hit "Submit" I knew someone would ask about the C7/C8. But yeah I would include them with the A2's as well.
Just my humble, and not necessarily informed, opinion.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 7:22:06 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
...but it is inaccurate as there are many A2 designated weapons made for the USG. There is only one official spec for the M16A2. The most important parts of the spec are for a weapon with an S-1-3 trigger group, 20" government profile barrel with 1:7" twist, and a rear sight adjustable for windage and elevation. The rest is relatively basic and actually doesn't require the weapon to have the receiver reinforcements or improved furniture that are associated with the M16A2. This is how you end up with weapons mounted on M16A1 receivers, over-stamped as M16A2s. Similarly, an M16A1 with the new furniture is still an M16A1. Quoted:
There were even models of the M16A2 that used A1 profile barrels (707, 711, 719), as well as AR15 A2 models. These are commercial A2 types. The lowers used on 700 series military weapons were all stamped with the name M16A2, regardless of configuration. This had no relation to the official military designation. Many of the weapons stamped AR-15A2 were actually built on A1 style lowers as well. Again, to be clear, this isn't somehow a comment on what should be discussed in this forum. All of these weapons are appropriate here. Quoted:
...[the 6520] was developed years before the M4. According to Biggerhammer.net, the 6520 came out in 1988 (not sure if this is accurate). The MIL-SPEC for the XM4 is dated April 1987. Quoted:
M16A2 can be a rifle or a carbine - the US Military uses and has used both. In the US military there is only one M16A2. Any other weapons with what we understand to be A2 features in service were either known by commercial nomenclature (like the 723 and 727) or designated separately (like the M16A3). The term M16A2 has been used by Colt, as you noted, to refer to all the weapons with various A2 style features, mostly the receiver reinforcements and the new furniture, as well as some weapons in the transitional 700 series which really had neither for a period. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 7:47:44 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: Quoted: ...but it is inaccurate as there are many A2 designated weapons made for the USG. There is only one official spec for the M16A2. The most important parts of the spec are for a weapon with an S-1-3 trigger group, 20" government profile barrel with 1:7" twist, and a rear sight adjustable for windage and elevation. The rest is relatively basic and actually doesn't require the weapon to have the receiver reinforcements or improved furniture that are associated with the M16A2. This is how you end up with weapons mounted on M16A1 receivers, over-stamped as M16A2s. Similarly, an M16A1 with the new furniture is still an M16A1. Quoted: There were even models of the M16A2 that used A1 profile barrels (707, 711, 719), as well as AR15 A2 models. These are commercial A2 types. The lowers used on 700 series military weapons were all stamped with the name M16A2, regardless of configuration. This had no relation to the official military designation. Many of the weapons stamped AR-15A2 were actually built on A1 style lowers as well. Again, to be clear, this isn't somehow a comment on what should be discussed in this forum. All of these weapons are appropriate here. Quoted: ...[the 6520] was developed years before the M4. According to Biggerhammer.net, the 6520 came out in 1988 (not sure if this is accurate). The MIL-SPEC for the XM4 is dated April 1987. Quoted: M16A2 can be a rifle or a carbine - the US Military uses and has used both. In the US military there is only one M16A2. Any other weapons with what we understand to be A2 features in service were either known by commercial nomenclature (like the 723 and 727) or designated separately (like the M16A3). The term M16A2 has been used by Colt, as you noted, to refer to all the weapons with various A2 style features, mostly the receiver reinforcements and the new furniture, as well as some weapons in the transitional 700 series which really had neither for a period. Biggerhammer might have a lot of info, but it is not 100% accurate. I own a 6420 that was made late 1988. My 6420 is a transition model and has all features of the 6520, yet is designated a 6420. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 8:31:05 PM EDT
[#38]
If only the term A2 is used, I believe it to mean a 20" 1:7" govt. profile barrel, A2 FH, bayonet lug FSB, round handguards, A2 upper reciever with case deflector and A2 sights, full length, fixed, A2 stock, etc. In other words, ALL the features of an M16A2 except the giggle switch. "A2 style" or A2ish or something might indicate any sort of mix of A2 features but it must have a fixed carry handle I think. Then again, Colt decided to throw us a loop here:
I posted that in a dinner pic labeled as an AR-15 A2 and had a guy flat out tell me that my rifle was not an A2 because it has A1 sights. Guess he should tell Colt that they engraved their rifles wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 8:53:13 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: If only the term A2 is used, I believe it to mean a 20" 1:7" govt. profile barrel, A2 FH, bayonet lug FSB, round handguards, A2 upper reciever with case deflector and A2 sights, full length, fixed, A2 stock, etc. In other words, ALL the features of an M16A2 except the giggle switch. "A2 style" or A2ish or something might indicate any sort of mix of A2 features but it must have a fixed carry handle I think. Then again, Colt decided to throw us a loop here: http://i52.tinypic.com/2ljjedj.jpg http://i52.tinypic.com/28ksg9y.jpg I posted that in a dinner pic labeled as an AR-15 A2 and had a guy flat out tell me that my rifle was not an A2 because it has A1 sights. Guess he should tell Colt that they engraved their rifles wrong. That looks familiar... minus the A1 sights from 20K or so rifles earlier...  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 9:05:09 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
I posted that in a dinner pic labeled as an AR-15 A2 and had a guy flat out tell me that my rifle was not an A2 because it has A1 sights. Guess he should tell Colt that they engraved their rifles wrong. And this is the issue with using military terms to define commercial weapons. The military terms are extremely specific (if not always in the ways people think), while manufacturers can call their products whatever they want. This is why, to this day, you'll find people saying that the M16A3 has a flat top upper receiver, because that's what Colt calls all its flat top full length military rifles. The AR-15A2 Sporter IIs had features spanning the whole history of the type up until that point, incorporating what one could consider pre-A1 features (slick-side lower), A1 features (rear sights), and A2 features (furniture and d-ring). |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 9:27:08 PM EDT
[#41]
I say a fixed carry handle and A2 apertures
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2011 12:05:52 AM EDT
[#42]
anything with an A2 upper IMHO
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2011 6:50:36 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
If only the term A2 is used, I believe it to mean a 20" 1:7" govt. profile barrel, A2 FH, bayonet lug FSB, round handguards, A2 upper reciever with case deflector and A2 sights, full length, fixed, A2 stock, etc. In other words, ALL the features of an M16A2 except the giggle switch. "A2 style" or A2ish or something might indicate any sort of mix of A2 features but it must have a fixed carry handle I think. Then again, Colt decided to throw us a loop here: http://i52.tinypic.com/2ljjedj.jpg http://i52.tinypic.com/28ksg9y.jpg I posted that in a dinner pic labeled as an AR-15 A2 and had a guy flat out tell me that my rifle was not an A2 because it has A1 sights. Guess he should tell Colt that they engraved their rifles wrong. That looks familiar... minus the A1 sights from 20K or so rifles earlier... "...20K earlier or so earlier..." So Colt did mark their receivers in reverse order? 
BTW, it's in full A2 regalia except for the slab side lower. I just don't have a full size pic on line anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2011 7:23:24 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Any fixed handle carry upper with the A2 sights, regardless of barrel length. IMHO. Like he said, including 727, etc. My 727 replica: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2011 8:43:12 AM EDT
[#45]
I urge you all to not take a hard line on what it is exactly. That's part of the whole problem. I believe anything that comes close to being A2 subject, should be allowed. 727's, A2 lowers with A1 uppers. Whatever. In my opinion, the underlying focus is the spirit of a certain era, among other things. Deserts storm, BHD, even current wars with photos of an A2 are quite alright with me. Pistols, shotguns and other rifles, if they have some kind of tie to this era or whatever is open in my mind. Just like in the retro forum. I think taking a hard line on EXACTLY what it is, is part of the problem. Inflexibility and dogmatism just doesn't need to be. In my humble opinion.
If something is posted and it's not completely on track, just ignore it. They'll go somewhere else. No need to be jerky about it. You know? Or maybe some of you don't agree. OCD isn't necessarily a good excuse to get along well with others. And since this is a forum with people, I urge you to think about that statement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2011 9:47:14 AM EDT
[#46]
I agree JJREA.
I'm of the opinion that anything with an intergral carry handle would fit in the Retro forum. Even though some of it is still being issued. But that's just me again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2011 7:41:06 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Quoted:
...but it is inaccurate as there are many A2 designated weapons made for the USG. There is only one official spec for the M16A2. The most important parts of the spec are for a weapon with an S-1-3 trigger group, 20" government profile barrel with 1:7" twist, and a rear sight adjustable for windage and elevation. The rest is relatively basic and actually doesn't require the weapon to have the receiver reinforcements or improved furniture that are associated with the M16A2. This is how you end up with weapons mounted on M16A1 receivers, over-stamped as M16A2s. Similarly, an M16A1 with the new furniture is still an M16A1. Okay, but I repeat my original premise - there were many variants of the M16A2 produced for the USG (used by Military and US LE agncies alike). Quoted:
There were even models of the M16A2 that used A1 profile barrels (707, 711, 719), as well as AR15 A2 models. These are commercial A2 types. The lowers used on 700 series military weapons were all stamped with the name M16A2, regardless of configuration. This had no relation to the official military designation. Many of the weapons stamped AR-15A2 were actually built on A1 style lowers as well. Again, to be clear, this isn't somehow a comment on what should be discussed in this forum. All of these weapons are appropriate here. Agreed. In my post I was pointing out the multitude of A2 variants. It has a broader meaning than just the US Military M16A2 rifle. Quoted:
...[the 6520] was developed years before the M4. According to Biggerhammer.net, the 6520 came out in 1988 (not sure if this is accurate). The MIL-SPEC for the XM4 is dated April 1987. That was the XM4, and is not an M4. The only resemblance it bears to the M4 is the barrel length. The barrel profile is different, the handguards are different, and it uses and A2 upper with A2 sights. The 6520 predates the development and production of the actual M4 Quoted:
M16A2 can be a rifle or a carbine - the US Military uses and has used both. In the US military there is only one M16A2. Any other weapons with what we understand to be A2 features in service were either known by commercial nomenclature (like the 723 and 727) or designated separately (like the M16A3). The term M16A2 has been used by Colt, as you noted, to refer to all the weapons with various A2 style features, mostly the receiver reinforcements and the new furniture, as well as some weapons in the transitional 700 series which really had neither for a period. Not true. The US Military adopted the Colt model 723 for use by special forces and designated it the M16A2 Carbine (used an A1 upper though). If the only thing that were to be accepted in this forum as A2 is the US Military M16A2, the only true A2 as you are suggesting, then this would be a very boring forum. Fortunately, A2 can also be defined more broadly (to include commercial production) and will make for a much more interesting forum. This is AR15.com after all, not M16.com. And before anyone suggests I have M16 envy, I am in Federal law enforcement and also carry a selct-fire weapon (Colt M4 RO977). Anyway, thanks for the additional information, it will be interesting digging further into the history of the M16A2 and its variants - both military and commercial, A2 builds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2011 9:26:59 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
That was the XM4, and is not an M4. The only resemblance it bears to the M4 is the barrel length. The barrel profile is different, the handguards are different, and it uses and A2 upper with A2 sights. The 6520 predates the development and production of the actual M4 The line was that the 6520 was developed years before the M4. Development of what became the M4 was concurrent with the development of other A2 type carbines. Quoted:
Not true. The US Military adopted the Colt model 723 for use by special forces and designated it the M16A2 Carbine (used an A1 upper though). There is nothing to suggest that the 723 was ever adopted as standard (unlike the 727) firstly, and secondly this is a commercial nomenclature as I've already noted. Items can be adopted as standard without being assigned a designation in one of the service nomenclature systems. I've seen 2 nomenclatures for the 727, which would be how the 723 nomenclature would probably have been written. These are Carbine, 5.56mm, Colt, Model 727 and Carbine, 5.56mm, M16A2, Model 727. The first is based on an accepted practice for designating commercial small arms (AIN, Manufacturer, Manufacturer's Nomenclature). The second is a nomenclature associated with an LSN, which could really be whatever someone wanted it to be, since they're for localized purposes only. Regardless, both are commercial nomenclatures, with no relation to the official M16A2 designation in the US Army nomenclature system. Quoted:
If the only thing that were to be accepted in this forum as A2 is the US Military M16A2, the only true A2 as you are suggesting, then this would be a very boring forum. Fortunately... Fortunately, no one is talking about limiting it to just the US military definition of the M16A2. Otherwise we'd all be worried I'm sure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2011 5:55:06 AM EDT
[#49]
Nonetheless, the US military adopted the 723 for use, and officially designated it the M16A2 Carbine. An important thing to remember here is that when USG is mentioned, it does not mean just military. The numerous Federal law enforcement agencies have purchased various versions of the M16 and variants since its production. They will typically use the model name and number designated by the factory, thus adopting it as an official term by the USG for that particular agency. Thus, any number of commercial M16A2 variants would be official firearms used by the USG with the A2 designation in the model name as official nomenclature.
As for the XM4, it didn't evolve into something else, it was just a prototype. The XM4 and M4 are two different rifles entirely. The actual M4 did come years after the 6520. Quoted:
Quoted:
That was the XM4, and is not an M4. The only resemblance it bears to the M4 is the barrel length. The barrel profile is different, the handguards are different, and it uses and A2 upper with A2 sights. The 6520 predates the development and production of the actual M4 The line was that the 6520 was developed years before the M4. Development of what became the M4 was concurrent with the development of other A2 type carbines. Quoted:
Not true. The US Military adopted the Colt model 723 for use by special forces and designated it the M16A2 Carbine (used an A1 upper though). There is nothing to suggest that the 723 was ever adopted as standard (unlike the 727) firstly, and secondly this is a commercial nomenclature as I've already noted. Items can be adopted as standard without being assigned a designation in one of the service nomenclature systems. I've seen 2 nomenclatures for the 727, which would be how the 723 nomenclature would probably have been written. These are Carbine, 5.56mm, Colt, Model 727 and Carbine, 5.56mm, M16A2, Model 727. The first is based on an accepted practice for designating commercial small arms (AIN, Manufacturer, Manufacturer's Nomenclature). The second is a nomenclature associated with an LSN, which could really be whatever someone wanted it to be, since they're for localized purposes only. Regardless, both are commercial nomenclatures, with no relation to the official M16A2 designation in the US Army nomenclature system. Quoted:
If the only thing that were to be accepted in this forum as A2 is the US Military M16A2, the only true A2 as you are suggesting, then this would be a very boring forum. Fortunately... Fortunately, no one is talking about limiting it to just the US military definition of the M16A2. Otherwise we'd all be worried I'm sure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2011 10:03:38 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Nonetheless, the US military adopted the 723 for use, and officially designated it the M16A2 Carbine. Quoted:
They will typically use the model name and number designated by the factory, thus adopting it as an official term by the USG for that particular agency. Thus, any number of commercial M16A2 variants would be official firearms used by the USG with the A2 designation in the model name as official nomenclature. I think we're getting into a semantic difference on the definition of "official." Everything in government inventory is assigned a Federal Approved Item Name (AIN), but it not necessarily officially designated in any of the official nomenclature systems. Usage of the manufacturers name as the type designator does not make that type designator an official type designator in any of the US military designation systems. The type designator was not determined by any agency of the US government. The commercial name can be used when the item does not have to be significantly modified for use. The nomenclature Rifle, 5.56mm, M16A2 has a very specific meaning. A commercial item called an M16A2 could be anything and does not have to have any relation to the Rifle, 5.56mm, M16A2 nomenclature in the US Army's nomenclature system. It could be a pink flamingo lawn ornament. Now, are there other A2 type rifles in US military inventory? Of course. We agree on that. Are they designated as M16A2s in any of the military designation systems? No. Do they have official nomenclature as part of the logistics system? Yes. Quoted:
As for the XM4, it didn't evolve into something else, it was just a prototype. The XM4 and M4 are two different rifles entirely. The actual M4 did come years after the 6520. The process by which a prototype becomes a finalized design is pretty much the definition of evolution. The XM4 designation was only applied in 1987 to weapons that the US Army had been testing since 1984. The development of the M4 starts with the development of carbine versions of the M16A2. The process by which the M4 and other A2 type carbines were arrived it was concurrent. The M4 just came out of the process later. Also, the XM4 prototypes and the production M4 are not really all that different. The handguards got changed along the way and of the various barrel profiles tested, one was selected. Within months of the design being finalized, the upper receiver was changed to the flat top. The functioning elements and dimensions were basically unchanged during the process. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
