M-16A1 vs M-16A2
- Thread starter Jake 98c/11b
- Start date
- Status
Okay folks, I gotta throw in my 2 cents worth. A2 or M-4 for me. Better balistics, more accurate, more dependable. Full auto is a great feature, but unless you're in SF or the Ranger Regiment, you're not gonna get the range time to become proficient in being able to selectively control your bursts. When you want full auto, the infantry squad uses its M249's and M240's (when you consider that a light infantry squad has 2xM249's and a LI PLT has 2 M240's that's quite a bit). In today's world, where we're doing more with less and deploying all over the world as "peacekeepers" read cops your average infantryman does not have the time and amoo set apart by his Bn to go to the range and shoot the rounds required to become proficient in controlled auto fire.
Now back to the original topic. The A2 is sturdier than the A1 is, and in my humble opinion is more accurate. However the M-4 is currently being fielded to all of the infantry divisions ie; 82nd, 101st, 10th MTN. With iron sights I PERSONALLY feel that it is just as accurate as the A2 with just a bit of range time, when you start adding all the toys that are available for it, it is an awesome system.
Oh yeah, I gotta say this too. The M240 is a hell of a lot better than the M60. Again personal opinion. And by the way. I'm on active duty and my last job was as a PSG in the 10th MTN (or hell as I like to call it)
Now back to the original topic. The A2 is sturdier than the A1 is, and in my humble opinion is more accurate. However the M-4 is currently being fielded to all of the infantry divisions ie; 82nd, 101st, 10th MTN. With iron sights I PERSONALLY feel that it is just as accurate as the A2 with just a bit of range time, when you start adding all the toys that are available for it, it is an awesome system.
Oh yeah, I gotta say this too. The M240 is a hell of a lot better than the M60. Again personal opinion. And by the way. I'm on active duty and my last job was as a PSG in the 10th MTN (or hell as I like to call it)
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
PJ11B3VF7 - welcome... And thanks for the input. You make some good observasions.
I had an A1 a lot longer than I did an A2.
The difference I think is that the A2 is easier to shoot well. The heavier barrel makes shooting more stable and thus you can score better.
But given a little more effort to all the basics of BRM and ARM - you can shoot just as good with the A1. Given the fact that the A1 in question isnt a beat up POS like you see in most units where they still remain.
As for full auto fire - your right - takes some practice...
------------------
I mean, if I went around saying I was an Emperor because some
moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, people would put me away!
I had an A1 a lot longer than I did an A2.
The difference I think is that the A2 is easier to shoot well. The heavier barrel makes shooting more stable and thus you can score better.
But given a little more effort to all the basics of BRM and ARM - you can shoot just as good with the A1. Given the fact that the A1 in question isnt a beat up POS like you see in most units where they still remain.
As for full auto fire - your right - takes some practice...
------------------
I mean, if I went around saying I was an Emperor because some
moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, people would put me away!
George, I reject the notion that the A2 is only a better gun for competition. I have used the A1 and the A2 in tactical platoon movement lanes with popups and live ammo and it also performs better under those conditions. It's simply a better combat weapon all around, and certainly more of a marksman's rifle than the A1. At least when I was in the infantry, they were trying to instill in us the One Shot, One Kill philosophy and totally move away from the spray and pray tactics of Vietnam, which the A1 epitomized.
Anyone here remember the concept of the Assault Rifle?
This aimed accurate fire stuff is just fine for the range or two-man scout/sniper teams.
Your average grunt, 11B or 0311, should have a burst firing weapon. Firing while running and/or firing at a running target doesn't make classic marksmanship all that practical. Espescially when things are exploding or rounds are making little gysers all around you.
The Germans knew this. That's why the Assault Rifle was invented. The Vietnam spray and pray fiasco was a combination of poor training and poor motivation.
If all this classical marksmanship had such a high battlefield value, why don't we still have boltactions?
By the way. 0311 had much less problems with spray and pray than 11B. Better training.
This aimed accurate fire stuff is just fine for the range or two-man scout/sniper teams.
Your average grunt, 11B or 0311, should have a burst firing weapon. Firing while running and/or firing at a running target doesn't make classic marksmanship all that practical. Espescially when things are exploding or rounds are making little gysers all around you.
The Germans knew this. That's why the Assault Rifle was invented. The Vietnam spray and pray fiasco was a combination of poor training and poor motivation.
If all this classical marksmanship had such a high battlefield value, why don't we still have boltactions?
By the way. 0311 had much less problems with spray and pray than 11B. Better training.
Shin:
Cann't agree more. In the second world war, at the biginning 61% of Russian casualties were caused by artillery fire. Near the end of the war it was up to over 70%. On the flip side it was at a constant 70-74 percent of German casualties were caused by artillery. In the US, no more authority than GS Patton said 1) You don't have to ask me who one the war, you know who one the war, the field artillery won the war. and 2) The poorer the quality of the troops the more they need artillery, and American troops need a lot of artillery. For the US around 70-75 of casualties were caused by our supporting arms. We in the US however have grown up around the myth of the riflemen. So those facts are never pointed out. And we talk about one shot one kill which is extremely rare.
------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
Cann't agree more. In the second world war, at the biginning 61% of Russian casualties were caused by artillery fire. Near the end of the war it was up to over 70%. On the flip side it was at a constant 70-74 percent of German casualties were caused by artillery. In the US, no more authority than GS Patton said 1) You don't have to ask me who one the war, you know who one the war, the field artillery won the war. and 2) The poorer the quality of the troops the more they need artillery, and American troops need a lot of artillery. For the US around 70-75 of casualties were caused by our supporting arms. We in the US however have grown up around the myth of the riflemen. So those facts are never pointed out. And we talk about one shot one kill which is extremely rare.
------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
George, thanks for the welcome. Now, I'm going to drift away from the subject by saying that wars are won by a combined arms team, Infantry, Armor, Artillery, Air Force, Navy, all working together. HOWEVER, no matter how much you bomb a piece of ground with artillery, B-52, B-1 bombs, 16 inch Naval Gunfire, you DO NOT OWN that ground unless there is an infantryman standing on it. Which kinda leads me back to the original topic of M-16A2 VS M-16A1. IMHO, the A2 is the better weapon because of the heavier barrel, the M855 round and the fact that American troops in Vietnam, and all the conflicts since have spent thousands of rounds for one kill. The AVERAGE infantryman, and I say the AVERAGE infantryman does not get the trigger time to become proficient in firing controlled bursts, especially in a high stress situation. Unless you happen to belong to SF, are in the Ranger Regiment or are lucky enough to belong to a more "specialized" unit in a line infantry Bn, ie Scout platoon, Division LRSD/C (Long Range Surveilance Detachment/Company). Or are lucky enough to have a chain of command that cares more about fighting wars and winning them, than area beautification and making sure the lawn is perfectly cut around Bn HQ. Or are not constantly tasked out with funeral detail or a peace keeping mission. The average 11B (and I'll refrain from commenting on the USMC) will not get the afore mentioned time to train properly with his weapon to become expert enough to be able to control his trigger finger. Especially if a BG is firing at you and your pucker factor is up. 3-rd burst will and does allow greater control of your weapon when the addrenaline is rushing through your system. That's why I feel that the A2 is overall better than the A1.
Oh, and by the way, yes I am bitter about the lack of training time down in the line infantry. I'm currently a Ranger Instructor. I hope things will have changed when I go back to the line and I can train my soldiers instead of assigning them to police call the post etc.
RLTW
Oh, and by the way, yes I am bitter about the lack of training time down in the line infantry. I'm currently a Ranger Instructor. I hope things will have changed when I go back to the line and I can train my soldiers instead of assigning them to police call the post etc.
RLTW
PJ11B3VF7:
total agreement with that sentiment. But I would rather take that ground after a good prep than without one. I just graduated a FAOBC class of 38, of my 23 army Lt's I think about a half-dozen are going to you for Ranger school, let me tell you you got your work cut out for you, what a bunch of jokers, and I don't mean that in a good way.
------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
total agreement with that sentiment. But I would rather take that ground after a good prep than without one. I just graduated a FAOBC class of 38, of my 23 army Lt's I think about a half-dozen are going to you for Ranger school, let me tell you you got your work cut out for you, what a bunch of jokers, and I don't mean that in a good way.
------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
Jake 98c/11b
New member
Thanks for the input guys, at first I thought I was getting 37 posts of AR15.com. I havent the time to check two websights and since I still kinda concider George a friend of mine I was hoping to stay here and harass him a while.
I have always thought the military went the wrong direction with the A2. The infantry needs something lighter not heavier, and a boot to the ass should help with the bent barrels. I do think the A2 has some nice features, the reinforced receivers, square front sight post, brass deflector, larger pistol grip and large apeture rear sight. Unfortunately the rifle has some serious problems as well, the three round burst does some horrid things to the trigger, I worry that the 800m rear sight might be fragile, the longer stock is not the best idea in my opinion it is easier to shoot a rifle that is a bit short than one that is too long. I have decided the four position collapsable stock is good, at least for me, if you wear an issue flak jacket or cold weather clothing or bolth the A2 can be way too long and I can shoot better on the move with a short stock. My personal preference is the M4 but if I could have an A1 barrel profile, sight assembly (A2 apeture), Trijicon front sight, full auto or even semi only trigger and possibly a vortex flash supressor that, IMHO, would be the best combination. Sure the gas system dumps crap in the carrier but a piston would add weight to the system and I know a few light infantry who chop half the handle off their tooth brush to save weight/space. I don't accept the idea that the accuracy would be necessecarily worse under field conditions, something like 98% of all small arms injuries are from within 200 yards and about 75% are from within 70 yards. Makes me think an 800m rear sight if kinda silly. Don't get me wrong I think we should train our troops on KD ranges, it reinforces the fundamentals, but it is not real world training for combat.
Weight is very important, one pound carried in your hands is as bad as 5 pounds or more on your back, don't believe me? try it long term and see what you think. Someone mentioned carrying the 60 for a long road march, ask him how well he could shoot and maneuver after that. Ask him if he would have had more energy if he had the M-16 and a 20 lb rock in his ruck. The weight doesnt carry the same. George was right on the money when he said an infantry weapon must be light, maneuverable and handy.
As you can see I am firmly entrenched in my opinion, took me a long time to get here and I am attached to my opinion. I would love to hear any dissenting opinion, I certainly do not think I have all the answers. Truth is I may not fully understand the question, I am looking for a discussion or even a debate to help me find the answer to the question I asked.
Thanks again, keep it coming.
I have always thought the military went the wrong direction with the A2. The infantry needs something lighter not heavier, and a boot to the ass should help with the bent barrels. I do think the A2 has some nice features, the reinforced receivers, square front sight post, brass deflector, larger pistol grip and large apeture rear sight. Unfortunately the rifle has some serious problems as well, the three round burst does some horrid things to the trigger, I worry that the 800m rear sight might be fragile, the longer stock is not the best idea in my opinion it is easier to shoot a rifle that is a bit short than one that is too long. I have decided the four position collapsable stock is good, at least for me, if you wear an issue flak jacket or cold weather clothing or bolth the A2 can be way too long and I can shoot better on the move with a short stock. My personal preference is the M4 but if I could have an A1 barrel profile, sight assembly (A2 apeture), Trijicon front sight, full auto or even semi only trigger and possibly a vortex flash supressor that, IMHO, would be the best combination. Sure the gas system dumps crap in the carrier but a piston would add weight to the system and I know a few light infantry who chop half the handle off their tooth brush to save weight/space. I don't accept the idea that the accuracy would be necessecarily worse under field conditions, something like 98% of all small arms injuries are from within 200 yards and about 75% are from within 70 yards. Makes me think an 800m rear sight if kinda silly. Don't get me wrong I think we should train our troops on KD ranges, it reinforces the fundamentals, but it is not real world training for combat.
Weight is very important, one pound carried in your hands is as bad as 5 pounds or more on your back, don't believe me? try it long term and see what you think. Someone mentioned carrying the 60 for a long road march, ask him how well he could shoot and maneuver after that. Ask him if he would have had more energy if he had the M-16 and a 20 lb rock in his ruck. The weight doesnt carry the same. George was right on the money when he said an infantry weapon must be light, maneuverable and handy.
As you can see I am firmly entrenched in my opinion, took me a long time to get here and I am attached to my opinion. I would love to hear any dissenting opinion, I certainly do not think I have all the answers. Truth is I may not fully understand the question, I am looking for a discussion or even a debate to help me find the answer to the question I asked.
Thanks again, keep it coming.
Less KD ranges, more kill houses and MILES time.
Abandon the AR design alltogether and adopt a bullpup configeration AK chambered for 5.56mm. Use a lot of carbon fibre for weight saving, give it a raised shotgun rib to sight with for burst firing. Foregrips help a great deal in weapon control, so add one.
It would also be a good idea to commission two more Marine Divisions. Then the Army could concentrate on supply, arty, rear area security, things like that.
Abandon the AR design alltogether and adopt a bullpup configeration AK chambered for 5.56mm. Use a lot of carbon fibre for weight saving, give it a raised shotgun rib to sight with for burst firing. Foregrips help a great deal in weapon control, so add one.
It would also be a good idea to commission two more Marine Divisions. Then the Army could concentrate on supply, arty, rear area security, things like that.
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
Shin-Tao - you sound just like one of my brothers.
Jake - That sounds like a sweet M-16 configuration. I like it. That would be a grand Light-I arm. If they just had to keep the M-16 that is...
There is no One combat mind set to follow. A good soldier needs to be flexable and needs to be able to adjust his fighting to meet the METT. Because METT always dictates.
------------------
I mean, if I went around saying I was an Emperor because some
moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, people would put me away!
Jake - That sounds like a sweet M-16 configuration. I like it. That would be a grand Light-I arm. If they just had to keep the M-16 that is...
There is no One combat mind set to follow. A good soldier needs to be flexable and needs to be able to adjust his fighting to meet the METT. Because METT always dictates.
------------------
I mean, if I went around saying I was an Emperor because some
moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, people would put me away!
Shin:
It never going to happen the National Security act of 1947 established three active division. Since that we are now down to 2 reduced divisions and 1 division that only owns 1 regt and borrows one fron the other divisions. And if you did you think congress is going to authorize 2 additional 18,000 Marine divisions and all their equipment, you need to go see a doctor. You got to remember that this is the congress got a lot of press for a 4.8% raise this year (and was dragged kicking and screaming into it), but they forgot to tell everyone they lowered everyone non-taxable housing allowances if they moved. So if anyone is PCSing they take up to a 1-7 percent decrease in pay. The bean counters will always win in peace time.
------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
It never going to happen the National Security act of 1947 established three active division. Since that we are now down to 2 reduced divisions and 1 division that only owns 1 regt and borrows one fron the other divisions. And if you did you think congress is going to authorize 2 additional 18,000 Marine divisions and all their equipment, you need to go see a doctor. You got to remember that this is the congress got a lot of press for a 4.8% raise this year (and was dragged kicking and screaming into it), but they forgot to tell everyone they lowered everyone non-taxable housing allowances if they moved. So if anyone is PCSing they take up to a 1-7 percent decrease in pay. The bean counters will always win in peace time.
------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
Shin, I would be totally against adapting a bullpup weapon...bullpup designs have inherent tactical weaknesses that make them unsuitable for general military use in my opinion, especially the inability to reload with one hand and difficulty firing around cover without exposing too much of the firer's body.
Jake 98c/11b
New member
Shin, Can't say I care for the bullpup, good special purpose weapon, poor general purpose weapon. Rik was right, unless you go to caseless ammo you have a problem with the ejected brass and I don't see how the weapon manipulation can be as fast and easy as wit a conventional design. More trigger time is needed but don't cut KD ranges just add MOUT and MILES force on force, it's not perfect but it's the best thing we have right now. As to the Galil, the Israelis are dropping it in favor of the M-16.
George, how many brothers do you have? How many more of you are there? We should neuter your kind before it is too late. However, since you like my concept I suppose that idea MIGHT be a bit premature.
To our other 11B, you are absolutely correct in that no other branch can accomplish the mission of the military. You cannot take and hold ground without the man on the ground. All others support the infantry (tankers hate to hear that). Not to offend our redleg friend, its true they do the bulk of the work, but if we could raise the level of our soldiers a bit we would not be so dependant on them. It can be done but we, in this country, always seem to choose technology over training. We think of overwelming force (fire support) as the easy answer, it's easier than all that sweat on the training field. I worry that with all the downsizing we will not be able to bring that kind of fire to our next fight. We need to have the best trained troops available, we need to work on the basic soldier skills and small unit stuff. The only way an individual can influence the battlefield is with his rifle. If the average soldier could dominate his surroundings with rifle fire, accurate, fast fire and retain the ability to move easily we could easily do more with less. Unfortunately our idea of doing more with less is more money spent on high tech (that fails) less money spent on the (fewer) troops.
George, how many brothers do you have? How many more of you are there? We should neuter your kind before it is too late. However, since you like my concept I suppose that idea MIGHT be a bit premature.
To our other 11B, you are absolutely correct in that no other branch can accomplish the mission of the military. You cannot take and hold ground without the man on the ground. All others support the infantry (tankers hate to hear that). Not to offend our redleg friend, its true they do the bulk of the work, but if we could raise the level of our soldiers a bit we would not be so dependant on them. It can be done but we, in this country, always seem to choose technology over training. We think of overwelming force (fire support) as the easy answer, it's easier than all that sweat on the training field. I worry that with all the downsizing we will not be able to bring that kind of fire to our next fight. We need to have the best trained troops available, we need to work on the basic soldier skills and small unit stuff. The only way an individual can influence the battlefield is with his rifle. If the average soldier could dominate his surroundings with rifle fire, accurate, fast fire and retain the ability to move easily we could easily do more with less. Unfortunately our idea of doing more with less is more money spent on high tech (that fails) less money spent on the (fewer) troops.
Jake 98c/11b
New member
Sorry guys, had to stop that while I could.
Seriously though, what do you think of the concept weapon that I described? Specifically what do you like and/or dislike about it and why? What have I overlooked and what do you take issue with?
I would be willing to discuss any aspect, general or specific. If you have an idea on the flash supressor say so. Comments on soldiers load, have at it. I plan to build up a rifle soon and I might change some plans based on what is discussed but more importantly I have been tasked with develouping a marksmanship training program and this discussion may help me with that task as well. It will likely help with other classes as well, I give weapon classes and classes on the soldiers load regularly at my unit. Thanks for the help.
Seriously though, what do you think of the concept weapon that I described? Specifically what do you like and/or dislike about it and why? What have I overlooked and what do you take issue with?
I would be willing to discuss any aspect, general or specific. If you have an idea on the flash supressor say so. Comments on soldiers load, have at it. I plan to build up a rifle soon and I might change some plans based on what is discussed but more importantly I have been tasked with develouping a marksmanship training program and this discussion may help me with that task as well. It will likely help with other classes as well, I give weapon classes and classes on the soldiers load regularly at my unit. Thanks for the help.
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
Jake, I have One brother still living in Virginia, Two here in Utah, and Two down in Mexico. (the two in Utah are In-Laws but we get along well. Just not as well as you in-bred West Virginia nancy-boys!)
Oh - and over 4,000 here online.
------------------
I mean, if I went around saying I was an Emperor because some
moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, people would put me away!
Oh - and over 4,000 here online.
------------------
I mean, if I went around saying I was an Emperor because some
moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, people would put me away!
Jake that is the concept the Marine Corps uses. From what the current army doctrine reads, it is unit or division dependant. In the Armor division, since they are the manuever element, they are the one that recieve the support. In the heavy infantry, although the infantrymen are the center piece of the show, they provide support to their BFV and don't often move far from them on dismounting. In the LID and Airborne/Air Assualt Division the infantry is the king and everything is suppose to revolve around him.
------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
Well, it sounds like you people all want a select-fire Carbon15.
Jake11bush:I don't think Israel is even close to trading in their Galils for anything, certanly not for M16s. Right this minute, their M16s are all in the hands of their security police and support personal. The frontliners and SF carry Galils.
Back to the Carbon15. So. What would you Army boys do to make the C15 the ideal Infantry tool? No LandWarrior Systems please.
Jake11bush:I don't think Israel is even close to trading in their Galils for anything, certanly not for M16s. Right this minute, their M16s are all in the hands of their security police and support personal. The frontliners and SF carry Galils.
Back to the Carbon15. So. What would you Army boys do to make the C15 the ideal Infantry tool? No LandWarrior Systems please.
I shoot back
Inactive
I think artech covered everything but I have one consideration to add. He mentioned the burst limitation on the A2 which can be corrected by any competent weapons guy. I know when we conducted CSAR missions in SW Asia our weapons guys would remove the sear and replace it with a washer-I'm not exactly sure of the process (I was a commo guy) but it basically made the A2 capable of full auto. Now you couldn't get away with this in the U.S. but in a combat situation I don't think too much would be said. Besides if things went to crap and you had to use it I would rather take my chances with legal punishment after the rounds stop flying. I think if you make this correction you would be much better off with the A2.
[This message has been edited by I shoot back (edited February 12, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by I shoot back (edited February 12, 2000).]
- Status