History of the M16A2 & What Did Stoner Think?

[@Max_Da_G]

Listening to Eugene Stoner talk about considerations he had towards the M-16, they echo exactly the same ones that Mikhail Kalashnikov and the Soviet brass had towards the AK, AKM and later AK-74. Keep things as simple as possible, make things easier to manufacture, reduce the amount of things soldier can muck around with. Make it soldier-proof and at the same time easy to learn. Looking at the original M-16A1 it's obvious just how much simpler lighter and soldier-friendly it is compared to more advanced models.

[@SzymonNatanRajca]

Stoner tape's is pretty good watch and insight into Mr Stoner's mindset when creating M16 :) Now I need to watch Kalashnikov tapes :)

[@MooreFishing-ky3wq]

I prefer my early style sight to the A2 style .

[@richardlahan7068]

The only branch that wanted the more complicated rear sight was the USMC. No other branch was trained to use it the way Marines were. They just set the rifle for battlesight zero and they were done. My dad was USAF CATM for nearly 20 years and told me that's all they did with them.

[@Dominik189]

@Trap Lord Ghost not really due to the complexity, more due to manufacturing quality increase and development in materials. If you make the old configuration with modern methods and materials that have the modern research behind them, you get extremely similar performance. So similar that the difference is pretty much negligible. Aside from the difference in use of optics due to implementation of the flat top, the difference with just irons is damn near identical. Which basically means the only legitimate development was the flat top. Beyond that it's just materials and manufacturing improvements.

[@ledzeppelin27]

What I really appreciated about Stoner and Kalashnikov too is that they both cared about the lives of soldiers and wanted to give them the best rifles they could.

[@Idahoguy10157]

The 3 shot burst was a mechanical solution to a training problem. My experience in the service is weapons training and range time is below minimum for reasonable competence

[@JonDoe-ef4tz]

I'm a service member currently serving(74D). The weapons training is a joke I remember in basic training I was showing guys while in the bay how to shoot because our ds were crappy shots.

[@ericg7183]

I served as an Infantryman, and I was one of the handful of joes that qualified expert on the first go. Most of us shot 40/40. That meant we got to tutor the city boys, so they could just get the minimum. "How come you shoot so good?" "Well, because I've been shooting almost 20 years." I was the old guy at 24. Even as my enlistment dragged on, and we had a couple real world deployments, most of those guys were really only good for barely effective suppressing fire. The only times they saw dramatic increases in accuracy, was when we were assigned the PAQ-4C, but those were only used for night operations. Kinda hard to miss when you have an infrared laser that is zeroed to the rifle. I would have loved to have still been in when they introduced the ACOG. I've been using similar optics in recent years, and I really do appreciate the increase in accuracy, quick ranging, and distance guesstimation. I would hope that the addition of such an easy to use optic would improve the effectiveness of the average soldier, but from some of the comments, that's not necessarily the case.

[@JonDoe-ef4tz]

@@ericg7183 To my understanding sq leaders get acogs and the rest of the guys get reddots these days. (I'm nbc though not infantry so take that with a grain of salt) In reality its up to the unit to order optics and such. There are still units out there, (mostly NG) that still issue m16a2s. My unit gave everyone red dots, but we have a few guys who hate the reddots and don't use em. Our cmd dosn't care because their qual scores are better without the optics.

[@tackytrooper]

Yeah my experience was there was some instruction in marksmanship but virtually no training on weapon handling, to include recoil control and effective followup shots.

[@christopherhall5361]

depends on the unit and the people and your MOS, if you're a cook then yeah your training is gonna be a joke, but if you're an 11B, most of your day is revolved around tactics and technique training with your weapon. I was a medic for infantry and they would come grab me to run rifle drills with the new guys as the baseline, "if you can't beat Doc at this, we're gonna drill the shit outta you." but I spent hundreds of hours on the range with my line unit, they made sure I qualified expert before teaching me anything else, and these are people who were in the Army for 12-15 years and had been to Iraq and Afghanistan a few times by then

[@tensortab8896]

Burst settings are a throw back to the original bolt action military rifles with a magazine cut-off. It was for logistical bureaucrats to micro-manage soldiers back then and is for logistical bureaucrats today.

[@georgewhitworth9742]

At least the cut offs had a purpose. In an era of early repeaters and logistical efforts still grappling with how to supply them, cut offs had some use beyond "micro-managing"

[@kiloalphasierra]

The burst setting is a response to troops in Vietnam sticking their M16A1’s over a wall or around trees and firing off entire magazines completely blind. It would have been better just to train people not to do stupid things like that, but why use a better software solution when you can make an inferior hardware solution.

[@cynicalmedic252]

The medical unit I was in during 2018 had a M16A2 built on a Harrington and Richardson A1 lower. They ground off the 1 and stamped it with a 2. That was an interesting piece of history to hold.

[@jonlong2663]

My last M4 in the 82nd, circa 2007, was an FM M16 lower ground down and restamped M4.

[@armynurseboy]

I saw one of those in the hands of a TXARNG soldier in Iraq in 09....

[@thedragonbroke]

My "new" M4A1 in 2016 was an M4 with XX stamped over the M4 and M4A1 cut into the reciever under that. Some things never change in the US Army lol

[@lindycorgey2743]

I carried a General Motors built by one of their Divisions M16 Rifle in the USAF Security Police. It was at Eielson AFB, Alaska in Summer 1989. When the NCOIC of the Security Police Squadron handed me that Rifle for my issue, I was WTF! It was a worn out rattle trap. I carried it for a month when working on the Resource Security side on the Aircraft Ramp. I wish I had taken a photo of it . Right before I had to qualify on the Range. I was reissued a Colt M16 Rifle.

[@johnphillips222]

The engineers in my neighborhood worked for Mellonics and Natick to improve the M16A1 at Rock Island. These engineers worked on an Army (not Marines) contract. The goal was to make the M16 better for the Army Soldiers, females, and smaller allies. There were many arguments between the engineers and the Army on one side and the Marines on the other side. Dirty tricks were played, and the Marines got their way. Thank you for giving a balanced point of view about the M16A2. Some of the A2 "improvements" were backwards. 30 years later... We got many of the improvements made available. This review is so much more beneficial than the brainwashing that many get in the military and police training circles. Who cares about the truth when confidence in the M16 is more important? The Stoner videos are pretty cool. Stoner wasn't perfect, but his interviews are cool. P.S. I really appreciate Chris' more accurate info about the AR, much better than the History Channel.

[@bBlaF]

Check out my comment and the Marine that immediately popped up to say "f*** you and your facts, A2 is better because feelings".

[@RickNethery]

I do know this, as a Marine we marked our zero and remembered it. The rifle was our most cherished and loved piece of gear.

[@nemisous83]

There really wasn't any dirty tricks on the Marines part because the Marines weren't the ones marketing the rifle to the other branches it was Colt. the 3 round burst limiter was a Colt idea to appeal to the bean counters in the pentagon who wanted to save money at any cost.

[@nemisous83]

@@bBlaF i mean aside from the burst limiter which everyone agrees was a bad idea even the military the M16A2 was objectively a better rifle than the A1. 1. Better muzzle device. 2. Thicker barrel reduced point of impact shift when the barrel got hot 3. Furniture that did crack and break when it took a hard fall 4. Longer length of pull for taller American shooters (the A1 length of pull was designed for smaller stature soldiers) 5. Even though adjustable sight are largely only for rifle qualification and area fire they are still slightly better than having a rear sight that requires you to use a tool to change the elevation. All he changes on the A2 aside from rear sight where on the C7 yet people praise that rifle but condemn the former.

[@bBlaF]

@@nemisous83 A2 birdcage and furniture are better. POI still shifts with heat, just maybe a bit less and it takes a few more shots to get that hot. The increased length of pull might be a bit of a service to those 6'2" and up, and a neutral change for those 5'10" to 6'1", but it is an outright detriment to anyone 5'9" and below, which is an overwhelming majority of those who had to use the thing. A1 length serves far better as a universal LOP. I don't mind the more complex sight, but I never needed the adjustment to shoot as far as I can identify targets without magnification.

[@99Racker]

Having converted from M14/M1s to M16A1s, in the Marines, I agree. We even had the 3-prong in Vietnam. They worked just fine but too many Marines were using the open flash hider to twist off the wire on c-ration cases and twinking the barrels. I was out when A2s came along but shot them later, I wandered why the change. The 3-round burst was a bust without a full auto option (although, if a burst was used, I liked a 2-round burst better to keep rounds on target. I fired A2s and felt it would be dangerous for any GIs. A change in twist (like the Canadians did) would have fixed the issue of the M855 round. Red dots, etc. work great on the A1 handle (as folks are finding on the RETROs). Nice to hear others think the A2 was misthought. I have also heard others say that if they wanted to take a M16 back to a combat situation, they would rather have a M16A1. I built an AR version while the A1 was still in issue. She still shoots just fine. She also wears an original Colt 3x scope. I was RETRO before it was retro. Thanks for the video.

[@MEGATRYANT]

Fun fact: The Army actually was very skeptical of the M16A2 burst feature and removal of the full-auto mode, even citing the G11 Rifle beign developed by Germany at the time, which had the 2100RPM 3-round hyperburst but DID NOT remove full-auto. They also noted that a 5-Round burst would be the optimal round count for hit probability if they aren't doing any high-ROF/Low-Recoil solutions like the G11. And also they really disliked the burst mechanism added complexity and how it had a janky reset.

[@stoegerstewie8351]

Retro before it was retro. That's just old, soldier. Thanks for your service and comment.

[@bradcampbell7253]

Brownells now has a 4x and 3x scopes for fixed handle. Made by same company in Japan that made the originals.

[@austindecker7643]

Best retro optic is a armson OEG

[@Mike193Inf]

Army Inf. '86-'92. I transitioned to the A2 while stationed in Panama in '87. My A1 was basically spray painted by the armorer a few times a year and was a broken down rattletrap. Probably a great rifle 20 years prior but badly in need of replacement. Same with our 1911s that were also replaced in '87 with the M9. Great design, just worn out and we were glad to get something new- no matter what it was. We loved the A2s. Everyone shot better and had more confidence in the functionality of their weapon. We actually didn't mind the extra weight. The most common comment I recall from back then was "now this feels like a real weapon and not a toy." 203 gunners shot better too. We humped more than any light inf unit in the Army back then- up the mountain, down the mountain, all night long more times than I can count. My feet and knees are still a wreck 30 years later. Nobody bitched about the A2 weighing too much. 2 NCOs from the AMU came down and ran a weeklong course on the KD range down there at Empire. By the end of the week we were hitting 40 for 40 at 800 meters with the A2. I was amazed. I had laughed at the start of the week when the instructors said we'd be hitting regular at 800m by the end of the week. We were taught to do all that "turning and fidgeting" with the sights to utilize them from beyond the usual 300m out to 800m. When that was mated up with our prior 0-300m training we were good. The officers that talked with Stoner were full of it IMO. Typical low opinion of EMs by officers with superiority complexes. We handled the "complicated" rear sight just fine. Just in time too as Just Cause went down a year later and we were in it up to our eyeballs as one of the 2 inf. battalions permanently stationed down there. Desert Storm was soon after that for me as I had PCS-ed to the 101. A2 was fine in both and nobody was wrecking their sights in combat. Yeah, the 3 round burst was a let down and we were PO-ed in the beginning. We fired semi 90% of the time in combat anyway I soon found out. The need for a full auto rifle in combat is overrated. The SAWs and 60s took care of that. In mech units you had the weaponry on the vehicle that was full auto as well. We can nitpick 40 years later but for a guy who was there on the ground with it in 2 wars, I was glad to have it. Have a civ version Colt A2 in my safe to this day next to my M1 and the usual old guy hunting rifles and shotguns.

[@bretmartinez8212]

Damn 2 wars

[@nicholascheadle]

Awesome testimony, great read.

[@samb7652]

I have basically the same opinion without the proofs of two wars. Thx!

[@fostercathead]

Thank you for your service.

[@RichieCarter-gy6cr]

Agreed was in from 88-94 .

[@Cooliofamily]

The cartridge case deflector is such a simple and elegant solution to managing ejection issues.

[@ourvaluesarewhoweareinadem4093]

"Surely the next war will be fought on the Camp Lejune KD range." -USMC since the beginning of time.

[@Hibernicus1968]

I got issued an FN-made M16A2 when I went through basic training at Ft. Benning in 1996. I qualified expert on it, but then it was _not_ taken away and replaced with an M16A1 for the rest of training. While I was at the 30th AG, after inprocessing was completed, but still waiting to be assigned to a training company, I and several of my fellow recruits were detailed to the post armory for a couple of days to work as gofers for the people who ran it. They were mainly DOD civilians who were retired army. I did see a lot of M16A1s in that building, and even racks of M1911A1s. One old Vietnam vet who worked there stated flatly that he thought the M16A1 was a superior combat rifle to the A2, and for precisely the reasons explained here.

[@tedbaxter5234]

Military Expert is equal to the lowest Civilian qualification - Congrats on your Expert Military qualification.

[@whydat684]

He was right

[@Hibernicus1968]

@@tedbaxter5234 Congrats on being the sort of person who just can't pass up an opportunity to make a snide, condescending remark to a complete stranger. On Christmas day no less. Nice to see that holiday spirit.

[@Pwj579]

@@Hibernicus1968 Agree that was pretty douchey by Ted

[@Hibernicus1968]

@@Pwj579 Some people are just like that. I don't lose sleep over it.

[@leadhead7338]

Eugene Stoner, is an AMERICAN LEGEND!!! 🙏🏻 I love watching his old interviews from the 90s, you can really tell What all of his work meant to him, Little did we know at the time how much it would mean to all of us!🇺🇸 AMERICA STRONG STAY FREE LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC

[@tyjax5119]

🦅🇺🇸🌟

[@leadhead7338]

@@tyjax5119 AMERICA STRONG STAY FREE LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC

[@Carnyx_1]

My father was in Vietnam, he said, they never used the sights. He was on a 106 recoil-less rifle, so they'd set up a fire base, therefore his whole "infantry like" combat was in patrolling. So, other people probably had different experiences, but... He said they'd walk around on patrol. When someone started shooting at them they would simply pull the trigger and dump a mag as they hit the dirt. No matter where it was aimed (of course this means, carrying the weapon pointed in the general direction you're supposed to have it, but maybe pointed at the ground 10 yards down range, or at the horizon). Anyway, the point was to start shooting back regardless. Then while trying to get to cover or staying put on the ground firing off mag after mag in you sector of fire until the bad guys ran away. He said he got a gas mask carrier and filled it with magazines just for patrols. The effectiveness of this strategy is hard to gauge, while he made it home, he told me his unit had a high casualty rate.

Did UR father make it home?

[@karlnash7105]

Qualified in Marine Corps with M-16A1 in 1985. That thing rattled and was nearly worn out. I liked the front post on the A1 but qualified much better with the A2. (86-89). Thank you for sharing this material.

[@JD-tn5lz]

I qual in the Marines with the A1 in '81. My unit switched over to A2 in '85. The A2 was a godsend. Then after I got out of the USMC and a few years in between, went into law enforcement...and was issued a patrol rifle...an ancient M16A1😄

[@lanceblinent7909]

My unit made the switch in 1984. I always thought the 3 shot burst was stupid . Also the rear elevation adjustment increment markings were over complicated.

[@COlson-rh3dg]

Mine rattled too. That's because they were Vietnam era.

[@joeg5414]

I shot an A1 at basic to qualify in the Air Force back in 2001😂I thought it was pretty cool, but the instructor was giving me crap about getting the crappy old one.

[@Tallus_ap_Mordren]

Qualified with and carried the A2 from 97 to 03, as Marine 0612 (formerly 2512). I have some nostalgia for it, but I was always conscious that it wasn’t built for me. As an Asian mutt, the stock was way too long for my arms, especially with a flak jacket or Interceptor armor vest on. Also, the overall length was a pain while laying wire or installing field phones. I would have preferred an M4 for convenience and fit, but back then only high-speed low-drag units got M4s, and only E-5s and up were issued pistols, at least at my unit.

[@Paladin1873]

My experiences and impressions are similar to yours, just backed up 15 years. Being a southpaw, the first time I fired the M16, a hot ejected case hit my neck and went down my shirt, leaving two burn marks. A range officer saw it happen and installed a brass deflector for me. I would like to add one small clarification to you excellent review. The Air Force never standardized the M16A1. We used the M16, which we kept rebuilding (I once saw an arsenal refinished XM16 in our inventory). The M16 had no forward assist. Like you, I did not care for it. The only time I ever tried to use one was on a CAR-15 I owned. The retaining pin broke and the spring and plunger fell out of the rifle. Around 1998 the Air Force began acquiring a limited number of M4 carbines for our special operations members, dog handlers, and some security forces to replace our aging GAU/GUU series of short barreled M16 type carbines and SMGs. When 911 occurred, the demand for M4s quickly skyrocketed. I was responsible for writing a letter of explanation regarding our options for acquiring more M4s or updating existing firearms to M4 specs for our forward deploying support units. The immediate result was that we got some M4s loaned to us from our Security Force. At the same time the Air Force had begun an M16 upgrade program to make our rifles M16A2 compatible, but the only organization I knew which had actually funded and begun this transition were our Civil Engineers. All other Airmen were deploying with unmodified M16s. This created a supply issue because the Army was responsible for in-theater small arms ammunition. The Army no longer had stockpiles of M193 ammo and were only issuing M885. The latter round had proven to be inaccurate and unstable when fired through our 1:12 twist barrels at all but the closest range. It took about a year to resolve this problem. Regarding the features of the M16A2, I was in a rather unique position in the mid-1980s to evaluate it because I had privately acquired an actual Colt M16A2 from a class 3 friend. At the time I placed the order I requested the three-shot burst feature. What showed up was a Canadian version - at least that is what we called it because it had every A2 feature except the burst. It was even marked "Burst". Over time I was glad mine was FA instead burst. The longer stock fit me better than the M16 stock (this was before body armor became standard). I also much preferred the A2 rear sight when sighting in at 100 yards because it was much easier to make fine sight adjustments for different loads. I confess it never dawned on me this might be a liability to the average soldier under combat conditions. I also agree it takes practice to use this sight at extended ranges because it is a confusing setup if you are not familiar with how to adjust it. I loved the built-in brass deflector, but did not care for the extra weight of the rifle. My only real complaints were that it lacked an ambidextrous safety and night sights. I read an article a few years later where the project officer claimed he was forced to limit the number of slides he could show senior officers in a selection board presentation, so the last slide was dropped. On it were the night sights and ambi safety.

[@davidhayes7596]

This man knows more about the black rifle than anything I've seen or heard. Great job !

[@kamikazekunze]

As a Jarhead from ‘87 thru ‘91. I recall being told 3 round burst was in an effort to minimize the whole squad dumping there mags at the same time in an ambush. Having everyone change mags at the same time is no bueno in an ambush. 😢 thanks for the videos. Sub’d 👍🏻

[@jasoncastle4818]

I used both theA1 and A2 qualified expert with the A2. It was the A2 that saw me through the first gulf wars! I personally found it to be an absolutely reliable, accurate rifle!! Didn't care much about the 3 round burst, would have preferred 2 round.. That being said I loved this rifle, never let me down !! 🇺🇸☠️🇺🇸

[@andrewschliewe6392]

But the Burst was never meant for point targets. It was meant for area suppressing fire. We got the A2s in Dec 86.

[@wharris7594]

Hearing the buffer move in the A2 stock during qual, it is different than a carbine buffer when doing target practice

[@ДнищеВтундре]

It is interesting to hear such an opinion about M16, from a man who used it in combat, in the Russian Federation there are still myths that M16 is extremely unreliable and wedges from a grain of sand.

[@planetcaravan2925]

​@@ДнищеВтундре the myth is all over the world...its never gona go away i guess

[@stevewilson4514]

I doubt that anyone would argue that Eugene Stoner was a great designer. So no disrespect intended by my comments. I spent 9 years active duty and 14 years in the Marine Corps Reserve. My MOS’s were Infantry Weapons Repair, Artillery Repair, and Marksmanship Instructor / Competitor. I Earned the Marine Corps Distinguished Rifle Badge in 1997 and Distinguished Pistol Shot Badge in 1999. Which makes me 1 of less than 500 Marines in the history of the Competition in Arms Program to earn the title Double Distinguished. The CIAP started in 1901. I spent 28 plus years in LE and have a ton of training under my belt from that. So I’m qualified to speak on this from the point of view of the end user, armorer, and instructor. Overall the M16A2 filled the anticipated mission. This was the beginning of the 1980’s and the fight was going to be with the Warsaw Pact in Western Europe. So they wanted the capability to penetrate a Soviet helmet at 800 meters. That led to the SS109 / M855 round. And probably had something to do with the 800 Meter marking on the elevation knob. The flash suppressor being replaced by a compensator from the end users view was a non-issue. They never really noticed a difference. Barrel profile was an issue due to bending. But what they changed didn’t fix the problem. The A2 sights were NEVER a serious maintenance issue. The most common problem was the elevation knob losing its distinct clicks due to the holes in the bottom of the knob wearing. And that was rare. Never saw any sights broken from being dropped on them. As for the mythical FIDGET factor. The M1903, M1917, M1, M14, and later variants of the M1, and M2 Carbines, the M16A2, A3, A4, M4’s, Mark 18’s all had fully adjustable Sights. And Stoner himself designed the AR in the beginning with adjustable sights. Now I never saw Marines diddling their sights. And I believe the Corps has a lock on the title of MOST ADD / ADHD people in any organization! Marines knew that the rifle they had was theirs, and they knew what the windage and elevation settings were. We even trained them how to mark their sights with paint pens or White Out. In the fall of 1990 every 2 Mar Div unit went to Stone Bay and zeroed their rifles on the 300 line before they deployed to SWA. That’s how serious the issue is in the Corps. We universally hated the 3 shot burst mechanism. But it was reliable. The forward assist while rarely needed is useful. I’ve witnessed numerous times where the bolt didn’t full rotate into the locked position. The forward assist handled that. The new composite plastic was a welcome change from a durability stand point. The grip wasn’t liked for the shelf they added. Didn’t fit most Marines. While I understand lengthening the stock it was a mistake. They should have kept it where it was. Thank God for the more aggressive checkering on the buttplate. In the end the M16A2 cost more than new M16A1’s. Don’t care. The Congress pisses away millions. The rifle was about 2 pounds heavier. Not ideal, but not the end of the world. As they say in the Corps, I’d you think it’s to heavy then you need to workout more. The only thing that made the M16A2 less reliable than the M16A1 was the M855 round. That’s because the projectile on the new round had a sharp point. When Marines would try to chamber the first round on a fresh mag, the tip would go straight into the seam where the barrel extension fits into the upper receiver. That caused the bullet to stub. If the Marine performed immediate action they would then cause a double feed. They did 2 things to fix the problem. Changed the profile on the tip of the bullet to a slightly more rounded one like on the M193 round. And they eventually extended the feed ramps adding a chamfer to the upper receiver that blended into the ramps on the barrel extension. Not sure when that change occurred. Marine Corps Marksmanship doctrine up until around 1990 broke training into 3 phases. Preparatory Phase; that was all the classroom instruction and dry firing on the snapping in drums. Known Distance Firing which was a week of firing the KD course. And the last phase that was rarely conducted was Field Firing which was the units responsibility. In the end Marines understood the basic fundamentals of marksmanship better than any other service. Heres where the rule of: You cant do, what you don’t know, comes into play. I’d much rather have Marines who know how to fire a precise shot and the skills to do it. As opposed to being in a gunfight with someone only capable of launching a cone of fire. It’s easy to be sloppy, and hard to be precise. Especially if you never learned the skills to be precise. A big short coming in our doctrine was at close quarters battle. That’s because prior to 911 it wasn’t taught to anyone outside the Recon, Security Forces / FAST Teams, MP, or Infantry units. For the most part the only CQB experts were the Force Recon Marines, and SOTG instructors. And they didn’t have time to teach all that High Speed / Low Drag stuff to regular Marines. Nor did the Marine Corps have enough CQB Ranges. Marksmanship Instructors and some switched on Marines knew when it comes to engagement under field conditions iron sights left a lot to be desired. Marines had tried to get red dots and optics like the ACOG adopted well before 2004. Force Recon did a little work with the Armeson OEG reflex sight in the late 80’s. Echo Company 2/24, 4th Mar Div deployed to SWA in Dec of 1990 with ACOGS on squad leaders rifles. Fire Team Leaders had OEG reflex sight on theirs. Saw that with my own eyes. They were billeted in B Range barracks at Stone Bay, Camp Lejeune while going through training which was where I lived. Last point I want to make is this; to make a top notch weapon or anything for that matter requires teamwork. The designer, the engineer with the 50 pound brain, and the subject matter expert who knows how to use it and will teach others how to use it. All to frequently the SME is left out of the equation or ignored. PS: At the end of the day Stoner could take heart in this. Most of our soldiers and Marines that died because their M16 failed were carrying M16’s or M16E1’s during Vietnam. The cause being lack of a chrome lined barrel, lack of proper training and cleaning kits with regards to operator level maintenance, and early ammo loaded with ball powder which caused clogging of the gas system. That was the fault of people above his pay grade who thought they knew better. Kind of the way Admirals made Grumman use the Pieces Of Shit TF 30 engine in the F14A.

[@planetcaravan2925]

Too long, didnt read

[@mrkinger-e2x]

Great points but it wasn't just the jarheads

[@cbeaudry4646]

Interesting info, thanks

[@billflythe4092]

Interesting and highly informative

[@richardsupak9726]

It was interesting, but if you can find a leather neck magazine from Dec 79, I guess that the 3 round was my fault.​@@planetcaravan2925

[@M81_WOODLAND]

As a target rifle, I have to agree with Henry from 9-hole Reviews as I also prefer the A2 sights. As a combat rifle? I can see why folks like LAV preferred the "set and forget" solution the A1 sights offer. But what do I know. I was a 19K. If I needed to resort to using a rifle (or carbine), it meant there was BIG trouble in little China, so to speak.

[@XxxAkwardTurtlexxX]

I am a stoner and I think that the M16 is a great firearm, that covers a wide variety uses. Great video!

[@theirishman6728]

Great video. Agreed completely on the A2 sights. It's why when I set out to build a "classic" 20", I went with a C7 upper for the A1 sight along with the benefits of some of the A2 revisions. And it's probably my favorite AR in my collection.

[@seanwhite304]

I for sure favor A1 sights over A2 . I kick myself in the ass for not buying Diemaco C7 Stripped Upper couple years ago .

[@DMF716]

I just built the C7, A1, also..used a light weight barrel, A2 front sight, original A1 handguards and A1 butt stock. Finally@ 51 years later! Class of 1972!

[@andreivaldez2929]

"This was designed for the Marine Corps to qualify on their precision shooting which had no bearing on real combat", my Crayola eating brain is insulated but understanding. We started doing more close range and urban related training recently (went through in 2013) but even then it was a bit frustrating to have the M16A4s during urban terrain stuff because the length was so long. Yeah, you can do it, and God bless anyone that did, but it was not the best rifle for every role. Still love it to death death I prefer the way carry handles and 20" barrels look compared to all the red dots and 16" or shorter barrels we see in the general population.

[@epiccowboymemes2042]

Ni...

[@superfamilyallosauridae6505]

Everybody has M4s and M27s now. M16s are basically relegated to training roles, and in boot camp the M16s get collapsing stocks and H6 buffers (yes, are still 20" rifle uppers)

[@cbeaudry4646]

Lots of precision "flat range style" shots being taken in Ukraine rn

[@74charger44]

I was in the Marines in the mid 80s.I qualified with the A1 and while in the fleet the A2 was issued. In my opinion, this episode was completely correct. With the A1, once the site was zeroed, leave it alone. With the A2, since the rear sight was easy to adjust, I was changing every so often to get the perfect shot. Thanks for the information.

[@fanman8102]

Excellent! I never understood why they made the A1 sights so hard to change. Now I know and that’s why I enjoy your channel!

[@blackhawk7r221]

Hard? The side wagon wheel?

[@Technoid_Mutant]

In Desert Storm my personal weapon was an XM16E1. The Marines all had the A2 and liked some features of the A1 such as sights that can't be misadjusted once set and the full-auto. I was in NMCB-74, Seabees at Raas Al Mishab for quite a few months. The gear we had was from war-stores at Camp Shields, Okinawa.

[@NoGoBu]

My Army days were spent packing M-16A1 1973, I have both & still prefer A1. Old habits, great vid thanks 🪖🇺🇸🪖

[@Grasyl]

Very good Video as always. My perception has always been, that the Marine Corps tried to make the M16 more like a rifle and less a Sturmgewehr.

[@ThomasRonnberg]

the m16 in its raw natural form is one of the most gorgeous rifles out there

[@menschmenschson7504]

You make the best gun videos on KZbin. No flash, no goofy jokes hijinks or annoying music. Just straight information

[@jimmyggh1]

When I was a SeaBee, I qualed with the A1 from 87-91. 92 we finally got A2's, which, as a lefty, I loved!

[@ourvaluesarewhoweareinadem4093]

"Look how they massacred my boy!" -Eugene 'Corleone' Stoner

[@Nattleby]

It would be interesting to discuss how the M1 Carbine influenced the designs of both the M16 and AK-47. The idea of the “light rifle/PDW” combined with the assault rifle concept directly influenced facets of the M16 design. The AK’s rotating bolt design and charging handle came directly from the M1.

[@ericleblanc5406]

This channel is a gold mine of firearms knowledge

[@Fugettaboutit]

What you describe between the XM855 and M193 ammo and groups/accuracy is exactly what I recently went through trying to zero a 16" upper. The 855 was all over the place at only 25 yards (!), zeroing for 100 in a .223 Wylde chambered upper and a 1-6X. I thought there had to be something wrong with the gun, or the scope, or baffle strikes with my suppressor. I happened to have a box of 193, loaded up changing nothing else and got one ragged hole the size of a small grape. The XM855 was from a Federal green can, with the Lake City stamps on rims. Someone suggested that it may have been QC rejects just sold off. But man, that's just dangerous. Never mind missing a man-sized target at 100 yds, that's almost missing the entire berm!

[@Mikeyy-y]

I got issued the M16A2 in October of 91 when I went to Paris Island. I shot expert. That surprised my drill instructors, but it didn’t surprise me. I loved that rifle. I wish I had one.

[@veryhighpower]

Great evaluation. Though I disagree with a few of your evaluations, "personal preference," I find your evaluations, thoughts and concerns well thought out and very well produced. Thank you.

[@jcoolG192]

Best description of the FA I ever read. People who understand the purpose and limitations of the FA like ‘em. People who use them to smash a malfunction deeper into the upper, think they’re useless.

[@TrueOpinion99]

They are useless, even when you're not smashing a malfunction into the chamber.

[@jcoolG192]

@@TrueOpinion99 you fall into the second group.

[@TrueOpinion99]

@@jcoolG192- I've literally never used my forward-assist to correct a malfunction, neither as a infantryman in combat or as a civilian in competition. It's literally useless and was only added as a feel-good feature because "we've always had guns with some form of a forward-assist." Show me a malfunction that was completely resolved by the use of the forward-assist, I'll wait.

[@jcoolG192]

@@TrueOpinion99 that's the point. It does nothing to fix malfunctions, except when the bolt fails to completely go into battery. It serves the same purpose as a charging handle on an AK, M-14 or any other rifle with a reciprocating handle in that circumstance. The most famous, and most recent case is Kyle Rittenhouse. If you watch the blown up video, Huber's hand looks like it was on the receiver when Rittenhouse fired. If Huber's hand was in contact with the bolt, it may have robbed the recoil spring of the energy needed to fully seat the bolt. Rittenhouse pushed the FA with his thumb, seating the bolt fully, and allowing him to engage Grosskreutz. There was no time for SPORTS. The FA probably saved his life.

[@Jerry10939]

The foreword assist was a necessary improvement. I have had to use it quite a few times using the M16.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

You should not ride the charging handle forward

[@Mainehunter2]

I served 12 years in the National Guard, just recently got out. My unit still had the M16A2 until 2019.

[@irondiver2034]

11:59 minutes. I appreciate your opinion and thank you for the perspective you bring from the army. It would be interesting to have a similar long form presentation from a Marine. I can only tell that this rifle kept me alive. My buddy and I were able to effectively engage combatants at over 450 yards with no optics. Range verified with old ass rangefinder that picked up on a whim and threw into my lce Buttpack at last minute.

[@outis7080]

Thank you. Engagements usually occur within 300 yards, but that is not an ironclad fact. Relying on generalisations is just inviting Murphy to ruin your day. I can vaguely recall reading a report from Vietnam of troops armed with M16A1s getting pinned down by VC or NVA forces with SKSs. While 5.56 has a flatter trajectory than 7.62x39, the SKS sight allows them to compensate for the range, unlike the M16 armed troops who were guesstimating due to their rudementary sights. The A2 rear sight doesn't add that much weight nor complexity for the advantage it brings

[@nadermazari3334]

Thank you for a wonderful presentation. This rifle is literally a history read of various generations of American soldiers. I used the "mattel toy version" LOL! Back in boot camp at Ft. Knox in 1987. For all its issues, it is still an enduring design.

[@THEREALBONZO]

Im glad to hear you state the 1:9 twist is ideal. Out of my Colts I have an a1 topped 20 inch 1/7 and my 6920 M4 1/7, but I have an oddball Colt Govt carbine out of the 90s with an m4 profile barrel, fixed a2 carry handle stamped 4, and the 1/9. As Jayne Cobb would say, "This is my very favorite gun."

[@pilgrim42]

but did you name it "Vera"?

[@AR15andGOD]

Does a shorter barrel like 16in for example not need more twist?

[@DougCaldwell]

As an old Corps veteran of the 1960s-70s I got to carry and annually requalify with the M-14 and M-16. The M16A1 and A2 didn't get to me before I was discharged. So I appreciate the insight and discussion of the A1 and A2 pro and con which followed my service time. I agree that the adjustable rear sight makes it more of a target rifle for the Marine Corps. During my time in Vietnam we had the hard to adjust (Stoner preferred) rear/front sight, use the tip of the cartridge.

[@azmaddog6]

My M16 basic training rifle in 1978 was a Harrington & Richardson with a Lion logo! I think looking into this would make an interesting segment as I have never heard it mentioned anywhere.

[@armynurseboy]

I saw an A2 overstamped H&R A1 in Iraq. Ancient lower with a brand new upper. You could see the difference in finish.

[@andreweshleman7359]

You're making me feel nostalgic. Now I want to clone the a2 like I had in basic.

[@CyberMurph1090-d5u]

I had an M-16A1 in basic/AIT and then in my reserve unit in the early 1990s, I didn't see an A2 until ROTC in the early 90s. Interestingly, all out our M16A1s had the A2 butt plate and some had the A2 front stock/handguard. I suppose those were unit level changes that armorers could make. 6:28 - Not really. You can put down a hell of a rate of fire just by pulling the trigger as fast as you can on semi. Moreover the A2 came in after the M249 entered service and that weapon was issued everywhere, but most of all two per infantry squad. So, really, volume of fire was not an issue.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

Semi does not work in an ambush. That was proven in several Army studies. This is the reason the BURST was finally got rid of. Troops with semi M14 could not match the AK47 fire in the early days of Vietnam. Lots of things work good on a target range but not in the real world.

[@CyberMurph1090-d5u]

@@SmallArmsSolutions Near ambush or far ambush. The fact that burst lasted nearly thirty years proves it was not a problem and semi works fine in a firefight, ambush or not. Suppressive fire is suppressive fire whether you are pulling the trigger repeatedly or holding it down. The volume of fire and accuracy is what matters and you can achieve both on semi, never mind the fact that, once again, the Army gave it's squads not one, but two belt fed M249s for that job.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

Actually no. When the A2 came out in 85, it never saw somewhat real combat on any scale till Gulf War 1. It was not till GWOT where there a was a lot of real ground fighting. We no have omitted the BURST because of that. Another interesting tie bit for you, while at Colt, they never sold BURST guns to any customer other than the US Govt. Every foreign sale used AUTO. BURST was a dumb idea and invented during peace time but proven ineffective in war. Check out the reports from the early Vietnam War, I believe Hitch and Crossman reports showing how few troops engaged in an ambush with semi-auto M14’s. The semi auto M14 could not match the AK47 in an ambush.

[@paulwetzel9049]

I went to basic training in Fort Leonard Wood in 2007. Some of our m16s were a1/a2 conversions that even still had a1 light weight barrels and over stamped a1 lowers.

[@tonyhenthorn3966]

6:19 "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." The Soviets themselves knew by 1974 that a smaller caliber, at higher velocity, was the way to go. Hence their AK-74/caliber reduction from 7.62 to 5.45.

[@notbadsince97]

Funny enough Kalashnikov personally opposed the change of caliber and preferred the penetration and “stopping power” of the 7.62x39. It seems no likes it when others less mess with their babies for better or worse.

[@AR15andGOD]

@@notbadsince97 Most of the bullets energy doesn't dump in a 7.62x39, it flies right thru. 5.56 practically pops people compared to it, human targets are not steel plates kalashnikov

[@notbadsince97]

@@AR15andGOD No disagreement here, hence the air quotes

[@norikotakaya14292]

I was a US Marine infantryman from '83 to '87 who served as an automatic rifleman in his fireteam. I carried an M16A1 to fulfill my duties as an automatic rifleman up until 1985 as my unit hadn't yet been issued the FN M249 SAW. I was even still allowed to qualify with it when we did our annual qualification at the rifle range. Once we got the M249's, my only experience with the M16A2 in service was during qualification. But I did buy the civilian version when it was available. It was a Bushmaster rifle and I still own it today.

[@happyhaunter_5546]

Really great video Chris and Heather. When I was duty armorer on my ship I always issued myself the ONE A4 with M203 that we had, just for fun!

[@Maine307]

USMC ret 94-2014.. 03MOS.. i went through the A2 to M4..lol Expert.. I had no idea soo many things went into this .. this was such a wonderful video to learn. WoW thanx !!!!

[@JulietBravo90]

I would love to see your thoughts on the InRange WWSD rifles!

[@sanguinemoon9201]

I am most interested in the KP15 lower portion on that review. I have come to love the KP15 and have half a dozen of them.

[@MrGrim-ib4ix]

Unfortunately he hasn't been too kind to it previously. Though Id still be interested to hear his opinion.

[@Scott-qq9jd]

Mostly he has said that he doesn't agree with the pencil barrel as something Stoner would have done, mainly because the AR family barrels only got heavier with time.

[@AVATARComander]

@@Scott-qq9jd that's the thing the original reason for the ar was a very light rifle, the combat style and the action on the person carrying it eventually determines the style of barrel they will need

[@MrGrim-ib4ix]

@@Scott-qq9jd important to note, those barrels only really got heavy on the models Stoner and co. Didn't work on.

[@jackelinemeter8914]

Shows that the US is more interested in money and outcome rather than the person behind the weapon! God bless Stoner and thanks small arm solutions for the vid

[@caseybrown5183]

Good video. It’s great to have knowledgeable folks sharing all this info. The historical data is interesting on its own, but a great deal of trial and error can be eliminated for those looking to purchase some version of an AR-15 or to assemble one that best meets their needs.

[@masatsune3493]

The best channel with technical content around the AR platform

[@wayartio]

Thanks again Chris! I love sitting around at Christmas watching your great gun videos. I was a late bloomer with the AR platform but have built several of late Love your insights and opinions! God bless you and yours and have a GREAT holiday season!

[@Torqd_Off]

Only comment I’m going to make is; you’re exactly correct about that barrel. The change doesn’t do a thing to improve it. If they were going to add thickness, and therefore weight, they should’ve kept the barrel the same diameter the whole length. All the heat collects right where it tapers down and it’s a failure point. Otherwise, it’s a great rifle and someone like me will never shoot enough rounds through it probably in it’s lifetime for it to fail during one situation.

[@SuperSecretSquirell]

Fun fact: The A2 flash hider fits into the mosquito net pole holes in the end bars of the cots. So if you had one that was hard to get the bar locked in, just use your M16 lol. Saw way too many fellow Joes do this. Never seemed to cause any issues though.

[@SnoopReddogg]

Damn.... I needed to know this 20 years ago. Not once in 25 years service did I ever manage to get both end bars fixed on a camp stretcher.

[@tonycolca2241]

First I would like to complement you on your information very accurate. I am 75 years old I arrived in vietnam November of 1966 before we got off the ship we were issued the add on selector switch for our m14 the rifle fired really fast on full auto and hard to control I was in m 42 ai self propelled twin 40mm duster sometime in 1967 the first m16 arrived the infantry soldiers said the buffer was to light and they would attempt to double feed one fix was to only put 18 rounds in 20 round magazine the barrel and chamber were not chrome lined cartridges tended to stick in chamber infantry all carried cleaning rods assembled to knock stuck rounds out of chamber the bolt was made out of steel but the bolt carrier was aluminum and as most know similar when heated in motion seizing was a problem also the rifle was designed to use stick powder which is much cleaner burning than ball powder so cleaning kits at first weren't issued the army was using ball powder with calcium carbonate preservative it was stopping up the gas tube some infantrymen were found dead with their weapons apart trying to fix them also the first one in 14 twist didn't really stabilize 55 grain bullet soldiers were asking family's to send them guns some guys were even carrying leveraging rifles sent from home army bean counters probably killed as many men as THE VC I am glad I have lived long enough to tell the story very sad after the improvements done to the m16 it is now a good weapon but only for close combat sadly nothing will bring back the soldiers rat died because of the first ones

[@josephrogers8213]

I hate bean counters

[@guernseygoodness]

I read an interview in Small Arms Review with David Lutz. David says that if they didn’t put in the burst, the M16A2 would have been a semi -auto only rifle. This was due to the high ammo expenditure in Vietnam. They talked “the powers that be” into the burst knowing that with a simple alteration, it could go full-auto.

[@joeblow9657]

I heard part of that was also due to the introduction of the SAW at the section where it was assumed that it would really increase ammunition usage and the US logistics people were concerned that they simply couldn't ship over enough ammo for everyone.

[@Covert_Arrangements]

I have to say that I completely agree with mr stoners opinion of the strong points of the original design regarding weight and full auto selection. As a former Marine 2002-2006, I qualified with the M16A2 and I personally detested the forward assist and the 3 round burst. I felt the burst left a LOT to be desired. Now as a civilian all of my rifles resemble the early retro style simple ones. Great video. 😎

[@Caje-zf8md]

I seem to recall reading that part of the reason for "beefing up" the barrel was due to G.I.s using the 3-prong flash suppressor as a tool to break metal straps on crates. This unauthorized technique usually resulted in a bent barrel. And I also recall that the Marines hated the 3-round burst feature because the system increased the single-shot trigger pull and adversely affected qualification/competition scores.

[@davidschaadt3460]

I've heard both from several sources.

[@Paladin1873]

The three prong flash hider was dispensed with early on due to it snagging on brush. It's also rumored that GIs used it for popping off bottle caps. The external part of the barrel was thickened because the M16 barrel was sometimes used as a pry bar, which could bend it. There may be other reasons (reduce barrel vibration to enhanced accuracy or create extra mass to dampen recoil and rise or dissipate heat?).

[@TheEpicpwnr100]

@@Paladin1873 a few people have mentioned it in the comments, but the real reason it was thickened was due to false positives when checking the A1 barrels. Deposits of carbon build up around the gas port fooled armorers into thinking it the barrels were bent in that area. While there may be some benefits to the A2 profile, those were not the reasons the profile was implemented.

[@Paladin1873]

@@TheEpicpwnr100 I saw those comments, but I've never heard of this reason before. When the A2 came out, all the articles I read indicated the thin barrel profile under the handguards was intended to save weight and allow the fitting of the M203 grenade launcher, while the thicker exposed section of barrel was supposed to make it sturdier. Do you know what is the source document for the carbon issue?

[@TheEpicpwnr100]

@@Paladin1873 I hope this comment doesn't get deleted again Google everyday marksman story of the government profile barrel This article is where I first learned of the issue. It quotes Lt Col Lutz directly. Once the mistake had been made, the paperwork had already been sent in and it was too late to go back. There is a kernel of truth to what you said, as there was an internal dilemma between keeping the profile thin at the Armys request, and making it thicker per the Marines request. This change was partially seen as a half step at accomplishing both, and was probably presented as such to publications asking for details about the new rifle. But at the end of the day, it is a move that is impractical and founded on a mistake I'll probably repost all this in my own comment since in my opinion, this change is as unnecessary as the switch to burst fire over auto, perhaps even worse since it also persisted in most AR derivatives until the m4a1, but actually has staying power in the civilian market because people don't know any better.

[@joseywales6146]

Fascinating stuff! I appreciated your comments and the Stoner interviews were illuminating. Thanks!

[@nemisous83]

The A2 sights are really like the forward assist. most of the time you are never going to use them for their intended purpose but its nice to have them regardless. There isn't any recorded instances of GI's throwing off their zero because the sights where too adjustable because frankly they never messed with them unless they where conducting area fire. The concern that the sights will be too adjustable is just conjecture similar to army concerns that full auto would enable GI's to blow through their ammo instead of accurately aiming at the target. The thickened barrel profile on the A2 did help with point of impact shift caused by the pencil barrel of the A1 so it wasn't a useless addition as you pointed out.

[@superfamilyallosauridae6505]

It also adds weight on the end, slightly helping you arrest recoil, but this is an unintended benefit. In my opinion, the barrel profile is really the only goofy thing on the M16A2 other than burst. And, well, the barrel profile may be silly... but it did give the Marine Corps confidence to keep doing bayonet training when they might have stopped over something stupid like faux bent barrels. Is that really such a bad price to pay? I don't think so. The M16A2, other than the burst setting, is no grand catastrophe like purists say. I prefer collapsible stocks obviously, but even in body armor A2 length wasn't a problem. Burst, which I went into the military expecting to hate, I was actually able to chain together as essentially a more-involved full automatic. Lt. Col Lutz's compromise kept automatic fire in the rifle, instead of idiots making it semi-only.. If you care, you can make it work.

[@nemisous83]

@@superfamilyallosauridae6505 yeah I've never found the M16a2 all that bad its a natural evolution of the devicencies of the M16a1 people just like to hate on it for no reason to the point of grasping at some pretty weird straws like saying adjustable sights is bad.

[@superfamilyallosauridae6505]

@@nemisous83 But the Marine 500 yard target is the size of a jeep! Obviously that's impractical and stupid! (Completely ignore that such big targets let you know where you missed and then learn how to shoot, in a very low tech version of those fancy ranges with screens showing you where you hit)

[@nemisous83]

@@superfamilyallosauridae6505 well yeah the whole target itself is but the black is about the size of an average man standing in theory the point is to practice area fire if you hit thats good but if you miss around the target its still counts as suppression if you miss the target then you need to work on your fundamentals.

[@superfamilyallosauridae6505]

@@nemisous83 Yep, I know. I qualed. Felt the surprisingly weak effect of wind at 500 on 62gr M855. It has a use.

[@photobygary]

I was serving in the Canadian military when we transitioned from the FNC1 to the C7. I for one am very glad our military didn't adopt the burst limiter and chose to adopt the rifle with the A1 type rear sight instead of the A2 sight. As to the weight issue, the C7 at just under 8 lbs was noticeably lighter than the FN, which was 9/12 lbs empty and closer to 11 when fully loaded. I never heard anyone complain about the weight of the C7.

[@christo_reese]

wow, Christmas Eve vid about M16. Compromise between full automatic and ammo conservation, that's a good one 🤣 Merry Christmas from Indonesia, Chris.

[@lam.924]

History of the M16A2 video and its Christmas eve? What a gift!

[@newpeupyoass]

I was told that the reason for the A2s weird barrel profile was that they wanted a heavier barrel, but didn't want to change the mounting system for the M203.

[@ScreechingPossum]

The 'airborne' argument presented in this video was the first I had ever heard of that, but it's as if there's no single agreed reason and all of them equally are asinine anyways Two that I remember was that it was thickened so soldiers wouldn't bend the barrels using bayonets...or using them for opening crates

[@chrisb3738]

I was told it was needed because the tighter twist generated more heat.

[@curtisbarrow7650]

I had an A1 in ROTC summer camp in 1980. It was very worn, but was one of the most accurate rifles I have ever fired...sort of! It would cut incredibly small groups at any range until you moved your cheek weld. The barrel was loose on the upper receiver, the upper was loose on the lower, and the butt stock was loose on the lower. As long as you held it all tight it was great, but as soon as you, say, lifted your head to see what was going on, it shifted everything, including the point of impact by 8 to 10 inches at 100 yards! Then it was back to tiny groups...somewhere else. Good times!

[@sorryociffer]

Actually my favorite iteration of the “M” and “AR” series…. My second fave?…. SP1….

[@garyhammond2213]

In my earlier life, I was not a fan of the M16. However, as I've aged my thoughts have changed. As for Gene Stoner, the military should listen to him as he designed the rifle. A very smart guy! I keep telling myself that I'm not a collector, but my gun rack and checkbook say otherwise.

[@douglasj2254]

Great content, as always. Does anyone know, was the so-called HBAR heavy barrel ever used by the military? Some say it was part of the original A2 spec but abandoned, while others claim it was purely an invention of the rifle manufacturers who hoped to sell rifles to the civilian market that were cheaper to produce. Thanks!

[@2packrm781]

Wow, Stoner was thee "man" with the knowledge & the foresight into the future. My only regret is I didn't have the chance to meet this gentleman 😢

[@cadamsm11]

Awesome presentation, Thank you! I actually trained on an A1 in the Air Force in early 1991, so they still existed then. My current “Frankengun” has a flat top with removable carry handle/sight. My barrel is gov’t profile, although if you could recommend an upper with a 20” pencil, please let me know! I installed an A1 handguard, so I THINK what I have is closer to an A4 clone with an A1 handguard, but I love it regardless. Happy Holidays! Chris in Texas

[@life_of_riley88]

Good luck finding an upper with a 20" pencil profile, anywhere in stock these days. . .

[@cadamsm11]

@@life_of_riley88 I’ve noticed.

[@life_of_riley88]

@@cadamsm11 Yeah, it's a total bummer, as so many of us want to build a lightweight 20" rifle. Hopefully the barrel manufacturers will ramp up production soon.

[@cadamsm11]

@@life_of_riley88 Yes, I served 1991-99 in the Air Force, and from what I remember about our A-1’s, and from holding a Colt civilian SP-1, they seemed noticeably lighter…of course I was younger then also! I would love to have someone actually weigh an A1 and then an A2/4 with “government” barrel, to see the true weight difference. I know some manufacturers, like RRA, call their barrels “lightweight,” but I don’t really know what that means.

[@life_of_riley88]

@@cadamsm11 From my research, a true Colt A1 would weight around 6.3lbs and a later A2 would be 7.5lbs, and most noticably front heavy due to the absurd "Govt profile" barrel.

[@oioisickboy]

Lol I just inspected over 300 M16A2's to send back to depot. A lot of early Armalite original 601 lowers with no fencing and the role pin at the receiver extension. Also the front pivot pin came completely out. Ive got some pics if interested.

[@oldschool9932]

Very enjoyable content; thank you. Many moons ago when I saw the forward assist I thought to myself....certainly no one in there right mind would outfit a battle rifle with a feature meant to force something into a space that it would not go freely and maybe it's simply a pop bottle opener ....?.... never underestimate the stupidity of ... well .... anyway, really enjoyed the video. Thank you

[@Saintlawrence100]

This is the best video on KZbin explaining this particular weapon…factual information…saved, shared and subbed.

[@reddevilparatrooper]

The FN made M16A2 sucked in accuracy in my opinion from using and qualifying with one. What was disturbing to me was during battle sight zeroing. It can zero within the 25 meter silhouette circle but not have a tight shot group. From a cold barrel with the first 3 rounds it was tight. As soon as the next 3 rounds with a slightly warm barrel my shot group would open up. That is with the FN made barrel. I then compared it to another M16A2 which was Colt made. During qualification I barely qualified expert with the FN. The Colt was great during zero and qualification and was consistent on point of aim and impact where I wanted my shots to go. The FN rifles at that time in the early 2000s were almost new too.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

I think Colt made superior rifles back then hands down

[@reddevilparatrooper]

@@SmallArmsSolutions Yes indeed. They have better barrels.

[@MacDorsai]

What do you think of the Forgotten Weapons/InRange TV/KE Arms WWSD (What Would Stoner Do) rifle? Sorry for the over-explanation in the preceding sentence, but better too much than not enough.

[@ron4hunting]

eugene stoner was a great guy . i knew him in the late 70's when he lived down the street from me . he was working at cadillac gage in warren mi on the stoner 64 to update it for the 80's . he gave me my first ar15 in 78 . sadly it was stolen in 86 . taught me the in's and out's of the ar 15 .

[@hauntsichord]

M16A1 > M16A2

[@alancranford3398]

I entered active duty with the Marines in 1975, transferred to the Army in 1980, and retired from the National Guard in 2010. I missed the M14 rifle in basic training by two weeks, used the M16A1 until 1988, and then it was the M16A2 until retirement. I was service/support (avionics, electronic warfare, multichannel communications) and in 1984 graduated at the top of my class from the Fort Riley Unit Armorer Course (I knew the weapons, but the paperwork and security procedures were something I needed to learn, especially AR 190-11) and I was often range cadre when my units qualified. The slip rings and hand guards were decided improvements. I had trouble when soldiers mixed up the 300- and 800-meter settings on the rear sight. On both the M16A1 and M16A2 the flip-up sight routinely caused problems because some of the soldiers were just not paying attention. Their ASVAB scores indicated that they could learn--they didn't because they qualified once or twice a year and that was it. The closed bottom of the flash suppressor did help keep firing signature low by kicking up less dust, but one of the results of firing rifles from prone was the muzzle blast would dig a shallow trench. I had little problem with the "improved" sights because I had a bit more training than the other soldiers--if rifle training was longer and better quality, those issues would have gone away. Never did like the burst control device--especially the progressive three-shot device Colt made. My first experience with the M16A2 on the range was being called in off leave to provide remedial instruction. The trigger had six different trigger pulls depending upon cam position. My solution was teaching trigger control. I had been called in because there was a high percentage of UNQUAL and no experts. After my class the rest of the company went to the range (I wasn't invited) and the scores went back up to 20% expert, 40% sharpshooter and 40% marksman. Just switching the trigger dumped those scores. Training in proper semi-auto trigger control fixed it.

[@Forgiven.Man.of.GOD.]

I love your videos and information and how you present it bro! I just ordered a windham weaponry MPC it arrives next week, and already own their A4 clone! I Love the older looking rifles with irons. I can’t get into this new tactical look of these rifles with red dots and rails… it’s just not my style

[@gwpattrick]

Merry Christmas from Wisconsin

[@christinepearson5788]

I agree the Canadians got the better weapon. With the A2 polymer, A2 trapdoor (not meat tenderzer butplate) brunyon bump A2 handguards and flash hider, and A2 small and large appture rear sight, I would have been happy. Most engagements are sub 300 yards and that itty bitty peep in some light conditions sucks.

[@armynurseboy]

The cold hammer forge barrel alone makes C7/8 rifles better....

[@Char-nu9ir]

My first unit still had M16A1's when I arrived in '87, and was issued an old Harrington & Richardson. The only thing that rifle needed was a set A2 handguards, which eventually became a common thing to see on A1's in the late 80's.

[@blackhawk7r221]

Yea, we had to do the handguard switchover in our unit.

[@varg8696]

A2 sight really isn't complicated 300 m zero and simply turn rear knob to 4 for 400m 5 to 500m ect. It gave a little more range for marines that train up to 500yd targets. a1 sights were only good to 300m

[@Max_Da_G]

Once you are shown how to use them, they are not. And for target shooting they are good. The point isn't that they are bad, which they aren't. The point is whether they are what you need for a military application and their cost-effectiveness. Real-world combat shown that most common engagement range is just about that: 300m. Beyond that human that is trying to avoid being hit is VERY hard to hit. US military studies had shown that M-16A2 combat hit rate went from 80% at 100m down to around 20% at 200m. Battle stress and external factors such as enemy action and weather caused the shooter to have FAR less time to actually look for targets and follow marksmanship principles. Also combat often became a competition between opposing forces on who can suppress the enemy better. That meant you didn't aim at the specific individual, but fired in the direction of where enemy is hoping to make them keep their heads down so you can flank them. Most rifle kills came well inside 200m. And Bill Ruger didn't base his belief around people only needing a rifle for combat inside 200m on nothing. Soviet brass made extensive studies on combat of WW2. The lessons learnt never ceased to apply in this day and age. Most common engagements are inside 300m, and the "Battle" or "P" sight setting on the 7.62mm AK is same as setting 3 for 300m engagements. Soldier is simply told where to aim to hit the target and told how high the bullet elevation is above the POA at a given distance. When AK-74 came up, they began to use setting 4 for Battle setting, but if one uses setting 3, dispersion permitting, one can aim for heads. So 300m is highly likely enough for most combat situations. Any further and it's normally a job for the squad marksman anyway.

[@TheKingOfJordan1]

I'm glad this video popped up in my recommended, you are a wealth of knowledge, sir.

[@bazookawarren]

I can understand using the M855, the rear sights and burst, but why the hell they would extend the stock another 5/8???

[@DocMitchell69]

Eh, I disagree on the sights and burst, but I do agree on the stock. Was there ever any legit reasoning why they did that? I was issued the A4 and that thing was unwieldy. I played around with some SP1s at a gun show a while back and it felt way better. I’d have preferred the lightweight and handiness of the A1 to the musket like A4.

[@sha6mm]

@@DocMitchell69 I’m 6’2 and prefer the longer stock.

[@bazookawarren]

@@sha6mm lol...geee I wonder why??

[@armynurseboy]

Because it fits better when using traditional shooting postures (ie bladed body posture w/ chicken wing elbow.).

[@robbabcock_]

Fascinating! It's especially cool to see video of Gene Stoner himself commenting on changes.

[@SpacePatrollerLaser]

Was "one shot one kill" every a battle combat thing after the muzzle and breach loader, pre-magazine era? Iven slingers and longbowmen timeframe, volley fire was the thing; the more ammo you could put downrange per unit time, the more hits you get and the bigger the fear factor

[@johngriffiths118]

The number of rounds to produce one kill is simply staggering . Unless you re a sniper it’s never been one shot , one kill .

[@Verdha603]

Most of the emphasis on the “one shot, one kill” philosophy can be traced as far back as the French & Indian Wars of the 1750’s all the way up until World War I; in an era where the most modern weapon ranged from a muzzle loaded rifle to a bolt-action, where you didn’t have that many rounds to work with that was about the only option you had. Combined with a country where many riflemen/infantry were raised putting food on the table with a cheap rifle and a limited supply of ammo made such a philosophy a necessity. World War I changed that with the mass adoption and distribution of crew served machine guns and mobile artillery that made it so volume of fire was a more decisive factor than individual shots from riflemen. The problem is that nostalgia from the past still heavily dictates how we view the role of infantry in combat over a century later (examples include leadership pushing against the adoption of the M1 Garand and M16A1 due to concerns of giving up marksmanship for “spray and pray”, updating the A1 from a combat rifle into a target rifle with the A2 upgrades).

[@SpacePatrollerLaser]

@@Verdha603 I see you've been watching SmallArmsSolution (the A2 being a "target rifle", encouraged by the Marine Corp). Ian talks about many of the late Cold War rifles being designed with "one shot one kill" in mind I am suprised that it would be the Marines who would keep that since they go into situations where it's all hell br are coming aseaking loose and you would think they would use firepower-based tactics to hand out as much grief per second as they could, like the Navy SEAL's using the Stoner assault weapon. Also, line combat is not conducive to precise marksmanship. The only way to inflict casualties is to thow lead downrang and when a bunch of guys are coming @ you, you want to be throwing as much lead per unit time as you can You're not stalking deer, you know

[@Verdha603]

@@SpacePatrollerLaser You can thank the US military traditionalists for that. If it weren’t for them we would’ve already moved to intermediate caliber rifles in the 1950’s instead of forcing NATO to adopt 7.62x51mm and appropriate battle rifles for that round, and fending off attempts to mass adopt controllable assault rifles for almost two decades afterwards. They were still believing a line of soldiers or Marines with semi-auto battle rifles could decisively defeat a bunch of conscripts with Kalashnikovs by being able to pick them off 500, 800, or 1000 yards away on the open plains of Eastern Europe, and then proceeded to be in a state of denial when the fight they got thrown into was in the jungle where a long range shot was 200 yards across a rice paddy, with most fights being a lot closer and with a lot more cover and concealment, where a bunch of cheap Kalashnikov’s were putting far more lead on target than semi-auto battle rifles were returning fire with. It’s akin to what’s happening in more modern day where the longer range engagements in Afghanistan is all the evidence traditionalists need to say we must have a rifle with more power and range, meanwhile they’re ignoring the attributes were unnecessary and even detrimental when those same soldiers were clearing buildings in the cities of Iraq and Afghanistan. In other words they enjoy arguing about needing it for the fight they want rather than the fight they actually ended up in.

[@leonardwei3914]

@@Verdha603 Ultimately, I think the lesson is no matter what the military decides, it won't ever be 100 percent be applicable to the war we find ourselves in on the ground.

[@GiveMeThatCake]

Always love these historical videos regarding the AR/M16. Thanks for the upload

[@davidschaadt3460]

I agree and I love that logo.

[@bBlaF]

I did BCT in 2016 and two of the four platoons in my training battery had A2s. My first time with anything in the M16/AR family and I loved it, but I was in the maybe ~5% of trainees long enough to use the thing comfortably. Hated watching all of our ≤5'6" people struggle with it. Got an A1 length stock now in my KP-15 and it is perfection. Shorter people would still want one they could collapse down, but even for me the ergonomic difference is striking. Now I know it's Marines who're to blame for it.

[@JD-tn5lz]

And from all of us 0300 Marines, we simply say...Semper Fi and f*** you Shoot a USMC qual range (you know, one of those ranges where it starts with where the Army ends) with an A1 and then an A2..."it's the hits that matter, not the noise and the smoke" The A2 was an eminently superior rifle at range, the A1 was fine, but when you held the A2 you felt a confidence that you could be accurate out to RPK range.

[@bBlaF]

@@JD-tn5lz US military in general has an iterative history of taking well designed rifles and making them better for target ranges to the detriment of their use in real combat. I'm gonna choose to oppose rather than support that process, but if it makes you feel better, by all means hold onto it.

[@Ideo7Z]

@@bBlaF Marines can never get over their hype and over inflated egos to see the forest for the trees. The burst mechanism is worst and the Canadians have some really good shooters without any of that nonsense.

[@TheSpritz0]

I used the Canadian version (The C7) in 2 wars, I FULLY credit it's accuracy for saving my life on many occasions!!! I got out with only some 81mm mortar fragments in one calf...

[@chrisb3738]

Marines in the late 80's. We knew that when you turned it up to "burst" the first time you pulled the trigger you would get 1,2, or 3 rounds. After the first pull it was always 3 - so always did a double pull the first time. "No bearing on actual combat" Except all the fights we were in Desert Storm we had the sights cranked to at least 500.

[@Pwj579]

First time I qualified on M16A2 I was having issues keeping rounds on target. They told me to try shooting the rifle, left-handed. Boom qualified as Marksman the next round. Turns out I am left eye/hand dominant, but my parents forced me to be right-handed. Then the next year, they told me I needed glasses, when I went shooting again. Now I always shoot left handed with prescription glasses.

[@charlesm.2756]

Not gonna' lie, there's never been a military-issued A2 trapdoor I've ever been able to open with my finger! And I've handled hundreds of them. They should use them for bank vault doors! And yes, I had to clean my rifles ridiculously - so I used that trapdoor MANY times. I remember every unit I've been in - including infantry units - where the crusty CSMs demanded that we scrape muzzle crowns clean with cut up sections of wire coat hangers. Leave it to the Army to find a way to destroy perfectly good rifles. The A2 is a good rifle, but I'll never forget the day I was issued an M4...rays of light beamed down from the heavens...then they made me mount the 203...because of course they did.

[@JD-tn5lz]

I started with the A1 with the Marines in 81, we moved over to the A2 before I got out. We absolutely loved the A2s and didn't mind a little extra weight. Yes, infantry. So after I got out I eventually became law enforcement. I was issued an old A1 (no auto sear) as a patrol rifle and that's what I retired with. All the newbies wanted me to do a property exchange (supply trade) because those of us carrying A1s absolutely smoked the M4 children on quals.

[@charlesm.2756]

@@JD-tn5lz the extra weight and longer barrel of the A1/A2 definitely lend themselves to better accuracy - particularly at longer ranges. If I'm on a range, I'd definitely take a 20 inch barrel over a 14.5. But in downtown Baghdad, with a hundred pounds of kit, the M4 is a God Send - especially when patrolling in the confines of MRAPs. That's, of course, until they make you a 203 gunner. All the big guys and the squad leaders got the 203s...and the little guys had to carry the SAW...Army logic.

[@usmcvet0313]

@@charlesm.2756 M4 is definitely superior for MOUT, but it was a hindrance in a lot of places in Afghanistan. That 14.5 in barrel really neuters the 5.56 out past 300m. Really just depends what fight your in. Myself, I would have traded my M4 for an M16A4 in a heartbeat.

[@charlesm.2756]

@@usmcvet0313 makes good sense. I never spent time in Afghanistan. I'd be very happy, on any given day, to carry an AR platform. It's got some shortcomings, but I still think it's the best combat rifle ever created...as long as you take care of it. The only thing I would trade out on an A4 is the fixed stock. I'm a big dude with longer arms, but trying to get a proper sight picture when wearing body armor is a challenge. I'd definitely prefer a collapsible buttstock - or at least an A1 length stock. That 5/8 inch makes a difference!

[@FloridaSpook]

Thank you again for another high information episode! Merry Christmas

[@Idahoguy10157]

The irony is the improved M16A1, the M16A2, because it was a Marine project fell under Navy Sea Systems Command. So the Navy was determining to the Army what would be their service rifle.

[@TrueOpinion99]

That's why the Army ended up with a more expensive and more complex rifle that wasn't anymore combat effective than the original variation.

[@Idahoguy10157]

@@TrueOpinion99 ….any particular reason you believe an Army program to modernize the M16 series would be less expensive and complex than what the Marines did?

[@TrueOpinion99]

@@Idahoguy10157 - Given the Army never published any documents voicing any concern over the A1 rear sight, I am confident that an M16 upgrade program lead by the Army would've saved millions of dollars by keeping the A1 rear sight. Further, the A1 rear sight is far less complex than the A2, meaning it's less prone to failure or tampering than the A1 version...which is important in a general issue combat rifle.