M16A2 vs M16A1.

>>32599371
>The M16A1's prong/birdcage flash suppressor had multiple issues
Oh did it? Because the only difference between an A1 birdcage and an A2 is that only the top hemisphere on the A2 has slots.
>Many M16's were damaged by GI's using them for pry bars, bottle openers, wire cutters, ect.
No they weren't. Military armorers thought that was what was happening, but they later found out that wasn't the case.
>The M16A1's barrel quickly overheated during automatic fire.
So will the M16A2's. The way they 'fixed' it was with the 3 round burst FCG since they didn't apparently have the time to tell the conscripts how to shoot.


Nice meme thread, guy.

>>32599371
>Barrel profile.
A2 didn't have thicker tip of the barrel because of it.

It was because paratroopers complained that it could bent if they had rough landing. Also bayonet fighting but if they were so concerned about bayonet fighting they would never use something like M16 in the first place.

>The M16A1's prong/birdcage flash suppressor had multiple issues, such as.
A1 only had birdcage suppressor, earlier models did have the 3-prong ones sure, but not A1.

As for the dust - yeah, that was a problem

The furniture part is also bust, A1 already had stronger stocks. Frontguard shape is a thing tho.

Sights are semi-correct, the problem with them in general was that army wanted several setting but didn't want soldiers to lose zero accidentally so they went for the bullet thing, but to be honest the prototype-style flip 2 settings rear sight(similar to that of early M1 carbines) would be better than both of those.

I'll give you 5/10

>>32599451
>It was because paratroopers complained that it could bent if they had rough landing. Also bayonet fighting but if they were so concerned about bayonet fighting they would never use something like M16 in the first place.
That's completely wrong. Can you provide a source that anyone said that?

File: WP_20161125_002[1].jpg (2MB, 3072x1728px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3072x1728px

>implying I'm biting
:^

>>32599399
>>32599451
>>32599532
>>32599910
A1IDF sure is out in force today. Your shitty variant got replaced so you got BTFO anyway.

>>32600438
>your memes get BTFO by my facts
>well the army replaced it!
Kys.

>>32600470
All branches replaced the A1. It was so shitty that it got our guys killed in Vietnam.

>>32600506
Nice memes dude, but this isn't the gun shop. I've already drilled into these moron's heads that what you're saying is bullshit.

File: figures.jpg (84KB, 533x700px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 533x700px

>>32600506

>>32600524
Alright the, if the A1 was SO fucking good then why'd it get replaced?

>>32600540
The military is morons, that's why. I'm not really sure you understand the changes that were made to the 603 to get the 645.

Obligatory loldocument posting that proves MUHREENS is worst branch
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a168577.pdf

>>32600540
Becuz muhrines

Im going to assume A1fags think the m1900 was better than the 11

>literally a shit sight
>muh carry handle
>muh plastic perfection

I hate looking at m16s, some of the ugliest guns ever made as well

>>32600603
Stop replying to yourself.

>>32600584
Wow, a 30 year old document. You sure showed me.

>>32600563
Well obviously the changes were necessary or we wouldn't have dropped the A1

>>32599371
I was gonna waste a bunch of time writing out a response tearing your stupidity apart, but I'm in a lecture and others can do it better, anyway.

The A2 was a bloated commission rifle that introduced exactly two improvements over the A1, namely the round handguard (which I personally hate, but are far easier on logistics) and the updated birdcage. Everything else added weight and complexity for no measurable benefit. Most of the "improvements", such as the sights, were designed for shooting matches at West Point and Camp Perry. Others were the result of incompetence, such as armorers mistaking buildup on the gas port for bent barrels, because it catch on their guage. The old A1 profile barrel performs identically to the modern government profile, but it weighed notably less.
There are MANY more examples of this, along with sources, but I can't be arsed to bring them up on my phone, so I'll leave that to others.


In short, the M16A1 is a fighting rifle. The M16A2 is what the government thought constituted a fighting rifle.

Do people still seriously defend the A1?
>Lefty incompatible
>Manlet buttstock
>Hard to adjust sights

>>32599371
of course the m16a2 is better service rifle. They took the design and refined it for the job at hand.

doesn't mean I don't want an m16a1 though.

>>32600611
>Well obviously the changes were necessary
No, they thought they were necessary when none of them actually were. Except the lower strengthening and the 1/7 twist rate, everything they did was inconsequential (like the sights or the stupid profile barrel) or a detriment (like that goddamn pistol grip).

>>32600638
You're missing my point, if there was nothing wrong with the A1 then they wouldn't have invented the A2.

>>32600628
>of course the m16a2 is better service rifle
I bet you couldn't tell me how

>>32600626
>Hard to adjust sights
Do you think you adjust your sights on the fly on deployment?

>>32600563
>morons
>see more action than 90% of /k/ and makes (gun wise) decisions based off combat effectiveness .

Im sure the average m16A1 fag would bring an 30 round HK SL-8 with extra-thin stock

>>32600647
Your point is illogical. Making changes to a product that worsens it happens all the time. In this case it was mostly caused by erroneous reports from the end user.

>>32600610
>there cant possibly be more than one person that disagrees with me


Heres your (Thou)

>>32600662
Well, it doesn't really matter. A1 got replaced.

>>32600657
Using something does not make you an expert on that thing.

>>32600662
Erroneous reports? as in, this gun isnt functioning in Vietnam properly?

>>32600672
Yes, and the only good reason they had was the 1/7" twist barrel.

>>32599371
There was nothing wrong with teh A1. The whole synopsis behind it was a FULL size rifle that was LIGHT as fuck.

>sights
Its not a precision sniper rifle. The adjustable sights are nice, but not a necessity at the additional weight. The A1 worked fine, and flipping from the 0-150 to the 325 aperture was sufficient. They actually went a bit backwards with the wider 'tombstone' FSP on the A2 instead of the cokebottle A1, making it less accurate, but I'm sure they had their reasons (something to do with shoulder width of a man at 75yds). The biggest problem with the sights (and why I think they went with the change with the A2) was the was the sight was connected to the rifle - a simple rollpin. And with forgings being slightly different widths in regards to the sight screw and also the carry handle, it has slop in it unless you shim it.

>3prong
was never on the A1. That was the original M16 or XM603(?, its been a while)

>prybar
well no shit.... When you use a toothbrush to wipe your ass, and then complain its caked in shit and asshair, can you really blame the toothbrush?

>threwup dust in prone
A2 flashhider helps, but does not eliminate this due to the fact at least half of the dust is from the pressure of the muzzle blast itself.

>barrel profile Autofire
its not a machinegun, its wasn't made for spraying nonstop. It can still spit out ~273 rounds on full auto before the barrel bursts or cooks off rounds. And the A2/govt barrel profile didn't help any either, because its still the same thickness where it actually bursts, you ree-ree.

>Firemodes
you sound like a bean-counter who thinks all cars should have speedo limiters set at 76mph.


So lets hear it OP, what else you got?

>>32600674
Exactly, it takes an extremely apt and dedicated expert to use an m16. Not your average soldier who doesnt know why hes killing so many non-whites and/or nationalists

As a military rifle, it sucked and there were still plenty of "expert rifles" that were better back then for grade A gunmen to use it

Jack of no trades, master of nothing

>>32600649
(you)

>>32600708
>That was the original M16 or XM603
There were two 3 prongs, the Colt 601 (XM16) 3 prong and the improved 3 prong on the Colt 602 (M16). The Colt 603 (XM16E1/M16A1) always had the birdcage.

>>32600682
No as in stupid shit dumb ass military armorers did like confuse a burr on the gas port with a bend in the barrel.
>>32600728
I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say.

How will the A1 ever recover from the BTFO?

>>32600708
>>32600708
>>32600708
>light rifle for rapid movement
>fails to fullfill that purpose in its deployment zone


>prybar
Except its not a toothbrush, its an ass-brush

>firemodes
Better replace our slow heavy humvees with hair-trigger gas pedal formula 1s then

>>32600740
yea, it was one of those numbers. The improved/thicker duckbill on the 602 was sufficient, and actually still seen in use today for its flash supression a la surefire and whose-its. The skinny 601 absolutely had to be replaced though, from what I read where merely dropping it on a hardsurface would end up in a bent prong and then an explosive bafflestrke.

>>32600750
I always thought the off-the-books reason for the A2 barrel profile was it kept more weight forward for followup shots and counteracted barrel whip from fullauto/burst fire.

>>32600795
Make some sense, and you can use your autistic assrage ramblings for good, instead of just looking an ass and being a burden on others.

Go back to /arg/ and the "m-muh carriers!!!! n NAVY" threads you dumb cunt.

>>32600796
>I always thought the off-the-books reason for the A2 barrel profile was it kept more weight forward for followup shots and counteracted barrel whip from fullauto/burst fire.
That's complete bullshit. One of the people on the design team said the only reason for it was the military armorer feedback.

>>32600810
>One of the people on the design team said the only reason for it was the military armorer feedback.
>the govt always tells the whole picture to its plebs

>>32600795
>fails to fullfill that purpose in its deployment zone
>Colt 603
>under 7 pounds unloaded
>fails to be light
OK bud.

>>32600750
>I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say.

You essentially said said they complained just because they were not "experts" on the m16a1

Reread my posts

>>32600837
Fails to be able to be used lossely and rapidly in vietnam without clogging and failing in the environment

Have some awareness

>>32600845
No, I said that the changes were made based on incorrect assumptions about the causes of some of the issues they were having.

>>32600857
>Fails to be able to be used lossely and rapidly in vietnam without clogging and failing in the environment
was due to the powder used in the bullets. It only called for something like 1-2% of anti-caking agent, but Olin or whomever was making it was putting in 7-10% (making it actually cake worse than not having it in there at all), which was out of spec and it wasn't caught until much much later.

Did you even read up on any of this, or are you just having an autistic asspain threadspam/rambling day?

Colt models 645 and 703 were better.

http://www.retroblackrifle.com/

The A-1 is the more aesthetically pleasing weapon by a long shot. It's perfect.

Who cares about the little details in effectiveness? I'm not going to be operating in some war time environment if I had one.

Why is this even an argument, like who gives a fuck?

/k/ is retarded 2bh.

>>32601007
>hurr lets use looks over effectiveness
I pray this is bait that I fell for

>>32601041

I'm really going to regret not getting an A-2 instead of an A-1 when SHTF right?

Pathetic neckbeard.

>>32601085
Enjoy your weak furniture and the flash hider kicking dust into your face