Opinions on the a4

I whonder why you made this shit thread

>>33622024
Careful, as soon as you say "what /k/ thinks of the M16A2" MilSurpDude and his but buddies come outta the wood work and try telling you how much of a piece of shit it is, putting all of their justification and talking points behind a 30 year old document. Despite the fact that we switched to the A2 and provided satisfactory results.

These are the same people that said we should have kept using the A1 even though only 3rd world countries only use it nowadays.

>>33622060
Anon, I think you're forgetting the most important aspect of firearms design.

A E S T H E T I C S

Something the A2 just doesnt have.

>>33622024
I used a m16A4 with a trijicon optic in Iraq and Afghanistan. As well as qual Marines with them as a rifle coach. It's an outstanding weapon if built and maintained properly. Anyone who says different is talking out of their ass.

It does have limitations, nothing is 100% perfect. I'll say it a million fucking times, the only reason we adopted the m4 is because the m16 too much for a typical woman.

>>33622294
I think the A2 looks cooler.

>>33622024
With an M4 stock, proper bull-barrel, MLOK fore-end, and PMags, I think it'd be a rather practical rifle.

For what it's worth, I think the A2 is sexy as fuck, it just has a shit barrel profile and faglord burst cam.

>>33622294
>>33622752
The A2 is almost as aesthetic as the A1

>>33622398
I think that full length quadrails is a bit quaint in 2017.

A2 barrel profile is meh
The long stock is suboptimal for dudes with body armor (some actually got adjustable stocks)

Either way muhreens use M4s now, perhaps we'll see a new M16 variant with all this blabbering about longer range capabilities. With the right barrel, a freefloated handguad and the right ammo they'd get good range out of one.

>>33622824
What would an M16A5 look like?

My thoughts:
>freefloated mlok handguard
>fancy modern barrel, 1 in 8 twist rate (are there sufficiently good pencilweights these days?)
>adjustable stock
>replace the shitty burstfire trigger with something nicer, also soldiers have enough training to handle full auto

I liked my M16A4 better than than the M4 I had in another unit.

Even though barrel length supposedly matters very little in accuracy and precision. It felt like the 20 inch barrel shoots things further away better than the 14 inch barrel.

I also dislike the telescoping stock the army gets standard on FN made M4.

>>33622968
You talking bout the CAR style or the other one?

>>33622886
Honestly they could straight remove full auto and burst together and little would change.

Full-auto is nice to have, but semi is more practical most of the time. Burst can fuck off.

>>33622968
>It felt like the 20 inch barrel shoots things further away better than the 14 inch barrel.
Well yes, boolit goes faster.

>>33623005
I don't think old CAR15 style stocks are issued anywhere unless your company happens to have literal CAR15s lying around.

He's probably talking about the later M4 style.

>>33622024
I like the A4 and Colt 715.

It's fun to see the pictures of Iraqi soldiers getting A4s, issuing them with the carry handle irons and ribbed handguards.

A4s are aesthetic, especially plain and simple ones with ribbed handguards or an M5 RAS, carry handle or MaTech sight. A4 builds are, and always will be, more aesthetic than abortion rifles with ugly billet receivers, whatever handguard is the flavor of the day, and pistol grips and stock that look like they're growing plastic tumors.

>>33623016
might as well use the Jim Sullivan internals, they're full of crazy neat features:
https://youtu.be/gOUKXIrDE0I

>>33622060
is you're only argument against the study report the fact the A2 was adopted? because we've adopted a LOT of shitty things into our military, and there was also the JSSAP going on that effectively forced the A2 into joint service adoption.

File: shitposttime.png (99KB, 500x434px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 500x434px

It's an A2 with a flat-top upper. Except now it's front-heavy as shit because lol full-length quadrail. shouldhavegoneM4/10.
>>33622060
>t. butthurt fag that can't refute anything
<3
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a168577.pdf

>>33622024
I like it.

>>33622024
I'll say this: if I knew then what I know now, I would have gotten a 20" barrel instead of 16" on my M4gery, but kept the adjustable stock.

So itt, did the m16/4 series weapon ever change the bcg or was it the same since the A1?

>>33623512
No setting for 25m zero- This is false as anyone who has gone through the Army BZO can tell you its one click up from 300

No low light sights- The front sight is compatible with A1 front sights and could use the existing low light kit.

No method for zero recording- The solution is to use the same method that has been employed since at least WW2. You mark your zero with paint and have a quick way to visually confirm zero.

No range estimation with the FSP- That is not true its in the marksmanship training manual.

The front sight on the A2 is more prone to bending- I really would like to see where they came up with this one.

M855 not compatible with the A1- This one is pretty dumb. The entire reason the A2 was developed was to be compatible with NATO ammo stocks (SS109).

No battle sight zero- The A2 has a 300m battle sight zero.

Accuracy, endurance, and reliability- These are all based on a MOT that conducted with defective XM855 (this was stated in the report) yet it fails to cite any subsequent tests with in-spec ammo.

>>33624522
>no mention of the barrel profile
>no mention of the stock or grip
>no mention of the burst cam
>no mention of the burst fire
>90% of attempted counter-argument is MUHSIGHTS
GG, post AR you fag.

>>33624303
same

File: Black.png (120KB, 246x356px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 246x356px

>>33623512
If you think an A4 is front-heavy as shit you need to stop being a fat pussy.

t. manlet

Heavier than a fat chick after a cake binge. It shoots things gud tho.

>>33624818
>full length quadrail
It's front heavy.

>>33624863
Put your trip back on, fatty.

>>33623404

What kind of space magic did he put in that? I so dearly want to see the internals.

>>33624818
>A rifle with a disproportionate amount of its weight distributed to the front half isn't front-heavy, lift moar bish
I swear to god anon always finds a way to top himself in regards to abject stupidity. No wonder trips are the master race.

Also post AR.

File: 242435243.jpg (3MB, 4000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4000x3000px

>>33624955
>implying I own an AR
>implying you're still not a fat fuck
>implying your crying about how something is too uncomfortable for you makes it bad, even if it serves its intended purpose better due to modularity

Go back to shitting up /arg/. Filtered.

>>33624557
When it comes to "objective and factual" reports I tend to question their credibility when they contain outright lies.


A2 grip and stock- An Army report criticizing deign elements that were designed to meet the requirements of and endorsed by the Army's Human Engineering Lab. Makes sense to me.

Burst- 3 round burst was adopted as a way to save some sort of auto capability in the m16. It was an off the shelf solution that didnt need to be developed. If the Army had actually found a problem with the system they would have either used a semi only or the A1s full auto control group. Both of these were already developed and would have cost the exact same.

>>33623404
will this ever get to wipespread military application?
or will it be stuck in the civilian market forever?

>>33625046
>Centuryshit owner
Typical, bye.
>>33625134
>They're not shit, they were used after all.
Wew, memory burst cam confirmed not shit guys, better tell everyone behind the M4A1 and M27 they got it all wrong.

Post AR.

>>33625134
once again I have to ask if you have any idea what JSSAP was and what it entailed for the army and the A2, along with pointing out the long history of questionable procurement our military has made. also look at what happened with the army's first rifle after the A2, semi/burst was considered inferior to the semi/auto fire mode long before the M4A1 came around and there's a reason you hardly ever saw burst used. it's because it sucked. badly.

>>33623404

dude, that AR can be fired full auto unshouldered with one hand. and kept on target. how the fuck?

>>33622024
It does the job

>>33622033
Whell it whas wheapon related, technically

>>33625217
>how dare you own anything other than the ford mondeo of guns

lol

File: 9a4e5d3be2857285b8d17032330fa708_-acu-fail-pics-and-a-meme-acu-camo-meme_639-425.jpg (50KB, 639x425px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 639x425px

>>33625287
ACU is the BEST CAMO EVER yo, otherwise why would the military have used it!?
>>33625442
>anon has the reading comprehension of a rainbow trout
I mean, I'm not surprised, just slightly disappointed.

>>33625217
> memory burst
???

>>33625527
>he unironically thinks SOCOM profile is the best barrel profile

File: Recent AR.jpg (954KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

954KB, 1600x1200px

Please do not bully the A2, she is a very good rifle and she is sensitive so please do not bully her!

>>33624863
If you have a mangina it is.

Knuckle the fuck up, faggot.

File: WP_20160122_002[1].jpg (646KB, 3072x1144px) Image search: [Google]

646KB, 3072x1144px

>>33625614
>SOCOM profile is the best barrel profile
Silly anon, that's not medium profile at all. ;^

>>33625672
So you were just pretending to be retarded?

>>33622787
For what its worth? Youre an idiot. Bull barrel with collapsed stock is stupid as fuck. Lighter hand guards and collapsable stock would work.

>>33625650
you forgot the stuttering

>>33625678
I'm not pretending you have issues with basic reading ability. I'm also not pretending in saying you're more than welcome to link a post of me saying SOCOM profile is best profile. <3

File: MSDpretendingtoberetarded.jpg (54KB, 588x440px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 588x440px

>>33625700
https://desuarchive.org/k/thread/33605302/#33605874

File: WP_20170223_013[1].jpg (1MB, 3072x1728px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3072x1728px

>>33625789
Yeah, SOCOM is better than government profile. Anon, are you admitting you can't read? It's looking that way. How unfortunate.

>>33625789
told

File: 1490665992896.jpg (137KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 960x540px

>>33625809
>TWO illeterate anons
Oh dear, this thread is not a good indicator of things to come for this board. :'^

>>33625807
>SOCOM profile
>better than anything

File: destructivetestedbarrrels01.jpg (43KB, 745x469px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 745x469px

>>33625845
Anything is better than government profile I'm afraid, my dear anon. :^

>>33625845
>take worst part of gov barrel (un beefed up part that actually has the most heat dumped into it)
>beef it up
>?????
>profit

>>33625217
>>33625217
The M27 is bad example as it was designed from the ground up as an automatic rifle. The M4A1 is an example of what I am saying. If the Army had wanted to implement a full auto FCG in the A2 they could have, but they didnt.

>>33625287
I am familiar with the JSSAP and it did not obligate or otherwise require the Army to adopt the A2. Your trying to argue that the smallest branch some how bullied the largest branch into adopting anything.

Burst is not used because in US infantry doctrine automatic fires at the squad level are provided by the M249s. Aimed semi auto rifle fire is considered just as effective and more economical in regards to ammunition expenditure. Burst was implemented as a way to maintain some level of automatic fire for the M16.

>>33625923
> If the Army had wanted to implement a full auto FCG in the A2 they could have, but they didnt.
You're still a bumbling idiot for thinking that what the Army wants at the time is an indicator of how good it is and argue like someone with an Eotech circa recall notice. Like, that's your argument method so far; this isn't bad because the Army went ahead and adopted the A2 anyways. It's stupid. You're stupid.

Hey, post your AR.
>>33625547
So get this. On top of having a useless burst function, it's actually implemented in a way mechanically that allows it to "remember". As in, if for whatever reason your finger lets up while its doing the cycle, the next time you fire there won't be three rounds coming out. There will be one or two. The A2 burst cam is an engineering embarrassment
.

>>33625991
So when your "this report totally shows that the A2 sucks because it doesn't meet the needs of the Army" argument gets BTFO you switch to "the Army is dumb and doesn't know whats best for them. The A2 sucks because of reasons."

>>33626117
> because it doesn't meet the needs of the Army" argument
Anons really are illiterate by default, aren't they? How sad.

Barrel profile is dumb, rails are too heavy

That's my only complaint that isn't easily (and cheaply) fixed.

>>33625923
> and it did not obligate or otherwise require the Army to adopt the A2
you don't understand then. the army was under a lot of flak at the time because of the M9 debacle that had unfolded recently prior. any attempt on their end to protest the upcoming adoption of the A2 would have been a nonstarter from the outset. the department of defense would have broadsided them over how they disrupted the service pistol adoption with their bellyaching over the test results. using the adoption of the A2 by the army as the reason why many of the controversial features the rifle has aren't questionable at best is just ignorant and does nothing to make a bad fire mode not bad, or a bungled barrel profile not a bungled barrel profile, or a widely disliked grip any less widely reviled. you're not saying these elements are good, you're just seemingly trying to pass blame on their existence from the marines to the army.

>>33624941
Watch the video. Extra heavy BCG, and on full auto it fires from an open bolt.

>>33623512
''The
M16A2
sighting
system
is
too
complex,
i.e.,
elevation
is
changed
three
different
ways,
leaving
too
much
room
for
soldier
error. ''

At least they admit it

>>33626176
Have you even read the report that you used as your sole source evidence?

>>33626362
You're a genuine fucking idiot you know that? I don't use the report to show that the A2 didn't fit the Army's needs, I use it to showcase reasons why the A2's barrel, furniture, burst fire etc. etc. are dogshit. Like, you're so sure and confident in yourself and you can't even read basic context in an argument. You think this dociment is the only piece of evidence that can point towards the government profile being useless? That burst fire is a horrible idea and used by no one? That the A2 stock is considered by many to be too long, and the grip uncomfortable? It doesn't even mention that absolute nightmare that is the A2's burst cam.

You're an idiot who doesn't know he's an idiot and you have an internet connection, and that makes you the worst kind of an idiot.

Post your AR.

>>33626490
Oh so you argument is completely based on opinions. Instead of using actual facts you prefer to link to a discredited report that confirms you bias.

>>33626622
>saying a goverment profile barrel is useless because of basic physics and a burst cam is dogshit because that has memory is an opinion
Like I said; you're an idiot with an internet connection. Unfortunate.

>>33626490
What does him posting his AR have to do with his flawed argument? You keep repeating it as if it somehow solidifies your argument.

File: 1456800854225.jpg (218KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 1280x720px

She's cute.

The A2E3 was a good rifle but with the differential twist in the rifling it could not use the same ammo as the A4, the round would start to tumble at about 10 yards. Ithe heavy bbl A4 becoming the standard the A2E3 was obsolete since it had a much lower effective range. With the right ammo the A2E3 was effective out to 300 yds.

File: a4.jpg (147KB, 1024x365px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 1024x365px

mine

>>33626622
>discredited report

>The M16A2 "heavy barrel" is heavy in the wrong place. The problem with the M16A1 is a temporary bending of the barrel which occurs from the stress of various firing positions causing bullet strike to vary, e.g., the difference between a bipod firing position, and a position using a hasty sling will change the strike of the bullet at 300 meters by three to four feet or more. The "bending" takes place between the receiver and the sling swivel/bayonet stud. The M16A2 barrel is "heavy" only from the sling swivel to the
muzzle--where it can have no effect on the bending problem.
>The decision to lengthen the
stock was made after all portability tests (entering and exiting aircraft/ vehicles/buildings, etc.) had been completed and without consideration for body aimor, field jacket with liner, load bearing equipment, etc.

no matter how many times you say otherwise there is really no way you can disprove these parts and others in that report, as they are objectively true. for all of the issues there are in that report, and there are issues, it's a much more solid argument than what you are providing with simple procurement indicating satisfactory performance.

Everyone I've talked to preferred the m16A4 over the m4.

Also, that trip fag is retarded

>>33626757
Who the fuck have you talked to because I've never heard anyone wanting a m16a4 over an m4 if given the option

>>33626757
That is literally the opposite of everything I have heard or read

>>33626776
>>33626785
So my cousins are all big guys.
Everyone in my family is over 6ft 2 and 200lbs+

Perhaps manlets prefer the m4?

>>33626490
>Post your AR.
Do you ever wonder why nobody else talks like this

>>33626490
>p-post y-your AR

>>33627968
>>33628155

Just filter him.

>there are people in this thread RIGHT NOW that somehow believe sacrificing needed velocity for muh vehicles is ok

>>33627607
Manlets and most people that have been exposed to both guns. But hey if your big guy cousins said it, it must be true.

>>33622294
The A2 is ribbed sexiness. I don't even care how it stands up on performance, I want one just from the look of it. Fuck rails and fuck the A1.

File: IMAG0499.jpg (3MB, 3000x4000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3000x4000px

I like mine except I had to get an HBAR because MD. Since the barrel was thicker, I had to get the rails grinded down slightly and theres a tiny bit of wobble.

>>33627968
>>33628155
t. normiecucks who don't have ARs.

>>33628463
>The A2 is ribbed sexiness.
That's why I built mine, it was based purely on looks.

>>33628534
Fix your Frankenstein A1 clone yet?
No?
Come back when you have a proper build.
>Filtered

>>33628888
> I built mine
I bet it has an Anderson lower. :^

>>33628488
>HBAR
>KAC M5

Jesus that thing has to be front heavy as fuck

>>33628534
>poorcuck who thinks his AR is nice but actually is shitty

>>33626304
Whats the third way? front sight post, elevation knob on the rear sight and? only other knob is windage, unless theyre talking about the rear aperture flipping up and down. I thought that was just to let more light in if needed and didnt change the range

File: milsurpdude.jpg (120KB, 790x843px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 790x843px

>>33628534
>thinking the ford mondeo of guns is good
>again

I bet you wear neutral colours too like pic related

>>33629164
What's wrong with andersons?

>>33630741
god fucking dammit i hate you

>>33630357
Post AR.
>>33630741
I bet you own AKs.
>>33631272
If we're using them in context of autistic clone builds; everything.

>>33631282
>p-post AR p-please

>>33631281
Its not hard to walk like a chad dude, it doesnt matter if youre fugly or /fit.
Back straight
Shoulders squared
Chin high

File: toe.jpg (3MB, 4008x2832px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4008x2832px

>>33622886
dis

>>33622060
>>33623512
Like fucking clock work. Stay in ARG Faggot

>>33622024
great for breeding

File: Ahugefuckingmistake.jpg (41KB, 437x478px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 437x478px

>>33631752
>ARG
Fucking newshit noAR cancer, get off of my board.

File: A4.jpg (138KB, 2158x1214px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 2158x1214px

I love my A4, and it loves me