is this historically accurate? this guy is holding up an m16a4

>>34629861
while nose to charging handle is standard doctrine until quite recently in favor of shooter preference nose to the rear sight aperture seems a tad too bohemian of an interpretation of shooter's preference

>>34629861
>m16a4
How can you possibly tell from that shitty pic?

Looks more like an a2 to me.

>>34629897
Definitely looks like it has a RAS M5 with rail covers as opposed to the regular 2 piece hand guards. The rear sight also looks like a removable carry handle, but it's hard to say.

Im pretty sure its an A2 and the lighting is making it look weird.

>>34629861
I watched that part of the trailer on .25 speed. I think its bad lighting but it is suspect.

they are pretty good at keeping it era correct.

not to mention they could just bullshit and says its a prototype being tested by alphabet soup agency.

>>34629861
The carry handle looks like it's part of the receiver, so it's probably not an A4.

The fore-end is clearly a quad-rail though, so that's fucked, given that this is supposed to take place in the 80's.

>>34630063
>this is an aluminum handguard for the M16A2
>it features four long scope rails
>for lots of scopes?

>>34630364
looks like the ribbed a2 fore-end to me.

>>34630380
I guess it could be, but it's a rough image.
It really looks like it could be a quad-rail to me.

File: Grenada (1983).jpg (106KB, 448x298px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 448x298px

>>34629861
Is this stranger things? If so, shit taste, but isn't it set in 1983, meaning it's 1 year before the m16a2 was adopted by the DoD, meaning it's not likely some Indiana town's cop would have one. Pictures from operation urgent fury show troops with m16a1's, so it's doubtful. Shit, some guys even have m1 helmets and are without m81 woodland fatigues, so it's doubtful they would have an m16a2 if combat units aren't up to date logistically. I guess its """"accurate,"""" but dubious.
>It was officially adopted by US Department of Defense as the "US Rifle, 5.56mm, M16A2" in 1982. The Marines were the first branch of the U.S. Armed Forces to adopt the M16A2 in the early/mid-1980s, with the United States Army following suit in the late 1980s.

>>34630467
OK, ignore that question. Can't fucking read.

>>34630467
And the second sentence should be two, putting a question mark after "1983." I shouldn't post at night.

>>34630063
The business casual government foot soldiers had Beretta 92's and MP5K PDW's, so they fucked up a bit.