View Single Post
Old January 12, 2020, 02:31   #5
yellowhand
Dinosaur
Silver Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 67949
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Sierra Vista AZ
Posts: 21,772
Quote:
Originally Posted by lockjaw View Post
Aside from 1/7 twist and A2 handguard/delta ring, the A2 was a step backwards from the M16a1. I would also argue that the forward assist added to the XM/A1 was redundant.... and in fact dangerous if the soldier encountered a squib round. The forward assist could have scrapped after ammo/barrel bore updates.

The govít profile barrel barrel wasnít designed by trigger pullers. If it was, more meat would be at the chamber under than the handguard, rather than forward of the FSB.

A2 rear sight sounds novel, but WhoTF is adjusting their sights for windage and elevation, other than a Marine on a static condition known distance range during qual?! If isnít occurring on the battlefield, regardless of branch. If the soldier is a trained Designed Marksman, the solider isnít utilizing iron sights unless the optic goes tits up.

I donít understand the A2 stock. Length of pull is WAY too long, especially with body armor. M16/M16A1 stock was the better stock.

Back on point, any person/soldier who calls an M16/M16a1 a ďmusketĒ has never handled and fired one. For anyone who embraces iron sights, it is a FUN and effective rifle.
I always zeroed mine at about 100 yards and just left the sights alone.
At the ranges I found myself using it,,all seemed to have worked out just fine,,at least for me.
__________________
You may find me dead in a ditch one day, on my knees, but I will be up to my waist in spent rifle brass.

It ain't the firearms they are wanting to be rid of, its you!
yellowhand is offline   Reply With Quote