testtest

What’s the Difference Between the M16A1 and M16A2?

Mike H. said:
Hello all, here is today's article posted on TheArmoryLife.com. It is titled “What’s the Difference Between the M16A1 and M16A2?” and can be found at https://www.thearmorylife.com/whats-the-difference-between-the-m16a1-and-m16a2/.

Click to expand...
Old Person here; first military issued rifle was an M1, then quickly the M14 and finally the M16A1. Couple thoughts. I understand needing to carry more rounds, especially by the draftee-fueled Army, where said people had little if any woodcraft/hunting skills. But the easily exhausted 20 round box mags, on full auto, were an issue. I tend to believe that marksmanship counts and greatly preferred my M14. Another thought; with the heavy bush in VN, is that smaller A1 bullet was too easily deflected; would much preferred to have retained the 308. After all, rifles are just highly glorified rock throwers as in the ancient times we threw rocks at each other; so, let me throw a bigger rock.
 
Great article. Thanks for the history lessons.
I have owned two M1As. I find the AR platform a significant improvement over the M14s for several reasons. It's light, minimizes recoil, and quick to handle. In contrast, the M14 was heavy, had significant recoil, and was nearly impossible to use on full auto. It was, however, dependable and fairly accurate in the right hands.

In the early days of the AR there were clear deficiencies... to be expected with all new weapon system. Bugs have to be worked out of new systems. The 5.56 cambering has never really been adequate for those on the ground. Direct impingement leaves a lot to be desired also. The descendants of the M16 we have today, as well as improvements in ammunition (cleaner), have come a long way since that late 60s. The M16 was a logical progression.

I think a mistakes were made in the way it was placed into service. I think economic played a bigger role in the adoption of this weapon then battlefield requirements. It was less expensive to produce, cheaper ammunition, etc...

But, for me, the AR platform will never be as "cool" as the M1A (M14).
 
Last edited:
I was issued a M16 with 3 prong flash hider and pencil barrel in 1986 (the USAF never upgraded to the A1)

Around 1992 we started to get the A2 the biggest difference was the twist rate and changeover to the 62 grain rind.
Ma Vietnam Bet guy in my unit (that was at Khe Sanh during the siege) mentioned the M16 had the tj king effect because the rifling being slower it worked like whem uiu throw a football. He less fast the spin is the more it wobbles in flight. And there is something to that analogy

And the fact maintenance was lacking either because of human nature/field laziness or there was a lack of parts

But a side point he said they worked fine more than the reports are and he liked his and has a nice NVA uniform from a troop he dispatched.
 
Old Ranger Vet here. M193 5.56x45 used a 55 grain FMJ-BT bullet, not 52 as stated in this article. Additionally, the M16A1 did NOT have a 3-prong flash hider, that was the original M16 and XM16. The M16A1 came standard with the closed birdcage hider. A huge problem with the 3-prong hider was troops using them to "snap" the bands on military shipping crates (i.e., ammo, C-Rations, etc.). Troops would put one prong under the band and twist the rifle hard enough to snap the band... or tweak their barrel, or break the flash hider. Yes - catching on "wait-a-minute" brush was also a problem.

The 1:7 twist barrel of the M16A2 was a stupid choice, totally unnecessary to stabilize the 62 grain M8855 or the longer M856 tracer. Comprehensive testing by the US Army proved 1:10 or 1:9 twist would have been sufficient while still providing better accuracy for the 100s of millions of lighter 55gr ammo still in inventory. Even Colt suggested the 1:9 twist due to complaints over poor accuracy of the A2 with M193. Later Colt commercial Match rifles employed a 1:9 twist.
 
Last edited:
Vegas Johnny Mac said:
And they continue to make the service rifle more like the M14 by upgrading to M7 with 6.8mm ammo (closer to the 7.62, which will probably be the next upgrade in a decade or two)
Click to expand...
While I get the 6.5 has proved itself super accurate over the last 140 years as what’s old is new again (6.5x55 Swed to 260 Remington to 6.5 creed to 277 fury and 6.8)

I feel chasing something invetween the 223 and 308 is just a waist (line we found out with 40 call with handguns) the 308 is probably at its best in an HK G3 or FN FAL and the latests is the HK 716 assaulter.

And while a lot of advocates for standardization it’s not really a one size they would be better off supplementing each other like the M1 Carbines did the M1 Garand.

Just my thoughts.
 
Excellent article. In the USMC, I was issued an M-16 with the 3-prong flash suppressor. As the author notes, in heavy brush, those open prongs would get hung up on every small branch or vine. It was exasperating, resulting in many muttered oaths as one patrolled along. A remedy was little “shoot away” plastic caps fitted over the muzzle, but they were always in short supply. In 1984, my battalion was the first infantry unit to get the M-16A2. I remember most men liked it, especially the improvement in automatic fire.
 
ECS686 said:
I was issued a M16 with 3 prong flash hider and pencil barrel in 1986 (the USAF never upgraded to the A1)

Around 1992 we started to get the A2 the biggest difference was the twist rate and changeover to the 62 grain rind.
Ma Vietnam Bet guy in my unit (that was at Khe Sanh during the siege) mentioned the M16 had the tj king effect because the rifling being slower it worked like whem uiu throw a football. He less fast the spin is the more it wobbles in flight. And there is something to that analogy

And the fact maintenance was lacking either because of human nature/field laziness or there was a lack of parts

But a side point he said they worked fine more than the reports are and he liked his and has a nice NVA uniform from a troop he dispatched.
Click to expand...
I disagree with the field laziness comment. We didn’t have near enough cleaning kits to go around, and the crappy ammo meant the tube needed constant cleaning. Slow to get the fixes in is true, but don’t put down the average snuffy as lazy. Not when their lives depended on it.
 
My interest in Springfield's SOCOM 16 is based on many of the issues touched upon here. I already have a few AR's, so for me having a different rifle/carbine that can work in the range of 500-800 yards - beyond the range of an AR, is extremely attractive. As long as it has good accuracy & light weight, I'm for it.
 
Before I say anything else, 8% of the casualties in Modern Warfare are created by artillery not Small Arms.

I was issued an A1 in basic training and got my first duty station (PedenBarracks). I had an A2 at my second Duty station(Ft. Lewis.

I would be willing to bet I didn't fire either one more than five times at each duty station.

I was artillery. When I was at Fort Lewis about half of our unit got called up for Desert Storm. I was in the half that didn't.

I don't recall a single person from my unit that said that they ever even saw an Iraqi soldier.

Much less had cause to shoot at one except with Artillery.

I guess that's a lot of blah blah to come to the final conclusion that I really couldn't tell the difference between my A1 and my A2
 
3L120 said:
I disagree with the field laziness comment. We didn’t have near enough cleaning kits to go around, and the crappy ammo meant the tube needed constant cleaning. Slow to get the fixes in is true, but don’t put down the average snuffy as lazy. Not when their lives depended on it.
Click to expand...
If the lazy didn’t apply to you don’t take it personal.

And this was from a guy that saw first hand the transition from M14 to M16 and had 2 Purple Hearts and refuses to get the license plate for it. As humble as they come.


I saw those types in the military and in the field is a lot different than garrison life where one doesn’t get away with as much.
Mits no different tjan civilian gun owners now. Those who treat their guns like theor lawnmowers gravitate to a striker if the only way where those of us that take care of our lawnmowers know the benefit is a 1911 and such and have less issues the rest of the new shooters complain about!
 
The A2 was born out of the murk of interservice muddlement.........
And it's the one time in the history of the United States Armed Services where the Marines got the upper hand.
Now, I'm not saying the end product was as good as it should, or could have been.
The lengthened stock sucks, the pistol grip also sucks, and the BURST mechanism equates to a LOUSY trigger. And you'll notice the more complex rear sight as opposed to the far simpler A1 rear sight. But, that's the Marines for ya.....
But, the decisions were made way above the head of anyone who carried the thing.
No kidding 1/7 isn't optimal, but no rifle or carbine I've owned ever shot 55 grain any less accurately than it shot 62 grain. The A1s 1/12 rifling has proven to be far more bullet weight sensitive than 1/7.
But, what do I know, I've only carried, and used both......
 
Last edited:
3L120 said:
I disagree with the field laziness comment. We didn’t have near enough cleaning kits to go around, and the crappy ammo meant the tube needed constant cleaning. Slow to get the fixes in is true, but don’t put down the average snuffy as lazy. Not when their lives depended on it.
Click to expand...
I remember cleaning them at least once a day. We all understood why it was important. We were not lazy when it came to that
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top