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/.
What’s the Difference Between the M16A1 and M16A2?
- Thread starter Mike H.
- Start date
Icepick Mike
Operator
Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance.......
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.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/.
CCJ
Elite
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).
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.
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.
Ranger_Joe
Alpha
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.
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
Alpha
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)
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.