Archived Posts » 59,821,464
M16A2's with M4 Stocks.
10/19/2011 9:58:48 PM
I am an instructor at Fort Sill (MOS 94M). Once a month our soldiers draw weapons from the weapons pool for their WTX. In the past they always drew plain old M16A2's. Well, this week just about every weapon they drew (38 out of 40) was an M16A2 with an M4 Stock. I posted this on TOS and was told that the Army recently authorized this mod, but I had never heard of it myself. Here is a pic of one of our soldiers and his M16A2/M4. Oh, for you retro guys, notice that the lower is actually a modified A1 receiver.
10/19/2011 11:11:11 PM
very cool info, thanks for sharing
10/20/2011 1:29:41 AM
Looks good.
Thanks for sharing.
BT
Thanks for sharing.
BT
10/20/2011 3:08:15 AM
Got a big head forward assist also. Guess it's a bonafide A-Z transition piece. Think I'd rather have the A-2 stock but I'm not climbing in and out of AC transport vehicles either. Thanks for sharing pics and info. Sounds like A-2 stocks are gonna become very cheap pretty soon. Kinda different how the A-2 upper is grey and the A-1 lower is black. Almost looks like a dimple pivot pin and definately a no tick selector. That FN upper USGI combo piece makes my well used stuff look like new money. That baby looks rough.
10/20/2011 11:04:15 AM
That's interesting, when my brother graduated from basic training earlier this year they had some pictures of recruits carrying around M16A2's with M4 stocks.
10/23/2011 12:03:37 AM
I did a five day class back in August and a lot of guys had A2's with M4 stocks. Some had serious reliability issues. They put in new buffer springs and buffers, and most of it cleared up. The guns are pretty nose heavy though.
10/23/2011 9:58:13 AM
Originally Posted By Lancelot:
I did a five day class back in August and a lot of guys had A2's with M4 stocks. Some had serious reliability issues. They put in new buffer springs and buffers, and most of it cleared up. The guns are pretty nose heavy though.
I did a five day class back in August and a lot of guys had A2's with M4 stocks. Some had serious reliability issues. They put in new buffer springs and buffers, and most of it cleared up. The guns are pretty nose heavy though.
I've run one myself but the rifle I shot had a magpul ubr (I think) on it and the balance was a little better.
I had a hard time not wanting to convert to the 20in rifle on my carbine, but I figure if im going the long route id have to get an a1 stock as well
10/23/2011 10:26:22 AM
Originally Posted By Finslayer83:
I've run one myself but the rifle I shot had a magpul ubr (I think) on it and the balance was a little better.
I had a hard time not wanting to convert to the 20in rifle on my carbine, but I figure if im going the long route id have to get an a1 stock as well
Originally Posted By Lancelot:
I did a five day class back in August and a lot of guys had A2's with M4 stocks. Some had serious reliability issues. They put in new buffer springs and buffers, and most of it cleared up. The guns are pretty nose heavy though.
I did a five day class back in August and a lot of guys had A2's with M4 stocks. Some had serious reliability issues. They put in new buffer springs and buffers, and most of it cleared up. The guns are pretty nose heavy though.
I've run one myself but the rifle I shot had a magpul ubr (I think) on it and the balance was a little better.
I had a hard time not wanting to convert to the 20in rifle on my carbine, but I figure if im going the long route id have to get an a1 stock as well
The UBR is authorized now.
10/23/2011 10:52:14 AM
Good...that's the stock that they'll use when they get to their units, and the A2 stock is a PITA when wearing IOTV. I never used my M4 stock fully extended when wearing my IOTV, much less making it shorter to get out of a vehicle.
10/23/2011 5:45:04 PM
The UBR is authorized now.[/quote]
I think the whole fuss was from back alley armorer's doing this. Depot level was prob what they wanted. I saw alot of Guard units throwing everything they could on there A-4's. Some of it functional others completley unneccesary
10/24/2011 6:06:20 PM
I'm sure the A5 stock option will show up soon.
10/25/2011 9:20:54 AM
Makes me feel better about my A2 upper that I still don't have a "dedicated" lower for that hangs out on a carbine lower.
I've got plenty of carbine stocks and some A1s, but only one A2 at the moment.
Lancelot -
Are you aware of any large scale .gov purchases of the Vltor A5 system? As far as I'd known it was developed, perhaps somewhat at the .mil's prompting, but it's been a while since I've browsed FBO, but I don't recall seeing or hearing about actual purchases of the A5 for service use. As far as I know it's still completely a commercial development with potential military applications.
OP - I'm assuming they're using standard H buffers? Could you check for us? My understanding is that the Canadian C7s use H2s. It would be interesting to see if these converted A2s are using a heavier buffer as is usually suggested, or if they're using a simple one-to-one swap of an M4 buttstock and receiver extension assembly.
~Augee
I've got plenty of carbine stocks and some A1s, but only one A2 at the moment.
Lancelot -
Are you aware of any large scale .gov purchases of the Vltor A5 system? As far as I'd known it was developed, perhaps somewhat at the .mil's prompting, but it's been a while since I've browsed FBO, but I don't recall seeing or hearing about actual purchases of the A5 for service use. As far as I know it's still completely a commercial development with potential military applications.
OP - I'm assuming they're using standard H buffers? Could you check for us? My understanding is that the Canadian C7s use H2s. It would be interesting to see if these converted A2s are using a heavier buffer as is usually suggested, or if they're using a simple one-to-one swap of an M4 buttstock and receiver extension assembly.
~Augee
10/25/2011 10:02:00 AM
Originally Posted By Augee:
Makes me feel better about my A2 upper that I still don't have a "dedicated" lower for that hangs out on a carbine lower.
I've got plenty of carbine stocks and some A1s, but only one A2 at the moment.
Lancelot -
Are you aware of any large scale .gov purchases of the Vltor A5 system? As far as I'd known it was developed, perhaps somewhat at the .mil's prompting, but it's been a while since I've browsed FBO, but I don't recall seeing or hearing about actual purchases of the A5 for service use. As far as I know it's still completely a commercial development with potential military applications.
OP - I'm assuming they're using standard H buffers? Could you check for us? My understanding is that the Canadian C7s use H2s. It would be interesting to see if these converted A2s are using a heavier buffer as is usually suggested, or if they're using a simple one-to-one swap of an M4 buttstock and receiver extension assembly.
~Augee
Makes me feel better about my A2 upper that I still don't have a "dedicated" lower for that hangs out on a carbine lower.
I've got plenty of carbine stocks and some A1s, but only one A2 at the moment.
Lancelot -
Are you aware of any large scale .gov purchases of the Vltor A5 system? As far as I'd known it was developed, perhaps somewhat at the .mil's prompting, but it's been a while since I've browsed FBO, but I don't recall seeing or hearing about actual purchases of the A5 for service use. As far as I know it's still completely a commercial development with potential military applications.
OP - I'm assuming they're using standard H buffers? Could you check for us? My understanding is that the Canadian C7s use H2s. It would be interesting to see if these converted A2s are using a heavier buffer as is usually suggested, or if they're using a simple one-to-one swap of an M4 buttstock and receiver extension assembly.
~Augee
I will check next month when they draw weapons again for the next WTX.
10/26/2011 5:51:50 PM
I've noticed a few M4 stocked A2's floating around with a few support units. After talking to the local TACOM LAR, there is an authorized M4-style stock, but the PS Manual illustrated a MAGPUL stock, which from what I understand isn't correct.
As far as reliability issues, what are a few issues that have come up with the conversion?
As far as reliability issues, what are a few issues that have come up with the conversion?
10/27/2011 7:40:45 AM
Before we deployed, we swapped out the A2 stocks for A4 ones with correct buffer/spring to make the rifle more compact. Didn't make any difference.
10/27/2011 8:27:33 AM
I just had all of our M16A2's here in AFG converted from fixed A2 stocks to M4 buttstocks. It makes getting in and out of vehicles, aircraft, and moving in close quarters much easier. I like the 20 inch upper with the M4 buttstock, four inches shorter than the A2 but with more horspower that the 14.5 inch M4.
10/27/2011 9:31:27 AM
What buffers are you guys running in these?
10/27/2011 9:44:24 AM
Originally Posted By rico:
I've noticed a few M4 stocked A2's floating around with a few support units. After talking to the local TACOM LAR, there is an authorized M4-style stock, but the PS Manual illustrated a MAGPUL stock, which from what I understand isn't correct.
As far as reliability issues, what are a few issues that have come up with the conversion?
I've noticed a few M4 stocked A2's floating around with a few support units. After talking to the local TACOM LAR, there is an authorized M4-style stock, but the PS Manual illustrated a MAGPUL stock, which from what I understand isn't correct.
As far as reliability issues, what are a few issues that have come up with the conversion?
Timing and cyclic ROF problems on automatic / burst. Given the basis of issue of the M16A2 in theater, maybe not a huge issue, but they've been known to exist, hence the heavier buffers on the C7 and the Vltor "A5" stock system. Just guessing, I'm going to doubt that they've changed buffers, I think they're just dropping in M4 replacement buttstock assemblies, but I could be wrong.
If anyone that has access to them, preferably in quantity can do a quick check of the buffers, that woud be very interesting to know.
~Augee
10/27/2011 11:50:42 AM
I find it funny that we're just now doing what the Canadians did some 20 years ago with theirs.
yeah it might look a tad out of balance but it does make sense. Short stock for armor compatiblity and a longer barrel to keep the V up on the bullet so it does what it was designed to do. yep, it's less handy than the m4 until you need some range in open territory.
This opinion was rendered from my padded armchair.
yeah it might look a tad out of balance but it does make sense. Short stock for armor compatiblity and a longer barrel to keep the V up on the bullet so it does what it was designed to do. yep, it's less handy than the m4 until you need some range in open territory.
This opinion was rendered from my padded armchair.
10/27/2011 12:39:31 PM
Eh, I'm not sure I would go that far. Others may argue with me, but this doesn't really seem like a combat weapon mod to me. These A4s with M4 stocks are still clearly not intended for use by front line troops, they're just to make things a little easier on support folks, which, again, not to make sweeping generalizations - but the folks that would have the most trouble with an A2 length stock and body armor are heavily concentrated in the support components.
The C7A2, on the other hand was intended as a primary combat rifle for Canadian forces.
The real issue will be whether the Marine Corps follows suit with the M16A4, which is a primary combat rifle - and if so, if they do so without modification.
~Augee
The C7A2, on the other hand was intended as a primary combat rifle for Canadian forces.
The real issue will be whether the Marine Corps follows suit with the M16A4, which is a primary combat rifle - and if so, if they do so without modification.
~Augee
10/27/2011 2:06:39 PM
Originally Posted By Augee:
The real issue will be whether the Marine Corps follows suit with the M16A4, which is a primary combat rifle - and if so, if they do so without modification.
~Augee
The real issue will be whether the Marine Corps follows suit with the M16A4, which is a primary combat rifle - and if so, if they do so without modification.
~Augee
I thought that this was the impetus for the Vltor A5 stock/extension combo?
10/27/2011 2:37:17 PM
Just did some research in it, including looking through the JUNE 2010 dated -10 for the M4/M16 weapon system.
The stocks are issued as "kits" and should supposedly include a heavier buffer noted by the -10 as "not for use in M4/M4A1." It's supposed to be a heavier "H6" buffer. Would be interesting to see how it's marked if other users can get photos or at least take a look at them.
Guess I've been behind the power-curve of keeping track of developments on this one. What a failure.
The NSN is:
NSN 1005-01-569-6938: STOCK,GUN,SHOULDER
~Augee
The stocks are issued as "kits" and should supposedly include a heavier buffer noted by the -10 as "not for use in M4/M4A1." It's supposed to be a heavier "H6" buffer. Would be interesting to see how it's marked if other users can get photos or at least take a look at them.
Guess I've been behind the power-curve of keeping track of developments on this one. What a failure.
The NSN is:
NSN 1005-01-569-6938: STOCK,GUN,SHOULDER
~Augee
10/27/2011 4:57:32 PM
Originally Posted By Augee:
Just did some research in it, including looking through the JUNE 2010 dated -10 for the M4/M16 weapon system.
The stocks are issued as "kits" and should supposedly include a heavier buffer noted by the -10 as "not for use in M4/M4A1." It's supposed to be a heavier "H6" buffer. Would be interesting to see how it's marked if other users can get photos or at least take a look at them.
Guess I've been behind the power-curve of keeping track of developments on this one. What a failure.
The NSN is:
NSN 1005-01-569-6938: STOCK,GUN,SHOULDER
~Augee
Just did some research in it, including looking through the JUNE 2010 dated -10 for the M4/M16 weapon system.
The stocks are issued as "kits" and should supposedly include a heavier buffer noted by the -10 as "not for use in M4/M4A1." It's supposed to be a heavier "H6" buffer. Would be interesting to see how it's marked if other users can get photos or at least take a look at them.
Guess I've been behind the power-curve of keeping track of developments on this one. What a failure.
The NSN is:
NSN 1005-01-569-6938: STOCK,GUN,SHOULDER
~Augee
H6?
I think the C7A2 uses the H2.
ETA: I went back and read the A5 thread from 16 months ago and saw that they spoke of the H6 buffer. It is a variation on the H3.
10/28/2011 1:39:26 AM
i'm not military so i only speak from civilian experience when i say the vltor a5 buffer tube/spring and special buffer are the cats ass for 20" barrels, IMO.
i have a couple of these on semi auto 20" uppers and they run flawlessly. my buddy is an FFL-SOT so i threw an a5 system and 20" upper on his full auto lower and it ran flawlessly on F/A for over 1,000 rounds with mil spec ammo, crappy silver bear and wolf. the cyclic rate was inbetween the m4 and a full stock a2. very smooth, very consistant.
i sure hope you guys in the service get a chance to try it out.
i have a couple of these on semi auto 20" uppers and they run flawlessly. my buddy is an FFL-SOT so i threw an a5 system and 20" upper on his full auto lower and it ran flawlessly on F/A for over 1,000 rounds with mil spec ammo, crappy silver bear and wolf. the cyclic rate was inbetween the m4 and a full stock a2. very smooth, very consistant.
i sure hope you guys in the service get a chance to try it out.
10/31/2011 12:03:20 AM
The collapsible stock would benefit anyone that's wearing body armor. Using an A2 stock with such gear makes the rifle feel ungainly.
10/31/2011 5:08:40 PM
Finally a little common sense in the service.
10/31/2011 8:16:32 PM
Originally Posted By Rick_A:
The collapsible stock would benefit anyone that's wearing body armor. Using an A2 stock with such gear makes the rifle feel ungainly.
The collapsible stock would benefit anyone that's wearing body armor. Using an A2 stock with such gear makes the rifle feel ungainly.
That's what my cousin needed. She's small and with the body armor on, the reach is too much.
11/6/2011 5:11:17 AM
Originally Posted By Augee:
Just did some research in it, including looking through the JUNE 2010 dated -10 for the M4/M16 weapon system.
The stocks are issued as "kits" and should supposedly include a heavier buffer noted by the -10 as "not for use in M4/M4A1." It's supposed to be a heavier "H6" buffer. Would be interesting to see how it's marked if other users can get photos or at least take a look at them.
Guess I've been behind the power-curve of keeping track of developments on this one. What a failure.
The NSN is:
NSN 1005-01-569-6938: STOCK,GUN,SHOULDER
~Augee
Just did some research in it, including looking through the JUNE 2010 dated -10 for the M4/M16 weapon system.
The stocks are issued as "kits" and should supposedly include a heavier buffer noted by the -10 as "not for use in M4/M4A1." It's supposed to be a heavier "H6" buffer. Would be interesting to see how it's marked if other users can get photos or at least take a look at them.
Guess I've been behind the power-curve of keeping track of developments on this one. What a failure.
The NSN is:
NSN 1005-01-569-6938: STOCK,GUN,SHOULDER
~Augee
That's the NSN of the kit packs we received and they do have the H6 buffer in them.
11/7/2011 2:16:13 AM
I will post pics of my buffer and stock assembly as soon as I pick up a CD/R.
11/7/2011 2:49:24 AM
I have seen it done (here in the USMC) for very small females to qualify on the range. They don't rate an M4 so the armorer swaps buttstocks for them.
11/7/2011 1:14:26 PM
Pics from Tallil - wrong date on the camera:
Note the rail system up front...
Gig 'em,
backbencher
Note the rail system up front...
Gig 'em,
backbencher
11/7/2011 5:37:30 PM
Originally Posted By USMCBuckWild:
I have seen it done (here in the USMC) for very small females to qualify on the range. They don't rate an M4 so the armorer swaps buttstocks for them.
I have seen it done (here in the USMC) for very small females to qualify on the range. They don't rate an M4 so the armorer swaps buttstocks for them.
I think that in the case of someone who just can't shoulder an A2/A4, they should just issue them an M4 if they rate it or not.
I also wonder, given the way everybody wears armor now, why A1/CS stocks haven't simply been used to replace the A2 stocks.
11/11/2011 1:19:47 PM
show and tell with the vltor eMOD stock and A5 buffer tube, but you can't tell since the tube hides inside the stock completely
11/12/2011 9:05:35 PM
I have a friend who works at Picatinney they were testing this a while back and having issues . I see they got it sorted out 
11/23/2011 1:44:28 PM
11/23/2011 1:47:06 PM
Anyone able to get their hands on one of these and crack it open and get pics of the buffer yet?
~Augee
~Augee
11/24/2011 2:22:27 PM
Originally Posted By Der_Hans:
I think that in the case of someone who just can't shoulder an A2/A4, they should just issue them an M4 if they rate it or not.
I also wonder, given the way everybody wears armor now, why A1/CS stocks haven't simply been used to replace the A2 stocks.
Originally Posted By USMCBuckWild:
I have seen it done (here in the USMC) for very small females to qualify on the range. They don't rate an M4 so the armorer swaps buttstocks for them.
I have seen it done (here in the USMC) for very small females to qualify on the range. They don't rate an M4 so the armorer swaps buttstocks for them.
I think that in the case of someone who just can't shoulder an A2/A4, they should just issue them an M4 if they rate it or not.
I also wonder, given the way everybody wears armor now, why A1/CS stocks haven't simply been used to replace the A2 stocks.
Doesnt work like that.
If it was as simple as "I want an M4, the A2 is too big", who would take an A2?
11/25/2011 12:37:12 AM
When we first got M4's back in 1997, my 3rd Scout Platoon in the 25th still retained M16A2's with M203's in the ATL (carried a 203) duty positions, since we hadn't received the new mounting hardware for the M4. I knew it would mount anyway, since the M4 handguard cap had the cuts to clear the 203 rail, but we of course couldn't swap 203's from the M16A2's to the M4's in a conventional unit. We played around with swapping lowers, but not long enough to shoot live or attract unnecessary attention.
I don't see a lot of practical benefits of a 20" barrel over even a 14.5", since the 14.5" spits M855 out at over 2900fps, and M193 over 3000fps. The original velocity requirements of the SCHV concept were based on the ability to penetrate a steel helmet at 500yds, which the .222 Remington couldn't do, leading to the evolution of a longer case with more powder capacity and what became the .223 Remington. Colt Commandos and variants up to and including the M4 have been zapping people deader than dead for almost 50years.
The optimum solution across the services is really found in the SOPMOD II carbines with rifle-length float tubes. We've been chasing the Colt Model 605 all along, and wouldn't have needed to if they would have used a concealed carbine or mid-length gas system with the right dwell time for across the temperature reliability.
18" is the longest you would ever need for the 5.56, and even the guys who have SPR's in the units often prefer an M4 with Mk.262, since it is more practical for maneuver and regular carry, while still getting 1st-round incapacitation shots out to 700m with the Mk.262 and trained shooters. That was one of the surprising revelations in the interviews Plaster did with several Afghan and Iraq Snipers for the new Ultimate Sniper II videos. Not only the US guys, but the Canadian said the same thing. They had a real affinity for the M4/Mk.262 combo, and these are guys who have stacked a lot of bodies in the dirt.
I don't see a lot of practical benefits of a 20" barrel over even a 14.5", since the 14.5" spits M855 out at over 2900fps, and M193 over 3000fps. The original velocity requirements of the SCHV concept were based on the ability to penetrate a steel helmet at 500yds, which the .222 Remington couldn't do, leading to the evolution of a longer case with more powder capacity and what became the .223 Remington. Colt Commandos and variants up to and including the M4 have been zapping people deader than dead for almost 50years.
The optimum solution across the services is really found in the SOPMOD II carbines with rifle-length float tubes. We've been chasing the Colt Model 605 all along, and wouldn't have needed to if they would have used a concealed carbine or mid-length gas system with the right dwell time for across the temperature reliability.
18" is the longest you would ever need for the 5.56, and even the guys who have SPR's in the units often prefer an M4 with Mk.262, since it is more practical for maneuver and regular carry, while still getting 1st-round incapacitation shots out to 700m with the Mk.262 and trained shooters. That was one of the surprising revelations in the interviews Plaster did with several Afghan and Iraq Snipers for the new Ultimate Sniper II videos. Not only the US guys, but the Canadian said the same thing. They had a real affinity for the M4/Mk.262 combo, and these are guys who have stacked a lot of bodies in the dirt.
11/28/2011 11:36:34 AM
are you talking about the vltor A5 buffer?
11/28/2011 11:42:51 AM
Originally Posted By mr_h:
are you talking about the vltor A5 buffer?
are you talking about the vltor A5 buffer?
No, the military issue "H6" buffer.
The Vltor A5 is heavily advertised and photographed.
~Augee
11/28/2011 11:17:50 PM
Originally Posted By LRRPF52:
When we first got M4's back in 1997, my 3rd Scout Platoon in the 25th still retained M16A2's with M203's in the ATL (carried a 203) duty positions, since we hadn't received the new mounting hardware for the M4. I knew it would mount anyway, since the M4 handguard cap had the cuts to clear the 203 rail, but we of course couldn't swap 203's from the M16A2's to the M4's in a conventional unit. We played around with swapping lowers, but not long enough to shoot live or attract unnecessary attention.
I don't see a lot of practical benefits of a 20" barrel over even a 14.5", since the 14.5" spits M855 out at over 2900fps, and M193 over 3000fps. The original velocity requirements of the SCHV concept were based on the ability to penetrate a steel helmet at 500yds, which the .222 Remington couldn't do, leading to the evolution of a longer case with more powder capacity and what became the .223 Remington. Colt Commandos and variants up to and including the M4 have been zapping people deader than dead for almost 50years.
The optimum solution across the services is really found in the SOPMOD II carbines with rifle-length float tubes. We've been chasing the Colt Model 605 all along, and wouldn't have needed to if they would have used a concealed carbine or mid-length gas system with the right dwell time for across the temperature reliability.
18" is the longest you would ever need for the 5.56, and even the guys who have SPR's in the units often prefer an M4 with Mk.262, since it is more practical for maneuver and regular carry, while still getting 1st-round incapacitation shots out to 700m with the Mk.262 and trained shooters. That was one of the surprising revelations in the interviews Plaster did with several Afghan and Iraq Snipers for the new Ultimate Sniper II videos. Not only the US guys, but the Canadian said the same thing. They had a real affinity for the M4/Mk.262 combo, and these are guys who have stacked a lot of bodies in the dirt.
When we first got M4's back in 1997, my 3rd Scout Platoon in the 25th still retained M16A2's with M203's in the ATL (carried a 203) duty positions, since we hadn't received the new mounting hardware for the M4. I knew it would mount anyway, since the M4 handguard cap had the cuts to clear the 203 rail, but we of course couldn't swap 203's from the M16A2's to the M4's in a conventional unit. We played around with swapping lowers, but not long enough to shoot live or attract unnecessary attention.
I don't see a lot of practical benefits of a 20" barrel over even a 14.5", since the 14.5" spits M855 out at over 2900fps, and M193 over 3000fps. The original velocity requirements of the SCHV concept were based on the ability to penetrate a steel helmet at 500yds, which the .222 Remington couldn't do, leading to the evolution of a longer case with more powder capacity and what became the .223 Remington. Colt Commandos and variants up to and including the M4 have been zapping people deader than dead for almost 50years.
The optimum solution across the services is really found in the SOPMOD II carbines with rifle-length float tubes. We've been chasing the Colt Model 605 all along, and wouldn't have needed to if they would have used a concealed carbine or mid-length gas system with the right dwell time for across the temperature reliability.
18" is the longest you would ever need for the 5.56, and even the guys who have SPR's in the units often prefer an M4 with Mk.262, since it is more practical for maneuver and regular carry, while still getting 1st-round incapacitation shots out to 700m with the Mk.262 and trained shooters. That was one of the surprising revelations in the interviews Plaster did with several Afghan and Iraq Snipers for the new Ultimate Sniper II videos. Not only the US guys, but the Canadian said the same thing. They had a real affinity for the M4/Mk.262 combo, and these are guys who have stacked a lot of bodies in the dirt.
Those are some interesting and valid points.
I've never paid attention to the SOPMOD M4's. In fact, I've never been an M4 fan at all...and I've gotta admit, the Block II is pretty kick ass
Everything about it makes perfect sense.12/9/2011 4:58:43 PM
If you really enjoy going to the range, whether shooting prone or from a bench in more traditional positions and targets, the M16A2 format with a match trigger and concealed float tube is a fine rifle for that purpose.
For field use in and out of vehicles, in and out of rooms and buildings, you're much better off with a carbine. The muzzle velocity differences don't warrant the extra barrel length and can't be exploited by the average soldier. The guys who can exploit that slight edge in MV prefer M4's anyway, so people vote with their feet.
I've used them all extensively in field conditions over extended time periods on deployments, including the M16A1, and I like the A1's and M4's better by a large margin for field use...but if I was in a CMP-style match, the "tricked" A2 would be my choice, with personal hand-loads running 69gr SMK's or 70gr Berger VLD's very fast from Lapua or Lake City brass.
For field use in and out of vehicles, in and out of rooms and buildings, you're much better off with a carbine. The muzzle velocity differences don't warrant the extra barrel length and can't be exploited by the average soldier. The guys who can exploit that slight edge in MV prefer M4's anyway, so people vote with their feet.
I've used them all extensively in field conditions over extended time periods on deployments, including the M16A1, and I like the A1's and M4's better by a large margin for field use...but if I was in a CMP-style match, the "tricked" A2 would be my choice, with personal hand-loads running 69gr SMK's or 70gr Berger VLD's very fast from Lapua or Lake City brass.
12/10/2011 5:23:06 AM
The few photos I have seen of the M16A4 PIP (M16A5 project) I have seen didn't have the Vltor A5 stock, but instead a standard Vltor stock.
12/10/2011 12:05:38 PM
Anyone know who the contractor is?
As best as I can figure out from a google of the NSN, originally it was supposed to be Colt... Now its some random, plastic company.
As best as I can figure out from a google of the NSN, originally it was supposed to be Colt... Now its some random, plastic company.
