M16A2: How good is it?

Firepower! · February 15, 2010, 06:52 AM

Hi
I would like to hear from those of you who have hands on experience with M16 series rifles. I want to know how good is M16a2? What improvements were made over the existing M16a1 rifle? How reliable is it over the previous models and what is the barrel life like?
Thanks

Willie Lowman · February 15, 2010, 09:28 AM

The M16a2 has a slightly longer stock, a heavier barrel and a three round burst cam instead of the full auto selection. I don't care for the burst selector because it makes the semi-auto trigger worse.

If you already have a M16a1 all you would need to do is place a new 20" heavy barrel and a A2 stock on the gun and you will be set. Or use a longer barrel and full length buffer tube/stock on your M4a1.

What I am trying to say is, the M16a2 is a fine rifle except for the three round burst selector. It is there to keep inexperienced soldiers from wasting entire mags when they panic. For recreational shooting, I need no such thing.

David Hineline · February 15, 2010, 10:19 AM

There were variation in the A2 rifle, the only thing that changed in the actual A2 marked component is the re-enforced area around the buttstock as A1s were breaking when used as a club etc.

The A2 buttstock is a bit longer, the A2 rear sight is not asjustable 300-800 for elevation as the A1 sight was only windage adj. Burst, Auto collapsing stock, short barrel etc etc were all available on the A2 rifle.

SSG-Gibb · February 16, 2010, 09:59 AM

I have shot the M16A1, A2, and we now are switched to the M-4 I was EXTREMELY sceptical about the M-4 because I preferr to keep the targets heads down @ a greater distance and my thinking was the shorter barrel wouldn't help in that aspect. I ama two tour Iraq vet the forst one being stationed in the southwest corner of Faluja for better then 7 months back in 03-04 so I have extencive use up on the wall with the A2 and although it is not my M1A and the bullet lacks knockdown power when placed in the right spot "and the A2 WILL come reasonable close

" it is an alright weapon. As for the differance in the fullauto as to the three round burst when swapping out the barrel on a Hot M-2 that full auto would have been a god send because trying to get a good rhythem going with a three round burst to astablish covering fire while in a mad minute is a hell of a thing. The M-4 is MUCH lighter

and I used to call it a purse but it's no joke and although I have never fired it in anger in my last tour 08-09 I would gladly take it again.

chavez8541 · February 16, 2010, 11:43 PM

Well...I was bored one day a few years back and actually counted a total of 13 changes in the A2 from the the A1.

1. Longer stock
2. Finger grooved pistol grip
3. Three round burst selector
4. Rear elevation knob
5. Rear sight windage knob
6. Round handgaurds
7. Square front sight post
8. Heavier barrell
9. Tighter rate of twist
10. Muzzle compensator
11. Shape of forward assist changed
12. Larger slip ring
13. I forget what the 13th change was

R1145 · February 17, 2010, 12:13 AM

Brass deflector lump behind the ejection port...

Lawyer Daggit · February 17, 2010, 12:58 AM

It is interesting and pleasing to hear from vets that the service rifle seems to be reliable and reasonably easy to live with. I recently heard similar about the British Enfield (now in its second version-v1 was a disaster).

It is a shame that some serious thought cannot go into the development of a sensible service round. I read a recent US army 'review' that spoke positively about the power of the .556 round in combat. It commented in passing that soldiers needed to 'double tap' the target, as per the recommendation in training manuals.

The need to double tap is however as good as an admission that the round is not capable of doing what it was primarily aimed to do. It is also something that may not be that easy to do in the field where all one may get is a fleeting glimpse of the enemy.

Willie Lowman · February 17, 2010, 07:15 PM

Quote:

.556 round

That's 14.12 millimeters! If soldiers need to double tap with that I would like to know what they are fighting?!?!

chavez8541 · February 19, 2010, 01:49 AM

Brass deflector...yes that's it, thank you Sir.

Firepower! · February 20, 2010, 09:35 AM

May I ask those who have used the A1 and A2 in service, if the reliability has improved any?

mini4m3 · April 24, 2010, 02:59 PM

Honestly their is no problem in reliability from either M16A1 or M16A2.

The problem with the original M16 (not a1) was a poor choice in ammo (stick vs ball powder kinda stuff), the barrels were not chrome lined, the soldiers would just hold down the trigger like it was a lazer gun and so the guns would jam after 400-500 rounds of contentious fire...like any gun would! On top of this a nasty rumor spread that the original M16 was a mircle gun and that it did not require any cleaning - ever.

So you have soldiers in one of the most inhospitable environments (hot/humid/damp jungles of SE Asia), shooting a firearm in full automatic fire for upwards of 1,000 rounds, using a bad type of powder, you're gonna have issues.

The biggest problem that would happen would be the M16 after its first shot would jam, leaving the empty casing in the chamber. Soldiers in firefights were known to pick up AK47s in early Vietnam War because of this. In essence their firearm was turned into a muzzle loading plastic piece of crap and many times you would find soldiers trying to find sticks to poke out the empty cases that had become stuck.

When the government had the M16A1 created all the problems of the M16 were removed. They changed the ammo, they chrome lined the chambers and added little touches like the reinforced lower backwell (near the stock) and the forward assist.

The reliability from M16A1 to M16A2 did not change very much, if at all. Either one you will be happy with.

I love my M16A1 to be honest though. It has never had an issue with reliability and is so much lighter than the M16A2 or M4s I've tested or used. I think last time I weighed it, it was around 6.0-6.5lbs, where as my M4 with optics was 9-10lbs.

MoBart · April 25, 2010, 11:48 AM

I shot the A2 alot the first few years I was in the Marine Corps, no experiance witht he A1 other then a few fam fires at machine gun shoots. I'm a big fan of the A2 and can honestly say it shot and handled great, never had a single malfunction with one (other then one bad magazine one time on qualification day). I shot several of them over the years. The 20" barrel is a little longer and more cumbersome for close in shooting but, the A4 is essentilly the same rifle with a pop off carry handle and the quad rail handgurads. Marines have been useing them with no problem doing house clearing and other cqc missions for several years now and doing fine with them. We did alot of cqc training and I was still toting an A2 and had no issue witht he barrel length at all.

Firepower! · April 25, 2010, 12:23 PM

I have noticed that A1 shoots well and has very few jamming issues with the original 20 shot mag.

February 15, 2010, 06:52 AM	#1
Firepower! Senior Member Join Date: February 3, 2008 Posts: 2,109	M16A2: How good is it? Hi I would like to hear from those of you who have hands on experience with M16 series rifles. I want to know how good is M16a2? What improvements were made over the existing M16a1 rifle? How reliable is it over the previous models and what is the barrel life like? Thanks

February 17, 2010, 12:13 AM	#6
R1145 Senior Member Join Date: July 26, 2005 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 351	Number 13: Brass deflector lump behind the ejection port...

February 15, 2010, 09:28 AM	#2
Willie Lowman Senior Member Join Date: March 5, 2009 Location: Uh-Hi-O Posts: 3,006	The M16a2 has a slightly longer stock, a heavier barrel and a three round burst cam instead of the full auto selection. I don't care for the burst selector because it makes the semi-auto trigger worse. If you already have a M16a1 all you would need to do is place a new 20" heavy barrel and a A2 stock on the gun and you will be set. Or use a longer barrel and full length buffer tube/stock on your M4a1. What I am trying to say is, the M16a2 is a fine rifle except for the three round burst selector. It is there to keep inexperienced soldiers from wasting entire mags when they panic. For recreational shooting, I need no such thing.

February 15, 2010, 10:19 AM	#3
David Hineline Senior Member Join Date: December 23, 1999 Location: South Sioux City, Nebraska Posts: 704	There were variation in the A2 rifle, the only thing that changed in the actual A2 marked component is the re-enforced area around the buttstock as A1s were breaking when used as a club etc. The A2 buttstock is a bit longer, the A2 rear sight is not asjustable 300-800 for elevation as the A1 sight was only windage adj. Burst, Auto collapsing stock, short barrel etc etc were all available on the A2 rifle.

February 16, 2010, 09:59 AM	#4
SSG-Gibb Member Join Date: June 25, 2009 Location: The Free state (For now) of PA Posts: 60	I have shot the M16A1, A2, and we now are switched to the M-4 I was EXTREMELY sceptical about the M-4 because I preferr to keep the targets heads down @ a greater distance and my thinking was the shorter barrel wouldn't help in that aspect. I ama two tour Iraq vet the forst one being stationed in the southwest corner of Faluja for better then 7 months back in 03-04 so I have extencive use up on the wall with the A2 and although it is not my M1A and the bullet lacks knockdown power when placed in the right spot "and the A2 WILL come reasonable close " it is an alright weapon. As for the differance in the fullauto as to the three round burst when swapping out the barrel on a Hot M-2 that full auto would have been a god send because trying to get a good rhythem going with a three round burst to astablish covering fire while in a mad minute is a hell of a thing. The M-4 is MUCH lighter and I used to call it a purse but it's no joke and although I have never fired it in anger in my last tour 08-09 I would gladly take it again.

February 16, 2010, 11:43 PM	#5
chavez8541 Junior Member Join Date: February 6, 2010 Posts: 12	Well...I was bored one day a few years back and actually counted a total of 13 changes in the A2 from the the A1. 1. Longer stock 2. Finger grooved pistol grip 3. Three round burst selector 4. Rear elevation knob 5. Rear sight windage knob 6. Round handgaurds 7. Square front sight post 8. Heavier barrell 9. Tighter rate of twist 10. Muzzle compensator 11. Shape of forward assist changed 12. Larger slip ring 13. I forget what the 13th change was

February 17, 2010, 12:58 AM	#7
Lawyer Daggit Senior Member Join Date: December 5, 2004 Posts: 1,181	It is interesting and pleasing to hear from vets that the service rifle seems to be reliable and reasonably easy to live with. I recently heard similar about the British Enfield (now in its second version-v1 was a disaster). It is a shame that some serious thought cannot go into the development of a sensible service round. I read a recent US army 'review' that spoke positively about the power of the .556 round in combat. It commented in passing that soldiers needed to 'double tap' the target, as per the recommendation in training manuals. The need to double tap is however as good as an admission that the round is not capable of doing what it was primarily aimed to do. It is also something that may not be that easy to do in the field where all one may get is a fleeting glimpse of the enemy.

February 19, 2010, 01:49 AM	#9
chavez8541 Junior Member Join Date: February 6, 2010 Posts: 12	Brass deflector...yes that's it, thank you Sir.

February 20, 2010, 09:35 AM	#10
Firepower! Senior Member Join Date: February 3, 2008 Posts: 2,109	May I ask those who have used the A1 and A2 in service, if the reliability has improved any?

April 24, 2010, 02:59 PM	#11
mini4m3 Senior Member Join Date: January 11, 2008 Posts: 102	Honestly their is no problem in reliability from either M16A1 or M16A2. The problem with the original M16 (not a1) was a poor choice in ammo (stick vs ball powder kinda stuff), the barrels were not chrome lined, the soldiers would just hold down the trigger like it was a lazer gun and so the guns would jam after 400-500 rounds of contentious fire...like any gun would! On top of this a nasty rumor spread that the original M16 was a mircle gun and that it did not require any cleaning - ever. So you have soldiers in one of the most inhospitable environments (hot/humid/damp jungles of SE Asia), shooting a firearm in full automatic fire for upwards of 1,000 rounds, using a bad type of powder, you're gonna have issues. The biggest problem that would happen would be the M16 after its first shot would jam, leaving the empty casing in the chamber. Soldiers in firefights were known to pick up AK47s in early Vietnam War because of this. In essence their firearm was turned into a muzzle loading plastic piece of crap and many times you would find soldiers trying to find sticks to poke out the empty cases that had become stuck. When the government had the M16A1 created all the problems of the M16 were removed. They changed the ammo, they chrome lined the chambers and added little touches like the reinforced lower backwell (near the stock) and the forward assist. The reliability from M16A1 to M16A2 did not change very much, if at all. Either one you will be happy with. I love my M16A1 to be honest though. It has never had an issue with reliability and is so much lighter than the M16A2 or M4s I've tested or used. I think last time I weighed it, it was around 6.0-6.5lbs, where as my M4 with optics was 9-10lbs.

April 25, 2010, 11:48 AM	#12
MoBart Senior Member Join Date: September 25, 2009 Posts: 267	I shot the A2 alot the first few years I was in the Marine Corps, no experiance witht he A1 other then a few fam fires at machine gun shoots. I'm a big fan of the A2 and can honestly say it shot and handled great, never had a single malfunction with one (other then one bad magazine one time on qualification day). I shot several of them over the years. The 20" barrel is a little longer and more cumbersome for close in shooting but, the A4 is essentilly the same rifle with a pop off carry handle and the quad rail handgurads. Marines have been useing them with no problem doing house clearing and other cqc missions for several years now and doing fine with them. We did alot of cqc training and I was still toting an A2 and had no issue witht he barrel length at all.

April 25, 2010, 12:23 PM	#13
Firepower! Senior Member Join Date: February 3, 2008 Posts: 2,109	I have noticed that A1 shoots well and has very few jamming issues with the original 20 shot mag.