Army Inf. '86-'92. I transitioned to the A2 while stationed in Panama in '87. My A1 was basically spray painted by the armorer a few times a year and was a broken down rattletrap. Probably a great rifle 20 years prior but badly in need of replacement. Same with our 1911s that were also replaced in '87 with the M9. Great design, just worn out and we were glad to get something new- no matter what it was. We loved the A2s. Everyone shot better and had more confidence in the functionality of their weapon. We actually didn't mind the extra weight. The most common comment I recall from back then was "now this feels like a real weapon and not a toy." 203 gunners shot better too. We humped more than any light inf unit in the Army back then- up the mountain, down the mountain, all night long more times than I can count. My feet and knees are still a wreck 30 years later. Nobody bitched about the A2 weighing too much. 2 NCOs from the AMU came down and ran a weeklong course on the KD range down there at Empire. By the end of the week we were hitting 40 for 40 at 800 meters with the A2. I was amazed. I had laughed at the start of the week when the instructors said we'd be hitting regular at 800m by the end of the week. We were taught to do all that "turning and fidgeting" with the sights to utilize them from beyond the usual 300m out to 800m. When that was mated up with our prior 0-300m training we were good. The officers that talked with Stoner were full of it IMO. Typical low opinion of EMs by officers with superiority complexes. We handled the "complicated" rear sight just fine. Just in time too as Just Cause went down a year later and we were in it up to our eyeballs as one of the 2 inf. battalions permanently stationed down there. Desert Storm was soon after that for me as I had PCS-ed to the 101. A2 was fine in both and nobody was wrecking their sights in combat. Yeah, the 3 round burst was a let down and we were PO-ed in the beginning. We fired semi 90% of the time in combat anyway I soon found out. The need for a full auto rifle in combat is overrated. The SAWs and 60s took care of that. In mech units you had the weaponry on the vehicle that was full auto as well. We can nitpick 40 years later but for a guy who was there on the ground with it in 2 wars, I was glad to have it. Have a civ version Colt A2 in my safe to this day next to my M1 and the usual old guy hunting rifles and shotguns.

The medical unit I was in during 2018 had a M16A2 built on a Harrington and Richardson A1 lower. They ground off the 1 and stamped it with a 2. That was an interesting piece of history to hold.

Listening to Eugene Stoner talk about considerations he had towards the M-16, they echo exactly the same ones that Mikhail Kalashnikov and the Soviet brass had towards the AK, AKM and later AK-74. Keep things as simple as possible, make things easier to manufacture, reduce the amount of things soldier can muck around with. Make it soldier-proof and at the same time easy to learn. Looking at the original M-16A1 it's obvious just how much simpler lighter and soldier-friendly it is compared to more advanced models.

The engineers in my neighborhood worked for Mellonics and Natick to improve the M16A1 at Rock Island. These engineers worked on an Army (not Marines) contract. The goal was to make the M16 better for the Army Soldiers, females, and smaller allies. There were many arguments between the engineers and the Army on one side and the Marines on the other side. Dirty tricks were played, and the Marines got their way. Thank you for giving a balanced point of view about the M16A2. Some of the A2 "improvements" were backwards. 30 years later... We got many of the improvements made available. This review is so much more beneficial than the brainwashing that many get in the military and police training circles. Who cares about the truth when confidence in the M16 is more important? The Stoner videos are pretty cool. Stoner wasn't perfect, but his interviews are cool. P.S. I really appreciate Chris' more accurate info about the AR, much better than the History Channel.

Burst settings are a throw back to the original bolt action military rifles with a magazine cut-off. It was for logistical bureaucrats to micro-manage soldiers back then and is for logistical bureaucrats today.

The 3 shot burst was a mechanical solution to a training problem. My experience in the service is weapons training and range time is below minimum for reasonable competence

"Surely the next war will be fought on the Camp Lejune KD range." -USMC since the beginning of time.

Having converted from M14/M1s to M16A1s, in the Marines, I agree. We even had the 3-prong in Vietnam. They worked just fine but too many Marines were using the open flash hider to twist off the wire on c-ration cases and twinking the barrels. I was out when A2s came along but shot them later, I wandered why the change. The 3-round burst was a bust without a full auto option (although, if a burst was used, I liked a 2-round burst better to keep rounds on target. I fired A2s and felt it would be dangerous for any GIs. A change in twist (like the Canadians did) would have fixed the issue of the M855 round. Red dots, etc. work great on the A1 handle (as folks are finding on the RETROs). Nice to hear others think the A2 was misthought. I have also heard others say that if they wanted to take a M16 back to a combat situation, they would rather have a M16A1. I built an AR version while the A1 was still in issue. She still shoots just fine. She also wears an original Colt 3x scope. I was RETRO before it was retro. Thanks for the video.

I got issued an FN-made M16A2 when I went through basic training at Ft. Benning in 1996. I qualified expert on it, but then it was _not_ taken away and replaced with an M16A1 for the rest of training. While I was at the 30th AG, after inprocessing was completed, but still waiting to be assigned to a training company, I and several of my fellow recruits were detailed to the post armory for a couple of days to work as gofers for the people who ran it. They were mainly DOD civilians who were retired army. I did see a lot of M16A1s in that building, and even racks of M1911A1s. One old Vietnam vet who worked there stated flatly that he thought the M16A1 was a superior combat rifle to the A2, and for precisely the reasons explained here.

My father was in Vietnam, he said, they never used the sights. He was on a 106 recoil-less rifle, so they'd set up a fire base, therefore his whole "infantry like" combat was in patrolling. So, other people probably had different experiences, but... He said they'd walk around on patrol. When someone started shooting at them they would simply pull the trigger and dump a mag as they hit the dirt. No matter where it was aimed (of course this means, carrying the weapon pointed in the general direction you're supposed to have it, but maybe pointed at the ground 10 yards down range, or at the horizon). Anyway, the point was to start shooting back regardless. Then while trying to get to cover or staying put on the ground firing off mag after mag in you sector of fire until the bad guys ran away. He said he got a gas mask carrier and filled it with magazines just for patrols. The effectiveness of this strategy is hard to gauge, while he made it home, he told me his unit had a high casualty rate.

Eugene Stoner, is an AMERICAN LEGEND!!! 🙏🏻 I love watching his old interviews from the 90s, you can really tell What all of his work meant to him, Little did we know at the time how much it would mean to all of us!🇺🇸 AMERICA STRONG STAY FREE LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC

My experiences and impressions are similar to yours, just backed up 15 years. Being a southpaw, the first time I fired the M16, a hot ejected case hit my neck and went down my shirt, leaving two burn marks. A range officer saw it happen and installed a brass deflector for me. I would like to add one small clarification to you excellent review. The Air Force never standardized the M16A1. We used the M16, which we kept rebuilding (I once saw an arsenal refinished XM16 in our inventory). The M16 had no forward assist. Like you, I did not care for it. The only time I ever tried to use one was on a CAR-15 I owned. The retaining pin broke and the spring and plunger fell out of the rifle. Around 1998 the Air Force began acquiring a limited number of M4 carbines for our special operations members, dog handlers, and some security forces to replace our aging GAU/GUU series of short barreled M16 type carbines and SMGs. When 911 occurred, the demand for M4s quickly skyrocketed. I was responsible for writing a letter of explanation regarding our options for acquiring more M4s or updating existing firearms to M4 specs for our forward deploying support units. The immediate result was that we got some M4s loaned to us from our Security Force. At the same time the Air Force had begun an M16 upgrade program to make our rifles M16A2 compatible, but the only organization I knew which had actually funded and begun this transition were our Civil Engineers. All other Airmen were deploying with unmodified M16s. This created a supply issue because the Army was responsible for in-theater small arms ammunition. The Army no longer had stockpiles of M193 ammo and were only issuing M885. The latter round had proven to be inaccurate and unstable when fired through our 1:12 twist barrels at all but the closest range. It took about a year to resolve this problem. Regarding the features of the M16A2, I was in a rather unique position in the mid-1980s to evaluate it because I had privately acquired an actual Colt M16A2 from a class 3 friend. At the time I placed the order I requested the three-shot burst feature. What showed up was a Canadian version - at least that is what we called it because it had every A2 feature except the burst. It was even marked "Burst". Over time I was glad mine was FA instead burst. The longer stock fit me better than the M16 stock (this was before body armor became standard). I also much preferred the A2 rear sight when sighting in at 100 yards because it was much easier to make fine sight adjustments for different loads. I confess it never dawned on me this might be a liability to the average soldier under combat conditions. I also agree it takes practice to use this sight at extended ranges because it is a confusing setup if you are not familiar with how to adjust it. I loved the built-in brass deflector, but did not care for the extra weight of the rifle. My only real complaints were that it lacked an ambidextrous safety and night sights. I read an article a few years later where the project officer claimed he was forced to limit the number of slides he could show senior officers in a selection board presentation, so the last slide was dropped. On it were the night sights and ambi safety.

Qualified in Marine Corps with M-16A1 in 1985. That thing rattled and was nearly worn out. I liked the front post on the A1 but qualified much better with the A2. (86-89). Thank you for sharing this material.

The cartridge case deflector is such a simple and elegant solution to managing ejection issues.

Qualified with and carried the A2 from 97 to 03, as Marine 0612 (formerly 2512). I have some nostalgia for it, but I was always conscious that it wasn’t built for me. As an Asian mutt, the stock was way too long for my arms, especially with a flak jacket or Interceptor armor vest on. Also, the overall length was a pain while laying wire or installing field phones. I would have preferred an M4 for convenience and fit, but back then only high-speed low-drag units got M4s, and only E-5s and up were issued pistols, at least at my unit.

I also heard the barrel thickness increase was to prevent barrels from bending from bayonet training. I’ve also Read that burrs from the gas port being drilled had carbon build up which would fool armorers into thinking barrels were bent after dropping barrel straightness gauges that would hang up on the burrs.

I doubt that anyone would argue that Eugene Stoner was a great designer. So no disrespect intended by my comments. I spent 9 years active duty and 14 years in the Marine Corps Reserve. My MOS’s were Infantry Weapons Repair, Artillery Repair, and Marksmanship Instructor / Competitor. I Earned the Marine Corps Distinguished Rifle Badge in 1997 and Distinguished Pistol Shot Badge in 1999. Which makes me 1 of less than 500 Marines in the history of the Competition in Arms Program to earn the title Double Distinguished. The CIAP started in 1901. I spent 28 plus years in LE and have a ton of training under my belt from that. So I’m qualified to speak on this from the point of view of the end user, armorer, and instructor. Overall the M16A2 filled the anticipated mission. This was the beginning of the 1980’s and the fight was going to be with the Warsaw Pact in Western Europe. So they wanted the capability to penetrate a Soviet helmet at 800 meters. That led to the SS109 / M855 round. And probably had something to do with the 800 Meter marking on the elevation knob. The flash suppressor being replaced by a compensator from the end users view was a non-issue. They never really noticed a difference. Barrel profile was an issue due to bending. But what they changed didn’t fix the problem. The A2 sights were NEVER a serious maintenance issue. The most common problem was the elevation knob losing its distinct clicks due to the holes in the bottom of the knob wearing. And that was rare. Never saw any sights broken from being dropped on them. As for the mythical FIDGET factor. The M1903, M1917, M1, M14, and later variants of the M1, and M2 Carbines, the M16A2, A3, A4, M4’s, Mark 18’s all had fully adjustable Sights. And Stoner himself designed the AR in the beginning with adjustable sights. Now I never saw Marines diddling their sights. And I believe the Corps has a lock on the title of MOST ADD / ADHD people in any organization! Marines knew that the rifle they had was theirs, and they knew what the windage and elevation settings were. We even trained them how to mark their sights with paint pens or White Out. In the fall of 1990 every 2 Mar Div unit went to Stone Bay and zeroed their rifles on the 300 line before they deployed to SWA. That’s how serious the issue is in the Corps. We universally hated the 3 shot burst mechanism. But it was reliable. The forward assist while rarely needed is useful. I’ve witnessed numerous times where the bolt didn’t full rotate into the locked position. The forward assist handled that. The new composite plastic was a welcome change from a durability stand point. The grip wasn’t liked for the shelf they added. Didn’t fit most Marines. While I understand lengthening the stock it was a mistake. They should have kept it where it was. Thank God for the more aggressive checkering on the buttplate. In the end the M16A2 cost more than new M16A1’s. Don’t care. The Congress pisses away millions. The rifle was about 2 pounds heavier. Not ideal, but not the end of the world. As they say in the Corps, I’d you think it’s to heavy then you need to workout more. The only thing that made the M16A2 less reliable than the M16A1 was the M855 round. That’s because the projectile on the new round had a sharp point. When Marines would try to chamber the first round on a fresh mag, the tip would go straight into the seam where the barrel extension fits into the upper receiver. That caused the bullet to stub. If the Marine performed immediate action they would then cause a double feed. They did 2 things to fix the problem. Changed the profile on the tip of the bullet to a slightly more rounded one like on the M193 round. And they eventually extended the feed ramps adding a chamfer to the upper receiver that blended into the ramps on the barrel extension. Not sure when that change occurred. Marine Corps Marksmanship doctrine up until around 1990 broke training into 3 phases. Preparatory Phase; that was all the classroom instruction and dry firing on the snapping in drums. Known Distance Firing which was a week of firing the KD course. And the last phase that was rarely conducted was Field Firing which was the units responsibility. In the end Marines understood the basic fundamentals of marksmanship better than any other service. Heres where the rule of: You cant do, what you don’t know, comes into play. I’d much rather have Marines who know how to fire a precise shot and the skills to do it. As opposed to being in a gunfight with someone only capable of launching a cone of fire. It’s easy to be sloppy, and hard to be precise. Especially if you never learned the skills to be precise. A big short coming in our doctrine was at close quarters battle. That’s because prior to 911 it wasn’t taught to anyone outside the Recon, Security Forces / FAST Teams, MP, or Infantry units. For the most part the only CQB experts were the Force Recon Marines, and SOTG instructors. And they didn’t have time to teach all that High Speed / Low Drag stuff to regular Marines. Nor did the Marine Corps have enough CQB Ranges. Marksmanship Instructors and some switched on Marines knew when it comes to engagement under field conditions iron sights left a lot to be desired. Marines had tried to get red dots and optics like the ACOG adopted well before 2004. Force Recon did a little work with the Armeson OEG reflex sight in the late 80’s. Echo Company 2/24, 4th Mar Div deployed to SWA in Dec of 1990 with ACOGS on squad leaders rifles. Fire Team Leaders had OEG reflex sight on theirs. Saw that with my own eyes. They were billeted in B Range barracks at Stone Bay, Camp Lejeune while going through training which was where I lived. Last point I want to make is this; to make a top notch weapon or anything for that matter requires teamwork. The designer, the engineer with the 50 pound brain, and the subject matter expert who knows how to use it and will teach others how to use it. All to frequently the SME is left out of the equation or ignored. PS: At the end of the day Stoner could take heart in this. Most of our soldiers and Marines that died because their M16 failed were carrying M16’s or M16E1’s during Vietnam. The cause being lack of a chrome lined barrel, lack of proper training and cleaning kits with regards to operator level maintenance, and early ammo loaded with ball powder which caused clogging of the gas system. That was the fault of people above his pay grade who thought they knew better. Kind of the way Admirals made Grumman use the Pieces Of Shit TF 30 engine in the F14A.

As a Jarhead from ‘87 thru ‘91. I recall being told 3 round burst was in an effort to minimize the whole squad dumping there mags at the same time in an ambush. Having everyone change mags at the same time is no bueno in an ambush. 😢 thanks for the videos. Sub’d 👍🏻

I used both theA1 and A2 qualified expert with the A2. It was the A2 that saw me through the first gulf wars! I personally found it to be an absolutely reliable, accurate rifle!! Didn't care much about the 3 round burst, would have preferred 2 round.. That being said I loved this rifle, never let me down !! 🇺🇸☠️🇺🇸

Watching Stoner shoot the rifle in a suit and tie….. priceless !!!! 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

"This was designed for the Marine Corps to qualify on their precision shooting which had no bearing on real combat", my Crayola eating brain is insulated but understanding. We started doing more close range and urban related training recently (went through in 2013) but even then it was a bit frustrating to have the M16A4s during urban terrain stuff because the length was so long. Yeah, you can do it, and God bless anyone that did, but it was not the best rifle for every role. Still love it to death death I prefer the way carry handles and 20" barrels look compared to all the red dots and 16" or shorter barrels we see in the general population.

I am a stoner and I think that the M16 is a great firearm, that covers a wide variety uses. Great video!

"Look how they massacred my boy!" -Eugene 'Corleone' Stoner

6:19 "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." The Soviets themselves knew by 1974 that a smaller caliber, at higher velocity, was the way to go. Hence their AK-74/caliber reduction from 7.62 to 5.45.

This man knows more about the black rifle than anything I've seen or heard. Great job !

Excellent! I never understood why they made the A1 sights so hard to change. Now I know and that’s why I enjoy your channel!

I was in the Marines in the mid 80s.I qualified with the A1 and while in the fleet the A2 was issued. In my opinion, this episode was completely correct. With the A1, once the site was zeroed, leave it alone. With the A2, since the rear sight was easy to adjust, I was changing every so often to get the perfect shot. Thanks for the information.

I would love to see your thoughts on the InRange WWSD rifles!

In Desert Storm my personal weapon was an XM16E1. The Marines all had the A2 and liked some features of the A1 such as sights that can't be misadjusted once set and the full-auto. I was in NMCB-74, Seabees at Raas Al Mishab for quite a few months. The gear we had was from war-stores at Camp Shields, Okinawa.

Great video. Agreed completely on the A2 sights. It's why when I set out to build a "classic" 20", I went with a C7 upper for the A1 sight along with the benefits of some of the A2 revisions. And it's probably my favorite AR in my collection.

You make the best gun videos on KZfaq. No flash, no goofy jokes hijinks or annoying music. Just straight information

I was in the Army from '84-'92 and I used the A1 until the last year or so. I qualified with the A1 throughout my career save for the last time I qualified.

What you describe between the XM855 and M193 ammo and groups/accuracy is exactly what I recently went through trying to zero a 16" upper. The 855 was all over the place at only 25 yards (!), zeroing for 100 in a .223 Wylde chambered upper and a 1-6X. I thought there had to be something wrong with the gun, or the scope, or baffle strikes with my suppressor. I happened to have a box of 193, loaded up changing nothing else and got one ragged hole the size of a small grape. The XM855 was from a Federal green can, with the Lake City stamps on rims. Someone suggested that it may have been QC rejects just sold off. But man, that's just dangerous. Never mind missing a man-sized target at 100 yds, that's almost missing the entire berm!

Very good Video as always. My perception has always been, that the Marine Corps tried to make the M16 more like a rifle and less a Sturmgewehr.

Thank you for a wonderful presentation. This rifle is literally a history read of various generations of American soldiers. I used the "mattel toy version" LOL! Back in boot camp at Ft. Knox in 1987. For all its issues, it is still an enduring design.

My Army days were spent packing M-16A1 1973, I have both & still prefer A1. Old habits, great vid thanks 🪖🇺🇸🪖

When I was a SeaBee, I qualed with the A1 from 87-91. 92 we finally got A2's, which, as a lefty, I loved!

It would be interesting to discuss how the M1 Carbine influenced the designs of both the M16 and AK-47. The idea of the “light rifle/PDW” combined with the assault rifle concept directly influenced facets of the M16 design. The AK’s rotating bolt design and charging handle came directly from the M1.

As an old Corps veteran of the 1960s-70s I got to carry and annually requalify with the M-14 and M-16. The M16A1 and A2 didn't get to me before I was discharged. So I appreciate the insight and discussion of the A1 and A2 pro and con which followed my service time. I agree that the adjustable rear sight makes it more of a target rifle for the Marine Corps. During my time in Vietnam we had the hard to adjust (Stoner preferred) rear/front sight, use the tip of the cartridge.

11:59 minutes. I appreciate your opinion and thank you for the perspective you bring from the army. It would be interesting to have a similar long form presentation from a Marine. I can only tell that this rifle kept me alive. My buddy and I were able to effectively engage combatants at over 450 yards with no optics. Range verified with old ass rangefinder that picked up on a whim and threw into my lce Buttpack at last minute.

M16A1 > M16A2

The foreword assist was a necessary improvement. I have had to use it quite a few times using the M16.

Wow, Stoner was thee "man" with the knowledge & the foresight into the future. My only regret is I didn't have the chance to meet this gentleman 😢

I served 12 years in the National Guard, just recently got out. My unit still had the M16A2 until 2019.

Honestly it’s funny hearing old timers talk about their M16s I was in 2016-2022. Started on a M16A4, hit the fleet & got a M4, was reissued a M4A1 within a year, then lastly was issued a M27. I feel like I’ve held all the generations of stoners descendants.

Fascinating stuff! I appreciated your comments and the Stoner interviews were illuminating. Thanks!

Really great video Chris and Heather. When I was duty armorer on my ship I always issued myself the ONE A4 with M203 that we had, just for fun!

My M16 basic training rifle in 1978 was a Harrington & Richardson with a Lion logo! I think looking into this would make an interesting segment as I have never heard it mentioned anywhere.

I shot an old M16A1in basic to qualify in the Air Force back in July 2001. The instructor was giving me crap about getting the old POS. I thought it was pretty cool. Mine had been through a lot...I was just imagining the history behind it. I'll never forget the struggle I had with that damn handguard back on though😆

I was told that the reason for the A2s weird barrel profile was that they wanted a heavier barrel, but didn't want to change the mounting system for the M203.

First I would like to complement you on your information very accurate. I am 75 years old I arrived in vietnam November of 1966 before we got off the ship we were issued the add on selector switch for our m14 the rifle fired really fast on full auto and hard to control I was in m 42 ai self propelled twin 40mm duster sometime in 1967 the first m16 arrived the infantry soldiers said the buffer was to light and they would attempt to double feed one fix was to only put 18 rounds in 20 round magazine the barrel and chamber were not chrome lined cartridges tended to stick in chamber infantry all carried cleaning rods assembled to knock stuck rounds out of chamber the bolt was made out of steel but the bolt carrier was aluminum and as most know similar when heated in motion seizing was a problem also the rifle was designed to use stick powder which is much cleaner burning than ball powder so cleaning kits at first weren't issued the army was using ball powder with calcium carbonate preservative it was stopping up the gas tube some infantrymen were found dead with their weapons apart trying to fix them also the first one in 14 twist didn't really stabilize 55 grain bullet soldiers were asking family's to send them guns some guys were even carrying leveraging rifles sent from home army bean counters probably killed as many men as THE VC I am glad I have lived long enough to tell the story very sad after the improvements done to the m16 it is now a good weapon but only for close combat sadly nothing will bring back the soldiers rat died because of the first ones

As a target rifle, I have to agree with Henry from 9-hole Reviews as I also prefer the A2 sights. As a combat rifle? I can see why folks like LAV preferred the "set and forget" solution the A1 sights offer. But what do I know. I was a 19K. If I needed to resort to using a rifle (or carbine), it meant there was BIG trouble in little China, so to speak.

I had an A1 in ROTC summer camp in 1980. It was very worn, but was one of the most accurate rifles I have ever fired...sort of! It would cut incredibly small groups at any range until you moved your cheek weld. The barrel was loose on the upper receiver, the upper was loose on the lower, and the butt stock was loose on the lower. As long as you held it all tight it was great, but as soon as you, say, lifted your head to see what was going on, it shifted everything, including the point of impact by 8 to 10 inches at 100 yards! Then it was back to tiny groups...somewhere else. Good times!

I have to say that I completely agree with mr stoners opinion of the strong points of the original design regarding weight and full auto selection. As a former Marine 2002-2006, I qualified with the M16A2 and I personally detested the forward assist and the 3 round burst. I felt the burst left a LOT to be desired. Now as a civilian all of my rifles resemble the early retro style simple ones. Great video. 😎

I seem to recall reading that part of the reason for "beefing up" the barrel was due to G.I.s using the 3-prong flash suppressor as a tool to break metal straps on crates. This unauthorized technique usually resulted in a bent barrel. And I also recall that the Marines hated the 3-round burst feature because the system increased the single-shot trigger pull and adversely affected qualification/competition scores.

I was a US Marine infantryman from '83 to '87 who served as an automatic rifleman in his fireteam. I carried an M16A1 to fulfill my duties as an automatic rifleman up until 1985 as my unit hadn't yet been issued the FN M249 SAW. I was even still allowed to qualify with it when we did our annual qualification at the rifle range. Once we got the M249's, my only experience with the M16A2 in service was during qualification. But I did buy the civilian version when it was available. It was a Bushmaster rifle and I still own it today.

the m16 in its raw natural form is one of the most gorgeous rifles out there

Im glad to hear you state the 1:9 twist is ideal. Out of my Colts I have an a1 topped 20 inch 1/7 and my 6920 M4 1/7, but I have an oddball Colt Govt carbine out of the 90s with an m4 profile barrel, fixed a2 carry handle stamped 4, and the 1/9. As Jayne Cobb would say, "This is my very favorite gun."

Great evaluation. Though I disagree with a few of your evaluations, "personal preference," I find your evaluations, thoughts and concerns well thought out and very well produced. Thank you.

The A2 sights are really like the forward assist. most of the time you are never going to use them for their intended purpose but its nice to have them regardless. There isn't any recorded instances of GI's throwing off their zero because the sights where too adjustable because frankly they never messed with them unless they where conducting area fire. The concern that the sights will be too adjustable is just conjecture similar to army concerns that full auto would enable GI's to blow through their ammo instead of accurately aiming at the target. The thickened barrel profile on the A2 did help with point of impact shift caused by the pencil barrel of the A1 so it wasn't a useless addition as you pointed out.

Another problem for combat rifles: maximum point blank range. That's usually around 275 yards (250m). Bullets drop dramatically beyond that due to air resistance and gravity. What soldier is skilled enough to estimate range, hold over just enough, but not too much, at enemy troops running/dodging/crawling/ducking behind cover/bobbing up and down behind berms, and of course shooting back, with artillery rounds exploding everywhere, to make an accurate shot beyond maximum point blank range?

I was serving in the Canadian military when we transitioned from the FNC1 to the C7. I for one am very glad our military didn't adopt the burst limiter and chose to adopt the rifle with the A1 type rear sight instead of the A2 sight. As to the weight issue, the C7 at just under 8 lbs was noticeably lighter than the FN, which was 9/12 lbs empty and closer to 11 when fully loaded. I never heard anyone complain about the weight of the C7.

Only comment I’m going to make is; you’re exactly correct about that barrel. The change doesn’t do a thing to improve it. If they were going to add thickness, and therefore weight, they should’ve kept the barrel the same diameter the whole length. All the heat collects right where it tapers down and it’s a failure point. Otherwise, it’s a great rifle and someone like me will never shoot enough rounds through it probably in it’s lifetime for it to fail during one situation.

I entered active duty with the Marines in 1975, transferred to the Army in 1980, and retired from the National Guard in 2010. I missed the M14 rifle in basic training by two weeks, used the M16A1 until 1988, and then it was the M16A2 until retirement. I was service/support (avionics, electronic warfare, multichannel communications) and in 1984 graduated at the top of my class from the Fort Riley Unit Armorer Course (I knew the weapons, but the paperwork and security procedures were something I needed to learn, especially AR 190-11) and I was often range cadre when my units qualified. The slip rings and hand guards were decided improvements. I had trouble when soldiers mixed up the 300- and 800-meter settings on the rear sight. On both the M16A1 and M16A2 the flip-up sight routinely caused problems because some of the soldiers were just not paying attention. Their ASVAB scores indicated that they could learn--they didn't because they qualified once or twice a year and that was it. The closed bottom of the flash suppressor did help keep firing signature low by kicking up less dust, but one of the results of firing rifles from prone was the muzzle blast would dig a shallow trench. I had little problem with the "improved" sights because I had a bit more training than the other soldiers--if rifle training was longer and better quality, those issues would have gone away. Never did like the burst control device--especially the progressive three-shot device Colt made. My first experience with the M16A2 on the range was being called in off leave to provide remedial instruction. The trigger had six different trigger pulls depending upon cam position. My solution was teaching trigger control. I had been called in because there was a high percentage of UNQUAL and no experts. After my class the rest of the company went to the range (I wasn't invited) and the scores went back up to 20% expert, 40% sharpshooter and 40% marksman. Just switching the trigger dumped those scores. Training in proper semi-auto trigger control fixed it.

Not gonna' lie, there's never been a military-issued A2 trapdoor I've ever been able to open with my finger! And I've handled hundreds of them. They should use them for bank vault doors! And yes, I had to clean my rifles ridiculously - so I used that trapdoor MANY times. I remember every unit I've been in - including infantry units - where the crusty CSMs demanded that we scrape muzzle crowns clean with cut up sections of wire coat hangers. Leave it to the Army to find a way to destroy perfectly good rifles. The A2 is a good rifle, but I'll never forget the day I was issued an M4...rays of light beamed down from the heavens...then they made me mount the 203...because of course they did.

Marines in the late 80's. We knew that when you turned it up to "burst" the first time you pulled the trigger you would get 1,2, or 3 rounds. After the first pull it was always 3 - so always did a double pull the first time. "No bearing on actual combat" Except all the fights we were in Desert Storm we had the sights cranked to at least 500.

eugene stoner was a great guy . i knew him in the late 70's when he lived down the street from me . he was working at cadillac gage in warren mi on the stoner 64 to update it for the 80's . he gave me my first ar15 in 78 . sadly it was stolen in 86 . taught me the in's and out's of the ar 15 .

Best description of the FA I ever read. People who understand the purpose and limitations of the FA like ‘em. People who use them to smash a malfunction deeper into the upper, think they’re useless.

This channel is a gold mine of firearms knowledge

This is the best video on KZfaq explaining this particular weapon…factual information…saved, shared and subbed.

The best channel with technical content around the AR platform

First time I qualified on M16A2 I was having issues keeping rounds on target. They told me to try shooting the rifle, left-handed. Boom qualified as Marksman the next round. Turns out I am left eye/hand dominant, but my parents forced me to be right-handed. Then the next year, they told me I needed glasses, when I went shooting again. Now I always shoot left handed with prescription glasses.

I was stationed at Marine Barracks MP battalion at China Lake Ca in 1961, one day we had a class from either an engineer from Armalite or Colt now what's called the M 16 rifle, as I remember it was green or brown . The engineer was very enthusiastic stating this was to become the next battle rifle of the US Armed Forces, stating no lubrication was needed from the Artic to the Jungles and that the metallurgy was special and had some sort of silicone built in and had a chrome line chamber . As I remember as the rifle was passed around it did seem slick to the touch . Only base engineers tested it along with a couple Sergeants that shot it. Back then we were issued Ml Garand's, we were not impressed it seemed more like a toy than real . The AR stands for Armalite Rifle not Assault Rifle . I have never found any information on the AR coating the engineer explained but is a fact as I remember .

My first unit still had M16A1's when I arrived in '87, and was issued an old Harrington & Richardson. The only thing that rifle needed was a set A2 handguards, which eventually became a common thing to see on A1's in the late 80's.

Shows that the US is more interested in money and outcome rather than the person behind the weapon! God bless Stoner and thanks small arm solutions for the vid

Always love these historical videos regarding the AR/M16. Thanks for the upload

Loved my M16A2. Loved my M4 as well

As an old guy who shoots paper targets, I don't need a battle rifle anymore, I NEED an A2! Thank you USMC! Mine are a real pleasure to use at the range!

I read an interview in Small Arms Review with David Lutz. David says that if they didn’t put in the burst, the M16A2 would have been a semi -auto only rifle. This was due to the high ammo expenditure in Vietnam. They talked “the powers that be” into the burst knowing that with a simple alteration, it could go full-auto.

Issued the A1 in Army,1974...thought it was a toy ,until range time,Expert badge.

Great content, as always. Does anyone know, was the so-called HBAR heavy barrel ever used by the military? Some say it was part of the original A2 spec but abandoned, while others claim it was purely an invention of the rifle manufacturers who hoped to sell rifles to the civilian market that were cheaper to produce. Thanks!

History of the M16A2 video and its Christmas eve? What a gift!

Thanks again Chris! I love sitting around at Christmas watching your great gun videos. I was a late bloomer with the AR platform but have built several of late Love your insights and opinions! God bless you and yours and have a GREAT holiday season!

I didn’t know all that, thanks for the education.

I'm glad my M16 had full auto. Once our sights were zeroed in we never touched them again. Some of us were capable of hitting human targets at 500 yards.

Fun fact: The A2 flash hider fits into the mosquito net pole holes in the end bars of the cots. So if you had one that was hard to get the bar locked in, just use your M16 lol. Saw way too many fellow Joes do this. Never seemed to cause any issues though.

When i was in Marines (México, 1999-2002), we have the "M-16 A2 (model 701, and 30 rounds magazines)" like Primary Weapon, the mechanics has "Safe, 1 shoot, Full Auto", and be training to make a "Double Tap" over target, for the 5.56mm x .45 NATO small caliber than the 7.62mm x .51 NATO and 7.62mm x .39 caliber. It´s light weight for long range patrols, we can carrying 7 magazines instead the 5 magazines of 7.62mm x .51 NATO caliber weapon (HK G3). Was a basic and not complicated Assault Rifle to use and maintenaince in the field, but now exist better AR like the German HK-416 (M27 IAR), and others. AB

Lol I just inspected over 300 M16A2's to send back to depot. A lot of early Armalite original 601 lowers with no fencing and the role pin at the receiver extension. Also the front pivot pin came completely out. Ive got some pics if interested.

I had an XM-177E1 lower on my basic training rifle in 1984.

I used the Canadian version (The C7) in 2 wars, I FULLY credit it's accuracy for saving my life on many occasions!!! I got out with only some 81mm mortar fragments in one calf...

When I was in MCRD San Diego in '91, I laughed out loud and was quickly confronted by my Drill Instructors. They asked what I thought was so funny, and I told them the forward assist was one of the dumbest ideas I seen on any weapon, as if that bolt doesn't go into battery on its own, then there was something wrong, and forcing it closed was not likely to do much more than make a bigger problem should the bolt jam in the breech, if it was forced. Then I added that the three round burst trigger was too another dumb idea, as it caused drag, and was too complex for a combat weapon. The Drill Instructors, one of whom had been issued an A1 when he joined the Corps, just looked at me and said "Ok private, I have to agree with you, neither of those were an improvement and are laughable, but that is all we have." After boot camp, I rarely carried the M16 again, instead I was able to carry the M60 or M249 SAW.

wow, Christmas Eve vid about M16. Compromise between full automatic and ammo conservation, that's a good one 🤣 Merry Christmas from Indonesia, Chris.

Good video. It’s great to have knowledgeable folks sharing all this info. The historical data is interesting on its own, but a great deal of trial and error can be eliminated for those looking to purchase some version of an AR-15 or to assemble one that best meets their needs.

One quick note that I read years ago as far as the heavier contour of the A2 barrel in the front end was that Marines were bending barrels during bayonet training.

Great video.. as a Combat Marine, I did have a chuckle at Army point of view of adjustable sights is just for qual and has no combat benefit.

around 75 we started seeing rifles cycling back from southeast asia with a tin stamped piece inserted into the fire control area that would prevent flipping the selector into the full position. our guys were breaking them off. we were still using the GAU/5 for K9s on the fenceline and in the alert pad. the clearing barrel was the only thing getting shot and for that they posted an NCO and made us use one yellow mag on post and the rest were regular 20 rounders. they still shot the clearing barrel. i did 4, 12 month tours in the weapons storage area.

want to make the M16/M4 better? several options 1. 30 cal bullet 2. AR-10 3. M-14 4. 20" barrel, get rid of the M4 Carbine 5. better ammo design, similar to the AK-74

I used the M16A1 since I joined the Army in 1980. Was issued the A2 in the late 80s and carried one during Desert Storm. Was issued an A1 when I was in the National Guard. The M16A1s in my unit of the National Guard had been modified with a fire selector block so it couldn’t be fired on fully automatic. Most soldiers aren’t trained well enough to use full auto and waste rounds. So unless you’re assigned as an automatic gunner I agreed with that modification to the rifle.

USMC trained on A2. Worked very hard to obtain Expert. 500 yards with irons is no joke. Anyway, I think training to hit at extreme distances can improve confidence & hits at combat distance. Regardless, I agree the 3 round burst was silly. Go big or stay home.

Absolutely my favorite. All time.