View Full Version : Buttstocks: A1 vs A2
Looking at some old DTIC reports on the M16, going to the A2 length stock had the advantage of "conformity to human factors standards by lengthening stock (alleviating bruised eyebrows, noses, and lips)". This according to USMC feedback on the subject. According to the report:
"The decision to lengthen the stock was made after all portability tests (entering and exiting aircraft/vehicles/buildings, etc.) had been completed and without consideration for body armor, field jacket with liner, load bearing equipment, etc. This change results in the M16 trigger to butt plate length (the test report states 14 inches) being approximately one inch longer than the Springfield, M1, or M14. The Army problem was that the existing stock was already too long for many soldiers (mostly females)."
Out of curiosity, how would using an M16A1 (or AR-15 with A1 stock) result in facial bruising? I've never known anyone that had such issues with the A1.
It's from dropping to prone real fast. I know a Marine who chipped a tooth doing this.
That's a goofy reason to put such a damned long stock on the gun. They should train soldiers to roll the rifle sideways when dropping.
thopkins22
09-09-08, 16:54
They got confused and thought that more people were 6'8''. The A1 MIGHT have been an okay compromise, but still too long(even for a 20" gun) in my opinion.
And bruises? Sounds like they needed to get rid of all their instructors not the stocks.
demigod, why doesn't tooth chipping seem to be a problem with collapsible stocks?
Sounds like they needed to get rid of all their instructors not the stocks.
I don't know if they need to get rid of the instructors, but they might consider a change in training. As well as being hard on one's head; hitting the ground like that isn't good for your mag body and mag base plate. (the mag inserted into the weapon)
I just roll my rifle so the ejection side is facing up when I hit prone quickly... then bring the rifle back upright.
This according to USMC feedback on the subject. According to the report:
Referencing "some old DTIC reports" is not a way to present info you want to be considered in any way valid. Bear in mind that nobody on the operational side of any branch cares what DTIC has to say, compared to Crane or Picatinney, unless compelled to. Purely technical, with no prac-app validity.
When you say "old," how old?
Feedback from what USMC entity? MCCDC? MCCLL? The Warfighting Lab? MCB Quantico WTBn? The Marine Gunner's Symposium? A particular unit(s)? If so, infantry or POGs? The red cell bubbas at the Institute for Defense Analysis? What Marines?
I'd like to know, because the general (and CURRENT, BTW) consensus amongst MCSC trainers, WTBn Combat Marksman Trainers, and the MTU instructors is that the throw length of the M16A2/A4 stock is too long, as a result of: the assault load and its bulk; the fact that our median population is 5'9", 165# males and not the 6'2" Generic Body Types you find in Color Guards; etc.
We question why the option to put the M4 buttstock on the A4 wasn't considered viable. Our DMR variants have a variable throw-length capability, so why not the second 50% of our basic individual armament inventory? Nobody in IWS has managed to answer that for us without stammering, yet.
Link to your source, please. Something's hinky.
Original Poster is correct.
In September 2005 Fort Jackson, South Carolina's G3 sent a formal complaint to the Army G3 and TRADOC that the A2 stock is too long for training the majority of the Soldiers in the middle of "The Bell Curve" now that everyone's wearing Interceptor and plates (and at the time the PASGT helmet). He was burning up three or more times his authorized ammo getting Soldiers qualified because of the number of first-time qualification No-Gos.
Marines tested the A2 without consideration for winter clothing, body armor (no plates back in 1982-83) or MOPP suits. The Army posted a reclama on why they didn't want the M16A2.
In 2006, TRADOC and Accessions Command asked about replacing the A2 stock with the M4 stock (as with the Canadian C7A2).
Both Colt Canada and FN presented A4s with M4 stocks for test and possible adoption as a fleet-wide Modification Work Order.
Program Manager Small Arms at Picatinny is the lead for testing.
Three years later, nothing, nada, zip. Typical of the Army Labs (welfare for Engineers and Ph.Ds).
Link to report in question:
http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA168577&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf
As far as I can tell, it's basically an Army-commissioned report detailing all the reasons they didn't want the M16A2.
Correct, that was part of the Army's and Infantry Center's official rebuttal to Congress why they wanted to keep/rebuild M16A1s rather than buy A2s.
The Army does not teach Joes to adjust their elevation and wind once setting Battlesight Zero, and even back then during the Reagan years in the Cold War we thought we were going to fight Ivan -- everyone in the Army was very familiar with the thick MOPP suit and knew the rifle was long.
The A2 was the new weapon in production and the Army lost.
LTC (USMC, Retired) Dave Lutz has commented on some rifle forums that the Marines' intent in keeping the A1 length buffer tube was to make length-of-pull optional with either the issue A2 stock, or to retro-fit an A1 stock (5/8ths inch shorter).
Unfortunately in military procedures stuff gets lost in the wash and the fixed A2 length is standard for the M16A2 and A4.
Heavy Metal
09-10-08, 13:16
I don't know if they need to get rid of the instructors, but they might consider a change in training. As well as being hard on one's head; hitting the ground like that isn't good for your mag body and mag base plate. (the mag inserted into the weapon)
I just roll my rifle so the ejection side is facing up when I hit prone quickly... then bring the rifle back upright.
In BT, at then end of a 3-5 sec rush, I was taught to stop, roll forwad on the ground with my knees while braking the motion the butstock of the rifle.
Then fall forward and roll left mounting the butt to the shoulder. Then roll right and at that point I was proned out.
What do you guys think of the A1 stock from cmmg?
LTC Lutz has said that they wanted to make the A2 stock even longer, but its final length was limited by the rifle racks. He also said that keeping the A1 length was not a viable option because he wouldn't be able to convince his superiors to switch to the stronger buttstock composition.
Anyone know if the current A2 buttstock is made of the same material it originally was?
What do you guys think of the A1 stock from cmmg?
Probably the same one that DPMS sells. I've been thinking of picking one up. I have one A2 stocked rifle that I need to get changed out.
Robb Jensen
09-11-08, 09:06
Anyone know if the current A2 buttstock is made of the same material it originally was?
Do you mean the 1983 design used on the M16A2 or the A1 brittle stuff?
I was referring to the A2. Just curious if the buttstock material has been changed/improved in the last 20 years.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.