Printable View
Since the Retro thing has taken hold with a lot of folks, Spike's has their own version. Which is noteworthy since some consider them to be one of the "skateboard shops" of the AR world, with their unusual designs and motifs.
I note that this is an HBAR version. Has the HBAR become associated with the whole "Retro" thing?
https://www.spikestactical.com/colle...0-retro-build/
Stag has a similar offering that they brand as a "Retro" rifle too - 20" barreled flat top with a detachable carry handle. The Stag and this Spike's gun are just M16A4 style rifles, which were phased out of USMC service like what, two years ago? Not even close to fitting my definition of "Retro".
Regarding the HBAR, Spike's Not-Retro probably has a "government profile" barrel rather than an actual heavy barrel. Government profile is only heavy forward of the FSB.
You got me curious about the barrel profile, so I sent an E-Mail to Spike's requesting information. I guess I took it as being a full-length heavy barrel since the rifle weighs 9 pounds.
I wouldn't call that retro but at I do like the 20 inch guns so having another company making them is good I guess.
Honestly if they did it with an a2 upper I'd say it was retro. An a4 upper with a carry handle though no.
DS Arms has their "Service Series" A4. Although it also features an HBAR profile:
https://www.dsarms.com/p-17082-dsarm...-upgrades.aspx
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccosby
Yeah, 20 inch ARs are great guns and still very relevant for civilian use if nothing else. Just don't call these Spike's guns Retros. Also if they are actually true HBAR profile, that's a big turn off for me too.
Knowing Spike's, they'll probably tell you it's "proprietary information".Quote:
Originally Posted by Slater
If it was REALLY retro, they'd sell it for $575 - like the PWA HBAR I bought in 1991. :p
It might be a decent rifle, but that spider logo is just fugly.
Received a reply from Spike's customer service rep regarding the barrel profile on this particular mode. This is a full-length heavy barrel.
This is Spike's HBAR:
https://www.spikestactical.com/colle...arrel-hbar-20/
Looks like a hefty chunk of CMV under those handguards. Probably a "no go" for many folks.
As someone who handles and shoots actual Retro style 20" pencil barreled ARs regularly, the barrel profile on the Spike's Not-Retro truly looks like the stuff of nightmares.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slater
Now I'm really not clear what Spike's was thinking with this.
With all that weight forward, looks like the rifle might be a bit unbalanced. But, evidently Spike's sells enough of these to keep them in their catalog.
With regard to the HBAR configuration itself, most folks I've talked to say that it really isn't any more accurate than other profiles. The heavier contour reduces or eliminates barrel "whip". I don't ever hear that term mentioned any more, so I'm guessing that it mainly applies to competition shooting?
And don't forget - with this you have a lot sturdier barrel for bayonet practice :D
Go back and review why the USMC mandated the barrel change(s) to the A2 and you’ll see the benefits of that design. You’ll also see the drawbacks. I have a Colt AR15A4 rifle but I prefer pencil barrels. Pencil barrels heat faster but also cool faster.
This has been discussed before, but the Army didn't agree with the A2 barrel profile. From their 1986 study:
"The M16A2 "heavy barrel" is heavy in the wrong place. The problem with the M16A1 is a temporary bending of the barrel which occurs from the stress of various firing positions causing bullet strike to vary, e.g., the difference between a bipod firing position, and a position using a hasty sling will change the strike of the bullet at 300 meters by three to four feet or more. The "bending" takes place between the receiver and the sling swivel/ bayonet stud. The M16A2 barrel is "heavy" only from the sling swivel to the muzzle--where it can have no effect on the bending problem."
In fact, the Army apparently found very little to like about the M16A2. Maybe they didn't care for the fact that it was a USMC initiative:
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a168577.pdf
My old Bushmaster A2 is .Gov profile. I have also shot the same gun with HBAR. Unless you're bench resting in some kind of competition, HBAR should be avoided.
Bushmaster used to (and maybe still does?) market their HBAR's as competition guns.
Too much unnecessary weight?Quote:
Originally Posted by Uni-Vibe
Over the years I've known a few guys that owned HBAR's (Bushies and other brands). They weren't competition guys - just weekend target shooters/plinkers. The ones I talked to seemed satisfied with the gun's accuracy, but noted that they wouldn't want to lug the thing around all day.
I think so. My A2 with govt profile weighs 7.7 pounds unloaded. Not at all unmanageable. Not quite as handy as a M4, but you could move and shoot. But the HBAR version weighs close to 9 pounds. And all that weight is out front. Fine for bench resting, but a bit much for offhand shooting. And a long way from the original M16A1.
Well the army can’t shoot for shit so their opinion matters little. Shot expert all three times I went to qual with the A2 and all three times shot the 10 zone 9 out of 10 times at 500 yardsQuote:
Originally Posted by Slater
My first two times qualifying in the Marines, was with the M16A1, then the rest was with the A2. I shot expert each time, with each rifle, and never really paid much attention to the details, I just put the bullets where they needed to be.
I do remember the first time I got issued the A2 though...I remember thinking "this thing is beefy".
As a 22 year Army Infantry Soldier, I would, in general, tend to agree with this. I believe the Marine Corps does a better job of teaching the fundamentals of marksmanship than the Army. I think I was fortunate in the fact that one of my DIs was sniper qualified, and the other a Ranger, so we had the basics drilled into us relentlessly. Yet, I've seen numbers of former Marine Infantryman have trouble qualifying the Army rifle qualification course. Additionally, and this isn't a dig, but hasn't the Marine Corps been losing to the Army, and others, in regular sniper competitions?Quote:
Originally Posted by usmcchet9296
I'm old enough to remember when there weren't enough M16a2 rifles to go around and once we qualified, we traded them out for M16a1 rifles. I carried a standard M16a2 through the 1990s, and the weight didn't bother me. It is a good rifle and I, for one, would have no issue using one on the two way range.
I find it interesting that in that report the Army seemed to strongly favor a 1/9 twist over the 1/7.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slater
Although this would have been in the days before 70+gr 5.56 loads, or at least the military use of such loads anyway. I don't know to what degree they were used in the civilian sector at the time.
Yeah, the Army's opinion (at the time, anyway) was that:
"Reducing barrel twist to 1:9 will result in less stress on the bullet, barrel life will be improved, and barrel fouling will be reduced."
Don't know if that was an accurate assessment or not.
I think there's a some info in the Black Rifle Retrospective book about 1/9 being considered the true "optimum" twist rate for the A2 as well, however this was the first time I had seen an actual report from the Army to that effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slater
It's interesting that the Army's conclusion was:
"The rifle which has been type classified and designated the M16A2 is considered to be unsuitable for Army use, and purchase under any circumstances is not recommended."
Looking back on three decades of M16 history, many of the points made by the Army seem valid in hindsight. They thought the elimination of the full-auto capability was a mistake, considering their Vietnam experience.
They didn't agree with the longer buttstock, especially when factoring in smaller individuals.
One point which could probably be debated: They considered the M16A1 firing M193 ammo to be more accurate out to 500 meters than the M16A2 firing M855 ammo. But their testing did indicate such.
There's a whole other thread on this, but they thought that the M16A2sighting system was unsuitable for Army use, and potentially too fragile and complicated.
Decided to pick up one of these (I'm somewhat of an HBAR guy). Was looking at the Rock River A4 HBAR as well. The Spike's barrel was the deciding factor as it's 1:7, 4150 CMV and chrome lined. The Rock River is 1:9, non-chromed, and 4140 (I think). Although I have heard that RRA rifles can be quite accurate.
I don't know who supplies Spike's hard cases. but they look pretty cool. Sling and mag weren't included:
https://i.imgur.com/5X6jO44l.jpg
Way cool, Slater. Do you mind telling us what you paid?
The 20 inch is making a comeback. Windham, Colt and others are now making A4 again.
When I take my old Bushmaster M16A2 type to the range, the tricked out M4 crowd want to shoot it, and they smile when they hand it back.
I put this on layaway with Bud's for $884 shipped. That was a couple months ago and they've since jumped to $1021, although better deals might be found elsewhere.
That’s a score for 884 just wish the barrel profile was a lighter.