Great pic. Where they represented as select fire on the show?
Moon
Great pic. Where they represented as select fire on the show?
Moon
Windham's retro has an A1 rear sight but an A2 front sight. Presumably there's no zeroing/accuracy issue with this?
deleted.
I’m a relatively young Soldier and the first rifle I was issued was a M16a4. I was not around for the A1, so for me it is not simply nostalgia. For me, the appeal of the retro guns is that they handle so nicely. The M16a2/4 feels unwieldy by comparison with the longer stock and heavier barrel. I also prefer the A1 sights and triangle handguard. The first time I picked one up, I was like “Wow; this is what the M16 was meant to be. How did we stray so far from this?” It was as if the A1 was the more “improved” model, not the A2. Learning about the history is interesting, as well.
Last edited by 1168; 04-13-19 at 14:49. Reason: Clarity
For me, my love affair with the M16 started when I went in to the Marine Corps back in 1978. I was issued my first M16A1. I still have a strong affinity for these and other pre-1980s M16s. I certainly have my share of clones of the newer models as well, but my passion lies in the older models. As I got further into the retro AR world, I have managed to increase my knowledge base exponentially over the years. That has become a real benefit as I am able to share of a lot of that information with guys just getting into this market so as to help them discern which model is which and what features they should have.
"A Bad Day At The Range Is Better Than A Great Day Working"
USMC Force Recon 1978-1984
US Air Force Res. 1995-2004 (Air Transportation)
M16/AR15 shooter since 1978, gun collector and AR builder since 2004
Initially the Army was very reluctant to accept the M16A2, and the fact that the A2 was a Marine initiative may have contributed in some way.
I think many of us have seen the study commissioned by the Army in the mid-1980's detailing all the reasons why they didn't want the A2 - the Army maintained that the A1 was more accurate than the A2 out to 500 yards, the A1 (they claimed) was more reliable than the A2, they didn't agree with the 1:7 twist (maintaining that a 1:9 twist was better, resulted in a longer barrel life, etc.). They thought the three-round burst feature was a mistake, saying that their experience in Vietnam proved that full auto was quite useful in many circumstances.
The Army rather strongly disapproved of the new A2 rear sight, maintaining that it was more suitable for USMC use than Army. They also predicted that it would be easily damaged and prone to getting knocked off zero. They didn't care for the A2 extended buttstock either, saying that it made life difficult for smaller individuals and those wearing body armor. Of course, they considered the A2 profile barrel to be ill-advised, calling it "heavy in the wrong place".
But the Army adopted the A2 anyway, so what did the people that did the study know?
I'm a lifelong civilian so I've never been issued any flavor of M16, but the first time I handled and shot an A1 type rifle (one that I built) it was kind of an "Ah ha!" moment.
I like the lightness and balance of the A1, as well as it's retro-futuristic "spacegun" aesthetic.
Bookmarks