G&R Tactical
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

Thread: Spike's "Retro"

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,935
    Feedback Score
    0
    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?
    Last edited by Slater; 06-03-19 at 10:45.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,935
    Feedback Score
    0
    And don't forget - with this you have a lot sturdier barrel for bayonet practice

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Gulf Coast Texas
    Posts
    392
    Feedback Score
    0
    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.
    Last edited by GRA556; 06-04-19 at 09:59.
    Never forget every word you spoke when you took your oath of office.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,935
    Feedback Score
    0
    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
    Last edited by Slater; 06-04-19 at 09:56.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,046
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    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.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,935
    Feedback Score
    0
    Bushmaster used to (and maybe still does?) market their HBAR's as competition guns.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,935
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Uni-Vibe View Post
    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.
    Too much unnecessary weight?

    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.
    Last edited by Slater; 06-04-19 at 11:51.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,046
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    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.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Texas formerly SoCal
    Posts
    101
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Slater View Post
    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
    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 yards

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    195
    Feedback Score
    0
    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".
    Good night Chesty...wherever you are.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •