G&R Tactical
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Spike's "Retro"

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    468
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by usmcchet9296 View Post
    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
    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?

    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.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,365
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Slater View Post
    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
    I find it interesting that in that report the Army seemed to strongly favor a 1/9 twist over the 1/7.
    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.
    Last edited by Circle_10; 07-21-19 at 16:49.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,935
    Feedback Score
    0
    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.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,365
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Slater View Post
    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.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,935
    Feedback Score
    0
    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.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,935
    Feedback Score
    0
    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:


  7. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,069
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    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.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,935
    Feedback Score
    0
    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.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2016
    Posts
    6
    Feedback Score
    0
    That’s a score for 884 just wish the barrel profile was a lighter.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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
  •