Honestly, I have no idea why people write these things. Nothing new, just regurgitation, and not even the interesting parts of the story.

 

Well, it was new to me, and I thought the tomahawk was interesting if nothing else. ✔

 

The story made a lot of good points, but I still prefer the A2 style sights. It was a pain to adjust the front sight for elevation.

 

Anyone who states that the A1 sights were good has lost all of my respect.

 

after doing my A1 clone build the first time i shot it i thought the same thing , even my A2 sights are hard on my eyes , the forum recommended this for my A2 MISO Lens AR-15 Full Conversion Kit so payday im ordering a set for the colt Match Target , if i fall in love the Bushy DMC will be getting a upgrade as well , the Bushmaster has NM sights so is better than the Colt , but i need help

but i agree , A1 sights are crude , i cant think of a better description

 

Sigh. The M14 is becoming cool again, so the M16A2 is becoming the new Internet punching bag. I wonder how many of the people doing the punching have non-adjustable rear sights on their rifles?

 

If you zero an M16A2 the way the rear sight was designed to be adjusted, you will see the sights are far superior to the M16/M16A1 sights.

The way the sights were designed to work was you set aperture to the small aperture and set the elevation drum to 8/3. With an Allen key back the setscrew out of the elevation index until it locks the index to the upper receiver and releases the elevation drum. Then you zero the rifle at 300 meters by moving the elevation drum CW or CCW as required. When you are finished you screw the set screw back down to lock the elevation index to the drum. Then you flip the aperture to the big hole and you are zeroed to 200 with the big aperture or what ever the index shows with the small aperture.

No fiddling with the front sight post, which should remain with its flange flush with the shelf of the front sight. And, 1 MOA (approx) refinements in elevation can be done by individual clicks on the elevation drum.

 

I agree the A2 is a better system for accuracy but i still like the A1 sights better. The A1 is just so simple to use for me.

 

The C7 Was Everything the M16A2 Should Have Been - GAT Daily (Guns Ammo Tactical)

View attachment 594363

View attachment 594364

^^^ Note the tomahawk.

Do you by chance use the Elcan scope like the one in the photo? Ive heard those are pretty darn nice and very rugged.

 

They are also heavy, it than way they are a lot like the British SUIT sight.

 

This article is full of 💩 crap. The C7 was/is basically an M16A2 with A1 sights and an A2 brass deflector. And sans the 3 round burst feature. I have a real deal Canadian/Colt C7 upper on one of my M16 clones.

And yeah, the Elcan Spector DR was/is the bee’s knees, I just couldn’t get over the price being twice as much as an ACOG RCO.

 

Even Hellen Keller likes the A2 sights better than A1 sights.
That said, I'm sure some of you like oil lamps over electric lighting so press on.

 

You could successfully argue that Diemaco as a rifle manufacturer was more consistent but the A2 accusations are largely made by people who don’t know how to use great sights and those who don’t want to. The stock length and barrel profile are merely personal preferences of which you get precious few of once you sign the contract. The C7 was fine for the Canadians but not for us.

 

Maybe they thought the A2 sights were too “complicated“ for Canadian solders. 🤣

But I definitely agree with getting rid of the 3-round burst because it absolutely sucked! It was absolutely worthless, you squeezed the trigger and you might get two rounds, and your next squeeze might get off one round until you lift your finger to allow the mechanism to reset, and in no particular order either. Some units were begging to bend the springs & pawls out of the way to disable it.

 

The only thing that makes an A2 an A2 is the barrel, not the furniture, not the sights, not the 3 round burst.
An A2 has a 1/7 twist, optimized for the then new M885 bullet.
Plenty of "A1"s were upgraded with the new barrel.
Does not apply to the Model 600 series

 

The only thing that makes an A2 an A2 is the barrel, not the furniture, not the sights, not the 3 round burst.
An A2 has a 1/7 twist, optimized for the then new M885 bullet.
Plenty of "A1"s were upgraded with the new barrel.
Does not apply to the Model 600 series
View attachment 594469

Yes, the Army did put the 1-7 twist barrel on A1s during rebuilds, but these also got new uppers, new stocks, three round burst, and a new stamp on the side of the magazine well that said "M16A2".

M16A1s were fully upgraded to A2 configuration and remarked as such, or they were left as M16A1s. The furniture was backwards compatible and field replaceable, so the "A2" handguards, grip, and butt stock were rolled into the M16A1 configuration as preferred parts.

 

A2 barrel and burst mechanism are the two low points of the design.

 

What makes an M16A2 an M16A2 are all the parts with Useable on Codes of AR8 in TM 9-1005-319-23&P:

. Barrel and Front Sight Assembly, P/N 9349124
. . Post, Front Sight, P/N 9349056
. . Sight, Front, P/N 9349054
. . Barrel and Barrel Extension Assembly, P/N 9399054
. . Index, Elevation, P/N 9349066
. . Screw, Index, P/N 9349065
. . Spring, P/N 9349070
. . Receiver, Upper, P/N 9349063
. . Spring, P/N 9349070
. . Knob Elevation, P/N 9349067
. . Base, Rear Sight, P/N 9349074
. . Knob, Windage, P/N 9349077
. . Aperture, P/N 9349075
. . Screw, Windage, P/N 9349076
. . Spring, P/N 120119987
. Receiver, Lower, P/N 9349102
. . Lever, Lock-Release, P/N 9349114
. . Trigger Assembly, P/N 9349115
. . Lever, Lock-Release, Burst, P/N 9349113
. . Cam, Burst, P/N 9349108
. . Spring, Hammer, P/N 9349109

 

What makes an M16A2 an M16A2 are all the parts with Useable on Codes of AR8 in TM 9-1005-319-23&P:

. Barrel and Front Sight Assembly, P/N 9349124
. . Post, Front Sight, P/N 9349056
. . Sight, Front, P/N 9349054
. . Barrel and Barrel Extension Assembly, P/N 9399054
. . Index, Elevation, P/N 9349066
. . Screw, Index, P/N 9349065
. . Spring, P/N 9349070
. . Receiver, Upper, P/N 9349063
. . Spring, P/N 9349070
. . Knob Elevation, P/N 9349067
. . Base, Rear Sight, P/N 9349074
. . Knob, Windage, P/N 9349077
. . Aperture, P/N 9349075
. . Screw, Windage, P/N 9349076
. . Spring, P/N 120119987
. Receiver, Lower, P/N 9349102
. . Lever, Lock-Release, P/N 9349114
. . Trigger Assembly, P/N 9349115
. . Lever, Lock-Release, Burst, P/N 9349113
. . Cam, Burst, P/N 9349108
. . Spring, Hammer, P/N 9349109

By my count most of the parts listed above relate to the front and rear sights don’t they?🤐

 

The C7 is a fantastic service rifle. Except for the sights….

 

Henry Chan of 9-Hole Reviews has a video where he explains why he thinks the A2 sights are superior even as combat sights.
Even after watching his video, I'm still convinced that, while the A2 sights are great sights for target shooting, the A1 sights are better for combat. Besides being simpler and more knock-resistant, a trooper can zero them, then learn to use basic marksmanship offsets to get hits, rather than guessing and fiddling with knobs.
The A2 profile barrel is silly; I'm surprised that even the KD experts went along, since the light profile barrel can be bent with a tight target sling.

 

Henry Chan of 9-Hole Reviews has a video where he explains why he thinks the A2 sights are superior even as combat sights.
Even after watching his video, I'm still convinced that, while the A2 sights are great sights for target shooting, the A1 sights are better for combat. Besides being simpler and more knock-resistant, a trooper can zero them, then learn to use basic marksmanship offsets to get hits, rather than guessing and fiddling with knobs.
The A2 profile barrel is silly; I'm surprised that even the KD experts went along, since the light profile barrel can be bent with a tight target sling.

Bent?

NO.

Deflected. Yes.

The sling wasn't the only cause of deflection, but the bipod. There was a significant vertical shift of POI depending on whether you put your hand on top of the stock and pushed down to stabilized, or put your hand under the the stock and pushed back.

The "heavy" barrel was adopted because the M16 was perceived as having a "bendable" barrel and they wanted a perception of strength. (Which had some unintended consequences as all the MILES transmitters, now didn't fit. The M4 Carbine kept the profile just so all the MILES transmitters they just modified didn't have to be altered, again.)

 

I’d say the M16A3 was everything the A2 should’ve been. I’ve never seen one with my own eyes and I’m not really sure they actually exist, but I think that was it. Only time we ever used the burst feature is when we had to expend any remaining ammunition before we could go home. The burst was fun to be fair. The damn thing would cycle at over 900rpm (it would seem) and magazines could be emptied rather quickly. The M16 at those weights with a full auto sear must be quite controllable.

 

"Bent?

NO.

Deflected. Yes. "--lysander
Thank you. That better describes the thought I was trying to express.

 

Not quite sure what the rifle designation I was issued in the army early eighties was. It was an A1 carry handle, triangle hand guards, bird cage flash hider forward assist and brass deflector.

 

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/09/30/canadian-c7-different-m16/

this is a good read check it out.

 

What the M16A4 should have been standardized as. Adjustable stock pretty much all that was needed. 20” barrel to take advantage of velocity & range, good optic, rail for needed things. Throw in some Mk262 ammo and it was a winner.