so im building an AR. i was looking into info about various aspects, twists rates etc.
i came across this guide.
http://forums.officer.com/showthread.php?t=81462
while the posters seems overtly biased against the A2 as a whole rifle. but i was wondering if theres any truth to this stock theory. was there a training change from the A1 to A2 in terms of stance?
i came across this guide.
http://forums.officer.com/showthread.php?t=81462
A1 Stock
The original M16A1 came with a fixed stock that fit well into the role of a combat arm. It fit most people, and allowed the shooter to get a proper combat position on the stock, touching the tip of the nose to the charging handle to serve as a reference point. This provided a consistant "cheek weld." It is important that the shooter can face the target and bring up his rifle straight in front of him, which positions his body armor towards the threat, giving him maximum protection.
A2 Stock
When the Army Marksmanship Unit developed the M16A2 to win shooting competitions, they incorporated a longer "target" stock. This fixed stock is designed to be used while "bladed" to the target. The shooter does not throw the rifle up in front of him, but brings it up alongside his body and stands perpendicular to the target. This is no good on a combat arm, as this exposes the "armpit" of your body armor towards the threat. This stock (along with the entire rifle) is for target shooters, not warriors. If you have an A2 stock, shuck it! There are better options.
while the posters seems overtly biased against the A2 as a whole rifle. but i was wondering if theres any truth to this stock theory. was there a training change from the A1 to A2 in terms of stance?