AR-15 A2/A4s

[Basher]

Just remember, if you start talking in absolutes and declaratives, there is almost always be somebody who is more absolute than you.

A lot of gun types might be surprised what a Shooter can do with a detach carry handle A2.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised, but… it just would LOOK better w/ an A2 upper. Because reasons.

 

[DadSmith]

Meh. Not really, at least not now.

Sounds good to type it though, doesn't it.

Velocity wise it is. Using 75-77gr bullets.
Going 22 or 24" doesn't add a whole lot extra Velocity, but dropping down to 18 and 16" you definitely see a good drop in Velocity.
I've shot 16, and 20" barrels, and accuracy wise out to 400yds I can't tell much difference. However, the Velocity for 75-77gr in the 20" gives it superior ballistics over the 16" out past 400yds.

 

[natdscott]

Velocity wise it is. Using 75-77gr bullets.
Going 22 or 24" doesn't add a whole lot extra Velocity, but dropping down to 18 and 16" you definitely see a good drop in Velocity.
I've shot 16, and 20" barrels, and accuracy wise out to 400yds I can't tell much difference. However, the Velocity for 75-77gr in the 20" gives it superior ballistics over the 16" out past 400yds.

Read his post more carefully. He was discussing mostly the design of the rifle, as I interpreted it. I also interpreted that the poster is a Stoner-worshipper. Nothing wrong with that, but there have been made some very legitimate improvements to the entire system and components that Stoner could not have foreseen.

+1 or +2 gas with a 22-26" tube and a full weight carrier does indeed perform better ballistically than an A2, is very easy on components and shooters, and can be made to do things the A2 cannot. Or should not, anyway.

A folder lower, carbine gas 12.5 with a good can and a switchblock--while ballistically inferior--can also be made to do things the A2 cannot. Or should not, anyway.

I get it. I've pushed the A2/A4 800 yards past where it is most effective. But the .223 AR is not best suited to 20"...that was just chosen as the best compromise between a lot of objective factors, and a few subjectives and suppositions.

 

[two70]

Nostalgia, nothing but nostalgia. Carry handles, detachable or otherwise, are outdated and IMO, pointless and silly. I generally prefer longer barrels over the super short craze but I don't really see a good reason to go over 18" for most purposes in which I would use an AR. As a civilian, there's no reason to rely on velocity to make fmjs sort of work. There's no reason to rely on fmjs at all.

 

[Tombs]

Nostalgia, nothing but nostalgia. Carry handles, detachable or otherwise, are outdated and IMO, pointless and silly. I generally prefer longer barrels over the super short craze but I don't really see a good reason to go over 18" for most purposes in which I would use an AR. As a civilian, there's no reason to rely on velocity to make fmjs sort of work. There's no reason to rely on fmjs at all.

Carry handles mount optics just fine.

The funny part is that it's roughly at the eye level people are seeking with these new 1.93" high rise mounts. What's old is new again.

 

[Tombs]

that was just chosen as the best compromise between a lot of objective factors

Congratulations, you now understand.

 

[Basher]

Carry handles mount optics just fine.

The funny part is that it's roughly at the eye level people are seeking with these new 1.93" high rise mounts. What's old is new again.

This guy ain’t wrong lol.

I get it, a carry handle limits options, and cuts out a lot of versatility if you think you’ll be using the same upper for other things down the road (1.93” may be good for RDS, but it’s not really that great for medium powered and above optics). But if that’s what someone had, it certainly wouldn’t be useless.

For me though, yeah. I just want a cloner and something light to go play with. A true A2 may not be light, but an A1… mmmmmm…

 

[natdscott]

Congratulations, you now understand.

Indeed, though my "understanding" of the M16- and AR15-A2 sure as f*** didn't come from INGO.

 

[Tombs]

This guy ain’t wrong lol.

I get it, a carry handle limits options, and cuts out a lot of versatility if you think you’ll be using the same upper for other things down the road (1.93” may be good for RDS, but it’s not really that great for medium powered and above optics). But if that’s what someone had, it certainly wouldn’t be useless.

For me though, yeah. I just want a cloner and something light to go play with. A true A2 may not be light, but an A1… mmmmmm…

I think the TA44, TA47, and TA33 make the best options for carry handle mounting. I went with a TA33 on my 20"

Keeps your irons useable, gives you enough magnification to see better, and provides a way to aim in lower light.

 

[two70]

Carry handles mount optics just fine.

The funny part is that it's roughly at the eye level people are seeking with these new 1.93" high rise mounts. What's old is new again.

I'm not a fan of high rise mounts either and prefer to keep optics mounts as simple as possible. If for some strange reason I need a carry handle, an optic in a solid mount will work in a pinch just fine.

 

[Basher]

The cool thing is this thread’s about BOTH the A2 AND the A4. So both views (carry handle/no carry handle) belong here.

I don’t prefer taller mounts either, generally. I’ll admit I don’t have enough time behind a 1.93” to really know how I feel about it, but in general I run a lower 1/3 or 1.7” and find it to work great. Might have to try a 1.93” again (or build an A1/A2 again and throw an optic on the handle) to see what I think.

 

[Tactically Fat]

Someone's gotta vibe-check the AR-500 "body armor"...

 

[FireBirdDS]

Just ordered an Aero 20” upper! Odd that they class it as an A2 when it is more like an A4 with the detachable rear sight. I would’ve love to have gotten my hands on an actual (fixed carry handle sight) A2 upper but most places I look they’re either out of stock and/or stupid expensive ($800+).

Regardless, I expect I’ll be happy enough with the Aero upper.

Is the A4 classification purely a matter of the detachable carry handle rear sight or are there other characteristics?

 

[kennedy759]

my first and only is an Armalite 20" flattop, with a 3x9 leupold, owned it over 25 years. Love the 10 rd mag for target shooting from a bench, my high cap mags get in the way.

 

[wcd]

Nostalgia, nothing but nostalgia. Carry handles, detachable or otherwise, are outdated and IMO, pointless and silly. I generally prefer longer barrels over the super short craze but I don't really see a good reason to go over 18" for most purposes in which I would use an AR. As a civilian, there's no reason to rely on velocity to make fmjs sort of work. There's no reason to rely on fmjs at all.

Nostalgia, is that a bad thing. Although before my time, I do think they have appeal, this coming from a Mini 14 guy.

 

[BigMoose]

Well there are 24 inch ARs.

But this is as retro as they ever came. Has a taper pined gas block with no front sight tower.

The pre remington Bushmaster sold these as the "Varminter". Guys I hog hunt has one.. its unwieldy unless its sitting on a bipod. But man ohh man will these make .223/5.56 cook!

 

[edporch]

I have a "green label" Colt AR-15 A2 HBAR with bayonet lug I bought new in the 1980's before Colt started their late 1980's ban on civilian sales.

It's a great accurate rifle, still in excellent condition that I've shot sparingly over the years, and never regretted buying.

 

[Ark]

Nostalgia, nothing but nostalgia. Carry handles, detachable or otherwise, are outdated and IMO, pointless and silly. I generally prefer longer barrels over the super short craze but I don't really see a good reason to go over 18" for most purposes in which I would use an AR. As a civilian, there's no reason to rely on velocity to make fmjs sort of work. There's no reason to rely on fmjs at all.

I think you can do a lot of good work with carry handle irons. The A2 sights are IMO some of the best irons ever put on an infantry rifle.

I also think something as simple as a 4x ACOG is a massive lethality enhancement over irons and history had born this out. Optics are king in the real world. It's not that irons are awful, it's that optics are amazing.

 

[wcd]

I think you can do a lot of good work with carry handle irons. The A2 sights are IMO some of the best irons ever put on an infantry rifle.

I also think something as simple as a 4x ACOG is a massive lethality enhancement over irons and history had born this out. Optics are king in the real world. It's not that irons are awful, it's that optics are amazing.

Your right. Not that Iron Sights are bad, in a dynamic evolving situation Yeah a quality optic gets you on target faster when it matters.

 

[wcd]

my first and only is an Armalite 20" flattop, with a 3x9 leupold, owned it over 25 years. Love the 10 rd mag for target shooting from a bench, my high cap mags get in the way.

Fixed it for you Standard capacity Mags get in the way.