AR15 A2/A3

I love the A4 for nostalgic reasons. Trained on one in Basic at Ft Benning in 2002 and carried one in Iraq in 2003 and 2005 (though my rifle in 2005 was the SDM-R version). I built one that I keep with the carry handle. I love that rifle.

That being said. For patrol work on duty I highly prefer the handier, shorter, and lighter Colt 6920 that I use.

When I built my AR, I ended up buying what came on sale, and so ended up with a PSA carbine lower, mated to a PSA 20" 1/7 flat top barreled upper. I suppose you would call it an A3?

My goal is to hit soda cans at a few hundred yards. the rifle works, but I have yet to shoot it past 50'.

Pictured also is my M92 pistol.

I only have one AR and it is a Colt HBAR full stock, 20 inch barrel that I bought new in 1987 for about $675. My motivation was it was as close as I could get to my M-16 I carried in the jungles of Nam. I wish it had the triangular hand guards. To me there is just something about the way the rifle lays in your hand that makes it seem right. Of course they can get a might warm and you may get pinched but I still miss them.

When I take mine to the range I sometimes catch the younger crown with flat tops and such kind of rolling their eyes at the old guy with the old gun. I do have a removable scope and just added a Harris bi-pod but nothing else has been changed. I just cannot shoot any I have tried with the collapsible stock. It just doesn't feel right so I will just stick with what I have.

So to paraphrase a bit, this is my rifle, there are others like it but this one is mine. To answer your question, no, you are not the only one but to each his own.

Need to seriously add an A2 soon to my collection

Spade5 said:

I only have one AR and it is a Colt HBAR full stock, 20 inch barrel that I bought new in 1987 for about $675. My motivation was it was as close as I could get to my M-16 I carried in the jungles of Nam. I wish it had the triangular hand guards. To me there is just something about the way the rifle lays in your hand that makes it seem right. Of course they can get a might warm and you may get pinched but I still miss them.

When I take mine to the range I sometimes catch the younger crown with flat tops and such kind of rolling their eyes at the old guy with the old gun. I do have a removable scope and just added a Harris bi-pod but nothing else has been changed. I just cannot shoot any I have tried with the collapsible stock. It just doesn't feel right so I will just stick with what I have.

So to paraphrase a bit, this is my rifle, there are others like it but this one is mine. To answer your question, no, you are not the only one but to each his own.

Click to expand...

New manufactured triangle handguards are being made again. They may not be Colt, but it is an option.

https://www.brownells.com/rifle-par...ls/ar-15-retro-handguard-sets-prod109337.aspx

chicharrones said:

New manufactured triangle handguards are being made again. They may not be Colt, but it is an option.

https://www.brownells.com/rifle-par...ls/ar-15-retro-handguard-sets-prod109337.aspx

Click to expand...

This isn't pointed at you so much as other THR readers and Googlers.

As a guy who owns a pair, I figure I might as well throw in my 2 cents. They are about as cheap as you're going to get for non-beat to crap triangle handguards, but they look and feel like a plastic toy IMO. They're thin and seem really ABS-ey ,and don't have the gloss of the originals.

I put some on my retro build, and they work well for that. I'm not a purist, I just wanted a "look and feel" type of A1 clone for plinking. Brownells handguards cost half of what I'd spent on real triangle handguards in good condition, not to mention I'd then need a real buttstock and a real pistol grip or things would just look weird. And then those would look weird on my matte black A2-style upper and lower receivers (it still has the A1 sights though). So $80 for OK imitation furniture on an OK imitation gun sounded great to me. But if you are chasing the look and feel of the Real Deal, the Brownells stuff probably won't match up.

I should also mention - the handguards feel cheap when you fondle or heft the gun (kind of like "I paid $40 for this?"), but they lay nicely in your hand and you forget about them when shooting.

https://www.uscollectorsordnance.com/armory-upgrade-furniture

Original refurbished triangle handguards, A1 buttstocks, and pistol grips...

M

Mosin Bubba said:

Something about the AR makes a wood stock look wrong. I think it's the matte aluminum receiver.

Click to expand...

The wood shaped like the triangular handguard profile has some serious "retro" in its look.

But, yeah, medium walnut color and the matte aluminum are an odd mix.

But, replicate that slab-sided fore end (magpul?) in say, dark stained mahogany, or maybe ironwood, and that might be the ticket. That, or go the other way, to something super-pale, like white ash, pecan, even lime, might be cool, too.

chicharrones said:

New manufactured triangle handguards are being made again.

Click to expand...

Three-prong flash suppressors, too.
Add in an upper w/o forward bolt assist, and you are really retro.

Now, I'm wanting to remember seeing that one of the reputable suppliers was stocking complete A1 uppers in correct configuration. Of course, CRS prevents remembering any other details beyond that. Sigh

This is a Whiteoak upper so it isn't a true A2, but it is very close looking at the outside.

My fondness for the M16/AR-15 platform starts with the Vietnam era weapons and goes all the way to what we issued out of the arms room on 9/11/01- M16A2s and M4s with iron sights only and no other doodads. I am not a fan of the current over-Barbieized guns that attempt to compensate for poor marksmanship skills with "gadget" crutches.

JO JO said:

just curious anyone still like and or prefer the old school A2 or even an A3 , fixed stock , 20in barrel ,full size AR15 service rifle or am
in the minority camp ?

Click to expand...

I own 5 AR type rifles with 4 being AR 15 and a single AR 10. I believe the below image reflects my taste in the AR rifles. I am just one nostalgic SOB I guess.



Left to right a pair of Colt SP1 rifles, a Colt Sporter target, a mix master with a 24" match barrel and finally my match AR 10 with 24" barrel.

Ron

Reloadron said:

I own 5 AR type rifles with 4 being AR 15 and a single AR 10. I believe the below image reflects my taste in the AR rifles. I am just one nostalgic SOB I guess.

View attachment 791638

Left to right a pair of Colt SP1 rifles, a Colt Sporter target, a mix master with a 24" match barrel and finally my match AR 10 with 24" barrel.

Ron

Click to expand...

just curios, what sights are on that AR10? I'd like to set up an AR15 with something similar.

someguy2800 said:

just curios, what sights are on that AR10? I'd like to set up an AR15 with something similar.

Click to expand...

The pictured AR 10 has a set of Centra Sights, both rear and a front globe. While I very much like them they don't come very inexpensive. I got mine like new but used for about half of retail. That was also about 20 years ago.





Ron

.455_Hunter said:

My fondness for the M16/AR-15 platform starts with the Vietnam era weapons and goes all the way to what we issued out of the arms room on 9/11/01- M16A2s and M4s with iron sights only and no other doodads. I am not a fan of the current over-Barbieized guns that attempt to compensate for poor marksmanship skills with "gadget" crutches.

Click to expand...

It isn’t a crutch when guys are doing night raids and smoking jihadists at zero dark thirty using laser aiming devices. Or using an ACOG to find and engage an Al Qaeda machinegun team hidden in a tree line 450 meters away.

If I were getting shot at I’d want everything I can get in my favor. Luckily coyotes and steel plates don’t usually shoot back so I can do with simplicity.

Ron

Those Centra Sights look like something you might find in an optometrist's office! I can see why they're so expensive; definitely one precision built sighting instrument.

Jeff H said:

This is a Whiteoak upper so it isn't a true A2, but it is very close looking at the outside.

View attachment 791589

Click to expand...

My old military OCD makes me want to unthread that front sling clamp and have the tab, and the loose end of the sling point "down." (That way it opens by just pulling down on the end.) My eye "wants" the rear loop to be a bit bigger, so that it will fit over heavier clothing (yeah, I'm really old and way too versed in sling-as-shooting-support--sigh).

Absolutely nothing wrong with it as you have it--I'm just an old curmudgeon.

bannockburn said:

Ron

Those Centra Sights look like something you might find in an optometrist's office! I can see why they're so expensive; definitely one precision built sighting instrument.

Click to expand...

I also like some of the Redfield micrometer type sights. Their Palma sights are pretty nice.

Ron

CapnMac said:

My old military OCD makes me want to unthread that front sling clamp and have the tab, and the loose end of the sling point "down." (That way it opens by just pulling down on the end.) My eye "wants" the rear loop to be a bit bigger, so that it will fit over heavier clothing (yeah, I'm really old and way too versed in sling-as-shooting-support--sigh).

Click to expand...

Jeff H has his sling set up correctly, with one exception -- the spring clip should be on the buttstock end instead of on the forward swivel.

If you compare the old M1907 leather sling with the M1 web sling that replaced it, you'll understand why. The rear loop on the M1907 sling could be tightened around the shooter's upper left arm (if he was right handed) to steady the rifle in deliberate shooting. The standing loop on the M1 sling can fulfill the same function, but to do that, it must be detached from the butt swivel. The spring clip provides a convenient way to do that.

I think that slings-as-shooting-aids are pretty much obsolete. Nowadays, they're simply carrying straps.

Personally I think that the A2 was a step backwards from the A1 in most respects.

The A2 is a target rifle.

They thought the A1 barrels were bending because the straightness gauge was getting snagged on a bur at the gas port.

The A2 barrel is heavier than optimal to be carried around all day.
A2 sights are target sights.
A2 stock is a bit too long for a person of avg height.

The only advances that were an improvement in my opinion was the material used to make the stock and handguard, and the A2 aperture with the large aperture for 0-200 yard shooting.

The A1 aperture with the L aperture that shifted the zero for longer range shooting failed in that it didn't shift the zero enough. In my testing with my rifle and a 300 yard zero on the main aperture. Shifting to the L aperture moves the zero to roughly 375 yards. I think it would have had more utility if it shifted the zero to something like 500 yards.

ifit said:

View attachment 791395 Need to seriously add an A2 soon to my collection

Click to expand...

That 605......

.455_Hunter said:

My fondness for the M16/AR-15 platform starts with the Vietnam era weapons and goes all the way to what we issued out of the arms room on 9/11/01- M16A2s and M4s with iron sights only and no other doodads. I am not a fan of the current over-Barbieized guns that attempt to compensate for poor marksmanship skills with "gadget" crutches.

Click to expand...

That's all well and good until you are shooting into the shade of a tree line and the sun is in your eyes. And you can't see ANYTHING.

Or when it is nearly dark and you can see your target until you try to see it while peering through an aperture sight.


I love the light weight and simplicity of my old A1. But the idea that upgrades that have come down the line for rifles is 'Barbieized' is akin to saying that our best pilots should still be flying F4 Phantoms.

IndianaBoy said:

Personally I think that the A2 was a step backwards from the A1 in most respects.

The A2 is a target rifle.

They thought the A1 barrels were bending because the straightness gauge was getting snagged on a bur at the gas port.

The A2 barrel is heavier than optimal to be carried around all day.
A2 sights are target sights.
A2 stock is a bit too long for a person of avg height.

The only advances that were an improvement in my opinion was the material used to make the stock and handguard, and the A2 aperture with the large aperture for 0-200 yard shooting.

The A1 aperture with the L aperture that shifted the zero for longer range shooting failed in that it didn't shift the zero enough. In my testing with my rifle and a 300 yard zero on the main aperture. Shifting to the L aperture moves the zero to roughly 375 yards. I think it would have had more utility if it shifted the zero to something like 500 yards.

View attachment 792053

Click to expand...

I carried both the M16A1 and A2. I will assure you that I had no trouble carrying either one all day.
Also the rear sight has two different apertures, one small for more precision shooting, the larger for close quarters and low light.
Standard BZO is 200 meters. With the M16A1 sighted in at 200 you would aim at 6 o’clock on a 12” bull and aim at center mass at 300.
For the A2 you put the rear setting at two clicks forward of the 300 setting then adjust your front sight for your BZO.