Building an ar with the A2 stock

Status
Not open for further replies.
I was interviewed in 1974 along with my Infantry company's other gun cranks on what could be done to improve the M16A1. After we were told "no turning them back in and drawing M-14s, G3s, or FN FALs is not an option" we got busy. Most of us thought a longer stock might be nice, especially as AK103K noted the training standard of the time insisted we go nose to charging handle. Some of us objected to having our face so close to the cracks and spaces that allowed nasty gasses and lubes to fly out. Some of us that had time behind various match rifles with iron sights actually wanted our eye back from the aperature a bit more than nose length. BTW we also asked that the "close range" aperature be larger to allow quicker access and better low light sight use (don't know that any of us had heard of "Ghost Ring Sights" but a few had used say a Winnie 94 with a lyman peep with the screw in apperature removed as a woods rifle) so we got that as well and we ask for a range adjustable rear sight. A good battle sight zero is nice, but sometimes things are not the size of a kneeling man and maybe further away than we might like to guestimate hold over for.

Personally I was one of those that held on to my "Rubber Baby Buggy Bumper" M16 stock as long as possible when the change to the "New" A1 improved butt trap stocks came out. I felt the edges of the new trap door butt were sharper and that the stock did not grab my outer clothing as well and slipped around. Oh sure one could store cleaning equipment on the rifle with the "new" stock, like with the M1 and M14 (and to an extent the '03 and Winchester 73 for that matter) but I already had my issue Alice clipped belt pack so why screw around with the rifle? Most guys tended to use the trap door early on to store cigerettes and matches, or pogy bait, or one guy I knew had every un opened packet of C-Rat toilet paper he ever found in there. One of the motor pool dudes wanted to make a sort of survival kit to fit the space.

Also with the early trap door stocks a drop from three feet on to concrete or cobble stone could crack the harder new butt plate while the old RBBB just bounced. (I also ditched the nylon rifle sling and found a cotton canvas one, not just because it was a better shooting aid but because the nylon ones failed while at shoulder arms at the lock and the base clip worked fine and swung your muzzle and front sight tower into the same concrete or cobble stone with bad results) Now the RBBB might well have, if the weapon were on safe and therefore cocked, have the BCG fly back enough to chamber a round and then, even though you yourself had never charged the weapon be loaded and ready to go. For whatever reason usually when the new stock hit butt first whether it broke or not the BCG did not make it far enough back to fully load the rifle though sometimes a round would get started and, because the base of the cartridge was behind the bolt lugs, that started the action you got the first half of the classic M16 double feed.

Before building a Carbine with an M4 type stock I considered many times pulling the A2 stock off my Colt HBAR Match and replacing it with an RBBB.

As I get older I sort of wish I had built pencil barreled 1/12 AR way back when making it just like my earlier xm16E1 and M16A1 service rifles would not only have been easy, but about the only option.

-kBob
 
@kBob thanks for sharing your experiences, personal experiences like that are always a great read. And thank you for your service!
 
I prefer a stock which fits my body, and then practice various positions so my eye position is consistent regardless of shooting position. For me, that also means stretching to retain sufficient neck flexibility to avoid fatigue in some positions. Maybe I was wrong, but I thought that was a basic, fundamental principle of marksmanship...?

A2’s are too long for me, and far too low of comb for my cheekbones when using an optic. I have a short neck, high cheekbones, a 6ft wingspan, but broad shoulders and a thick chest/shoulder. My scopes will hang 3” behind my charging handle on an A2 stocked rifle.

For me I have low cheek bones and some AR stocks are too high to even get in the eye relief of the scope. The A2 is perfect to get a good cheek weld for me with the mounts I use. The rear lens of my scopes ends up about even with the back of the charging handle. If I measure it the rise at comb, length of pull, and eye relief of the scope ends up being pretty much identical to how I have all my bolt guns set up. I try to get my comb height right just by finding the right scope and mount combination rather than using an adjustable stock with lots of stuff to hung up on. For hunting rifles anyway.
 
Three of my four ARs have A2 stocks. They fit me.

It was my understanding that the collapsible stocks were primarily intended to enable the use of body armor and various thicknesses of clothing and only as an afterthought to fit different physiques or make the weapon handier in tight situations.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
I believe that when Colt put the first of the collapsing stocks on the "CAR 15" of the early 1960s that the issue, like the 10.5 inch barrel and cone flash hider, and small diameter hand guards were purely to make a tiny but usable package. There was some thought it would make a good aircrew survival weapon.....and look at the popularity of AR Pistols today!

Same Same on the original XM 117 series the CAR 15 spawned. Just to make the things convenient to store and move about with.

Wierdist AR stock has to be the Grease Gun wire jobs on the Firing Port weapons. (they eventually morphed into things that can not remotely be called AR15s) I believe some in the testing had stocks that had additional detents to allow adjusting for clothing and armor, one of the early requirements being that they could be used dismounted.

Oh and T.O. Waldo,

Don't recall the number but among my favorites is "Everything is airdroppable, once."

Ominous Hummmmmm……
-kBob
 
In the period between the XM177 and the M4, our Division Recon Unit (LRSD) wanted 'shorty' CAR's. They bought commercial 10" uppers, but they were severely overgassed so we devised a way to use the rifle length gas tube and 'pigtail' them so they fit under the short handguards. (went through a lot of tubes before we could bend them right!) We left the A2 buttstocks on them, the XM177 parts had been with drawn, and the plastic commercial ones weren't very good back then. ('87) I asked them if I could keep the A2 uppers, as I was issued an A1, but no they figured they'd need them for inspections and such...;)
 
A2 stocks are pretty easy peasy to install.

If you have a castle nut wrench and some way to stake it (don't recommend loctite here but some use it instead), a big flat bladed screwdriver for the stock bolt, then you should be good. Decide if you want the basic castle nut or a fancier one.
Rifle REs do not use a castle nut.

Just make sure to put the spacer for the A2 stock (this is to take up the difference between the A2 and the earlier A1 stock in length) in before you put the buffer and spring inside.
Why would you have to install the spacer before the buffer & spring?
 
Good catch MistWolf. I have both A2 and A1 stocks on my rifles. I much prefer the A1's. Holding my nose anywhere close to the charging handle with an A2 stock is difficult and tiring. As it is, I like to be about 1 inch behind the charging handle with the A1 stock.
kwg
 
one of the early requirements being that they could be used dismounted.
Just not to the extent of actually having sights installed [o_O]
I have this memory of reading that the FPWs were to be loaded with tracer instead of using sights while mounted, since the vehicle mount sight ports were not directly aligned. Or some such similar nonsense. My memory could be wrong on that. The CFV "Brad" never made a lot of sense to me, so my brain would oft "glaze over" while reading up on the things.
 
CapnMac,

The whole firing port weapon thing was about a decade long waste of man hours and gear. I believe the first ones were even mounted in M114s (the rubber track wonder) which were an attempt at a recon vehicle other than the Sheridan. Some of the early models were little more than a"CAR15" with no front sight tower and a small diameter tube forestock and had a folding front sight. Then came the M113 A1 that was cut up to make the "IFV" Infantry Fighting Vehicle and finally the Bradley and the Firing port weapon just morphed along with the newer designs and concepts. They played with everything in the way of rates of fire from something like 300 to 1200 rpm.

Part of all this was jealousy of West German Toys (Them Krauts made the bestest toys!) They had a couple of light recon vehicles that had firing ports for use with Service weapons....not a surprise when one remembers some of their WWII tanks and Half tracks and Armored cars had "Pistol ports. Many suggest that the whole point of that brace under the barrel of the MP-40 SMG was to help not damage the barrel when firing from such a "pistol Port" and more importantly help Herr Machinpistolamann keep the muzzle OUTSIDE the vehicle when firing and the vehicle in motion.

One little recon track in the 1970's had a little mount on either side that clamped onto an Uzi (which was then the West German SMG) so it would fire through a port with an inch thick laminated glass window over it.

The Marder (ferret or martin) Infantry Fighting Vehicle that was their standard APC featured firing ports that were ball mounts for the standard G3 rifle. it also featured a turret mounted 20mm auto cannon with coaxial 7.62 version of the MG 42 about where expected and a smaller armored flexable periscope mount for a second 7.62 MG over the rear gate. Can't imagine they really needed the firing ports, but they had them. In the Mid 1970s they even had a bolt on radar device for shooting the main turret in fog and at night so we had to have improved night and bad weather optics as well.

The Russians had covered "Pistol ports" on their APCs as well, Even the BTR60 series of Wheeled Beasties and the older BTR152 armored trucks had circular ports large enough to stick the front end of an AK out of.

The US just felt inadequate when it came to shooting from inside as the best we could do for ages was open the top cargo hatch on your M113 or old M59 and stand up, head and shoulders to the sky, and shoot over the sides (this is the one place the M1952 and M1967 body armor "flak vest" was actually welcome, as a cushion between ones ribs and the armor)

Anyhow the firing port weapon projects drifted along so long that almost anything one wishes to say about it (except that it was worthwhile) was true for some point in the project.

-kBob
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top