Springfield Armory's SA16-A2

[Robert]

No, it isn't. The term battle rifle refers to a specific type of rifle. Words mean things...

Again, I think having an A2 would be fun. I like all kinds of odd ball things. And in today's world a 20" AR with a carry handle and iron sights is an odd ball. My AR is a flat top 20" 1:7, collapsible stock, and a 4x ACOG. A simple float tube rounds out the front. I've hit targets out to 600y with 55gr ammo. Not saying it's ideal, just that it can be done. My rifle was built from random left over parts by a friend of mine.

If you want an A2, go for it, but it doesn't do anything a new style AR won't do arguably better. Except have that retro cool factor.

 

[1KPerDay]

Not a traditional .30 battle rifle like the M1, but a battle rifle none the less.

Next you'll be calling it an assault weapon. Or "not a traditional lever-action rifle, but a lever-action none the less." You can make up your own definitions and defend them but what good does that do anyone?

 

[Varminterror]

I've built a lot of clones over the years for customers, and I just can't get into it. We left the A2 design behind for a reason. Folks can cling to nostalgia if they like, I love walking through the classic car runs our town hosts on the first Saturday of each month all summer as much as the next guy, even drool over a few of them, but I'd never pretend a carbureted 1969 429 Mustang is a marvel of modern automotive engineering in 2024. It's fast, but it's hot, drives like piss, and has all of the creature comforts of a pine box. The M16A2 was left behind over 25yrs ago for a reason. We wanted more from the platform, so we redesigned it and deployed new versions, and the civilian market went absolutely bananas with all of the different improvements, modifications, and adaptations we could imagine.

 

[jmorris]

My choice was an aperture sighted Mini-14 Carbine, but I like this new rifle

Well, if I have to pick between the two, I would agree already.

 

[Varminterror]

And yeah - decidedly, and by design, the M16A2 is NOT a "battle rifle." Anyone calling that is ignoring multiple generations of military history.

 

[1KPerDay]

FWIW I like old rifles and old-looking rifles and old guitars and old-looking guitars and old motorcycles and old-looking motorcycles and old cars and old-looking cars. Each has its place. Nostalgia and historical feel aren't without merit. And it's a functional rifle that can perform reasonably well in some conditions in the hands of a competent shooter. HOWEVER it wouldn't be any sane person's first choice for serious use in a real-world combat or defensive situation. Just like VT's example of a 429 as a modern daily driver. It can be done, but there are much better choices today. And you'll spend lots of time and money on upkeep. For some, that's part of the charm.

If you enjoy it for what it is, more power to you. Personally the "retro" ARs are the only ones I'm actually interested in owning and shooting. But I wouldn't take one into modern combat unless I had few other options.

 

[CapnMac]

Optically, they function exactly like an infinite focal plane 1X optic.

That a more modern/heavier/expensive/fragile sight exists that may be faster, does not negate the aperture's utility.

It's a battle rifle.

​

One of the problems about citing one of Henry's videos is that he's an absolute rifle whisperer, part of that rare breed that can pick up a rifle and get its best out of it.
After all, he can shoot a Moisin-nagant made in the 20s to 5-6MOA acceptance standards and get hits on gongs out at 1000yds (1286arshin), and not once does he use a rubber mallet on the bolt. It's a bit like using Jerry Mikulek as a revolver speed average standard.

 

[.455_Hunter]

I was issued the M16A1, M16A2, M4 and M9. My preference became to carry the M9 and have an A2 available, if necessary. As a lefty, my experience with the M4 was generally negative in that they were over-gassed and I had too much crap coming back into my eyes and face.

My first post-ETS AR was a Stag lefty M16A4 clone. I would have selected a pure A2, but such a gun was not available in lefty configuration. For some reason, it's a 1-9 plain carbon steel barrel, which I will eventually upgrade to something in 1-7. My second was a Stag Lefty lefty M4 clone. I then stumbled upon a great deal on an early 80's SP-1 carbine and jumped on it. Surprisingly, even without the lefty friendly features, it's still more pleasant to fire than my service M4. Eventually, a true A1 or A2 clone will find a home here.

A lot of service personnel have experience with the A2 platform and don't really connect with the current barbie guns. I hope they sell a bunch of this "new" model.

 

[kimberkid]

I'm not sure having an SAI roll stamp is worth a four-digit price tag.
I'll flat out guess, without looking, that a person could find a complete A2 for under US$800, and for even less as pieces-parts. And the money saved could go into useful things like an upgraded trigger, a carry handle optic and the like.

But, that's my 2¢

And, for what it's worth my clone-correct A2 was a whopping $400 back in 1994 just ahead of the AWB. (USG CPI says that's $847 in 2024 dollars).
View attachment 1209181
When Bushnell's had them on sale I picked up the re-popped 4x optic (not shown), and I'm happy with that two hundred bux spent.

I was googling for a 20” A2 kit and several companies showed a correct A2 but when you look at the site it has 20” flat-tops … one company offered a complete A2 upper receiver for $124, and the flat top kit was $399 … and you can usually pick up a receiver for ~$50. If you pick it up at a gun show you’ll be $600-$700.
Personally I’d rather get the flat top and put a detachable carry handle on it and a scope when I choose … however I don’t have to as I have an AR15 A2

 

[DukeConnor]

I want a A1 clone. I deed triangle hand guards in my life.

 

[lemaymiami]

Let's go back in time... I went in the Army January 1968, destined to be a pencil pusher - not a combat type at all... My first service rifle, an M-14, took a lot of work to qualify in good order (skinny kid, 135lbs, 5'9" at that time). When I cleared basic and got to doing office work, a year later we were all required to qualify with those new black rifles. What a difference, shooting expert was as easy as lining 'em up and shooting, time after time... To this day I doubt that M-14 would be my first choice - that little black rifle - I'd shoot that all day long and get hits - no problem.

Yeah a battle rifle for the old European defense concerns back in the sixties was a much needed item. Today at desert distances I can see why many wish it were still around - but I swear - for this guy, I don't miss the battle rifle at all... and for close quarters work (under 15 meters... ) a rifle of any kind would take second place to a standard riot gun in my experience.

 

[wanderinwalker]

Can be found in the wild for ~ $1,000.

For a rifleman, good apertures work fine, like a 1X optic.

Except good apertures, while great sights, and standard A2 sights are some of the best aperture sights available outside of dedicated target models, still present the issues of multiple focal planes, which even a 1x optic eliminates. Any quality optical sight is a superior solution to any iron sight when we're adding real world lighting conditions, target contrast and even target shapes into the equation. Make it even more fun and add a decade of age and computer work to your eyes, then come back and see if "good apertures" work as fine as they used to. (Hint: they don't.) I have a very accurate A2-style AR-15 Service Rifle that will likely continue gathering dust until I finally give in and swap the parts onto a flat-top A4 upper.

PSA has their version for $600. Its not a perfect clone, as it has a removable carry handle, but I really don't see that as a bad thing and actually a better option. Ive put together a number of PSA AR's now, and all have been good shooters and no trouble. I wouldn't hesitate to go that route.

https://palmettostatearmory.com/psa-20-classic-a2-rifle.html

Over the years, Springfield has left a bad taste for me, rifles and pistols. Unless the gun was one of their early 80's guns, I would avoid them. But, that's just me.

That PSA bothers me because a removable carry handle with a 20" government profile barrel is an A4 clone, not an A2 clone. Agreed that a flat top upper is a better option, just wish they would sell it as what it is.

 

[Miami_JBT]

I approve, the world needs more A2s.

 

[Gun-Reck]

No, it isn't. The term battle rifle refers to a specific type of rifle. Words mean things...

America's Infantry Service Rifle for 30 years. (A2-A4)

 

[Robert]

Correct, but not a battle rifle.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

I approve, the world needs more A2s.

And some A1's.

 

[entropy]

I guess the question is, would I want to be issued a 20" with A2 irons or a 14.5" M4 with an ACOG?

For me, personally, I'd take the full-size. But then, I'm unlikely to ever have to squeeze into an APC or a chopper with a rifle and full kit.

For the average mechanised trooper, the M4 with optics is clearly more appropriate. Can an exceptional shooter score better with a fresh 20" A2 at 100+ yards using optimized ammunition ? Maybe.....

I wouldn't feel undergunned with either, honestly- unless I'm being suppressed by heavy machine guns from elevation, in which case nothing in 5.56 is gunna help much. Everything is a compromise.

I know what I was able to do with an A2 at 600m with M855A1 ammo with the iron sights. And I only got 1 range session with it before a match. I was issued an A1, it could not do at 600 meters what the A2 could. The barrels, ammo, and sights were just not up to it. There is no doubt an A2 will be more accurate past 100, but the M4 is more useful all around, particularly considering current doctrine.

 

[halfmoonclip]

Built an A1 replica of NOS Colt parts, and a No Dak lower. Understand the appeal of retro stuff, and it brought me up short...it had been a very long time since I'd handled such thing.
I can understand the desire for retro things, and for guys issued such rifles, what the heck.

A "battle rifle" has to be .30 Caliber? That makes as much sense as claiming, in 1900, that a battle rifle had to be .45 Caliber.
That argument was settled when the M16 was adopted over the M14. We didn't get the FAL in the '50s, because it wasn't invented here. We didn't get less than a .30 Caliber/full power round in the '50s because Big Army was pretty set in its ways.
We've moved from the M14 to the M16, to the M4. All have been the primary rifle issued to our troops, a rifle they have/will carry into battle.
Due respect, but I can't believe we're arguing the point at this late date. What constitutes a battle rifle has evolved over time.
Moon

 

[derek45]

I need an M16A2 clone

.
.
.

( Also,the term "Battle Rifle" typically refers to 7.62NATO or 30-06 rifles, like the M14, G3, FAL, BM59, etc. )

 

[halfmoonclip]

Also,the term "Battle Rifle" typically refers to 7.62NATO or 30-06 rifles, like the M14, G3, FAL, BM59, etc.

Why would this be so? If the distinction is between a battle rifle, and an assault rifle (the STG 44 and all its descendants), then perhaps it's a valid point.
Moon

 

[CapnMac]

I want a A1 clone. I deed triangle hand guards in my life.

AH, those halcyon days of handguard-pinched palms

 

[3% outdoorsman]

I like it myself.glad to see chrome lined 1/7 barrel.
Now if they'll do same in a flat top to have current marines a4 would be sweet also.
My son is has been issued h&k a4 piston gun his entire stint in military though.probably just his battalion but not sure

 

[Miami_JBT]

View attachment 1209404
And some A1's.

A1s are good, but C7s are better.

 

[Robert]

A "battle rifle" has to be .30 Caliber?

No, it does not have to be 30 cal. In fact there are a good many that are in 6.5 of some sort as well as a few other chamberings. But they are all full power cartridges. 5.56 is an intermediate cartridge.

If the distinction is between a battle rifle, and an assault rifle (the STG 44 and all its descendants), then perhaps it's a valid point.

That is exactly the distinction. A select fire AR, AK, or other more "compact" rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge is an assault rifle. Like the STG44 mentioned. Battle rifle denotes the difference between a full sized rifle, generally semi automatic rifle, shooting a full power cartridge and a rifle with select fire capabilities firing an intermediate cartridge.

 

[Justin]

30 caliber or full-size cartridge (e.g. based on the cartridge for .308, .30-06), box magazines, semi or optional full auto capable = battle rifle
Intermediate cartridge (5.56, 7.62x39, etc.), box magazines, semi/full/burst = assault rifle
Intermediate cartridge, box magazines, semi-auto = modern sporting rifle

Insofar as there is a need to create categories for particular kinds of rifles in order to make it easier to discuss use cases and applications, these categories are easily understood and helpful.