My first "black rifle" range toy..it's a hoot to shoot

I was issued an M16A1 just as the M16A2 was being introduced.

Given that I had a father and uncles who were all WWII and Korean War Vets as well as one who had used the M14 in Vietnam, and that I’d shot M1As and M14s in college and in service rifle competition, I was almost genetically biased against the M16.

However, I found as long as you mitigated its aversion to dirt it wasn’t a bad rifle. It was light, handy and very well balanced. I also found it was minute of torso accurate out to 350m and had no issues shooting a clean score with in on train fire ranges out to that distance.

—-

Unfortunately I also discovered the M16A2, while well intentioned, was a retrograde step:

- it added weight and bulk with no real benefit in performance, although the heavier barrel forward of the gas block and the round handguards made it more tolerant of abuse via an attached bayonet (that no one used anymore);

- the 1-7 twist rifling was used to allow the almost never fired M856 tracer round, when 1-9 twist was optimum for the M855 round, which reduced accuracy with both M855 and M193;

- the M855 round with its penetrator was less accurate than M193;

- the higher weight reduced velocity and consequently the threshold ranges for fragmentation and tumbling of the, bullet;

- the longer stock was even less amenable to use with body armor; and

- the rear sight added a long range capability that wasn’t practical and not in keeping with the comparatively poor accuracy of the average lot of M855.

Not surprisingly it was fairly quickly replaced by the M4, with a short barrel that made M855 even less effective, and the M4 quickly got a whole bunch of attachments that made it heavier than the original M16A1.


——

I eventually replaced my M1A with an AR-15 for service match competition. That was partly due to reducing ammo costs, but largely due to the ability to use 5.56mm reloads that were more accurate than issued match ammunition. You’ll note however it has the shorter A1 stock.

I also bought police department Colt SP1 and M16A1 upper halves when the department “upgraded” to M4 uppers (to be fair the shorter barrel works better as a patrol rifle, much the same as it worked better for mechanized troops) and put them on NDS-602 lowers. The original M16 and M16A1 configurations are still, IMHO, by far the best AR-15 configurations ever made when it comes to overall utility and flexibility.

I also like the AR-15 as a Varmint rifle when fitted with flat top receiver, a 20” bull barrel, a set trigger, and a suitable scope.

cmansguns said:

... the Delta Ring spring is really, really stiff if you want to pull the handguards.

D

Click to expand...

You can get a rubber coated Delta ring tool for about $15. They work great!

Everyone should own one or two. Have a stash of mags and ammo

Mine doesn't get shot much, as I tend to practice/"train" with my S&W 15/22. I'm frugal..... OK cheap!

Most .223/5.56 shooting gets done with one of my CZ 527s an American and FS/Mannlicher. You can't hunt with a semi in Pa.

P-mags are considered by most to be the gold standard..... 10rounders are nice for prone of bench shooting

The AR15 is a fun rifle to shoot. Minimal recoil, good energy, and capable of excellent accuracy.

Narragansett said:

I have never had much of a desire for one of these till lately. That is until after I shot my son's. Trouble is, I know nothing about them, and there are a lot of choices out there

Click to expand...

The $2,000 AR15 will allow you to tumble down the side of a rocky mountain and your rifle will shoot accurately or the someone who caused your tumble. The $500 AR maybe broken. This explanation was given to me an experienced expert who had tumbled down some rocky slopes.

My $500 on sale complete AR-15 (I have two) will shoot as accurately as anyone's high dollar AR, but leave you with $1,000 to buy more components or loaded ammo. I found out that the most accurate load was Remington bulk 55 grain hollow point bullet with a mid-range load of anybody's powder, at less than 400 yards shooting at prairie dogs.

I can shoot off a bench or prone with a bipod, but stand up and shoot with a sling doesn't do it for me.

They are like Lays Potato chips, you can't buy just one. When you see Alice, tell her "hi" for me.

jmwyro said:

I was unaware there were 1-10 and 1-12 twist available.

Click to expand...

The Ruger Number 1s' single shot rifles in 5.56/223 had 1:14 twist barrels. Even difficult to get accuracy with the std 55 grainers.

cmansguns said:

I realize there are many brands on the market but we (son and I) were not really looking or reviewing, just watching for a period Colt Sporter or one that looked period correct but had to be American made. The Colt Sporters seem all to be in the $2,000 and up bracket if and when you find them.

Click to expand...

I bought a Colt LE6920 around a month ago off GB for around $1,100 shipped. It also has the removable carry handle.

I've never in my life saw a front sight like yours has. Unless it's the angle of the picture, it kinda looks like your gas tube is upside down. All I've seen curve down from the delta ring, but I've never owned one with a 20" barrel.

Rock River Arms has a great deal on 20 and 30 round magazines. I've bought a bunch and everyone has been made by Okay. The mag yours came with is as good as any made. D&H is a great mag. Never owned a plastic one.

Just checked, and they only have 10 and 30 round available now.

Aluminum Mags

jmwyro said:

I will admit it. I was unaware there were 1-10 and 1-12 twist available. I have 3, two 1-7 and one 1-8 twist. I gotta start paying attention.

Click to expand...

I’m not aware of 1:10” twist ever being used in the AR-15.

Ruger Mini 14s initially had 1:10” twist barrels, followed by the move along with the general AR-15 herd to 1:7” twist after it was adopted by the military, before wising up and going with a 1:9” twist like most thoughtful commercial AR-15 makers not catering to the rather ignorant “mil-spec” crowd.

1:7” twist was also still common in service match rifles like the Colt H-Bar AR-15 where longer bullets with much higher BCs were used. However, 1:8” twist was increasingly adopted as it would stabilize the longer bullets without excessive spin and related excessive precession if any yawing of the bullet occurred.

I still prefer the 1:12” twist for 55 gr FMJ. The Colt made barrels in my SP1 and M16A1 upper halves will produce consistent 5 shot 1.5 MOA accuracy at 100 yards with handloaded Hornady 55 gr FMJBT bullets, as well as with Black Hills Ammunition factory ammo loaded with the same bullet. They are better made than the average Remington or Winchester 55 gr FMJ.

That slower 1:12” twist also reduces the yaw that occurs when a less than perfect 55 gr FMJ bullet transitions from rotation around the center of form in the barrel to rotation around the center of gravity on flight. The bullet will yaw slightly during that transition and that yaw creates precession that causes the bullet to spiral a bit in flight until it settles down.

Faster barrel twists cause excessive rotation which increases the magnitude of the precession and reduces accuracy. When you combine a 1:7” twist barrel with cheap bulk bullets or pull down bullets you get less accuracy than with a 1:12” twist or even a 1:9” twist.

——

The early AR-15 had a 1:14” twist as designed by Stoner. That was modified to a 1:12” twist following cold weather testing by the US Army that found the marginal stability of 55 gr FMJ was not sufficient in cold weather. 1:12” twist became the standard in the M16 and M16A1 and largely replaced 1:14” twist as the standard for commercial .223 Rem rifles.

That original 1:14” twist is also partly why Remington, with contract in hand for development and mass production of M193 ammunition, substituted its own shorter 5 secant ogive Type A” 55 gr FMJ projectile for the original longer 7 secant ogive Sierra designed “Type B” 55 gr FMJ projectile specified by Stoner. The shorter bullet offered better stability at the specified 1:14” twist.

However, that shorter Type A bullet also had a lower ballistic coefficient and shed velocity faster, making it about 150 fps slower at 500 yards. That was significant as the new bullet could no longer penetrate 10 gauge mild steel plate at that distance, which was part of the acceptance criteria.

That led to an increase in pressure, and then a waiver in maximum average pressure in order to increase the muzzle velocity enough for the Remington bullet to have enough remaining velocity at 500 yards to meet the penetration requirement. It never did, but the US Army compromised and the range was shortened to accommodate the lower remaining velocity.

All that effort and procurement drama for the sake a shorter Remington bullet that was no longer needed in the faster 1:12” twist barrel the military adopted. Plus of course better profit margin for Remington.

A 1:7” twist was adopted by the US military when the 62 gr SS109 projectile was adopted for M855 ammunition in the M16A2. That led to the popular perception that 1:7” twist was required to stabilize M855, but that’s not the case. A 1:9” twist is actually optimum for the SS109 projectile and M855 ammunition. The 1:7” twist was necessary for the much longer tracer bullet used in M856 ammunition. It had a requirement in the M249 to have sufficient stability to penetrate 10 gauge steel at 600 meters, which was accomplished with a steel penetrator in the tip of the bullet.

The M16A2 just got stuck with the 1:7” twist rather than 1:9” twist due to a somewhat misguided determination that it should also be able to fire M856 with the same stability to the same distance.

But as noted above, once the milspec hub bub died down, 1:9” twist became the norm for most factory AR-15s where 55 gr and 62 gr ammunition would be most often used, and 1:9” twist will stabilize most bullets up to about 69 grains and some 75 gr bullets without long ballistic tips.

1:8” twist will still stabilize the longest bullets like the 75 gr A-Max and 80 gr A-Max or the 77 gr Sierra, especially at 20” barrel velocities. The 1:7” twist isn’t needed at all other than for very long bullets at 14.7” and 16” carbine velocities.

But there are still a lot of 1:7” twist milspec die hards out there. They are also the folks who want a chrome lined bore, even though they don’t live in a swamp.

——

Personally, my Service match rifle uses 1:8” twist, while my M16/M16A1 clones use 1:12”, and pretty much everything else has 1:9”, including a 20” bull barrel Varmint rifle. That Varmint rifle shoots mostly 52 and 53 gr match bullets or 55 gr Hornady FMJBTs. Accuracy is sub MOA with the flat based match bullets and 1 MOA with the Hornady 55 gr FMJBTs

Dad didn't care for the M16. He had not been in a front line unit for some time prior to going to Vietnam (II Army HQ, then P11/27 Kestrel Evaluation Squadron, then USAGUK London, prior to going to the Vietnamese Language School).

At the end of the language school he got familiarization training with the M16. As soon as he got to Nam he ditched the M16 in his hootch, and carried a Model 12 riot gun in the bush along with a Browning Hi-Power that he scrounged from the Aussies. He was in the field with ARVN troops as part of MAC-V MI.

He died last June, but we had several trips to the range these past couple of decades. He never wanted to shoot any of my AR's, and always gravitated to the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine that he was intimately familiar with from his early days with the 508th ARCT.

cmansguns said:

Anyway...I like the A2 "solid" buttstock, retro style. I remember bayonet and hand-to-hand training in the Army, and a walnut M1, or walnut stocked M-14, would surely crack the jaw/skull of anyone receiving a butt-stroke. Don't know how it works with a A2 plastic if you had to do it, but for sure those collapsible stocks that they peddle today look flimsy and I guess "cheek-weld" doesn't mean anything anymore so "spray and pray"?

Thanks again for all the comments....they are fun at the range!

Click to expand...

Gotta agree about the flimsy adj butt stock, but they are a God send to us short people with even shorter arms. Still have several earlier Bushmaster A2's (purple receivers), and like the solid handle rear site and solid front site for solidity, and no batteries required. Have modified several forearms very carefully to be slightly looser, and can lead to better accuracy on longer strings.

Also like mine shorter, which harkens back to the short arms.

cmansguns said:

When I left the Army in 1968 my outfit had not been issued any M16's. We still had M14's so I never really experienced the M16. For years and years me and my buddies didn't really want, or cared for anything like these plastic things. One of my co-workers was a survivor of the IA Drang Valley with Col Hal Moore, and always had not much good to say about them, miserable to keep clean, ammo was pure junk, best you could do was hang around the snipers and hope to get one of their M14's.

Anyway...like said I never really had any interest until a couple weeks ago my son found one locally and asked me to go look. I did and it was basically fired very, very little if at all. 100% made in USA, 1:12 twist, chambered for the 5.56 x 45 NATO round (tad more better than 223 Remington or so I've heard). Disassembles pretty easy (quicker than my M1 Garand).

Sights take some getting used to, (big ole hole in that rear "peep" vs my .062 NM rear on the Garand) and the Delta Ring spring is really, really stiff if you want to pull the handguards.

Don't get me wrong....I still love walnut furniture along with parkerized steel....but for less than $600 (came with 50 rounds Federal Cartridge 223 - 55 grain FMJ) the rifle is really fun to shoot. Seemed to me to be "zeroed" right at 100 yards.

Click to expand...

Your rifle's upper really has me stumped. It actually doesn't have a modern delta ring, but does have a really old school slip ring. I have one retro AR that I put a slip ring on. They are near impossible to push back without using a tool.

The barrel has the Brownells cage code 12238, They made a BRN Proto rifle that used the front sight base like yours. Not sure if they ever sold the barrels separate. If not someone took the barrel off one and put on your upper.

Either way, it's a really cool build that you got a killer deal on.


GUNS Magazine Brownells BRN-PROTO AR15 - GUNS Magazine

Congrats and enjoy. Stag 15 is a good gun. With ammo included? You stode it.

They do have the habit of multiplying, I’ve got about a dozen of them. My favorite is my Colt AR6520, similar to the LE6920 M4 Carbine with a 16” pencil barrel. What a handy little carbine (I’m sure Gene Stoner would approve).

"Sure wish it were the same for 32-20 WCF!"

That's what we need! An AR15 chambered in .32-20!

Our stories sound somewhat similar OP, but after shooting my friends AR at the range one day I was hooked.

They make great plinking rifles for me in either stock or modified form and I've had a really good time with them for years now.

Enjoy!

I remember when “I don’t want one”. That was many AR’s ago. As noted, a lightweight easily customized all around gun.

The H&R Retro 604, Air Force rifle.

You can see the upper and lower don’t match perfectly. The trigger is 6.75 lbs, some creep, typical AR.

Another shot.

The upper and lower receiver are tight! You can’t wiggle them. A lot of guys swap the stock, pistol grip and fore end for old stuff. Not me.

The only minor complaint I have is that the front sight is screwed down one click before it won’t turn anymore. I don’t know if the put the wrong front sight base on it, or what exactly is going on with the front sight

See what I mean? There’s about half the front sight showing. The other half is buried in the front sight base.