Background
The United States military has long used A# designations for service firearms, although many times it is not clear what changes from one model to the next. We recently received H&R reproductions of the M16A1 and M16A2 at the Guns.com warehouse, and I thought this would be the perfect chance to overview the differences. I reviewed a Colt SP1 and Colt HBAR over the summer, which are slightly linked to the production of the A1 and A2, but these H&R retro rifles give a more accurate contrast.
H&R (Harrington and Richardson) dates to the late 1800s. The American company produced firearms for the United States military for a long time, most notably the M1 Garand. In fact, prior to the adoption of the M16A1, H&R had a small contract producing the experimental version of the rifle, designated the XM16E1.
Related: How the AR-15 Became America’s Rifle
The company went bankrupt some years ago and was purchased by Remington. Shortly after, Remington declared bankruptcy, and the brand was again sold, this time to Palmetto State Armory. The brand is now the cornerstone to PSA’s retro rifle production, offering a wide selection of old-school rifles. Among those builds, we find the M16A1 and M16A2, with faithful attention to detail all the way down to the government markings on the receiver.
The M16A1
The M16A1 was the first official military designation of the M16, signifying its official adoption for service as it replaced the M14. The M16 slightly altered Eugene Stoner’s AR-15 design to fit military service needs.
The M16A1’s key feature is its lightweight construction. Even though the rifle features a 20-inch barrel, the M16 barely tips the scales above 6 pounds. The light nature of the rifle paired with the light-recoiling intermediate 5.56 NATO cartridge revolutionized service firearms.
The lightweight construction makes heavy use of polymer, most notably in the A1-style buttstock, pistol grip, and triangular handguard. The 20-inch barrel is thin with a “pencil” profile and wears an early A1-style birdcage flash hider with cuts all the way around the muzzle device. There’s an integrated carry handle and a rudimentary set of iron sights with the ability to make slight windage adjustments.
One major difference from the original AR-15 was the addition of the forward assist at the request of the U.S. Army. It had a teardrop design. The receiver had no shell deflector, and for the first few years of its service fed from 20-round magazines.
The M16A2
The M16A2 was the first upgrade made to the rifle at the request of the United States Marine Corps in 1979. Priding themselves on marksmanship, the Marines wanted a rifle capable of better accuracy than the original A1. Additionally, when servicing the rifle, the military discovered that barrel gauges were getting stuck at the gas port, leading them to believe the pencil barrels were drooping.
This led to a request for a reinforced barrel with a heavier profile. While working on the project, Colt discovered that the barrels were not drooping, but rather the gauges were stuck due to carbon buildup. Disregarding the findings, the government opted for a heaving barrel profile anyway.
Colt continued work on the project, and the M16A2 was adopted by the Marine Corps in 1983 and by the Army in 1986. The rifle features a few other upgrades from its original A1 predecessor, outside of the heavier barrel profile past the gas block.
Upgrades
In keeping with the marksman theme, the iron sights on the carry handle were greatly enhanced. The updated design featured two different apertures: one for more precision shooting and one for close combat shooting. The sights were adjustable for elevation and windage. Not surprisingly, the sights are largely considered some of the best iron sights ever adopted by a military.
The next set of improvements had to do with the ergonomics of the rifle. The triangular handguard was found to be fragile and was replaced with a round handguard that featured ribbing for a better control. The pistol grip had a ledge added so the middle finger could rest. The stock was lengthened by 5/8 inch, adding a longer length of pull to accommodate the changes in body armor.
A shell deflector was added to the receiver to make it easier to shoot offhand, and the A1 birdcage was replaced with an A2 flash hider, which did not have slots on the bottom. This improved design prevented debris from being kicked up while shooting prone, while also acting as a compensator and keeping muzzle rise down.
By the time the rifle entered service, the 20-round magazines had been replaced with aluminum 30-round magazines.
A1 vs. A2 On the Range
While this is a comparison, I don’t mean to pit these two designs against each other to find which is better. There is a reason the M16A2 replaced the A1. Rather, I want to point out the differences and improvements, which are easiest to determine on the range.
Neither rifle has significant recoil, as the 20-inch barrel and intermediate cartridge pair up for a pleasant shooting experience. Both rifles shoot like a dream. They are easy to control, and follow-up shots are quick and accurate. Both rifles have nice sights, and because of the popularity of the AR-15, ergonomics feel familiar and easy to master.
The M16A1 is most notable for its weight. It is impressive to feel how light the rifle is, while also being easy to control. Unfortunately, from the M16A2 through the A4, the rifle had more and more material and features added, inadvertently increasing the weight and getting away from Eugene Stoner’s lightweight fighting rifle concept.
The shorter buttstock and A1-style pistol grip are comfortable, and I wish those features were retained in the A2 design. It’s hard not to think of Vietnam when shooting the A1. A plethora of Vietnam War films and shows come to mind whenever that triangular handguard and 20-round magazine appear.
Comparing the Features
It’s easy to see why the M16A2 was so well liked. While the heavier profile barrel was not in line with the lightweight concept, the rifle is as smooth as anything you will ever shoot. The added weight from the barrel, the round, easily C-clamped handguard, and the A2-style muzzle device basically eliminate recoil. The sights are incredible, and I can understand why they were so popular.
While I do prefer the shorter A1 stock, my only complaint on the rifle is the pistol grip. The middle finger ledge is one of the dumbest “upgrades” to ever be added to a firearm. It’s uncomfortable and pointless, and it’s time we stop putting the A2 grip on any AR-15.
Shooting the A2 recalls movies like “Black Hawk Down” or conflicts like Desert Storm. It’s an excellent rifle and can still be found in armories around the country.
One more notable difference in the rifles is found in the fire controls. While the A1 featured safe, semi, and full auto, the A2 replaced full auto with three-round burst. This was done in the wake of Vietnam, as it was common for soldiers to expend all their ammunition in a panic, leading to lower hit probabilities. Unfortunately, due to unconstitutional NFA restrictions, I was not able to demonstrate that difference on the range.
Summary
When I saw a few H&R retro rifles come through the warehouse, I could not help my excitement. As one of the most popular firearms in the United States, it is interesting to see where the AR-15 design started. In November, we as a nation take time to honor our veterans and their service, so I wanted to honor the service of a few classic rifles.
Some may love the A1, others the A2. Regardless, it doesn’t matter if you don’t train. Dry fire, grab some ammo, hit the range, master the craft.
