That isn’t correct.
Indeed. The A5 was being developed and tested for the USMC…
Just as a follow-up to commentary on the merits vs the homosexuality of this configuration…
I am not by any stretch a particular expert on our (Canadian, I mean) small arms but it does allow for a slightly shorter rifle, and adjustable LOP, while retaining max velocity for fragmentation purposes.
I would guess about half of my circle of friends have dragged one around in red talcum powder at some point in the last few years and most like the setup fairly well. It’s a pretty popular rifle and what it gives up in looks, it gets back in fragmentation range.
Anyway those are the merits that are well liked up here. As a work of art…not so much. As a tool, I think it’s not a bad configuration. For dedicated cqb, maybe not…but we’ve mainly been shooting people in Afghanistan, and for that I think the extra range is probably worthwhile. Of course ours come with the Diemaco/Colt Canada barrel, which is kind of a bonus, I guess.
Anyway our experience with the rifle in Afghanistan has been pretty good…makes me wonder if possibly seeing these configurations in the US may be related to increased US involvement in Afghanistan? Purely guessing, of course. But they are more suited to open country.
I would think for A-Stan a 16in Middy with a 1-4 optic and a Carbine stock would work really well for those distances… but then again, ya’ll are stuck with M855…(idk about Canadians, but its probably the 62gr ammo)… If everyone got the MK262 Mod 1, a 16in with 1-4 and a carbine stock would be the perfect combo for CQB and the longer ranges of A-stan, but thats just me, and thats what I run in 3gun and more so anymore as my go to gun.
A number of years ago, I remember helping a friend zero a new upper. He did not yet have a lower, but was excited to shoot it. It was a 20 inch, government profile flattop…nothin’ fancy (as Nutnfancy would say :rolleyes: )
So, I grabbed a lower I had laying around and we slapped 'em together. The lower was standard…M4 stock and whatnot.
The rifle handled pretty well, actually. It didn’t seem quite as front heavy as I imagined it would be. I would have no problem using one for serious social intercourse IF I HAD TO. I DO think there are better alternatives out there.
Does it look a little goofy? Yeah…but who friggin gives a shite. My face looks goofy as hell…but it’s still effective at doing the things that faces are suppose to do.
I did this (with permission from my cmdr), to my A2/203 before we went to AFG back in '06. At the time I didn’t know much about buffers/springs/tube and put a regular M4 stock kit on my rifle. It shot fine, but at the last minute we were issued M4’s and it sat in the arms room stateside.
Looking back that was probably a blessing in disguise.
Fair enough.
The A5 may indeed be a slight improvement over the rifle buffer, but in the grand scheme of things, it’s much closer to a rifle buffer than a CAR buffer.
IMO, either is a big improvement over the CAR buffer.
I’m currently out here in Afghanistan and have an A4 as a DMR and have been trying to get one these kits, but thanks to the Army’s budget we can’t even order a box of pens for our company right now.
At 5’7" and with a plate carrier on, the A2 buttstock is just too much. I’ve learned to adapt to it, but this would be a godsend in the ergonomics department, regardless of how it looks.
So if a rifle buffe ris over 5 oz., and you went to a carbine length buffer system, wouldn;t you probably want to run a H3? I believe the Canadians run an H2 in this configuration? Would the rifle system, being longer, generate more pressure or less pressure?
Guys I’ll post the NSN latter. The “Collapsible Stock Kits” are AAL now for the M16A2/A4. You can order them and have them installed by you direct support maintenance unit/BSB. BSN pricing is around $100 for the whole kit.
The kit is basicly a M-4 receiver extension and stock, carbine buffer spring and a “H-6” buffer. They are not VLTOR A5’s. I believe that they are also authorized for branches other than the Army, but I’m not posative.
Info added
PS 703
JUN 11
Hybrid Buttstock Authorized
A new hybrid buttstock kit is now available for the M16-series rifle. You couldn’t get away with it before, but now it’s authorized. It reduces the length of the weapon for improved flexibility in confined spaces or close combat. The new buttstock is also more ergonomically friendly.
Order the buttstock kit with NSN 1005-01-569-6938. It’s authorized by CTA.
Support will install the buttstock following the instructions in WPs 0021 and 0025 in TM 9-1005-319-23&P. They need to pay special attention to Step 13 in WP 0025-8, which gives the correct torque for the buttstock’s round plain nut.
Armorers need to keep the old buttstock. When an M16 is turned in, it must be returned to its original configuration, which means the old buttstock must be put back on.
The original article in PS Mag had an error in the art work. It looked like a UBR, but they have since published a correction.
If you or anyone one else has specifications on the H-6 buffer, please post them. I am very interested.
Thanks.
Joe Mamma
Me too. I’m intrigued as to how it’s different from a normal carbine buffer on the inside…since it sounds like it’s identical size-wise.
I suppose the size of the internal weights was altered to allow for more tungsten-steel combinations…maybe giving finer control over the total weight of the buffer? I’m staying tuned…
I carried an M16A2 with the standard style M4 collapsible stock for Basic Training. I did not remember any sort of markings on the buffer. I would have definitely noticed if there was some sort of “H” marking on it. As far as my eye could tell, it looked like a regular carbine buffer.
In terms of reliability, in all of BCT (maybe 200 live rounds and a couple blanks) I only had one double-feed.
The configuration certainly worked–I collapsed the stock all the way for vehicles and MOUT, but extended it all the way for longer range marksmanship. If you can save space and still retain rifle-length ballistics, I don’t see why it’s a bad thing.
form over function much?.. who cares what it looks like as long as it does its desired mission… the B-52 may be known as the BUFF but its done the job for 60 years…
I’m just wondering why it has taken until now for this type of change to occur… makes no sense to have Marines short stocking to clear a building when this system provides a compromise…
From another tread on LF:
Originally posted by Armtech:
The M16 Series Rifle Sliding Buttstock Conversion Kit consists of all standard M4/M4A1 NSN parts EXCEPT for the H6 Buffer Assembly. The H6 Buffer Assembly contains “6” tungsten buffer weights. The buffer body also has a different part number, but I think that is only because it has an H6 marking.
Originally posted by Armtech:
Robert, No problem. I found some more info while keeping my desk chair from floating away…The H6 Buffer weighs the same as the standard M16A2 Buffer (0.32 lbs.). For those with DTIC access https://www.dtic.mil/DOAC/home.search, there are a few test reports that discuss this configuration. Do a search for “m16 upper hybrid.” The Endurance and Temperature Test results document nearly 200,000 rounds fired.
For the LOGI’s:
1005-01-569-6938 Stock Gun (Collapsible for M16A2/A4) $117
SOS SMS, SCMC 9M, ARC -X, RC-F, CIIC -7, AAC-D, UI-EA
The rate on the carbine spring is different.
I would hope these are the proper kits installed onto these weapons, and not someone just grabbing parts to give it a carbine stock.
Stick,
These have been approved for about a year, although not widely disseminated. I’m also pretty sure the vendors have not released them commercially. I’ve seen several locally and if the are in use at a Basic training site you can almost bet they are the NSN approved parts.
Here is some speculation on the H6 buffer.
Here’s a reference picture that needs no introduction.
By all reports, the H6 is just like a normal carbine buffer, except stead of 3 weights, there are 6 shorter weights, for a total rating of “H2.5”.
This would allow 6 rubber bumpers, instead of three.
Note, the rifle buffer has 5 weights and 5 bumpers.
There must be some damping/bolt bounce benefit of having the extra bumpers to go along with the extra weight.
Probably smooths things out.
If so, this H6 buffer may be the one to have if sticking with the CAR length tube vs the longer A5.