I know it was thought that a thicker barrel would enhance accuracy, but what the hell was the thinking behind putting it forward of the FSB? It is almost common sense that thicker near the rear portion and thinner farther out would be the most sturdy/feasible design. Even a continuous straight profile has to be better than the A2 format.
IMHO the near-perfect profile is the BCM ELW one…maybe what the A2 should’ve been designed like.
There’s a GREAT thread out there where one of the guys on the design team that brought us the M16a2 chimes in and answers a bunch of questions…but I wouldn’t even know where to look for it.
Curious as well. I heard it was due to guys bending the barrels prying stuff,then I heard that was a myth. #whatstrue, haha.
Perhaps this?
https://everydaymarksman.wordpress.com/2015/04/23/origin-of-the-government-profile-barrel/
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Same reason the M4 has the cut out in front of FSB so you can attach the M203 grenade launcher.
Interesting, thanks.
What is this “hang” they speak of when shooting from certain firing positions?
“Hang” refers to a slight forward balance toward the muzzle. From traditional shooting positions, a little extra weight on the muzzle helps reduce wobble and make the rifle a bit more stable. The trade off is that the rifle doesn’t handle as lively when moving from target to target.
LTC Lutz, USMC (retired) the USMC Project Manager (PM) used to post here. If you dig through the Chris Bartocci Black Rifle II thread you can find him. IIRC it was because the USGI barrel straightness guage was catching on the gas port and giving a false reading. This lead to the USMC believing that the barrels were consistently bending in front of the FSB.
You can also look at this youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX5RoaYqQ04The video doesn’t answer your question, but it’s interesting.
That seems like the most credible description of the process that led to the GOV profile.
Gotcha. Thanks for the info.
Extra weight for square range traditionalists + not changing the M203 mounting.
Thank goodness the M203 mount was not easy to change out, or we probably would have been lugging hbars around in combat…
Ive heard two reasons.
USMC staff wanted a better rifle for the range and the slightly heavier front was better for shooting in rifle competitions.
Barrel gauges were catching on wear around the gas port and giving false reading of the lighter profile barrel bending forward of the FSB.
My guess is that it was a mixture of both.
Does anyone EDM the gas port (no burr is a claim to fame of Magnaport) or is it just too far back from the muzzle to matter with the exception of gauging?
Lutz was the driver for this change. There’s some good and bad that resulted from it.