| I think the M16a2 should have been set-up differently than it was.
One of the main selling points of the M16 was that it was extremely light weight as compared to M14. When the a2 was adopted, they added a different sighting sytem (more complex), heavier barrel (added weight), longer buttstock (harder for smaller statured troops to get a good cheek weld) and that stupid ass three round burst. The good things that were added were; round interchangeable handguards, improved pistol grip, case deflecter and improved flash suppresser.
The a2 was not really a improvement over the a1, excepting grips, handguards, deflecter and flash suppresser. You added a pound and a half of weight. No one but the most advanced marksmen could take advantage of the more complex a2 sight and stiffer barrel. The designated marksman would probably have a scope anyhow. You also have in the A2 and 62g bullet, a rifle that doesn't kill as well unless the opponent is wearing body armor. They should have just kept the A1, added the guards, grip, deflecter and suppresser and kept the 55g bullet. It was lighter, handier and more than adequate to handle the job of hitting up to 300m, (with improved set-up). The A4 should have been set up similarly. Leave the damn barrel length alone. We are crazy to lose the extra velocity for the sake of convenience.....