This rifle is somewhat of a mishmash of A1 and A2 features, but Windham seems to be testing the "Retro" waters. It will probably appeal to those who want the general retro look and aren't picky about details. Think it will be a decent seller for Windham?
I know MSRP is not street price, but it would seem that Brownell's BRN-16A1, with its A1 profile bbl, would be more authentic, for a lower price.
I had to be the crotchety-old-geezer on this one, but it takes more than just an A1 upper to make a "retro" AR.
Agree completely with LDD. You can put a rifle together that looks like that for a lot less. I don't see them selling a lot of those.
If they were smart, they'd reach out to one of the M-16 subcontractors and work out a branding rights agreement. That might help.
What, me worry?
|To Do What is |
Right and Just
I'm with LDD. If retro is what I want then that's a hard pass. If money was no option then I'd have a retro, but since everything I own ends up having a use or purpose with black guns that revolves around work or HD, then not for me for now.
...with an A2 barrel...
well I give them credit for trying
Proverbs 27:17 - As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.
At least they made it in 1/7 twist. I believe Brownell's offering is in 1/12 which pretty much limits you to M193.
Heck, Windham could market these as a notional "compromise" rifle. Remember, the Army originally thought the M16A2 was unsuitable for Army use. According to a study commissioned in the 1980's, the Army's opinion was:
(1) The M16A1 is more accurate than the M16A2 out to 500 meters.
(2) The M16A1 is more reliable than the M16A2
(3) The Army thought that the preferred barrel twist should be 1:9, not 1:7. A 1:9 twist would theoretically result in longer barrel life, among other things
(4) The Army was very much against the new rear sight, believing that it was easily damaged and prone to losing zero. And more suited to Marine requirements than Army ones.
(5) The Army didn't like the new extended buttstock, maintaining that it was unsuitable for smaller individuals and those wearing body armor.
(6) The Army didn't like the new A2 barrel profile. They said that the barrel was "heavy in the wrong place" and that a sort of HBAR profile might be more effective.
(7) The Army thought that the three-round burst feature was a mistake, citing experience from Vietnam where full-auto was quite effective in many instances.
You have a billion other choices if you want a modern rifle. Retro builds should be retro, IMO.
My hovercraft is full of eels.
Agree totally. Don’t get the thought that people want a gun as accurately retro as possible, but then whine about having a 1/12 barrel. Are people really shooting heavy bullets out of a retro build? 55 grain FMJ 5.56 is readily available.
Well, I can see going with a better twist and making a great shootin' retro. It isn't like you can see the twist rate. I also understand hard core retro enthusiasts wanting every detail exact...but they're probably rollin' their own anyways.
OTOH, the A2 barrel and stock is full of derp. The lightweight barrel profile and shorter A1 stock made for a better handling carbine anyway.
“People have to really suffer before they can risk doing what they love.” –Chuck Palahnuik
The world's a dangerous place, we can help! http://portlandfirearmtraining.com/
Picked this up today from my FFL. Windham makes a nice looking rifle:
|Powered by Social Strata|