For all our soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan...


PDA






Kenshin
December 30, 2006, 05:23 PM
Personal preference in the sandbox: rifle (M-16A2/A4), or carbine (M4)?

If you enjoyed reading about "For all our soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ArchAngelCD
December 30, 2006, 06:07 PM
M16A4 all the way...

Medusa
December 30, 2006, 06:11 PM
That depends on the need, doesn't it? A SF operator might find the M4 more handy in CQB and for long range work might opt to 7.62 rifle instead...

Kenshin
December 30, 2006, 06:22 PM
Medusa, that's just it. I'm asking the soldier's individually about their preference. They can answer according to their own factors.

Glockfan.45
December 30, 2006, 06:26 PM
Easy choice is the M4, I see no need for the A2 anymore, believe me the little bit of weight difference is noticeable after you have humped it all day. And the ACOGs are a nice addition.

marksman13
December 30, 2006, 06:33 PM
I went with the M4. The M16 is still a great weapon, but is a bit cumbersome when clearing rooms. Also, as a DM it was much easier to carry the short M4 with an ACOG as a back up weapon. Different strokes for different folks.

Kenshin
December 30, 2006, 07:34 PM
Curiously, without any tack-ons, what's the weight difference between them?

Medusa
December 30, 2006, 07:57 PM
Didn't mean to be snappy, but merely noting the different needs for different jobs. For me personally a M4A1 Sopmod would be the best, since the duties where I'd need a 5.56x45 rifle would require a compact design, mostly CQB. My main tool is still a 7.62x51 precision rifle.

M16A2 runs at 3.77 - 3.9 (different sources) kg unloaded, M4A1 at 2.52 kg.

MatthewVanitas
December 30, 2006, 08:08 PM
M198 155mm howitzer, no doubt!

But seriously, carried an A2 in Iraq, but would rather have had an M4 for climbing in and out of vehicles.

Given the option of 20" rifles, I would literally have rather had an M16A1 (but with the modern handguards). Lighter weight, option of full-auto, simpler sights, etc. I have a Colt SP1 for my personal rifle in TX, and like it far more than my issue M16A2.

Wouldn't care to carry the A4 as an officer: for my purposes (mounted combat in '03, civil affairs in '04) it's unnecessarily heavy/complicated, and my type of officers don't get many doodads or optics, which defeats 95% of the advantages of the A4.

-MV

C-grunt
December 30, 2006, 11:44 PM
Personally I loved my M16A4 DMR. It was bigger and heavier than the M4s, but I didnt notice any real disadvantage over the guys with the M4s. But, with the M262s, I could hit things at range they really couldnt reliably.

Hux
December 31, 2006, 01:33 AM
I've carried both downrange and would much rather have the M4. Easier when I'm climbing in and out of our tanks and Humvees or clearing rooms. The times I might have needed more long range capabilities, I was manning an M240B:D .

DougW
December 31, 2006, 11:09 AM
Son carries an M249 SAW now. He carried an M4 for about 2 months, and had to have the gas rings replaces 3 times. He is not a front line door kicker. All his shooting has been on the range so far. He was switched back to the SAW (his unit needed him on the SAW more than they needed him as a driver), and his has never had a problem n over 1500 rounds. Both weapons started out as new when he deployed last summer. He said the M4 was nice to drag around all day, but he has made a composit sling from a Black Hawk M249 sling and the issued sling for the SAW. He said it is much easier to carry now with the 2 point set up. He is qualified Expert on both weapons, and is an armorer.

Lebben-B
December 31, 2006, 12:03 PM
When I was deployed to Afghanistan, an M16A4...but the old warhorse M14 would've been a better choice. For my 2 tours to Iraq, the M4 worked out fine, especially after we got hooked up with some Mk262 Mod 1.

Mike

Kenshin
June 7, 2007, 10:03 PM
I'm reviving the thread just in case there are some soldiers here who haven't had their say.

ATC
June 7, 2007, 10:07 PM
I've also carried both in the sandbox and prefer the M4. Much, much easier to manipulate inside a HMMVW while wearing full hero gear and accurate enough for the job where I carried it.

ATC
June 7, 2007, 10:08 PM
I should add that I'm 5'8" and 150 pounds, so I find the M4 easier to manipulate all around while wearing body armor due to the adjustable stock. This is especially true while prone.

Aaryq
June 7, 2007, 11:07 PM
I voted M16A2. I'm in the Marine Corps Air wing so I have no need for a smaller compact rifle. I'd rather have a heavier A2 so the guys kicking in doors and patrolling the streets can get a weapon more suited for their job.

praharin
June 7, 2007, 11:26 PM
i was a hmmwv driver or a turret gunner the whole time i was there. i chose the m4 for that. never got to carry one, but functionally they are about the same. i had a vlotr stock on it though. whenever we went into houses we went to pistols most of the time. someone usually had their m203 and/or benelli loaded with less lethals. the majority of houses there are small enough to get away with that. if they werent, then we brought the rifles. once you get used to it, the a2 or a4 are not too bad inside. they did it with the m1 in ww2 ;)

Titan6
June 7, 2007, 11:58 PM
M4. Nothing wrong with it and more like one of my personal weapons that I have shot more than any M16.

sixgunner455
June 8, 2007, 02:11 AM
IF I had an M9, I preferred the A2. If I needed short and handy, I had it. If I needed range, power, and accuracy, I had it. In and out of vehicles with just the rifle, no pistol available, definitely preferred deployability of the M4. In crowds, the M4.

The universe conspired against me, though -- whenever I had an M9 available, I had M4s being almost thrust at me to carry, like "Don't you wanna ditch your '16?" No, just give me the M9 and I'll be fine. But whenever the M9 wasn't available, neither was a shorter rifle.

Honestly, there just as at home, having a gun and knowing how to use it are much more important that what it is exactly. There may be specialists and specialized situations where it makes some difference, but most of the time, that is not so.

Don't Tread On Me
June 8, 2007, 02:14 AM
Should have made it a public poll - keep those who aren't soldiers (and aren't in Iraq or Afghanistan) from voting.

Kenshin
June 8, 2007, 03:19 AM
A quick question to those who have humped A2s and A4s: is house-clearing and vehicle riding REALLy as awkward as some say it to be?

rero360
June 8, 2007, 12:03 PM
I'm really enjoying my M4, although being that we're not allowed to use HE rounds in the M203 here in baghdad, I wish I could get rid of my 203. so I could use my grippod. Still torn on whether to buy a ACOG or not.

That being said, if I was to be in a DM role and couldn't get a 7.62 gun, I'd want a M16A4 with a colapsible stock on it, to make use with body armor easier.

Jong
June 8, 2007, 02:50 PM
M4 if I am operating in Humvees a lot and M16 if I was moving in open ground or in the mountains. Humvees are so tight that as one of the Teams leaders in my unit said "The only way I am getting out of a Humvee fast is to get blown out!!"

praharin
June 8, 2007, 05:15 PM
A quick question to those who have humped A2s and A4s: is house-clearing and vehicle riding REALLy as awkward as some say it to be?

depends on the vehicle or house. in most, its not too bad. in a house the length adds a dimention of danger in that someone could more easily grab it

Dick Dart
June 8, 2007, 08:34 PM
H&k 416

KC&97TA
June 9, 2007, 01:09 AM
M16M4, with a M203... make sue you got the; PEQ2, PVS-14, Aim-Point M3, ACOG, Surefire & presure switch, good flip up Iron, one point sling; and I'm ready. Take a side of a 1911A1, a dozen or so mags for each.

the little gun is more fun, more manuverable, the ACOG or RCO as we call them now, puts the "reach out and touch someone" there, Aim-Point puts CQB to ease, the collapsable stock means you can fire from the center of the chest collapsed with gear on or fire from the shoulder extended when plain clothed.

praharin
June 9, 2007, 11:42 AM
whats an m16m4?

ive gone into houses with an m16a2 with a compact ACOG on top without a problem. it was 2x, which was IMHO perfect for how we were using them at the time. a few had the 4x nsn models, and they worked out well also. just use them with both eyes open, they have a longer than normal eye relief. works out alright

mister_wilburn
June 9, 2007, 11:54 AM
I carried a Colt Mfg. M-4 last year, and it had a few advantages to the M-16's. First, getting in or out of a HMMV is a pain with the 16. Second, once you load up with body armor, and ammo, and a manpack radio, you have alot manuever around. the m-4's collapsable stock is nice. For me, it gave the ability to get the weapon right where i wanted it. I shouldered a few 16's and they were tougher for getting a comfortable firing position. my m-4 was heavier than most 16's once you add on all the extras i was issued.
If im shooting varmits at 200 yds in civilian clothes, ill take the 16, if i am deploying, m-4 all the way.

Sry0fcr
June 9, 2007, 05:12 PM
whats an m16m4?

My guess would be an M16A4 with a collapsible stock. I'm sure M16M4 is just a slang term though. My next rifle will be similar except 18" barrel.

C-grunt
June 9, 2007, 06:24 PM
I didnt have a problem at all with my A4. Getting out of a humvee is a pain but I would always stick the barrel out first and then get out. After one firefight where my team leader and I were engaging targets at around 450 meters, he traded in his M4 for a A4.

If you enjoyed reading about "For all our soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!