M16 vs. M4 -- What say you?

[Maverick223]

Original M16, POS; original CAR15, POS; current M4 very good battle rifle. To make it a great battle rifle, give our boys a caliber they can LIVE with!

You sir, are misinformed. The M16 and CAR-15, though far from my favorite rifles, are very effective weapons systems, as is the 5.56x45mmNATO intermediate cartridge. Don't take my word for it, this has been proven in battle, and has been recounted by numerous folks here with quite a bit of combat experience.

 

[gb0399]

Allow me to bring this thread full circle. As of right now, the M16 is all but phased out. The Army is armed with M4s. Some like the weapon, some don't. Some like the caliber, some don't. I personally think its the best battle rifle out there today, you might not. And I have to agree with blackops, whether its the best or not, we must continue to look for the next best thing out there.

 

[prezbucky]

In other words, a good eye can make the M4 as effective as it needs to be...

Do US Army Special Forces, Delta, Force Recon, SEALs, DEVGRU (etc.) use the M4?

Or do they just use pretty much any weapon they want?

 

[Tim the student]

...as is the 5.56x45mmNATO intermediate cartridge. Don't take my word for it, this has been proven in battle, and has been recounted by numerous folks here with quite a bit of combat experience.

Lots like it, some don't. I don't. It is not universally adored by any means - but in fairness, it is generally viewed positively.

 

[Maverick223]

Lots like it, some don't. I don't. It is not universally adored by any means - but in fairness, it is generally viewed positively.

True, some folks don't like it, as with any cartridge (or anything else for that matter), my point is that it has a habit of getting the job done (even for the guys that don't like it). I like the cartridge, but there are many that are better suited to warfare IMO (primarily the 6x45mm and 6.5MPC). FWIW it is not my chosen cartridge for my primary HD carbine, but I wouldn't feel undergunned with it either. I find it funny that folks look at that big, mean, powerful, manly .45ACP (which consequently is my go-to pistol cartridge, but only to get me to the long guns if time permits) as a "manstopper" but the 5.56NATO (or .223Rem.) as nothing but a "varmint cartridge"...run the numbers on both, the rifle cartridge always comes up on top.

 

[prezbucky]

...because Energy = Mass * Velocity Squared

IE, the FPS number is more important than the caliber.

(.3 * 1700)squared > (.45 * 850)squared
As my grandpa likes to remind me, speed kills.

 

[PandaBearBG]

IMHO rifles change with every war and redesigned or phased out depending on enviroment, conflict, and need. Larger calibers where phased out for lighter more ammo M16's in longer range fights in Viet Nam, shorter range and shorter OAL CQB rifles like the M4 were introduced for the need of more frequent close city fighting of Iraq. The need for long distance rifles is still apparent though as more mid range intermediate scout snipers are more common in squads and fire teams in today's modern soilders and Marines. When the next major conflict arises for the US I'm pretty sure something new will come out as a new need is ...well needed.

 

[Maverick223]

...because Energy = Mass * Velocity Squared

IE, the FPS number is more important than the caliber. [...] As my grandpa likes to remind me, speed kills.

To an extent...in some cases the caliber is insufficient to cause sufficient trauma (both from crushed tissues and bloodletting) and/or will just pass through the target without depositing much of the energy. Fortunately this is not the case with the 5.56NATO, because even the FMJ designs exhibit very good terminal ballistics (though I will take a Ballistic Tip, SP, or HP over a FMJ any day). BTW, mass is the "grain-weight" (for lack of a better term) rather than caliber, otherwise your formula is correct.

 

[-v-]

As for the 14.5 vs 20" length debate. Load those M4's up with 75-77gr slugs with a powder optimized for a 14.5" burn, and I doubt there is going to be that much substantiative difference in "hitting power" between a 20" and a 16". As for accuracy argument: When pretty much every rifle out side of boot camp sports an ACOG, aimpoint, or EOTech, sight radius is moot. Its the 21st century, sight radius is a decidedly 20th century concern!

That, and having a shorter barrel lets you have an overall more rigid barrel = better barrel harmonics = better inherent accuracy than a long barrel.

While I am in Maverick's camp not being a fan of the 5.56, it has and still does demonstrate that it can and does get the job done. Is it a death ray? No. But, if you mind your aim, and put the pills where it counts, it'll do its job.

Edit: Energy = (0.5) * Mass * Velocity * Velocity.

Momentum = Mass * Velocity.

 

[Tim the student]

my point is that it has a habit of getting the job done

I agree that it generally does, but sometimes it takes much too long, even with multiple, great COM shots that could only have been improved on by being a good CNS shot.

It is not the uber man killer that some would have you believe - but it's not a .22LR either.

 

[RP88]

Allow me to bring this thread full circle. As of right now, the M16 is all but phased out. The Army is armed with M4s.

the M16A4 still has select primary/frontline service in the Army, select service in Israel as it is supplemented by the IMI Tavors, widespread and primary service in as many as 40 other countries, select service in the Navy, and still a vital service in the Marines as its primary rifle.

 

[robby101]

Maverick, I'm not misinformed, its just my opinion, based on my own experience and observations as a grunt with the 101ST, in I Corps. We qualified with both the M14, and the M16. In VN I carried one of those first generation M16. It was great for breaking the wire on a case of C's with that three prong suppressor, other than that, it was a full time job making sure there was zero dirt anywhere near the action, chamber area, and after seeing tracers ricochet off the local flora, well, I wasn't the only guy wishing he had an M14. That little CAR was A pretty cool looking gun back in the day, but was held in even lower regard than the 16, because of reliability issues. Eventually I was issued the up graded model, and did have a better opinion of it. Thirty years later, and my son had complete faith in the gun and the M4 version. Many many upgrades have been made over the years, and I believe that today it is the best battle rifle in the field, carried by the best trained army in our nations history, and they know how to use it. I just think they need a better caliber. Again, this is my opinion based on MY experience, and I'm sure whatever I say, someone could come with statistics that would prove me wrong, just as there are those that could come up with statistics in support of my opinion. I'm not trying to stir things up, just my opinion.
Robby

 

[Maverick223]

I'm not trying to stir things up, just my opinion.

That's not the way you stated it, but fair enough. FWIW, the initial problems with the M16 and variants were mostly due to poor ammunition selection and lack of proper cleaning (and the non-chrome lined bbl didn't help matters). The same would be true today (with M4s) if put in similar circumstances.

 

[Al Thompson]

Robby, thanks for your service.

I tend to not worry about the caliber, but the bullet. Read a book on the battle of Peleliu (E.B. Sledge, With the Old Breed) where a Garand equipped Marine had to empty the rifle to stop an enemy. In "Blackhawk Down", the M60 was mention several times as being ineffective.

Note that all concerned were using FMJ ammo. There's a reason that FMJ is mostly banned for hunting.

 

[7.62mm.ak47]

Well as I just posted in a similar thread I've had experience with both of these weapons. The M16A2's we qualified with at boot camp were falling apart and I still had no problem hitting the target at 500yds (accurately I might add). The M4's accuracy is obviously not as good as the M16 because the barrel is 5.5 inches shorter. However it's purpose is to be used in urban areas and with vehicle mounted troops so they have better maneuverability. I personally thought it felt a lot better but I'd sacrifice that for accuracy if it was a combat situation. M16A4 wins IMHO.

 

[APIT50]

I have shot the M4, M16A2 with and without M203, M16A4, with M68 CCO, ACOG, BUIS, and standard irons all to at least 300 yards. If you are shooting past 300 yards in Iraq at least ( I haven't had the pleasure of seeing desert and mountains yet ie. Afghanistan), you would probably be better served with a different caliber as the winds over there are a bit stiff. Out to 300 yards all of the aforementioned weapons systems and optics worked just fine for me. The M16 and variants in the modern army are all pretty reliable these days if properly care for. It is amazing what your average soldier will do to their rifle. I have seen them run over, bolt rusted into chamber, dropped repeatedly, used as leaning post muzzle down in dirt, etc. The most common issue I saw as a unit armorer in Iraq was magazines. You drop a standard issue steel mag on concrete just once and you can mess up the feed lips badly enough that it can cause feeding issues.

An earlier comment was made that you average soldier isn't accurate enough to need long range precision in their rifle. I have to sadly agree. Approximately 120 soldiers went to qualify on the range last time I went. To qualify you must hit at least 23 out of 40 targets out to 300m. Average qualification score was about 27. I would estimate about 80% of the soldiers probably never fire a rifle except for that 1 time a year at qualifications.

 

[robby101]

Thanks Al, There are many examples that parallel the one you have cited, and I think everyone would agree, there is no one gun fit for all situations. I do worry over caliber, and apparently so do some in the current military. My old division has been re-equipped with an up-graded M14, .308 for overseas deployment. On one hand I think its a good move, but at the same time, I think there is the potential for a logistical nightmare, having two different caliber battle rifles in the same theater of operation. Its not hard for me to imagine a LRP heavily engaged, calling for ammo resupply, and getting a kick-out of .556! Those guys will risk everything to get them their resupply, but in the heat and urgency of the moment, these are the kind of mistakes that are made. Many of the special ops use a larger caliber. What that caliber should be for our main line troopers is still in debate, heated debate, but special op's aside, the front line troops all have to be on the same page.
Robby