M16 vs. M4 -- What say you?

I don't think the m-4 was sopposed to phase out the m16. I think its just a specialized rifle to help aid ease of exiting vehicles and clearing houses. Both will be in service for years to come. Working side by side.

There's no real "advancements" besides the shorter barrel, and colapsible stock. And that's not really an advancment as you lose external ballistics of the 5.56 round. Everything else is the same.

I loved my M4 it is light and handier. Average engagement distances are now inside 100m so loss of velocity isn't as important. The biggest advantage is the portability inside vehicles.

Average engagement distances are now inside 100m so loss of velocity isn't as important.

Click to expand...

Not in Afghanistan

Reports are that a more advanced variant, the M4, is being phased in to replace the M16.

Click to expand...

Er, this has been happening for more than a decade. I got to Italy in 97, and the line companies were transitioning to them then. They were on Bragg in 99. This is not exactly a new thing.

I wouldn't call it an advanced design, just different.

FWIW, generally speaking, I would much rather have the M4 instead of the M16. I like it a lot more.

NE. national guard has all but Phased out the M-16 for the M-4

The M16 has been standard-issue in (many of) our armed forces for some time. Reports are that a more advanced variant, the M4, is being phased in to replace the M16.

Click to expand...

Pssssssssssssssst, welcome to the Internet.

I prefer a longer barrel for the 5.56x45mmNATO (or .223Rem), it was designed for it, and has been shown to perform better with a barrel greater than 16in. in length. For short engagements the M4 is fine, and aids in CQB due to the shorter OAL and collapsible stock. IMO the answer to the quest for both good moderate range performance, quick handling, and a smaller package for CQB can be found below:



It fulfills all the above requirements (that is a 21.5in. bbl)...I just feel sorry for all the wrong-handed folks.

I like the M4, but they could split the difference and go with 16" mid lengths!

Not in Afghanistan

Click to expand...

OK, what is the average range of engagement in Afghanistan?

Doesn't matter. An M4 with an ACOG is a 600 meter gun without any real fuss -- the problem is that making 600 meter shots in a real fight with any service rifle or carbine is incredibly low percentage. Switching to a 20" barrel M16 or 22" M14 or anything else won't change the acquisition or engagement problem.

Re: Maverick223.

Take that M17, couple it with a forward-ejecting system, and suddenly you have the best of both worlds....

Methinks a Kel-Tek RFB in .223 or 6.8 with a happy switch and refinements to make it grunt-proof might be the best option to replace both the M4 and M16. But I digress.

As for the M4 replacing the M16? Seems like thats what the push is. The new M855A1 round seems to be designed to get more performance from a short barrel, coupled with the projection that we will be involved in increasingly more urban conflicts that are CQB heavy.

As for the long-range dilemma? Do it the Russian way: 2-3 DMRs in each fire team to cover that 200-600m range. Like the Russians: Use your M4/AK-74M to cover the 0-200m range, and your M21/M14/Mk25/SVD to cover the 200-600+ meter range. Pushing an intermediate range cartridge to do long-range work seems kind of...strange, after all, especially when long-range choices like .308 (in Russian case 7.62x54r) do a significantly better job.

I don't understand why they didn't just go with 16" midlengths instead.

Take that M17, couple it with a forward-ejecting system, and suddenly you have the best of both worlds....

Methinks a Kel-Tek RFB in .223 or 6.8 with a happy switch and refinements to make it grunt-proof might be the best option to replace both the M4 and M16.

Click to expand...

Agreed on both accounts, but it would take quite a bit of engineering to make the M17 forward ejecting, and I suspect that the RFB would need a good bit of reinforcement to make it more rugged (don't know this for sure, as I have no experience with them and few reports have been given). OTOH the Tavor seems like a pretty good solution for right now.

When I was in (EOD) we were issued M16s. I always wished for a carbine at the time. However nobody was shooting at me.

If they were, and the gun was was going to used with iron sights, I would take the M16. Sure they are more of a pain inside a vehicle, but that is the only advantage of the carbine other than manuverability when clearing buildings you believe may be occupied... which isn't something you would normally expect to be doing as an EOD soldier.

With optics I would probably take the carbine as a Team Leader, but would probably still prefer the team members to have full sized rifles.

You got to keep in mind to that you can't pick your weapon for the specific conditions in each conflict. It is a compromise for today and for the unknown conditions that will exist in the next conflicts.

do you still want that M4 (even though it is a shorter-barrelled carbine...) or do you want your sidearm pistol

Click to expand...

Pistols don't win gunfights when the other side is using AK-47 rifles and RPG's.

Pistols are to keep you alive long enough to get to your rifle, or carbine. Nothing more.

rc

You got to keep in mind to that you can't pick your weapon for the specific conditions in each conflict. It is a compromise for today and for the unknown conditions that will exist in the next conflicts.

Click to expand...

The SCAR (which I am NOT a fan of) comes with a fully adjustable stock, fire SA and FA, has three barrel lengths standard, a suppressor and comes in two calibers. That covers a lot of scenarios.

But do you call a time-out in the firefight while you pick your barrel length & caliber and swap parts around??

All this crap about interchangeable parts to fit the mission makes me laugh.

If the SCAR becomes standard issue, which is very doubtful, you will take the one the Supply Sargent issues you, and you will never see those other barrels in different calibers, ever.

M-16 uppers are available in many calibers and barrel lengths too. And they can be changed in about 30 seconds.
But nobody ever got to pick which one they wanted to put on thier issue M16 or M4.

rc

The number one reason for mission failure is poor planning. If you don't make an analysis of the terrain, physical, human and otherwise than you are destined to fail no matter what you carry. Before you leave the wire you should be prepared for what you will most likely face, and what is the worst thing you could possibly face. This includes preparation of your arms.

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!
Robby

is this a case of "if it ain't broken, don't fix it";

Click to expand...

Negative. It's very hard to move forward with technology if you are not willing to improve even the firearms that are proven. Technology never stops moving forward and neither do the capabilities of firearms.

My two cents on the subject is the M4 is more accurate than most soldiers. So the advantages in maneuverability outweigh the disadvantages in downrange accuracy and power.