Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

M16 vs. M4

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by sprice, Mar 19, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sprice

    sprice Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    916
    Which rifle is more reliable/durable and why?
     
  2. cbrgator

    cbrgator Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    2,525
    They are the same really. Over an extended period of time, thousands and thousands of rounds, the M4 is probably less reliable because of the shorter gas tube which is harder on the bolt/carrier.

    But they are essentially the same.
     
  3. Birddog1911

    Birddog1911 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    624
    Location:
    Peyton, CO
    This debate, and pretty much any AR debate, has been done ad nauseum. Not trying to be rude, but you'll find answers if you search.
     
  4. sprice

    sprice Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    916
    I did and I couldn't find any with op's like this... am I searching wrong?
     
  5. Birddog1911

    Birddog1911 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2008
    Messages:
    624
    Location:
    Peyton, CO
    Well, let's sum it up quickly. A 20" barrel on an M16A4 is going to give you roughly 100 FPS faster than an M4. You'll also have a longer sight radius, which tends to be more accurate. If your going to engage targets within 250 to 300 yards, a carbine will be handier and a little lighter. If you want to accurately and dependably engage targets to 600 yards, the 20" profile will be better.
     
  6. Atticum

    Atticum Member

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2009
    Messages:
    139
    Location:
    Nashville
    if you are wearing a flak jacket the m4 is a much better fit in the pocket of your shoulder.
     
  7. 4288

    4288 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    14
    Bingo. Plus the other poster who noted that the extra wear and tear of the carbine will result in less longevity.
     
  8. ny32182

    ny32182 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    Messages:
    5,701
    Location:
    Clemson, SC
    He asked about reliability and durability, not engagement ranges guys...

    The answer is basically this... they are all pretty reliable and durable, but the longer the gas system, the less stress the gas pulse puts on the internal components (BCG). This is due to the level of pressure entering the gas port and thus the BCG (the closer to the chamber, the higher the pressure) and the time it takes that pulse to make it back to expand in the inside of the carrier:

    The shorter tubes will tap the gas earlier and get it back to the carrier faster, thus both running a higher pressure pulse, and starting the unlocking cycle earlier.... both of which put more stress on the BCG components.

    It isn't really something to be tremendously concerned with however. The bolt, gas rings, and extractor may have a slightly longer life at the extreme end in a longer gas system rifle, but by then you would've spent so much on ammo that parts replacement costs are basically negligible by comparison.
     
  9. DMK

    DMK Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,766
    Location:
    Over the hills and far, far away
    Good answer.

    Split the difference, get the midlength.

    Same barrel length as an M4, longer sight radius, softer gas pulse, the proper dwell time of the rifle length.

    [​IMG]
     
  10. LRS_Ranger

    LRS_Ranger Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    374
    Location:
    Molalla, OR
  11. Z-Michigan

    Z-Michigan Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,047
    Location:
    Michigan
    It also allows you to mount a standard bayonet properly. :)

    As for proper dwell time, a midlength still provides a sharper, higher pressure impulse to the carrier, but it is not nearly as bad as the impulse from an M4 length. The M4 length, btw, was intended for 14.5" and shorter barrels, so using it with a 16" barrel really over-gasses the action.

    Best reliability and durability is with the 20" barrel and rifle length gas.
     
  12. Float Pilot

    Float Pilot Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2007
    Messages:
    3,093
    Location:
    Kachemak Bay Alaska
    When my last unit started to go over to M4s (14.5 inch barrel), somebody decided that only the top ranks ( E-7 to E-9 ) and Officers who have M4s and all the other troops would still carry their M16A2s.
    The first thing I noticed is that all the pre-deployment qualification scores dropped like a rock with the folks carrying M4s. And the M4s seemed to get dirty faster.
    Although they were just as reliable as the A2s when cleaned properly. (Our new FN made A2s were so tight it took 500 rounds to break them in...)
    Eventually I went back to the A2. I am tall enough that I could still use it wearing my body armor, it had more velocity (chronoed 130 fps more), thus more impact force, better accuracy, better range and I was no longer pointing out my senior rank by carrying a different weapon than the troops.
    About 18 months later the entire unit went over to M4s and we then spent a bunch of time and money getting batteries and repair parts for the stinking Aim Points.
     
  13. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    The military has done several studies and the M16 has a slightly better rate of reliability and slightly longer service life in every one of them. It basically comes down to the M4 being harder on parts (that were designed for M16 pressures) and needing more preventive maintenance more often to run at the same rate of reliability.
     
  14. Fremmer

    Fremmer Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    2,284
    more handy than a 20" rifle at 300 yards, but not at 600? How? 300 or 600, long is long, and I see no advantage a carbine would have over the 20" rifle at either range.

    Now if you're talking much closer ranges and/or in certain environments, the shorter stock/barrel might be handier.

    Sorry, just confused. :confused:
     
  15. Water-Man

    Water-Man Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    2,257
    Location:
    N. Georgia
    Well, if you go by the original design.....
     
  16. LRS_Ranger

    LRS_Ranger Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    374
    Location:
    Molalla, OR
  17. DMK

    DMK Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,766
    Location:
    Over the hills and far, far away
    You said that already. :rolleyes:
     
  18. LRS_Ranger

    LRS_Ranger Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Messages:
    374
    Location:
    Molalla, OR
    Stinkin' computers... ;)
     
  19. possum

    possum Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Messages:
    8,942
    Location:
    Concord, N.C.
    theoretically the 20" ar should be more reliable over a longer lenght of time. however with that said, i have over 5k through my personal 16" model ar, as well i have never had a malfunction that was caused by the gun itself in any m4 that i have been issued. (the one i currently have i had for 2.5 years and counting.) the only isues have been magazine related which was solved with using p mags!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page