Marine M16

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Archangel14

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2012
Messages
596
How com the Marines stuck with the M16? Is it because of the 20 inch barrel? What's the advantage of that over the M4 in combat?
 
There are reasons pro and con, but the Marines are considering adopting the M4: http://refactortactical.com/blog/marines-likely-to-adopt-m4/

Basically it's been a trend to recognizing that most accurate hits are done under 200m and firepower - having more bullets in the air - is what causes hits out to 500m. Hits at longer ranges are actually caused more often by a bullet never aimed at that specific soldier - he moved into a lane of fire he didn't see. That is also exactly what the crew served machine guns are meant to do. Since the Corp has adopted light AR style machine guns in the smaller units that "indirect" firepower does exist.

It's also been shown the incremental loss of power from a shorter barrel can be made up with better cartridges. Issue ammo is getting modern enhancements, and the use of open tip match is legal, too. Most snipers and many squad designated marksmen already use it.

Given the M4's overall handiness in vehicles and tight quarters - such as buildings and street patrolling in third world countries - the overall concept of the M4 as the better weapon is now trickling down to the Marines, again, for another look. They passed on it five years ago but now there are other people making decisions.
 
My take on it:
1. The brass and older Marines select the equipment. Many of them still see iron sights as a priority, because that's how it has always worked.
2. Officially, Marines pride themselves on marksmanship. The M16 is more accurate at longer ranges. The fact that it may be only be .05% more accurate and only good for another 50-100 yards is irrelevant to the Brass. Also, Iron sights work MUCH better on an M16 due to the sight radius (see #1.)
3. Changing rifles cost money, and "these still work."
4. Many Marines (and other branches) think the M16 is more reliable, especially in an extended fight. Trying to get good reliability info on the M4 is impossible. Some entire units will swear that after 3 fast mag dumps, the M4 is a club until cleaned. The Army brass swear that it is the most reliable firearm ever built, and it beats every other weapon in the tests they design specifically to make the M4 win. Usually. The truth is somewhere in the middle. The M16 runs a bit cleaner and cycles a little less violently, so there is probably some validity to the "more reliable" argument. The Army says reliability difference is only .05% or so in tests.

I think #3 is the main one.
 
The Army went to the M4 because our Infantry is too heavily loaded. Remember, an Army squad has only 9 men, while a Marine squad has 13. That's 4 more men to carry the extra goodies.
 
With the downsizing of all branches of the Military the Marine Corp is returning to it's roots as a amphibious assault force. In this type of combat a rifle is not a handicap.


"Though we have focused (at this level) almost exclusively on land warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last decade, amphibious operations continue to be the mainstay of our Corps’ mission," explained Col. Scott D. Aiken, operations officer for II MEF. "We have been working toward this for more than two years now and it’s one of the first of many steps in the direction to revitalize our core competency."



http://www.iimef.marines.mil/News/N...marines-return-to-their-amphibious-roots.aspx
 
Last edited:
So what of the difference between the two for the individual soldier? What platform will serve the individual better, irrespective of other considerations (crew served weaponry; multiple soldiers firing off their rifles, etc...)

I brought this topic up with someone recently and his educated position is that one guy, on his own, would be in a specialized role (hunter, sniper, defender of the neighborhood), and is thus better served not by any AR15 platform, but a good bolt action in a larger, more common caliber, like .308 or 30-06. Interesting take....
 
His educated position isn't. Individual soldiers do not work alone. Snipers do not work alone either.
Marines stuck with the M16 because of monetary restraints. Everything else takes a back seat to money.
"...a decade of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan..." The Marine Corps was almost exclusively on land long before then. Not many amphibious landings since Inchon.
In any case, the only reason anybody uses any form of M-16 is because McNamara decided it would be adopted. It's a rifle nobody wanted except the USAF for uses as an air crew survival rifle.
 
Other than in a marksman role, the M4 is better all around IMO, I have no problem qualifying expert with it on targets out to 300m (every Army Infantryman has shot to 500m in training, we just don't make a big deal out of it like the 'Corps ;)). A big part of the USMC sticking with the full size was that in testing it was the most reliable configuration. Add that to institutional desire to have a marksman image and they went with the M16A4/ACOG combo.

Tough rifle to work with kicking in doors in Fallujah wearing full body armor and plates though.

I personally think a 14.5-16" mid length barrel with the A5 stock system would be a great all-around issue rifle but that is way outside of anything in the .mil system.
 
His educated position isn't. Individual soldiers do not work alone. Snipers do not work alone either.
Click to expand...

Some sniper do, and did. I think what my buddy was emphasizing (and this gentleman is a highly experienced combat veteran and contract employee) was really not your typical soldier, but just one man on his own, in a hostile environment. We discussed a kind of "Occupy Wall Street" scenario, where the "peaceful" protesters got out of hand and entered a neighborhood with evil intentions. In such a scenario, a one man defender of home or street would not have the support of a team or platoon of other armed men, or some artillery parked a mile away, or an aircraft to assist from above. It would be just one guy, on his own. I think that an AR platform would be of good service in that scenario. But what would be better?....M4 or M16? Would it matter? Does the projectile from an M16 do more tissue damage, more readily disable? Is this why the Marines stuck with the M16? I don't know theses things, thus I ask.:eek:
 
Archangel14 said:
Some sniper do, and did. I think what my buddy was emphasizing (and this gentleman is a highly experienced combat veteran and contract employee) was really not your typical soldier, but just one man on his own, in a hostile environment. We discussed a kind of "Occupy Wall Street" scenario, where the "peaceful" protesters got out of hand and entered a neighborhood with evil intentions. In such a scenario, a one man defender of home or street would not have the support of a team or platoon of other armed men, or some artillery parked a mile away, or an aircraft to assist from above. It would be just one guy, on his own. I think that an AR platform would be of good service in that scenario. But what would be better?....M4 or M16? Would it matter? Does the projectile from an M16 do more tissue damage, more readily disable? Is this why the Marines stuck with the M16? I don't know theses things, thus I ask.:eek:
Click to expand...

Claymores and an M2.

In reality, in that situation M4/M16 wouldn't matter.
 
Claymores and an M2.

In reality, in that situation M4/M16 wouldn't matter.
Click to expand...
Good solution.

I commanded a Mech Company, and I liked to dig machine gun pits, mount the M2s on tripods, and run the tracks over them for overhead cover. We found the enemy couldn't locate the M2s, even when they were running right into them. They kept firing at the tops of the tracks, thinking the guns were mounted there.
 
Claymores?! Holy mackerel gentlemen! LOL....let's stay on point. M4 or M16 for the lone sentry?
 
Archangel14 said:
Claymores?! Holy mackerel gentlemen! LOL....let's stay on point. M4 or M16 for the lone sentry?
Click to expand...
Do you have doorways/windows to navigate?

That's pretty much the difference. Length.

With optics they are probably equally as accurate as a regular shooter can get them.

I like the look of a 20" AR but typically use a 16. I am not a commando or anything but the 16 is minute of coyote.
 
Still the M4, it will engage torso size targets further than any sightline you are gonna have. So, why have the extra length and bulk?
 
The Marine Corp got the M16A2 pushed through specifically to have a better "marksman's" rifle. Not necessarily a better combat weapon though. The whole elevation adjustable rear sight is the bee's knees on a KD range, or at a high power match.

The current incarnation of the M16A4 is a gradual transition to a better combat arm. I don't have issues with a 20" barrel over a 14.5" for CQB work, I do agree that the M4 is much handier when working out of vehicles. I learned CQB with a 20" M16A2, it's certainly doable. Adding an adjustable stock the M16A4, creates a truly useful rifle that had the ability to engage point targets out to 200-300 meters with our current ammunition. The M4 has the major disadvantage of loosing engagement range with our current ammunition due to lower muzzle velocity, but for primarily mech troops it's much handier to work with.

I wouldn't feel under gunned with either of them. In the posited civil defense scenario the absolute last thing I'd want is a bolt gun. There's a reason the military went to semi-autos for their snipers and SDM's.

-Jenrick
 
The current incarnation of the M16A4 is a gradual transition to a better combat arm. I don't have issues with a 20" barrel over a 14.5" for CQB work, I do agree that the M4 is much handier when working out of vehicles. I learned CQB with a 20" M16A2, it's certainly doable. Adding an adjustable stock the M16A4, creates a truly useful rifle that had the ability to engage point targets out to 200-300 meters with our current ammunition. The M4 has the major disadvantage of loosing engagement range with our current ammunition due to lower muzzle velocity, but for primarily mech troops it's much handier to work with.
Click to expand...

This, I think, answers it. I was thinking that maybe the Marines kept the M16 because it allows their ammo to do what it's suppose to do. The shorter barrels, as I understand, do not allow the ammo to do the damage it was intended to do.
 
The shorter barrels, as I understand, do not allow the ammo to do the damage it was intended to do.
Click to expand...

It'll work out of the 14.5" barrel, just at reduced ranges. You lose about 100 yds compared to the 20" barrel. It'll still put a caliber sized hole, possibly tumble even. You're just not likely to see any real fragmentation. Then again if your primary mission is to be mech infantry, you've got a lot bigger and longer range guns to handle distance engagements.

-Jenrick
 
It'll still put a caliber sized hole, possibly tumble even.
Click to expand...

That's a concern, I think. A 5.56 that zips through a target is less likely to stop that target (assuming a non-organ shot), than a round that tumbles. The literature I've read leads me to believe that the 20 inch Marine rifle better ensures that the round will tumble.
 
At extended ranges it doesn't matter if it stops them. Wounding is sufficient to make it so that they cannot return effective fire (with their AK at 400m or whatever) and they become a logistical burden. Good enough...frag range and "stops" matter a whole lot more for CQB.
 
Mechanical accuracy between the two is about identical, with the M16 being better capable of achieving that potential due to sight radius. Optics equalize them again.

I was getting out of the Corps when they dropped the trials for the M4 and Colt got pissed. The explanation that came out was accuracy difference and helmet penetration range.
 
I brought this topic up with someone recently and his educated position is that one guy, on his own, would be in a specialized role (hunter, sniper, defender of the neighborhood), and is thus better served not by any AR15 platform, but a good bolt action in a larger, more common caliber, like .308 or 30-06. Interesting take....
Click to expand...

A guy in that specialized role ought to have a hunting rifle for hunting, a fighting rifle for fighting, and a sniper rifle for sniping. One rifle could serve both the hunting and sniping roles I suppose. Fighting in a neighborhood is going to be mostly close range. Not a lot of line of sight in any direction, and lots of cover. I'd want a shorter carbine with a red dot and head mounted night vision with an aiming laser (the cock-a-roaches come out more at night). A sniper rifle in an suburban setting could be as simple as an AR carbine with a scope on top. Again, the shots are mostly not going o be very long range, and most of the action would happen at night in a riot situation, further reducing the distances involved.
 
Do you have doorways/windows to navigate?

That's pretty much the difference. Length.
Click to expand...

Standard configuration rifles also suck when moving in and out of vehicles a lot. Which is part of the reason why the AUG, SA80, F2000, and Tavor are bullpup rifles.

Plus you get 20" rifle ballistics out of a weapon that's shorter than a standard layout carbine.

BSW
 
That's a concern, I think. A 5.56 that zips through a target is less likely to stop that target (assuming a non-organ shot), than a round that tumbles. The literature I've read leads me to believe that the 20 inch Marine rifle better ensures that the round will tumble.
Click to expand...

Fragmentation is what actually gives the 5.56 it's lethality. Basically if the round is moving fast enough, the round upon encountering a medium denser then air it will try to rotate so the heaviest part of the bullet (the base in a spitzer type bullet) is at the front. If it's moving below about 2700 FPS that's about all you're potentially going to get from the bullet, basically a wound track that's cut by the bullet as it rotates in the target. Certainly better then a .22" hole, but still not earth shattering. If the bullets moving above about 2700 FPS as it rotates it over stresses the cannelure (the crimping groves basically), and the bullet jacket ruptures. Now it basically shotguns lead and brass throughout the entirety of the wound track which dramatically increases it's lethality. There's more involved in the whole process but that's the short version.

A 20" gun will keep the round above 2700 FPS out to approximately 150-200 yds depending on the round. A 14.5" M4 will do so out to about 75-100 yards. A shorty 10.5" gun using M855 "green tip" is only good out to about 10-12 yards before the velocity is too low.

-Jenrick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top