Marine M16

Status
Not open for further replies.
There's probably a number of reasons the Marines stuck with the M16. But I bet a big consideration is the velocity that is achieved out of a 20 inch barrel, especially when compared to a 14.5
 
maxxhavoc said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree on cost. Marines have one of the smallest budgets of any of the services. Because Marines also train to shoot at farther ranges, they invested on supplying more ACOGs to rifles rather than replacing the rifles themselves.

Barrel length is great for long range accuracy and terrible for vehicle riding or urban operations. Many Marines I know fought in the house to house, block to block style of urban fighting in places like Ramadi and Fallujah. While a shorter barrel would have helped, many just did not fully shoulder the rifle.

Reliability differences or the illusion of are humorous. The actions are identical except for barrel and gas tube length. I was in firefights that lasted longer than 7 magazines, the standard combat load, and never had an issue with my M4. GOOD magazines make a huge difference in M4/M16 rifle reliability if the soldier/Marine does their part in keeping the rifle clean between missions.
 
herrwalther said:
Reliability differences or the illusion of are humorous. The actions are identical except for barrel and gas tube length.
Click to expand...
Don't forget the M16 has a longer buffer tube with a heavier buffer and a longer buffer spring.

The M16's longer and heavier buffer system and longer barrel with a longer gas tube all add up to make the M16 shoot a little more smoothly, which adds up to less parts wear over time. And the M16 also tends to be less pressure-sensitive and tends to run better when there are variances in gas pressure (due to non-standard ammo or the addition of a silencer). This is why VLTOR came up with the A5 buffer system: They wanted to mimic the smoother functioning of the M16 with a collapsible stock system.

Now, does this add up to the M16 having a noticably higher level of reliability than the M4 when both are in the military configuration and both are using military ammo? Probably not: I agree with you that good magazines and proper maintenance make a MUCH bigger difference than anything else, and I also agree with you that the M4 is more than reliable enough for military use.

I carried an M16A2 in the Marine Corps infantry, and I would much rather have had an M4. In my opinion, the M16 is just too long and cumbersome compared to the M4 for most infantry uses (especially as an M240G team leader, which was my billet for the plurality of my enlistment).
 
Last edited:
My son completed boot camp at MCRD San Diego a year or so ago. One of the biggest annoyances he had (aside from a broken leg) was that they didn't do any iron-sights shooting. He grew up shooting my mausers, springfields, and mosins and shoots very well with iron sights. He likes ACOGs, but he thinks of it more of a crutch when teaching people to shoot. In his second platoon (after he got out of MRP), he was one of only 4 or 5 recruits who had done any significant shooting. He finished tied for 3rd in his unit scoring 325-330 out of 350. (That's off the top of my head. He's not answering my texts at the moment.) When he got to shoot my AR w/ an RRA Predator Pursuit upper assembly and an RRA 3.5 lb two-stage trigger, he said that he wished the Marine M16s were that accurate. Even with American Eagle M193, it does close to 1" groups at 100 yards. I told him the extra heavy barrel would probably get old after a little while and the balance wasn't great.

He's said that he got to shoot an experimental M16 that had a free-floating handguard and a heavier barrel and it was significantly more accurate than his issued rifle. He's said that he's heard talk of switching to an M4 and there have been some M16s with adjustable stocks showing up for some of the shorter Marines.

Matt
 
I carried an M4 almost all 4 years I was in the Marine Infantry. So did many others. Not sure what units you guys are talking about but (at least with my company) you were the exception if you carried an M16A4 instead of an M4.

Still went through boot camp with the old M16A2 with no rail system to speak of and only iron sights though. Went through Infantry training with an M16A4 W/ ACOG. After that it was the M4
 
The original M16 pushed a 55 gr bullet at a somewhat probamatic 3300 fps with a slow twist, first 1/14 then 1/12. As Col. Hal Moore said they were terrific and made the difference in the famous A Shau Valley battle. The rifles gave no problems when kept clean. Sharp commanders did not change cleaning standards when changing from the M-14 and did not have any trouble. The demand for 3300 fps did cause pressure spikes hence all the powder issues. Anyway, those rifles with a bullet designed to yaw and increase resistence causing horrific wounds. Fragmentation was a side effect and due to rotational forces increased wounds as well. My point being that an excellent anti personal weapon has been has been greatly changed many times to achieve different goals. If you are going to use slower bullets and faster twist you gain distance and penetration at the cost of wound damage. That can be offset by useing expanding bullets. It is a tough call as a carbine is handier but the Rifle has more potential for lethality depending on bullets and twist.
The original research for the M-16 required very high velocity and energy with a bullet that yawed easily for it to be effective. In my opinion slowing the small caliber bullet down and stabilizing it handicaps it to the point it is far less effective.
 
Last edited:
Defc0n said:
I carried an M4 almost all 4 years I was in the Marine Infantry. So did many others. Not sure what units you guys are talking about but (at least with my company) you were the exception if you carried an M16A4 instead of an M4.

Still went through boot camp with the old M16A2 with no rail system to speak of and only iron sights though. Went through Infantry training with an M16A4 W/ ACOG. After that it was the M4
Click to expand...

Yep. I love when people tell me that Marines all have M16s and Army all has M4s. My brother in law, Marine 0351, carried a M4 his entire enlistment and I, Army 11B, carried a M16 (when I was assigned one).

The M16 is still the official rifle of the Marine Corps but they do use the M4 a lot. From the guys Ive talked to everyone that can get a M4 does. Look up video of MARSOC and Recon guys. They all carry M4s.

I am a huge fan of the M16 as it was all that I carried, rifle wise, when I was in the Army. My unit decided to go with M16A4s over the M4 in 2000ish because they decided that Mech units didnt need to carry the weapon as far and therefor should have the longer rifle. The deployment after I got out, everyone had M4s. Its just a better weapon system for modern combat.

As a side note..... A 62 grn bullet at 2200 FPS might not fragment, but is still yaws and tears you up, especially if it hits bone.
 
Sharp commanders did not change cleaning standards when changing from the M-14 and did not have any trouble.
Click to expand...
It didn't matter how sharp you were if you weren't issued cleaning gear. Simple things, like the long "pipe cleaner" for the gas tube were a long time coming.
 
Velocity works

As a paper pusher in the US Army, I frequently set up with the Medics. Our Physician told us that wearing the old flack jacket would decrease the velocity of the bullet and reduce injury.
A shorter barrel will have the same effect.
 
The difference in accuracy between the M16 and M4 is a moot point. Both can easily hit a point target up to and even past 500 yards. Obviously, a slight edge goes to the M16 with it's longer barrel and fixed stock, but the advantage is barely noticeable. I would rather have the M4. You still have the same range and accuracy (yes, theoretically slightly less due to the different barrel lengths), but in a package that is about a foot shorter (shorter barrel and stock can be collapsed). This advantage means that you not only have a long-range rifle, but a weapon that is more practical for close-quarters. If you have any urban operations or potential urban operations, the M4 is the winner in my eyes. Try clearing rooms or entering/exiting vehicles and confined spaces with an M16 and then try with an M4. There is a big difference. Honestly, it would be awesome if we had Tavors or some other bullpup so long as the trigger is decent. Then you have the best of both worlds... long barrel with fixed stock and a very compact package.
 
If you have any urban operations or potential urban operations, the M4 is the winner in my eyes. Try clearing rooms or entering/exiting vehicles and confined spaces with an M16 and then try with an M4.
Click to expand...

I've only come up to speed on the AR platform over the last year or so. But realistically, unless one is a member of a police force or a military unit there's almost zero chance of having to enter rooms. I can't even think of when I'd have to exit a vehicle with a long arm at the ready, considering my circumstances and needs. I think a 20 inch AR does the trick for me, in very limited circumstances, as I'm more concerned with velocity and the effects of a round. Even still, as very knowledgeable member of this forum advised me, us civilians have all kinds of different ammo available to us that members of the military do not. I imagine a SP .223 out of a 16 inch barrel would be very effective on soft skinned game. But that's besides the point, as my OP was simply concerned with why the marines stuck with the M16.
 
Being that you can choose whatever ammo you want makes the shorter and lighter rifle even more appealing.
 
Huh?

Marines are using the M4. Did someone mention Sentry duty? You can just grab any old rifle for that. They use the M16 because it's in the rack and available. Everyone I've talked to that was overseas was issued an M4 for a carbine/rifle. The guards around an Airforce or Naval Air base have odd iron sighted M16's as well.
 
Archangel14 said:
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?
Click to expand...

We're poor. USMC doesn't get anything for funding compared to the Army, Airforce, or Navy. We were slowly swapping over to M4s when I got out though. My unit was supposed to get a hundred or so from the Army while the Army was swapping over the M4A1's (M4A1 is the full auto one).
 
As mentioned most likely funding. The USMC is only one step up the ladder funding wise from the USCG.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top