Marines choose standard-length M-16A4...

Status
Not open for further replies.

IrvJr

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2003
Messages
265
Hello,

I don't know if this has already been posted, but I thought I post it here in case it hasn't.

I saw the article on sixgunner.com's forum section. It's a reprint from the stars & stripes. I couldn't find the original article (dated 10/24/02) on the stars & strips web page.

*************************************************
http://forums.sixgunner.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=730
*************************************************

*************************************************
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=11177
*************************************************

*************************************************
*************************************************

Wednesday, October 23, 2002
Marines choose M-16A4 as infantry rifle


By Mark Oliva, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Thursday, October 24, 2002

The Marine Corps chose a new infantry rifle, and it’s not the short
assault rifle with which the Army equipped soldiers in the Afghan campaigns.

Marine Corps Systems Command in Quantico, Va., announced last week it
would buy 65,463 of the M-16A4 service rifles for infantry Marines
between now and 2007.

The new rifle resembles the M-16A2 service rifle in use now but allows for add-on parts as emerging technology warrants.

After head-to-head comparison tests, the Marines rejected the M-4, the shorter rifle the Army issued to soldiers fighting in Afghanistan.

“The ground board chose the M-16A4 over the M-4 because it had a lesser frequency of malfunctions,†said Marine Corps officials from
Headquarters Marine Corps in a prepared statement. “The initial units
will be fielded to Ground Combat Elements.â€

The M-4 received sharp criticism from soldiers who fought the Taliban in Afghanistan earlier this year in Operation Anaconda and Mountain Lion.
Some soldiers complained bullets used in the rifle lacked stopping
power, according to a survey Army officials conducted. They also noted that heat shields in the hand guards often rattled, prompting soldiers to remove them, only to burn their hands from overheating hand guards.

Marine support units will continue to use the M-16A2 rifles.

The old rifles were nearing the end of their life cycles and needed
replacement, according to the Marine Corps statement. But Corps
officials also wanted to be able to integrate attachments Marines could need for different missions, such as flashlights, laser sights and a rail system for interchangeable sights and scopes.

In a head-to-head performance comparison between the M-16A4 and the M-4, a shorter carbine version with a collapsible stock, Marine officials found few similarities.

“Both weapons have flat-top receivers with the 1913 Military Standard
rails for mounting optics, as well as forward rail hand guards,†said
Marine Capt. John Douglas, project officer for Marine Corps Systems Command.

The new rifle can handle standard rifle sights plus night vision options and scopes. The rifle also can be fitted with a vertical forward handgrip.

But that’s where comparisons end. The M-4 is 10 inches shorter and one pound lighter than the current M-16A2.

Marine officials found some deficiencies in the M-4. In tests and
surveys conducted last July at Camp Lejeune, N.C., most Marines
preferred the M-4 over the longer M-16A4 for most combat situations, but the M-4 had more malfunctions, they said. The comparisons were based on Infantry Training Standards and reviewed by Marine Corps Operational Test and Evaluation Activity.

“Though the number was very low for each weapon, the M-4 was found to
have three times the number of weapons malfunctions as the M-16A4,†the statement read. There was no significant difference in accuracy between the two rifles.

Several Marine units already use the M-4, including Force Reconnaissance platoons, Fleet Anti-Terrorism Security teams and Military Police Special Response teams. Those units will continue to use the M-4, and the Marines still may purchase more in the future after corrections are made to reduce malfunctions, said the Marine Corps statement.

*************************************************
*************************************************
 
I can't imagine why they'd choose a more reliable, flatter shooting, rifle that allowed its bullet to have a greater effective fragmentation range...

None of those things matter at all what really matters is that you have one of them shorty "carbines" that look cool oh wait... this is the American Marines, not the Italian Army...

Good choice.

-Morgan
 
Last edited:
"We like that one, but chose this one because it works."

Ahhhh. Refreshing.
 
Why would the M4 malfunction more? Isn't it built on the same action, or does it have something to do with the gas system?

(AR ignoramus)

So what is the M-16A4, a full length 20" barrel with rails galore handguard?
 
good!!

I've been confused by what the M-16 has turned into anyways. When I was in the Army (84-92) we allways had A1's because we were an Aviation Unit and did not have the latest & Greatest stuff. No biggie. But then I started to notiice my M-16A1 got heaiver one day.

"hmmmm.........well look at that fat barrel, and what's up with that goofy round fore-grip??" I says. Still A1 sights though but I miss my triangle grips!

It seems that the powers that be have come up with a new heavier round that needs a tighter barrel twist. Whatever............ it shoots just fine at the range.

Although I make a mental note that my origional rifle now no longer has the unstable bullet that I had grow so fond of that would do all sorts of horrible things to some jackass that might someday be trying to kill me!

Well the Army and I part ways and soon I see that thay have changed the design again. The new heavy round with it's heavier tighter twist barrel is now this short M4 thing! .....sort of takes away some of the ballistic advantage of the change in the first place methinks. But after lugging around a very short M-16 (A1 something or other?) for a bit I can see the appeal!!

Either way I value or fine Marine Corps opnion on the subject and have no doubts of it's merit.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if this'll start a rash of AR-15 makers churning out M16A4geries, following in the M4 clone craze? An M16A4 clone makes more sense than an M4 clone with a fake collapsing stock.

Lots of people like the carbines 'cause they're lighter. My M16A1 is lighter than a 16" HBAR-15 carbine. If they'd make an A1 or A2 weight barrel in a 20", ala an M16A4 clone, they'd probably sell a lot of them. As is, every 20" AR-15 produced now has a heavy barrel, causing it to weigh like eight and a half pounds empty....
 
Doesnt the sight tower on the detachable carry handles only adjust to 600 meters and not 800 like the A2 sight towers?

Kharn
 
Well, whaddaya know. The best riflemen in the U.S. military pick the more reliable rifle over the cool-looking one.

Would be interesting if the M4 ended up taking over the M1 Carbine job...a short and lightweight carbine for REMFs, cannon cockers, and mortar luggers.
 
Doesnt the sight tower on the detachable carry handles only adjust to 600 meters and not 800 like the A2 sight towers?

Yep. As I understand it is the mechanial limitations of the sight design on the removable handle sight.

I think it's a great decision for them to move to the A4. A better choice would be to move to a larger caliber, perhaps a 6mm, but that's another discussion.

For Civilian users the M4 will still remain more popular. It just doesn't look as cool as the longer rifle. I haven't seen the sales figures on rifle configurations, but I would venture to say the 16" models are more popular.

Good SHooting
RED
 
Let's explain the models:

M-16 -- Full-Auto, no forward assist, 1-12 Twist (Air Force Model)
M-16A1 -- Full-Auto, Forward Assist, (Vietnam Model)
M-16A2 -- Burst, New Sights, New Handguard, New Stock, 1-7 Twist
M-16A3 -- Full-Auto, Flat-top
M-16A4 -- Burst, Flat-top

[deleted text, I was wrong]
 
Last edited:
M-16A4
M16a4.gif



M-16A3
M16A3.jpg



M-16A2
M16a2-2.jpg



M-16A1
M16A1.jpg
 
Let's see.

Buy 65,000 new post-86 rifles @$650 = $42,250,000

Sell 65,000 un-needed used pre-86 M16 rifles to the public @$7,000 = $455,000,000

A profit of $412,750,000

Not that the government cares about $412 million.
 
BadgerArms,
I agree with you there, especially with the concerns/complaints lately about the number of 5.56 rounds needed to neutralize the BGs. I think the burst function may have something to do with that. Concentrated, full auto fire might remove that concern.
Besides, wasn't the point of the 5.56 that you could carry LOTS more ammo? :confused: What the heck's it for if not to shoot somebody with?
Slick
 
I agree with you there, especially with the concerns/complaints lately about the number of 5.56 rounds needed to neutralize the BGs. I think the burst function may have something to do with that. Concentrated, full auto fire might remove that concern.

Ok..wouldn't it make more sense to carry a more potent round than to have to shoot the enemy numerous times to get the same results?

Good Shooting
RED
 
I personally don't mind a 10lb rifle, if it's a loaded FAL or Garand.

If it's a 9lb AR-15, it bugs me though, because my issue M16A1 weighs like seven. I don't mind heavier weapons, so long as the weight is necessary. It's not necessary for a 20" AR-15 type to weigh nine pounds.

My guard unit still has M16A1s. They've been upgraded kind of piecemeal. Some have A2 stocks, just about all have round handguards.

Most are Hydra Matics. Though there are some REAL old ones that are marked "COLT'S AR-15" with an "M16A1 MOD" stamped on there. In other words, they're original Colt AR-15 receivers modified to M16A1 standard. They're the old ones that don't even have the ridge around the mag release button.

The M16A2s we had in basic were converted A1s, a lot of them. Quite a few were made by FN, who now produces M16A2s for the US Government, IIRC.

From having carried and shot M16A1s, an M16A2, a Bushmaster XM15E2S postban 16" carbine with A1 sights, heavy barrel, and AK style brake, and a Professional Ordnance Type 97 carbine, my favorite AR-15 variant remains the M16A1.

It's short, light, and handy. The Bushy was shorter (by a whopping 4"), but weighed more. The C15 was lighter and shorter, but had reliability problems and lacked iron sights, as well as having an overall flimsy feel to it.

If somebody made a semiautomatic, post-ban M16A1 clone, or even an M16A2 clone, I might actually be tempted to buy another intermediate cartridge rifle. I don't really have much desire these days for rifles with barrels shorter than 18-20", and don't really want a carbine. But modern 20" AR-15s weigh about two pounds more than they should do to the excessively heavy barrel. If I'm going to lug 9+ pounds, it's going to be the FAL.

Or, I might get an AR-180B. It's light, handy, and has a 20" barrel. Still, though, not a huge priority. As I said, though, I do wish somebody would make an M16A1 clone. I don't care about the barrel twist (is there any reason you need a heavier barrel to have a different twist rate?).
 
Kharn is correct. An A3 is a flattop with FA sear, an A4 is a flattop with burst capability. A semi-auto civilian flattop would be more accurately designated as an A4 rather than an A3.
 
Haven't these idiots in the military ever heard of the 16" barrels? If some like the M4 and some like the M16, why not meet in the middle. If 16" is no good, make a 17" or 18" barrel. Why does it always have to be 20" or 14.5"?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top