Quantcast

The military and M4/M16 question.

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Vegaslaith, Jan 13, 2009.

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

    Vegaslaith Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2008
    Messages:
    312
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    When they show military personnel on the news, I noticed that some have M4s and others carry M16s. How come? If shorter barrels are more useful un urban environments, then why don't they all get M4s?
     
  2. Deus Machina

    Deus Machina Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,008
    Location:
    Brandon, Florida
    I'll hazard a guess that it depends on 1) where they're expecting particular soldiers or units to be fighting--ones on the road get m16's, ones guarding cities get M4. and 2) logistics. M4's would be great, but they've still got lots of serviceable M16's.
     
  3. pdowg881

    pdowg881 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,103
    Location:
    Southern NH
    Barrel length=Velocity=Fragmentation

    Has a lot to do with keeping the 5.56 up to speed.

    Logistics
    Little more range
     
  4. cbrgator

    cbrgator Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    2,525
    What Deus said.
     
  5. Jorg Nysgerrig

    Jorg Nysgerrig Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,822
    The USMC chose the M16A4 over the M4 for most of their units. So, if you're seeing Marines, you'll probably see M16s.
     
  6. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    30,078
    Location:
    Alma Illinois
    There is a thing in the Army called a TO&E. That stands for Tables of Organization and Equipment. In the Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) creates these documents. The TO&E spells out the mission of a unit, how many men it will take to perform the mission, what skills (MOS's Military Occupational Specialties) those men should have. It also breaks down how many of each rank it will take to accomplish the mission.

    On the equipment side it tells what equipment the soldiers will need to accomplish the mission. How many rifles and of what type, pistols, machine guns, grenade launchers, trucks, armored vehicles etc.

    When the M4 was first adopted in the mid 80s, the fielding plan that was published in Infantry Magazine (official publication of the US Army Infantry School) was similar to how the M1 Carbine was fielded in WWII. Soldiers who's duties required them to have a shorter, lighter weapon like platoon leaders, RTOs, drivers were to receive the M4, everyone else was to receive the M16.

    When the M4 was fielded in quantity in 1998 or so, they gave them to all the riflemen in the light divisions and the riflemen in the mechanized units were to keep their M16s. I don't know how they are distributed now having been retired for several years. My son (who is now on recruiting duty) was a squad leader in the 4th ID in Iraq in 05-06. They had a mix of M16A4s and M4s, so obviously the fielding plan has changed. You'd have to look at current MTOE to see who rates which weapon now.
     
  7. blitzen

    blitzen Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2006
    Messages:
    388
    Location:
    Alaska
    Any time the 20 inch bbl M16 is thought to be unwieldy I have to wonder how did those poor guys back in the day ever save the free world with the M1 Garand. From what I read, I just don't think it could've been done. :D
     
  8. Onmilo

    Onmilo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Messages:
    9,773
    Location:
    Illinois`
    Yeah, especially with the eight round enbloc clip that went ping when it ejected and gave your position away!
    No night vision, no body armor, no flashlight attached to the weapon,,,
    Those old vets were tough!
     
  9. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    All the Marines I worked with last time (all of '08, and I worked with a lot) had M4s topped with Trijicons. The only guys I saw carrying M16s were designated marksmen. We don't use that system in the Army so I am not sure how that works.
     
  10. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    59,735
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    Because somebody has to pay for it and therefore the military supplies the M4 to the troops they think need them. Also, you're looking at National Guard troops as well as regular military and the National Guard guys are using older equipment at times.
     
  11. geronimo509

    geronimo509 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    653
    Location:
    DFW
    It also depends on the unit you are in. Just before I got to the 1st of the 509th Infantry airborne, they had recieved a new batch of m4's. They were deployed about a year and a half earlier and only squad leaders had m4's. Now everyone has m4's. also, squad leaders are the only ones with acogs. the rest of us had red dot scopes. I dont know how they chose them though, I was just happy that they did.
     
  12. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    Normally the commander allocates weapon distribution of what he has. Lacking guidance from higher this can go as low as the platoon/ squad level. The higher up start getting involved and things like "all the RTOs in the brigade get 203's" start to happen.
     
  13. geronimo509

    geronimo509 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Messages:
    653
    Location:
    DFW
    lol thats funny titan. that radio is heavy.
     
  14. moooose102

    moooose102 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Messages:
    3,023
    Location:
    West Michigan
    unfortunatly, a lot of those old vets lost their lives. and those wonderful old weapons, may have been part of it. everything has its draw backs. we have been focused on how to make war safer (at least safer than it was) for a while now. but war will never really be safe. you do the best you can with what you can.
     
  15. Titan6

    Titan6 member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,745
    Location:
    Gillikin Country
    You hear that legend from time to time. Casualty rates have dropped about 80% from WWII levels. I think medical treatment, care and availability are the primary reason.
     
  16. Sniper X

    Sniper X Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Messages:
    2,635
    Location:
    New Mexico
    JORG wrote, The USMC chose the M16A4 over the M4 for most of their units. So, if you're seeing Marines, you'll probably see M16s.

    Yeah, because it would sound funny to call them a Marine Carbineman, instead of a Marine Rifleman!:)
     
  17. wickedsprint

    wickedsprint Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    Messages:
    671
    Location:
    S. Florida
    I think it simply depends on the area and the job, I have to bring an M4 and an M9 with me to Baghdad next month. Qualified on one with last week with the CompM4 Aimpoint that uses the AA battery, think I'm gonna get one for my AR..I liked it.
     
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2009
  18. Tommygunn

    Tommygunn Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    6,982
    Location:
    Morgan County, Alabama
    I believe the idea of the "PING!" the Garand made upon ejecting the used clip cause Germans to fire upon the user has been discussed and debunked.
    Thgink about it. Lots of shooting going on, maybe even artillery, the fog of war .... and some German is going to actually hear a PING and get up and start shooting at that one guy. What about the other American soldiers who might shoot him?
    I used to believe this story.... but upon reading the debates about it, I think it just isn't very likely to have been a problem for Garand users.
     
  19. benEzra

    benEzra Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    9,208
    Location:
    Down East in NC
    I suspect a lot of the soldiers who did any sort of building clearing in WW2 preferentially used Thompsons, M3's, and M1/M2 carbines over the Garand if they had a choice.

    The Garand is an excellent open-environment weapon, but in tight quarters a short carbine would have obvious advantages.
     
  20. Nightvisionary

    Nightvisionary Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    14
    "There is a thing in the Army called a TO&E. That stands for Tables of Organization and Equipment. In the Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) creates these documents. The TO&E spells out the mission of a unit, how many men it will take to perform the mission, what skills (MOS's Military Occupational Specialties) those men should have. It also breaks down how many of each rank it will take to accomplish the mission.

    On the equipment side it tells what equipment the soldiers will need to accomplish the mission. How many rifles and of what type, pistols, machine guns, grenade launchers, trucks, armored vehicles etc.

    When the M4 was first adopted in the mid 80s, the fielding plan that was published in Infantry Magazine (official publication of the US Army Infantry School) was similar to how the M1 Carbine was fielded in WWII. Soldiers who's duties required them to have a shorter, lighter weapon like platoon leaders, RTOs, drivers were to receive the M4, everyone else was to receive the M16.
    When the M4 was fielded in quantity in 1998 or so, they gave them to all the riflemen in the light divisions and the riflemen in the mechanized units were to keep their M16s. I don't know how they are distributed now having been retired for several years. My son (who is now on recruiting duty) was a squad leader in the 4th ID in Iraq in 05-06. They had a mix of M16A4s and M4s, so obviously the fielding plan has changed. You'd have to look at current MTOE to see who rates which weapon now.
    "

    The M-4 was not issued in the mid 1980's. The M-4 design did not even exist at that time as Colt did not begin developing what would become the M-4 Carbine until 1988. The M-16A2 began to be issued during the mid 80's. The M-4 was not adopted until 1994.
     
  21. bdickens

    bdickens Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,742
    Location:
    Hockley , TX
    Combat Arms units get the latest and greatest first, then Combat Support, then Combat Service Support gets the leftovers.
     
  22. Jeff White

    Jeff White Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    30,078
    Location:
    Alma Illinois
    Meetings between the Army and Colt were held in September 1984 to begin development of a new carbine which evolved into the M4. Contract number DAA21-85-C-0192 was signed on 12 June 1985. Under the terms of the contract Colt was to provide the Army with 40 XM4 Carbines for test and evaluation by 7 February 1986. The program then lay dormant until the USMC expressed an interest in in a carbine version of the M16A2 in the late 1980s.

    The M4 was adopted and type classified in the mid 80s. 40 were built. Deliveries didn't start until 1994, and it was never fielded in any quantity until 1998 but it existed in February of 1996. I have the copy of Infantry Magazine from 87 or 88 in my library where it's adoption is announced in the "Infantry News" section. If I get time I'll go dig it out and give you the issue and if you have an AKO account you can look it up for yourself.

    It's not unusual for it to take years to field a new rifle. The M1 was adopted in 1937 and we were still fielding the M1903 in some units as late as 1943. Just because they didn't buy any doesn't mean it wasn't adopted.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice