MyGunsJammed
New member
I wonder if in this day and age if the US will ever see a future Jungle war? or will wars now just take place in desert/urban environments?
The M4 slowly replacing the M16?
- Thread starter Army GI
- Start date
RevolvingCylinder
New member
Sure are a lot of Soldiers on this board(thought I was one of the few!). I too prefer the M16A2 as a general purpose rifle. But... shorter rifles are a must in urban environments. We also make use of mounted patrol more than we used to. The M4 is mighty handy especially with all that gear hindering mobility. The loss in velocity from the shorter barrels probably isn't such an issue since we're engaging targets at closer ranges in these environments anyhow. I can't vote for either myself since I like 'em both equally. They're both best suited for different roles/environments.
Try picking up an M4-type AR15 sometime and you'll see what I mean. As for which stock to get for your personal AR, get what you like. Even better is to own one of each type(AR15s are addictive).
MGJ, the time will come again as it always does. Won't be for some time though.
The XM8 was killed because of reliability problems and the fact that it didn't do anything the M16/M4 series couldn't do at least as well(the latter could be said about the HK416 as well). If we keep the 5.56 round, maybe a bullpup would negate the barrel length vs. OAL issue. Either way we're not gonna see a new rifle or even a new pistol for some time.
Try picking up an M4-type AR15 sometime and you'll see what I mean. As for which stock to get for your personal AR, get what you like. Even better is to own one of each type(AR15s are addictive).
MGJ, the time will come again as it always does. Won't be for some time though.
The XM8 was killed because of reliability problems and the fact that it didn't do anything the M16/M4 series couldn't do at least as well(the latter could be said about the HK416 as well). If we keep the 5.56 round, maybe a bullpup would negate the barrel length vs. OAL issue. Either way we're not gonna see a new rifle or even a new pistol for some time.
heckledpie
New member
doesnt the m4 basically exemplify why the military chose the 5.56 nato anyway?
faster up, sooner the bullets get downrange?
i guess the only thing that would be against their light caliber protocol would be that the m4 has slightly more recoil than a m16, but not too much more Im guessing.
faster up, sooner the bullets get downrange?
i guess the only thing that would be against their light caliber protocol would be that the m4 has slightly more recoil than a m16, but not too much more Im guessing.
Nakanokalronin
New member
W.E.G: "Bring back the M14!!!
(somebody had to say it)"
They still use the M14.
(somebody had to say it)"
They still use the M14.
HorseSoldier
New member
If I'm not mistaken, the big picture level decision was that the M4 will replace the M16 army-wide for a general service weapon (eventually).
Personally, I'd take an M4 over an M16 without any hesitation. The M4 is quicker handling in general, and its strengths for vehicle ops and CQB/room clearing are very significant. As far as accuracy -- on the range, an M4 with ACOG and a bit of practice can thump steel chest plates at 4-600 meters with boring regularity (mileage may vary in combat, not due to the weapon but due to all the real world issues like moving targets, targets that shoot back, etc.).
The only thing the longer barrel brings to the table is bullet fragmentation at longer ranges, but I'd argue that the fragmentation issue is overstated by a couple orders of magnitude online. A round through the thoracic cavity will tend to put a guy on the ground pretty effectively, regardless of caliber or fragmentation (though if fragmentation puts them down quicker or harder at CQB ranges, that's obviously not a problem).
The only other plus with the 16 I can think of is you can butt-stroke with it, though this manuever is not a great idea with any flavor of AR-15, and if you've got a forward pistol grip and practice muzzle striking instead I don't think there's much lost.
Dirty_Harry
New member
+1
+2
I have not been in the armed forces and do not have alot of experience. I do own a couple of AR-15's and enjoy them greatly. It all really depends on the person when it comes to these rifles. I like my M1A better than my AR-15's because it fits me better. Same goes for the 20" vs. the 14.5", it all depends on the person. From a general standpoint, the only real advantage that the full size has on the carbine, is a few extra fps and possibly a better sight radius. The carbine is just handier and is easier to mount accessories on.
Last edited:
HorseSoldier
New member
When hopping in and out of hum-vees or AFVs or zipping through a building at the low ready, 20" is real, real long. 14.5" can actually start seeming real long in those contexts.
DonR101395
New member
Adopting the M4 as the standard issue weapon also eases logistical issues with maintaining a bench stock for unit armorers.
Personally I like the 18" SPR over either rifle.
Anyway, I understand why a shorter barrel is preferable in many combat situations. One thing to note you will not loose much accuracy with a 14.5" barrel over a 20". You will loose some velocity which is only a problem at longer distances. The only real issue is reliability, the M4 has a know issue with reliability because of the shorter gas system. That is why the military is doing a reliability test between the M4, XM8, FSCAR, and HK416 to see which one is better is desert conditions.
Anyway, I understand why a shorter barrel is preferable in many combat situations. One thing to note you will not loose much accuracy with a 14.5" barrel over a 20". You will loose some velocity which is only a problem at longer distances. The only real issue is reliability, the M4 has a know issue with reliability because of the shorter gas system. That is why the military is doing a reliability test between the M4, XM8, FSCAR, and HK416 to see which one is better is desert conditions.
It's not just a matter of barrel length
The ammo being used in the M4's today is very different than what was used in the M16. Allot of the original 20" barreled M16's had a 1:12 barrel twist and shot 55grain bullets. The M4's have 1:7 twists and are capable of shooting 77gr HPBT bullets reliably.
In the end, the M16 was never designed to be a long distance weapon anyway. The M4 simply fits in the niche' for a midrange weapon. If longer distances of effectiveness is needed, other weapons can be used like the M14, or SPR's (Special Purpose Rifles w/18" barrels).
The ammo being used in the M4's today is very different than what was used in the M16. Allot of the original 20" barreled M16's had a 1:12 barrel twist and shot 55grain bullets. The M4's have 1:7 twists and are capable of shooting 77gr HPBT bullets reliably.
In the end, the M16 was never designed to be a long distance weapon anyway. The M4 simply fits in the niche' for a midrange weapon. If longer distances of effectiveness is needed, other weapons can be used like the M14, or SPR's (Special Purpose Rifles w/18" barrels).
HorseSoldier, do you have any sources regarding the M4 becoming "Army wide"? Not that I don't believe you, I do. But I would like to learn more about how Big Army plans to implement this.
Furthermore, I would really like to know what is to become of the M16A4 rifle. At first, I would say that the most logical thing would be to use them as squad designated marksman rifles with ACOGs while Joes just use M4s with M68s. But from what I've seen, the squad designated marksman rifles are specially made by the AMU with free floating stainless steel fluted barrels!
Furthermore, I would really like to know what is to become of the M16A4 rifle. At first, I would say that the most logical thing would be to use them as squad designated marksman rifles with ACOGs while Joes just use M4s with M68s. But from what I've seen, the squad designated marksman rifles are specially made by the AMU with free floating stainless steel fluted barrels!
jk.82ndtrooper
Inactive
I too served with the 82nd ABN when the best rifle was given to us was the M16A2 varient with a 3 round burst selector not a FA select. Looking back that rifle was just to darn long and my trigger reach a bit too far for me with a fixed stock. Although like any good soldier I learned to keep my dislike of the weapon to myself and to make it run for me regardless of it's charachteristics vs the M4.
I remember seeing members of the 1st/75 Ranger Batt with CAR-15's during a JTCAPEX and the envy of thier rifles kept eating at me for months and months. I believe this may have been around the 1987 or 1988 time frame.
With a 1:7 twist rate I do not see the difference in muzzle velocity or max effective range, no matter what any of the "experts" tell me. Open field shots are still effective out to 300 meters even with a 14.5 Barrel with M885 or M855 ammunition. For me even the lighter XM193 still seems to perform well at those distances. Assuming I do my part with the trigger and optics or sights.
The Army reserve unit just down the road recieved all new M4's prior to deployment. Some where Colt and others were LMT's. All flat topped with M68 CCO's and seemingly some had installed rail interface systems and purchased their own lights and foregrips. I wonder if they even bothered to zero the iron sights and Aimpoints ?
Since I've now purchased several AR15's in the M4gery configuration I can't imagine desiring an M16A2 or A4 configuration, unless I'm going to build an SPR type rifle. I'd then use a match grade barrel from Noveske, full length gas system, rail system, Harris pod, etc, etc, etc, etc.
I remember seeing members of the 1st/75 Ranger Batt with CAR-15's during a JTCAPEX and the envy of thier rifles kept eating at me for months and months. I believe this may have been around the 1987 or 1988 time frame.
With a 1:7 twist rate I do not see the difference in muzzle velocity or max effective range, no matter what any of the "experts" tell me. Open field shots are still effective out to 300 meters even with a 14.5 Barrel with M885 or M855 ammunition. For me even the lighter XM193 still seems to perform well at those distances. Assuming I do my part with the trigger and optics or sights.
The Army reserve unit just down the road recieved all new M4's prior to deployment. Some where Colt and others were LMT's. All flat topped with M68 CCO's and seemingly some had installed rail interface systems and purchased their own lights and foregrips. I wonder if they even bothered to zero the iron sights and Aimpoints ?
Since I've now purchased several AR15's in the M4gery configuration I can't imagine desiring an M16A2 or A4 configuration, unless I'm going to build an SPR type rifle. I'd then use a match grade barrel from Noveske, full length gas system, rail system, Harris pod, etc, etc, etc, etc.
HorseSoldier
New member
They're doing reliability tests because some congressman got his knickers in a wad and raised a fuss.
If I'm not mistaken, it's mentioned in a number of relatively recent Army Times articles, including their various cheerleading pieces on the HK 416. I may be wrong on basis of issue, but my understanding is that the plan is for it to be the new standard issue weapon.
There were some floating around at the beginning of the GWOT -- I can recall at least one 'Guard or Reserve unit turning in their M16A2s as they were mobing through post and needing to go to the range to zero their brand new A4s.
I think battlefield requirements have basically passed it by, though (at least for general use, I can see your logic on using it for a DMR), with everyone wanting light as possible and short as possible weapons (that seems to be what's wanted in both Afghanistan and Iraq, Big Army and SOF).
That's why a modular system with gas-piston like the XM8 or the XRC is such a good idea. Issue the troops XRCs as 14.5 inch carbines for use in the middle east. But if we ever go to war someplace where long range shots and larger calibers are better, instead of trying to find a new weapon and replacing all of the rifles, just swap barrels. All of the soldiers are still shooting the same weapon. They'll still know how to keep it clean, how to tweak it's performance to best fit them, and they'll still have confidence in it.
The AR platform is 50ish years old. There's no reason why we shouldn't switch over to a modular and cleaner system. It would solve the "the M16 is unreliable" arguments, the "5.56 is too weak" arguments, and the "carbines might be too short for the next war" arguments.