The M4 slowly replacing the M16?

What say you?

  • M16/20"

    Votes: 34 39.1%

  • M4/14.5"

    Votes: 53 60.9%
  • Total voters
    87
Military doctrine. Or "battle doctine". Whatever: the Russians liked the AK idea because their battle tactics involved first an artillery barrage and then a tank division assault, with the accompanying infantrymen not really engaging the enemy until within roughly 50 meters.

Okay, fine. US battle doctrine assumed using smallarms to control a radius of some 200 meters while using the primary weapon, the radio, to call for air or artillery. The fire-suppression capability plus the ammo load-out made the M16 suitable for that doctrine.

Gulf II has seen a tremendous increase in the use of snipers and/or long range aimed fire as compared to, say, Vietnam. So, .308s, .300 WinMags, Barretts, etc. Technology has added gadgets onto the M16; sights, lights, more grenade-launchers as a percentage of all M-whatzits. Shorter barrels, different twist rates.

As any handloader knows full well, different bullets function in different ways, so the change to heavier bullets is a relatively trivial matter. It's just that decision-making by the military takes longer.

But the fundamental platform is not appreciably different...

Art
 
Military doctrine. Or "battle doctine". Whatever: the Russians liked the AK idea because their battle tactics involved first an artillery barrage and then a tank division assault, with the accompanying infantrymen not really engaging the enemy until within roughly 50 meters.

Okay, fine. US battle doctrine assumed using smallarms to control a radius of some 200 meters while using the primary weapon, the radio, to call for air or artillery. The fire-suppression capability plus the ammo load-out made the M16 suitable for that doctrine.

Gulf II has seen a tremendous increase in the use of snipers and/or long range aimed fire as compared to, say, Vietnam. So, .308s, .300 WinMags, Barretts, etc. Technology has added gadgets onto the M16; sights, lights, more grenade-launchers as a percentage of all M-whatzits. Shorter barrels, different twist rates.

As any handloader knows full well, different bullets function in different ways, so the change to heavier bullets is a relatively trivial matter. It's just that decision-making by the military takes longer.

But the fundamental platform is not appreciably different...
Click to expand...

plus the m4 further accomplishes the 'wounding' tactic easily up to 300 yards: wound one guy, take three more out of the fight for a while, gives time to call in for support or throw a grenade WHATEver.
 
heckledpie

plus the m4 further accomplishes the 'wounding' tactic easily up to 300 yards: wound one guy, take three more out of the fight for a while, gives time to call in for support or throw a grenade WHATEver.

Myth Myth MYTH. This has never been military doctrine. Mabee some military planer whose job it is to cook up ideas. The only place where it is really used is in anti-personnel landlines. Take the foot off the person and have others help them back.

A wounded soldier is someone who can still fight back, though mabee a little slower. A dead soldier can't. You also have enemies who don't care about their wounded until the battle is over, as is the case with our current enemies.
 
Yeah, the military specifications are to kill or incapacitate the enemy with the M16/M4 (and all other small arms that aren't specially designed to be less than lethal). As long as the bad guy quits doing whatever he was doing and lays there dead, dying or unable to continue the fight then the round/weapon has done its job.

There was no intent with the 5.56mm round to make it deliberately less lethal so as to burden enemy logistics/medical systems. That is, as Crosshair said, pure urban myth. Initial combat testing by Special Forces soldiers and the ARVN troops they were advising back in the 60s suggested that 5.56mm was actually more lethal than 7.62 (and evaluation of AARs apparently derived an 11% greater lethality figure). We now understand that this is because 5.56mm may fragment and M80 7.62 ball is slow to tumble and does not fragment and all that, but the point is in this context that the powers that be back in the 60s were purchasing a more lethal round, based on the reports they were getting, not a less lethal one.
 
Modern battle is not the same as WWII, Korea or Vietnam. When the enemy fortifies their beaches to prevent our Marines from landing, our air forces takes out their missile defenses then puts a hurting on their supply line. Cut off the supply the enemy soldiers won't be able to move and it brings thier morale down. The worst soldier is a demoralized one. The days of long range shooting with a rifle is not needed, but an exception to a few in which our SDM and snipers fill. I disagree when an SDM is armed with an M4, at least give him a full size accurized A2 firing and the right ammo. josh
 
Actually, the days of long range rifle shooting ended in WWI. This was the zenith of exchanging rifle shots between trenches at 800 yards.

By WWII, everyone was looking for the lighter rifle/cartridge. The only reason the M1 was eventually chambered for the 30-06 instead of the .276 Pedersen was for logistical reasons.
 
im not saying that the Military purposefully is going for a less than lethal round, im saying that the slight draw back on power from a slightly shorter barrel really is not a worry for them.
 
As a soldier, I have had experience carrying the M16A2 in vehicles and defensive firing positions. I never had to fire my weapon at an enemy, but I do have experience shooting both my full size Colt HBar 1/7 twist and my DPMS 16" 1/9 twist with a 2" Vandenberg muzzle brake in 3 gun club matches. The shorter rifle has the advantage in tight spots and is more faster to deploy. It also is more agile and my scores are actually better when the range is arms length to 200 yards. I have to admit that the longer barrel is better in prone shooting at targets that are up to 300 yards because the 77 grain SMKs does make a difference in accuracy and consistency in bucking the wind a little better. If I was to engage the enemy in house clearing and block to block fighting or staking out a block in a perch where space is limited the M4 has an advantage. If I was on a watch tower watching over the perimeter that has a clearing up to 500 or over yards then the full size M16A2 is better suited for the job. Now if I'm in a watch tower and I was given a choice of a 7.62x51 scoped bolt gun and an M4, then I'll take that over the M16A2. josh
 
The Army seems to be adopting it much more now, not so much the Marines... but I do believe that the M4 is taking the place of the M16 slowly but surely... and I like that it is, personally.

I believe the M4 is a more versatile weapon than the M16.
 
I'm an 11 bang bang with only about 2.5 yrs in service. Was at Benning when I was active, and I'm NG now (was med boarded out of active). I used the M16A4 when I was active duty and have used both the M16 and the M4 in the Guard. Of the two, as a regular infantry soldier, I'd prefer the M4 for Iraq or the M16 for Afghanistan. That said, I'm going to SDM school in a few months, and our next deployment will be Afghanistan. I'm hoping for an M14 (during the deployment - I know SDM school uses M16A4s with ACOGs).
 
Those of us in country have a name for the a4. Musket.

Our building was used as a distribution point for RFI and new M4's that came in. Funny we didnt get any of the M4's even though they used our building. Big huge boxes full of M4's for the brigade. Let me tell you this, every 11 bang bang has an M4. Most everyone else who was directly organic to the brigade and even many that werent recieved M4's. The reason we didnt get to many is because we were a separates unit, which means you get ****ed on many different fronts, even though we drive the brigade. We did recieve some of thier hand down a4's and M4's. Felt like I was back in the Corps. Definately wish I was. Most CONUS units almost everyone has an M4 with gadgets included. Id say the army is most definately exclusively going to the M4. While groups like CAG, AWG, and SF are going to the HK416.

Actually going out on HVT TST missions (not many but some) in Baghdad, an m16 is totally a hinderance. Shots at 300 M? are you kidding me? More like 25 to 50. I was the 240 gunner on our truck and trying to use the dual weapon method was very difficult with being inside the turret(duh), having all the rediculous amount of body armor you have on aspecially with the side sapi plates and water wings. Your often in in enclosed spaces in this type of enviroment and the m16 is anything but optimal. The M4 is lighter, handier and quicker, and just as accurate for all ranges typically used in our environment. Handier in that also it having an adjustable stock since we are wearing body armor we can bring the weapon in closer and have better control, and the shorter barrel increases swing speed as well for those CQB engagements that are the most common. For anything past the 300M range, go find your former Marines or perhaps a DM, or oh wait thats right youve got 240s and 50cals that Im pretty sure can shoot past 300M (try 5 times that... for a 240). Hardly any one has died from a SAF attack in months anyway (at least in western Baghdad).

As for the m14 comment, I love em, own a SOCOM II that I bought while on r&r. It feels like a "real" rifle. In this environment way to slow. Yeah you hit somebody they stay down, but the M4's are so much faster, I can get on target way faster, get 3 shots off in a CQB environment for one of the SOCOM, and walk the shots in if hes moving laterally or away, not even an option with the SOCOM.
For a DMR however, I like it, but there are a lot of AR .308 platforms out there from of course from Armalite and Knights, DPMS, Fulton, Rock River that would be able to fulfill that role as a DMR if you wanted the more powerful caliber. Its not cheap to accurize an M14 as Im finding out looking into it for my SOCOM. Bout the same price to buy the rifles listed above (save the knights) and no waiting on the custom bedding and barrel fitting etc...
Redeployment T-9 days!
SGT S
 
Neal - You can be medically boarded off active duty but still be in a Guard unit that will deploy??????

Man, that just seems incredibly stupid. I have no experience with the Guard, spent 20 on AD, but wouldn't it make sense if "deployable" was the same for both?

Learn something new everyday.
 
The rules haven't quite caught up with the new operational norm. The Guard is still considered a reserve, primarily stateside force, and the rules are written according to that. Of course we know that since the Iraq war started, Guard units get deployed just as much as AD units, and those deployments are exactly the same as their AD counterpart deployments.
 
Seems my reply was a victum of the server burp :(

Anyway I prefer the m-4, main reason is the stock is a helluva lot easier to deal with while in body armor.
 
The 20" is definately obsolete as a standard issue rifle.

Someone here said it best that most engagements don't take place over 300 yards and usually at 150yards or less. The M1 Garand was way too powerful for modern infantry combat and the M16s ability to reach out to 500 yards is unnecessary. The M4 is perfect for 300 yards and below. Anything else can be taken with indirect fire or SDMs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top