PDA

View Full Version : M4 more tactical then M16?


Magog
March 5, 2011, 06:23 PM
The small stubby little M4 has the rep for having an edge over the M16 in close fire fights?

This smells to me, because our Marines use the M16 as their main battle rifle, and they have the rep of being top dog fighters...

So why do the Marines use the longer 20 inch barrel? It helps the 5.56 maintain that critical velocity so it can work its magic and cause hyper static shock to the target and massive tissue damage on the cellular level.

Must be why the Marines are such top dog fighters. They use the right weapon for the job of killing people.

They say the M4 is close and acceptable, but it does not have the edge over the M16 in fire fights.

I have a bias because the M4 was invented for Arabs, and was never the original design of our battle rifle.

10mmAuto
March 5, 2011, 06:39 PM
The small stubby little M4 has the rep for having an edge over the M16 in close fire fights?
Might have something to do with the 10ish inches you can potentially save between the collapsible stock and shortened barrel - which also makes the gun, comaratively to the M16, a dream to tote around all day or squeeze into whatever vehicle you've mounted.

This smells to me, because our Marines use the M16 as their main battle rifle, and they have the rep of being top dog fighters...

Amongst ignorant civilians and mall ninjas such as yourself who buy the hype presented in TV shows and commercials.

So why do the Marines use the longer 20 inch barrel? It helps the 5.56 maintain that critical velocity so it can work its magic and cause hyper static shock to the target and massive tissue damage on the cellular level.

Probably has to do with an irrational hatred of carbines actually. And I think you mean hydrostatic shock, but whatever.

Must be why the Marines are such top dog fighters. They use the right weapon for the job of killing people.
That must be why organizations that use carbine length weapons like 75th Ranger Reg, CAG (Delta) and US Army Special Forces, US Army Airborne, US Army Air Assault, Navy SEALs etc are so second rate compared to the Marines.

They say the M4 is close and acceptable, but it does not have the edge over the M16 in fire fights.
Which you base on nothing.
I have a bias because the M4 was invented for Arabs, and was never the original design of our battle rifle.
Which isn't factually correct and even shorter variants were common in SOCOM since Vietnam.

10mmAuto
March 5, 2011, 06:43 PM
The M4 and M16 are tools that go about accomplishing a certain task. The military put up the M16s and went with the M4s for a reason. That reason is because the M4 was the better tool for the job they were trying to accomplish...i.e. securing cities in Iraq.
I'm over 6 feet tall and I'm still here to tell you that even before you start shooting it or trying to manipulate it in a building, you'll love your M4 because its not a nightmare to tote or squeeze in a vehicle.

kraigwy
March 5, 2011, 06:49 PM
I have a bias because the M4 was invented for Arabs, and was never the original design of our battle rifle

I don't think that's quite the case. The shorter M4 was chosen because, besides easier in urban warfare (building searches) but I believe has more to do with being a better weapon (length wise) for Mech Infantry forces.

We had a similar weapon in the 60s, called the CAR, a shorter version of the M16A1.

Anyway, with the heavier bullets we have now days the Max effective range with the M-4 is listed as 600 yards.

The main advantage of the longer barrel of the M16 style rifle is in using iron sights, the longer sight radius makes it easier to shoot accurately. When you put Aim Points, Lasers, Scopes, etc etc, you loose the advantage.

The limiting factor on both rifles is not the barrel length but the shooter, and that goes for marines as well as the Army.

marines being top dog fighters...

Maybe I'll let that one alone for a while.

tostado22
March 5, 2011, 07:09 PM
You all make good points, except for you OP, but.... anyone else notice a troll here?

Magog
March 5, 2011, 07:20 PM
Well I am bais. My points I made was my interpretation form an article I read. And it did say the Army likes the M4 because they hope in and out Vehicles a lot, and Marines are foot soldiers.

Other people bad mouth the 5.56 round, and I am trying to figure out how the round fails, and I bet it has something to do with begin fired out for a stubby little M4 which was not designed to deliver the deadly round.

So when people post stories about 20% of our guys want larger calibers, then I think it is probably how they are using the round as to why it fails them.

I love the 5.56 round. I think it is brilliant all that lethality packed into a small light weight cartage. It is perfect for combat in my mine.

And the main selling point of the Scar and ACR is not that it can fire the 7.62 round, but that it can after we consume our ammo in field and taking the stress off the supply line, not that the 7.62 is a better round.

HKFan9
March 5, 2011, 07:21 PM
Not to mention that the adjustable stock makes it much easier for our troops wearing body armor.

You need to spend less time on the recliner sir....

I think I would listen to Kraig... he's your guy if it comes to rifles... and accuracy... just from random posts of his I read.... always something intelligent and well thought out to say..... much unlike yourself.... who seems to just take ignorant rumors and spread them.

Like others have stated... even in Vietnam... special forces were toting around shorter versions of an AR based rifle... XM177... than the XM177E2 if I remember correctly. I am sure someone can elaborate.

As for 20% of our guys asking for a larger round... I think a lot of that can be chalked up to .... lets face it... just because your military doesn't mean your a "gun person" and the natural thought is "bigger is better". On the other hand I can see the troops stuck in mountain area's wanting a round capable of delivering its energy from a little further out.

The important thing is... no gun fits every mission. There is a reason the M4 exists... much like there is a reason they started retro fitting old M14's and issuing them to designated marksman. Carbines have been around a VERY long time in warfare. We had them, German's had them, Russians had them. It is not a new concept.

You first post just makes you sound... well I won't put it politely.... like an ignorant idiot... Not trying to offend you, but just giving you a heads up. Your post just makes me think of the old golden rule about assuming something...

Oh and some of those "Arabs" are also fighting on our side as well... to keep you nice and safe in front of your television rotting your mind away.

Rob228
March 5, 2011, 07:23 PM
I'm a Marine, and my weapon is an M-4.

kraigwy
March 5, 2011, 07:57 PM
I'm a Marine, and my weapon is an M-4.

Shhhh....Rob, you'll confuse the guy.

Army likes the M4 because they hope in and out Vehicles a lot, and Marines are foot soldiers.

I guess you never heard of Paratroopers or Rangers 'n such.

RT
March 5, 2011, 08:22 PM
"Every Marine is a rifleman"--'Marine brass love rifles

raimius
March 5, 2011, 08:22 PM
My points I made was my interpretation form an article I read.
Well, there's your problem!

And the main selling point of the Scar and ACR is not that it can fire the 7.62 round, but that it can after we consume our ammo in field and taking the stress off the supply line, not that the 7.62 is a better round.
I'm not even sure what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that the SCAR or ACR can use scrounged rounds from where ever? If so...uhh..yeah, the DoD doesn't like to operate that way. We have great logistics lines, and pay a lot to maintain them. Second, 7.62x51 (NATO) is VERY different from 7.62x39.

Mobuck
March 5, 2011, 08:42 PM
My S-I-L has 2 tours in Iraq mostly operating out of a vehicle. He likes the M-4 for it's ease of handling. For his personal use he asked for a longer barrel to ease the muzzle blast and give more velocity. I carry a 16" carbine on a ready sling anytime I leave the buildings either on foot or on an ATV. This combo is much easier to carry on the atv and doesn't load me down while walking.

10mmAuto
March 5, 2011, 09:09 PM
Other people bad mouth the 5.56 round, and I am trying to figure out how the round fails
Yes, we should really be using some round that has a 100% one shot stop rate and is also light enough to pack many of, cheap enough to train a lot with, moderate recoiling enough to be rapidly fired from a small arm that is both light and compact.

Oh,wait, no such round exists. You're more than welcome to point out to us a round that doesn't "fail".

Blackops_2
March 5, 2011, 09:20 PM
I don't understand how he could logically make a thread like this expecting an intelligent conversation. Whether he's trying to increase his post count or what these threads are useless and not to be a complete ******* but in the end pointless.

glockcompact
March 5, 2011, 09:33 PM
I'm a former infantry Marine. I carried the M16 quite a bit in the four years I was in. First of all I will say I love that rifle. It still gives me chills when I pick one up. About two years ago I finally decided to get my own AR-15. I had been wanting one for quite a while for a SHTF situation but never got one. So I spent a lot of time on the internet browsing manufactures. I will tell you this I didn't want the full 20" ar15. Even though I loved the M16 it just felt to long for me. It was cumbersome climbing in and out of helicopters, fast roping or getting in and out of vehicles or moving through buildings. I wanted a shorter weapon. I also wanted to keep the range. After hours and hours on the internet I decided on a 16" chambered in the 6.5 Grendel from Alexander arms. I put a 3x ACOG on it and WOW what a shooter. It's considerable quicker then the standard M16 to move around and with the 3x scope it's more accurate. Chambered in the Grendel it has more knock down power at any range then the 5.56. To put it blunt it's bad ***. I still think the 5.56 is a good round IF you can use hollow points. However, our men in uniform can not. Any way that's my version of the long story.

Shane Tuttle
March 5, 2011, 09:46 PM
OK, this one's getting a little out of hand. The OP openly stated he was biased, stated his observations were from an article he read, and gave his thoughts on the matter.

Troll? Maybe. But lets give the OP a benefit of the doubt here that he just might be searching for answers...but with a short leash.

Now, back to the program....unless another Staff member assigned here thinks otherwise...

HorseSoldier
March 5, 2011, 11:00 PM
This smells to me, because our Marines use the M16 as their main battle rifle, and they have the rep of being top dog fighters...


Senior leadership at the USMC couldn't figure out how they'd have troops do drill and ceremonies with M4s, which was pretty much the only nail they needed for that coffin . . .

For what it's worth, all the Marines I've worked with from 2002-2008 (not a huge number, mind you) were absolutely jealous of our M4s. Usual verbiage was noting that the M4 wouldn't be good for shooting the USMC qual course, but that they would kill to have one in Iraq.

a7mmnut
March 5, 2011, 11:31 PM
... not to mention numerous accessory attachment points, lighter weight, grenade launcher access, good optics and/or adjustable sights over the common A1 carry handle, etc.

-7-

Father Time
March 6, 2011, 12:17 AM
:rolleyes:

Magog please educate yourself.

I've looked over your post a threads and much of it is ignorant drivel.

I understand that your young and recently purchased a .22 rifle. That's great but don't come here just to spread misinformation.

I'm saying this to be nice, not to attack you. Its just that when I see threads like this I get headaches.

hnl.flyboy
March 6, 2011, 12:30 AM
I'm a Marine, and I WANT an M4. I miss the M4 I used to have issued. :(

Ben Towe
March 6, 2011, 12:51 AM
The only major drawback I've ever heard of on an M4 is a timing issue due to the short barrel allowing an early drop in gas pressure.
The OP post is flawed, to be sure but a couple other posts seem to hint at doubting the Marines' fighting capabilities. Perhaps you should read up on your military history.:rolleyes:

10mmAuto
March 6, 2011, 12:57 AM
hint at doubting the Marines' fighting capabilities. Perhaps you should read up on your military history
No, just that they're not the "top dogs" of gunfighting. Perhaps you should read up on...reading.

Bamashooter
March 6, 2011, 12:59 AM
Well I dont own an AR but if I were to get one some day I know for a fact it would be with a 20'' barrel. Im not worried about having to climb in and out of a vehicle and my rifle getting in the way. I would prefer the better ballistics from the longer barrel. Im not gonna say which would be better and im not gonna dog on a marine. Im saying that a 20'' barrel is what I would prefer.

10mmAuto
March 6, 2011, 01:03 AM
a 20'' barrel is what I would prefer.
I'd prefer an M107, but I'd also prefer not to have a five foot long gun that weighs ~30 lbs during an operation.

Nobody disputes a 20 inch barrel is better in terms of ballistics, the question marks are how the +s/-s are distributed when your gun is going places other than a bench rest.

Katophract
March 6, 2011, 01:28 AM
As a cav trooper, I definitely appreciated the shorter M4 I had on my second deployment. Believe me, that length makes a huge difference in the mounting and dismounting vehicles. Even for non mechanized or whatever, the M4 is better for room clearing, searching vehicles or pretty much any other activity the solder or marine might do.
If your intent was to discredit nay sayers of the 5.56 round, let me assure that I've fired plenty of M-16's and M-4's and I'm still not a fan of the round. That hydrostatic shock isn't some magic bullet with a +3 vs Evil.

tirod
March 6, 2011, 12:46 PM
And the main selling point of the Scar and ACR is not that it can fire the 7.62 round, but that it can after we consume our ammo in field and taking the stress off the supply line, not that the 7.62 is a better round.

The SCAR was also designed for the 5.56, as was the ACR. 7.62 is all that SOCOM will now buy, because there isn't any other new 7.62 rifle out there.

As for stress on the supply line, that's not happening. Lake City has been running 24/7 for years now, we've got plenty of ammo in the field. Being a MOS Ammo Handler, and having worked in a Support Group HQ's staff, I can say with some reliability there's no way we will ever use up our stocks of 5.56 incountry and suddenly need to turn to 7.62. There's only about 5,000 M14's there that can shoot it. There's 100,000 M16's and M4's. Do the math.

I appreciate the merit of the original question about the firearms, but the expression needs to be dressed up a bit. It's not a good thing to repeat erroneous phrases off other posts as if they are right. Plenty of that misinformation passes along in the locker room and school hallways. Only one in a hundred have ever served in the military now, down from one in ten, and what gets passed along these days is mostly wrong, wrong, wrong. No clue about it at all. Video game BS.

Feel free to ask those that have actually served - you'll still get a wide variety of opinion, at least it will be experienced and informed.

maestro pistolero
March 6, 2011, 01:14 PM
I have a heavy barreled, 16", M4-profile Rock River Arms that I love, But when training for CQB, I realized that heavy RRA was never going to cut it.

We were whipping it around, one-handed sometimes while grabbing mags and other stuff out of the vest. Clearing drills were so aggressive and rapid that fatigue quickly set in on my strong side arm.

So I put together another one: A Noveske 14" upper w/a pinned and welded Vortex FH, then upgraded it with an MI two-piece free-float rail, Aimpoint Comp M3 in a LaRue cantilever mount, Blue Force Sling, Magpul FG2, two-stage tactical trigger, etc, etc. But all lightweight stuff.

It is light, accurate, reliable, and has a true M4-weighted barrel, although Noveske re-contoured the barrel to be absent the step down for the M209, It's more rigid and accurate that way, apparently.

I totally get the wieldy-ness of the M4 now. I love my RRA, and my 20" SPR-type, and they aren't going anywhere. Everything in my safe has a specific purpose and forte. I like it that way. But this "shorty" is my new favorite.

Double Naught Spy
March 6, 2011, 01:33 PM
So why do the Marines use the longer 20 inch barrel? It helps the 5.56 maintain that critical velocity so it can work its magic and cause hyper static shock to the target and massive tissue damage on the cellular level.

The longer barrels do help produce greater velocity than the shorter barrels and the greater velocity helps with the fragmentation of the slug as it tumbles inside the body. The key velocity is supposed to be something like 2700 fps for the older M193 55 gr. ammo. Below this threshold, fragmentation isn't as likely. I don't know what the threshold is supposed to be for M855 ammo.

It is the fragmentation that tends to do most of the tissue damage, not hydrostatic shock.

I have a bias because the M4 was invented for Arabs, and was never the original design of our battle rifle.

Aside from just being a strange statement without factual basis, it really does not matter what an item was invented for, who it was invented for, etc. If it is found to work well in some other capacity where it is needed, there there isn't a problem. It doesn't care what its developer/inventor had in mind.

As near as I can gather, the M4 was developed or at least refined and put into produciton by Americans at Colt. It was apparently intended as a replacement for the M3 submachinegun which isn't Arab.

HorseSoldier
March 6, 2011, 01:37 PM
The longer barrels do help produce greater velocity than the shorter barrels and the greater velocity helps with the fragmentation of the slug as it tumbles inside the body. The key velocity is supposed to be something like 2700 fps for the older M193 55 gr. ammo. Below this threshold, fragmentation isn't as likely. I don't know what the threshold is supposed to be for M855 ammo.

But that wasn't the USMC's motivation. I joked earlier about problems doing D&C with M4s, but the reality is that a lot of what drove that decision was conservatism and a concern about how well it would perform on the USMC's rifle qual course (which isn't especially related to combat shooting).

As far as the OP's premise that the superior killers in the Marines use M16s while mere mortals in the Army et al use the M4 . . . MARSOC uses the M4 (in addition to the other SOF units already mentioned in thread). People who gunfight professionally prefer the M4 time and again. Probably something significant in that.

PawPaw
March 6, 2011, 01:49 PM
Must be why the Marines are such top dog fighters. They use the right weapon for the job of killing people.

Horribly mixed metaphor. The OP should decide if the Marines are dog fighters or people killers. Stick with one or the other. Personally, I hold the US Marine Corps in high regard. I wouldn't offend them by calling them dog fighters.

M4 more tactical then M16? Tactical isn't a piece of equipment, it's a state of mind. There are no tactical knives, nor tactical guns, nor tactical paper-openers. Tactical is a state of mind.

Oh, and amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics.

kraigwy
March 6, 2011, 01:50 PM
The key velocity is supposed to be something like 2700 fps for the older M193 55 gr. ammo....... I don't know what the threshold is supposed to be for M855 ammo.

M193 has a velocity of 3250 FPS.

M855 has a velocity of 3025 FPS

This per TM 43.0001.22 Army Ammunition Data Sheet.

Tactical isn't a piece of equipment, it's a state of mind. There are no tactical knives, nor tactical guns, nor tactical paper-openers. Tactical is a state of mind.

Does that mean my P-38 isn't a tactical can opener.

In reality, I agree with that statement 100%.

PawPaw
March 6, 2011, 02:02 PM
Does that mean my P-38 isn't a tactical can opener.

Do they still issue those things? I've got one around here somewhere from the Canadian Army, it was about twice as big as the US version and a lot easier to use than Uncle Sam's version.

HorseSoldier
March 6, 2011, 02:08 PM
Does that mean my P-38 isn't a tactical can opener.

If you can get one made of titanium, spray paint it with krylon, and get an adaptor to put it on a rail system . . .

Do they still issue those things?

Think they went out with the last of the C rations.

Rob228
March 6, 2011, 02:12 PM
The Aussie's still use them, and their field chow's come with an awesome can of cheddar cheese (So the can opener is required) that goes beautifully with the tube of Vegemite.

chasep255
March 6, 2011, 02:17 PM
Each rifle does better in different combat situations. An M4 is smaller and therefore more maneuverable in close quarter combat. On the other hand the M16 is more of a long range weapon for outdoor combat.

Chindo18Z
March 6, 2011, 03:07 PM
10mmAuto: I'm over 6 feet tall and I'm still here to tell you that even before you start shooting it or trying to manipulate it in a building, you'll love your M4 because its not a nightmare to tote or squeeze in a vehicle.

AMEN.

HorseSoldier: Senior leadership at the USMC couldn't figure out how they'd have troops do drill and ceremonies with M4s, which was pretty much the only nail they needed for that coffin . . .

Ding, Ding, Ding...we have a winner. This was actually discussed in open military press during the lengthy run-up to adoption of the M16A2. Some idiots were actually worried that tall Marines & Soldiers would be unable to come to a proper Parade Rest with unslung short carbines... Go figure.


Keep in mind:

1. When they designed Key Performance Parameters for the A2, the USMC wanted a weapon that excelled at their traditional 500 yard qual course, hence the length, weight, and fully adjustable rear sight drum; they wanted a "gravel-belly" rifle suitable for iron sighted, aimed distance firing.

2. At the time, they couldn't afford the M16A2 design they had come up with until they coerced the US Army into going in "Dutch" on the project. With the Army's buy-in (for a hell of a lot more weapons), both services were able to lower per unit cost and convince DoD (and Congress) to allow funding.


Thus we wound up equipping most American Infantry with an A2 weapon featuring:

1. too long of an overall length for Mech, Air Assault, Airborne, Reconnaissance, & CQB missions as well as being useless inside of Non-Standard Tactical Vehicles (NSTVs; sedans, pickups, SUVs, Armored Suburbans, etc.)

2. an overly long buttstock for many smaller statured personnel

3. a 3-Round Burst feature of dubious utility & predictability

4. an additional 2 pounds of weight (even before adding A4 rails & optics)

5. complex target sights that few combatants actually adjust in combat

6. a round (M855) designed to match the ballistics of the new tracer round for the newly fielded M249 SAW...a round designed to deliver tracer burn out to 800 meters along with Soviet helmet penetration...requiring a lengthened 62 grain bullet...and requiring a different barrel twist (1:7) to stabilize the bullet. We wanted and got a ball penetrator round that would fire interchangeably in both rifle magazines and 4:1 ball/tracer belts fed into our LMG. Nowhere in the design equation was improved lethality considered (except in passing).


On the plus side, the military got a weapon:

1. allegedly beefed up and better suited for "cold steel" (bayonet) fighting; ironic today as the Army has recently dispensed with both bayonet issue and training

2. which excelled against paper at Camp Perry and on the 500
yard qual ranges at Quantico. Lejeune, or Pendleton

3. good for poking the calfs of 5 foot tall female finance clerks as
they wear an ungainly A2 slung across their backs in some FOB messhall in
Baghdad or Kabul

4. with solid black furniture that looked spiffy on parade, 20+ years after Armalite offered the original AR-15 to the USAF with OD Green buttstock, grips, and handguard


There are good reasons for most serious units ditching the A2 as rapidly as possible after actually entering into combat. Unfortunately, small arms are programs of record subject to lethargic bureaucracy. The USMC has had to come up with both alternatives (M16A4 & M4s) and money...as well as overcome egos invested in the original disaster.

Naturally, part of the Marine solution has been to add rails and optics to the already heavy A2, making the A4 an 11+ pound rifle in combat. So much for light and handy assault rifles...:rolleyes:

Real-world Hawkeyes aside (there's always at least one in a crowd), very few US troops are capable of utilizing the A2's only long suite (accuracy at extended range). 99% of the Marines & Soldiers I've run into while deployed (to both Iraq and Afghanistan) are incapable of making 500+ yard shots under fire, and with or without optics.

Almost to a man, they would willingly and enthusiastically swap their issue A2 or A4 for an M4A1. They would certainly be better served by being equipped with that weapon.

maestro pistolero
March 6, 2011, 04:19 PM
M193 more effective at short range, out to 140 or so, then M855 takes the field.

Double Naught Spy
March 6, 2011, 07:39 PM
But that wasn't the USMC's motivation.

Sorry, I wasn't meaning to imply that it was, just commenting about terminal ballistics, not the reasoning behind what the Marines do.

Rob228
March 6, 2011, 07:55 PM
Sorry, I wasn't meaning to imply that it was, just commenting about terminal ballistics, not the reasoning behind what the Marines do.

I've been active for ten years, and I still can't figure out why we do some of what we do :D

PH/CIB
March 6, 2011, 08:12 PM
First got to Nam in Paratroopers, 1968 was issued M16 with three prong flash hider and no foward assist, was almost immediately reissued an M16a1, with bird cage flash hider and foward assist. Had no problem clearing hooches with it or getting out of UH-1 Hueys after being packed in rucksack, rifle and all like a can of sardines, legs dangling over the skids hanging on for dear life. No problem with the 20 inch barrel humping all over the boonies, the mountains of the Central Highlands, although was always envious of the Platoon Officer with his little short light CAR Carbine. Always did foot patrol and was out in the jungle for weeks, never did vehicle patrol.

My choice between the M16 and the M4,,,I'll take my Vepr AK.

oldvet53
March 6, 2011, 08:55 PM
when i was in the Army over 25 years ago i was a Areo-Scout on Kiowas and flew left front seat and carried a m-4 through most of my carrier, they were more easy to get in the cockpit than the longer M-16. the M-4 is a very accurate weapon, but it depends on the person behind the trigger. the reason the Army is bringing back the 7.62x51 is because the ranges they are having to shoot in Afghanistan and nothing to do with the lethality of the 5.56, it tumbles when it enters the body creating a serious wound channel.