Over the years, there has been a slow yet apparent transition from the M16A2 and A4 rifle to the M4 Carbine. Is this simply a tactic that increases soldier versatility in the modern conflict, ie riding around in convoys and breaking down doors? Or is it a sign of the times that the conventional thinking of "long rifles and one shot kills" is obsolete?
I've only ever handles M16A2s in my short career. I always hear things like the "best" guns (read: M4) go to the front lines. And the A4s are only used by a small number of units.
When the AR10 originally came out, it had a 20" barrel and fired 7.62 NATO. So why was the barrel length kept when it was scaled down to 5.56 NATO? The long barrel length is optimal for a battle rifle cartridge. The AR's direct competitor for decades was the AK47. It's barrel length is only 16" and it seems to do just fine.
It seems that while the M4 is surging in popularity, the A4 is now being criticised and being labeled with names like "musket". Is the M4 here to stay or are we looking at a temporary solution for a temporary problem?
ETA: I need to know whether I should buy a M4 stock or a regular stock for my AR
