Quote:
|
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?
|
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).
Quote:
|
I sure as hell would rather have the long rifle.
|
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.