The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: Semi-automatics

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old March 5, 2011, 06:23 PM   #1
Magog
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2011
Posts: 222
M4 more tactical then M16?

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.
Magog is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 06:39 PM   #2
10mmAuto
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2010
Posts: 598
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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 is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 06:43 PM   #3
10mmAuto
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2010
Posts: 598
Quote:
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.
10mmAuto is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 06:49 PM   #4
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,513
Quote:
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.

Quote:
marines being top dog fighters...
Maybe I'll let that one alone for a while.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 07:09 PM   #5
tostado22
Member
 
Join Date: March 30, 2010
Posts: 54
You all make good points, except for you OP, but.... anyone else notice a troll here?
tostado22 is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 07:20 PM   #6
Magog
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2011
Posts: 222
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.
Magog is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 07:21 PM   #7
HKFan9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2008
Posts: 2,832
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.

Last edited by HKFan9; March 5, 2011 at 07:34 PM.
HKFan9 is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 07:23 PM   #8
Rob228
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 29, 2010
Location: Broomfield CO
Posts: 583
I'm a Marine, and my weapon is an M-4.
Rob228 is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 07:57 PM   #9
kraigwy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2008
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 9,513
Quote:
I'm a Marine, and my weapon is an M-4.
Shhhh....Rob, you'll confuse the guy.

Quote:
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.
__________________
Kraig Stuart
CPT USAR Ret
USAMU Sniper School Oct '78
Distinguished Rifle Badge 1071
kraigwy is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 08:22 PM   #10
RT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 9, 2000
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 2,191
"Every Marine is a rifleman"--'Marine brass love rifles
RT is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 08:22 PM   #11
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 1,341
Quote:
My points I made was my interpretation form an article I read.
Well, there's your problem!

Quote:
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.
raimius is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 08:42 PM   #12
Mobuck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 2, 2010
Posts: 2,332
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.
Mobuck is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 09:09 PM   #13
10mmAuto
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2010
Posts: 598
Quote:
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".
10mmAuto is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 09:20 PM   #14
Blackops_2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2008
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 2,591
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.

Last edited by Blackops_2; March 6, 2011 at 02:46 AM.
Blackops_2 is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 09:33 PM   #15
glockcompact
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 22, 2010
Location: Colorado, United States of America
Posts: 396
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.
__________________
Look I like glocks. I've owned Sig's, HK's, 1911's, S&W, and other fine pistols but Glocks have been a favorite for me. Handguns without safeties are not dangerous. Idiots are dangerous.
glockcompact is online now  
Old March 5, 2011, 09:46 PM   #16
Shane Tuttle
Staff
 
Join Date: November 28, 2005
Location: Blue Grass, IA
Posts: 8,604
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...
__________________
If it were up to me, the word "got" would be deleted from the English language.

Posting and YOU: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting
Shane Tuttle is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 11:00 PM   #17
HorseSoldier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: OCONUS 61°13′06″N 149°53′57″W
Posts: 2,282
Quote:
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.
HorseSoldier is offline  
Old March 5, 2011, 11:31 PM   #18
a7mmnut
Junior member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2009
Location: NC Foothills
Posts: 1,150
... 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-
a7mmnut is offline  
Old March 6, 2011, 12:17 AM   #19
Father Time
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 21, 2007
Posts: 632


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.

Last edited by Father Time; March 6, 2011 at 12:23 AM.
Father Time is offline  
Old March 6, 2011, 12:30 AM   #20
hnl.flyboy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2010
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 126
I'm a Marine, and I WANT an M4. I miss the M4 I used to have issued.
__________________
God gave you a mind.
Your parents gave you a body.
The Corps gave you a rifle.
Keep them all clean.
hnl.flyboy is offline  
Old March 6, 2011, 12:51 AM   #21
Ben Towe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 1,121
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.
__________________
'Merica: Back to back World War Champs
Ben Towe is offline  
Old March 6, 2011, 12:57 AM   #22
10mmAuto
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2010
Posts: 598
Quote:
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.
10mmAuto is offline  
Old March 6, 2011, 12:59 AM   #23
Bamashooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 12, 2010
Posts: 1,711
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.
Bamashooter is offline  
Old March 6, 2011, 01:03 AM   #24
10mmAuto
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2010
Posts: 598
Quote:
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.
10mmAuto is offline  
Old March 6, 2011, 01:28 AM   #25
Katophract
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 7, 2010
Location: Vernal, UT
Posts: 209
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.
__________________
It's a long way to the top if you want to rock and roll.
Katophract is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13066 seconds with 7 queries