Posted on 11/02/2015 8:26:38 PM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
U.S. Marines are largely supportive of their commandant's decision to drop the M16 rifle for the M4 carbine as the standard infantry weapon.
The U.S. Marine Corps will officially recognize the M4 carbine as the standard weapon for infantry personnel beginning in September 2016, following the approval by Commandant Gen. Robert Neller. The move has been welcomed with optimism from infantry. Sgt. Jonathan Ferriera, a mortarman with 1st Battalion 8th Marines who used the M4 during his deployment in Afghanistan says "it's about time."
"The M4 holds every quality that the M16 does: everything an M16 can do, the M4 does better," Ferriera told the Military Times.
Ferriera went on to add that the only advantage he saw with the M16 is the rifle's superior firing range capability, with the M16 having an effective range of 600 yards compared to 545 yards for the M4. However, the superior mobility of the smaller-sized M4 makes up for the difference, Ferriera says.
Military analysts point to a number of reasons for the switch. The M16 is considered a legacy weapon for the Marines, equipped with technology from the Cold War era. Task and Purpose reports the M16's fixed stock and 20-inch barrel no longer have a place in the modern warfare. By contrast, the M4's retractable stock allows for adjustable length, allowing for the warfighter to adjust the weapon to their body type.
Other features such as the M16's three-round burst have been deemed irrelevant and wasteful. The M16A4 will still be issued to non-infantry units and used for training purposes.
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
Unless you are in Afghanistan with long and open ranges and mountains.
“The M4 can do everything the M16 can do, but we really like the remote kill switch mechanism that lets anyone in the White House political operation disable the firing mechanism with a simple iPhone app.”
Can it float? Lost my weapons in a tragic boating accident. Wish I still had that Mini-14 ranch rifle.
Okdplayer
Marines adapt and overcome, any shortcomings in the new platform will simply be adjusted with tactics. Most combat force on force is under 200meters and in urban environments, the M4 makes more sense bejng lighter and shorter with about the same effectice range as its big brother.
In 1969, I used the M14 in basic training, then the M16 in infantry. Other than weight, I really preferred the larger M14. Even though the M16 had smaller ammo, the guys were blowing thru it pretty fast. Kinda like spray & pray. The M14 required more aimed shots.
“Unless you are in Afghanistan with long and open ranges and mountains.”
Under the conditions described above the 7.62MM/.308 Winchester is needed. The newer AR10 rifle versions weigh within a pound(unloaded) greater than the weight of the AR16/M4. The effective range and knockdown power of the 7.62X51 NATO is much greater than that the 5.56 round.
no, then you need M-14, at that range, round slows down too much, M-14 round still go faster :)
Yes M25s, M110s, and even M-14s that were taken out of mothballs.
“Other features such as the M16’s three-round burst have been deemed irrelevant and wasteful.”
This seems like an odd statement. Why would three-round burst capability be described as “wasteful”?
When bo limits you to a 3-round magazine, you will empty it in one burst.
And when the 3-round magazine is empty, it’ll go, “POOF!”
Because, according to a certain Colorado democrat named DeGette, they’re no good once they’re emptied.
Exactly.
Don’t the Marines have a sniper rifle for long distance shooting?
More than likely.
Sad day for the Marines to lose the last vestige of a rifle. They probably will stop issuing bayonets.
“Don’t the Marines have a sniper rifle for long distance shooting?”
Yes they do. And they are scarce and not part of a standard infantry squad equipment. A Marine squad could be expected to often be places without snipers. And despite the current hit movies, one or two snipers cannot replace a platoon laying down accurate fire at long distances.
I thought the Marines had sniper units like the Army.
“the M4 makes more sense bejng lighter and shorter with about the same effectice range as its big brother.”
Light and short isn’t very fun during protracted fire. The M4’s light barrel is overwhelmed with heat faster, and becomes inaccurate.
The folding stock also make a good cheekweld tough.
But it looks sexy!
This decision dovetails in neatly with the USMC buying those crappy F-35s also.
We have a BM-59 which is basically an M1 Garand that has been converted to 7.62x51mm (.308 Winchester) and a detachable 20 cartridge box magazine added. The M14 was also derived from the M1 so the rifles do share a common heritage. As a hobbyist I love taking the BM-59 out to the range.
I reload my own cartridges and use heat treated lead bullets that I cast myself. The bullets are not jacketed so I do load the cartridges a little lighter than standard .308 or 7.62x51mm NATO cartridges. Even so it still has that vintage full battle rifle feel. I have to admit that I really like using AK style rifles, but I like the feel of the BM-59 better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.