Marines might replace M-16A2 with M-4

Pacific Edition, Stars and Stripes ^ | Sunday, August 4, 2002 | Mark Oliva

[demlosers]

Military buffs what do you think?

[Rodney King]

I'm for the M-4. The only advantage that the M-16 has is range, however battles are never fought at distances where that range matters. The M-4 is much easier to handle, and is lighter.

[Nuke'm Glowing]

M-4 hands down. If you need to hit something at a distance you call in a sniper squad. If you're in a fire fight at over 1000 yards, that's what Cobras and Apaches are on the phone for.

[FreePaul]

"...but, like the M-4, has component parts.."

Really? I was hoping that it was one piece.

[Long Cut]

It's been my opinion for years that the U.S. Military needs a NEW rifle and cartridge, not just a souped-up M16. The 16 has been around now for 40 years! Has NO newer, more effective system been developed? I realize that transitioning to new weapons is expensive, but so is continuing to "update" old ones ad infinitum.

For example, the issue of the M16's reliability problems, which seem to be inherent to its design, have never been addressed. Nor, for that matter, has its fragility. Furthermore, while the effectiveness of the 5.56mm NATO round is quite good, it too has been around for quite some time. Personally, I'd like to see someone come up with something between it and the 7.62x51mm NATO.

Or, we could just admit once and for all that a single weapon is unlikely to do all things well, and develop specialized ones. It worked during WWII, when the typical squad would have a mix of M-1 Garands, BAR's, and Thompsons and carbines. Seems to me it worked pretty well, considering the results.

Besides, not all the services have the same requirements. My own, the Navy, still keeps M-14 rifles in its inventory, for example. H&K MP-5s as well.

Just one Sailor's opinion.

[Momaw Nadon]

Could someone post the obligatory pics of these weapons?

:^)

[demlosers]

M-4 carbine with M-203 Grenade launcher

[cryptical]

It's a better solution for MOUT, and also for shipboard
defense. If you look at engagement ranges over the last
thirty years, they've been getting shorter. There's less
a need these days to bow to the cult of the long range
target shooters that have dominated rifle acquistion in
the past.

One thing the Marines should look out for is
the tendency to hang every available accessory on the
rails.

[LibKill]

I think they would be better off with AKs or M-14s. Or a mix, 3 AKs and 1 M-14 per fire team.

[demlosers]

Another pic:

M16A2 rifle

[Momaw Nadon]

Thanks!

If only we could have a picture of Ann Coulter holding one of these, that would be awesome.

;-)

[Nov3]

I will sit at 500 meters with a 16 and you can have your vaunted AK. You need luck I just need to squeeze the trigger

[demlosers]

I think they would be better off with AKs or M-14s. Or a mix, 3 AKs and 1 M-14 per fire team.

U.S. Military using foreign made AKs as standard equipment-gasp! An old commie rifle at that. Most likely to be met with whole lotta political derision.

[pittsburgh gop guy]

The m4a1 carbine

[Prodigal Son]

I'm not sure why they say we're not likely to engage any targets at the 200-400 meter range. Looks to me like most of the fighting we have in store for us in the near future will be in the Middle East- I'm thinking lots of open ground. Personally, I'd like to be able to shoot at a bad guy when he was at 300-400 meters. That gives me 200 meters to nail his butt before he gets down to the 200 meter range. That's just me though. I never minded the extra pound of the M16A2 and it felt more like shooting the rifles I had grown up with.

One thing I saw with the M16A2 was a lot of people had problems zeroing the weapon for some reason. I mean most guys could get theirs zeroed but still quite a few did have problems with it. Being a Mortar Platoon in the Headquarters Company, you often have to run the shooting ranges for the rest of the company- cooks, mechanics, medics, commo- with the exception of the Scouts and Support all these guys were non-combat arms. That might have had something to do with it but my own personal theory was a lot of individuals had a problem aquiring proper sight picture and alignment with the M16A2. I don't know if the M4 has a different sight system than the M16 (personally, I liked the M16's system).

I think overall, I agree with someone else that perhaps having one weapon that solves all problems is not really practical- perhaps a mixture of different weapons that accomplish different tasks being brought to bear on the enemy as part of a fire team as opposed to an individual. I think there's still place for a shotgun in an infantry platoon in the right environments and I know it's expensive but I think an infantry unit should have a variety of tools in their armory that they could choose from- choose the right tool for the task at hand as opposed to trying to make one tool do every task.

The one thing about the M16A2 was it had a nice sturdy plastic stock that you could butt stroke someone with. Can you do that with the M4 and how does the M4 hold up if you have to fix bayonets?

[Noumenon]

I'll stick with my FAL and Benelli M1 Super 90. The kids have CARs for close-in defensive work.

[LibKill]

U.S. Military using foreign made AKs as standard equipment-gasp! An old commie rifle at that. Most likely to be met with whole lotta political derision.

Politics be damned. Give them something reliable.

Wars are fought with rifles, not politcal correctness.

[LibKill]

I will sit at 500 meters with a 16 and you can have your vaunted AK. You need luck I just need to squeeze the trigger

Yes, I have fired the M16 A1 at 500 meters. Yes you can hit things with it that far out.

And a pinch of sand will jam that P.O.S. so tight that you will need an armorer to clear it.

If range is a consideration the old M-14 is good to 1,000 meters.