[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?

:^)

[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.

[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?

[decimon]

How about a four pound version?

http://www.proord.com/news_ff.html

[spetznaz]

Marines replacing M-16A2 with M-4 PING!!!!!!!!

[VaBthang4]

At first glance I dont like the decision one bit...

The one total and complete advantage the M-16 has over the Ak-47 is range.

We were able to drop Iraqis from ranges they couldnt concieve of. All their infantry troops could do was run for cover as they tried to elevate their AKs in a vain attempt to reach us.

Individual Marines were able to snipe Iraqis at standoff distances. I understand the Amry using the M-4....Army soldiers already cant engage from great distances, so giving them a rifle with a shorter range only seems appropriate....but taking an advantage away from Marines is not something I like at all.

Sounds like some jealous geek Marine decision to me. The M-4 looks cooler.

[genefromjersey]

A few threads up ahead, there was a report from Afghanistan -based troops, suggesting the M4 was unreliable, because it was almost impossible to keep clean.There were also problems with the SAW (squad automatic weapon).

Time to break out the "old" 7.62 mm M-14's, and come up with a 7.62 BAR.

Re-organize the squad into 3 four man fire teams-one BAR un each team.

[x1stcav]

Am I missing something? With the exception of the usual upgrades common to the system, don't we still have a CAR15?
Great for patrolling in thick vegetation, great balance with a 20 round magazine, sight radius about as useful as your standard .45 M1A1. Should be great for support or rear troops.

As for line troops, I'd like to see us adopt the 7X57 Mauser, or similar, fired by a caliber-scaled M14 action. Not the sissy loading that the ammo manufacturers produce as a safety measure, but a hotter military specific loading.

[xkaydet65]

Two recent articles are of interest. In last month's SOF there was a story about the M4 that claimed a great many long range kills during Anaconda. Most recenly in USNI Proceedings Maj. Anthony Milavic, USMC(ret)attacks the decision to go to the M4 because of his belief in the inadequacy of the 5.56 cartridge. He includes anecdotals from Nam, the Gulf, Somalia, and Afghanistan testifying to the inability of the 5.56 to put down a target.

Two contradictory articles. As a buff and not a vet I leave it to the experienced to make a judgement.

[joesnuffy]

If you insist on a poodle shooter at least get one with a 18" or 20" barrel...slightly
greater velocity & range shooting heavier bullets (>than 55 gr FMJ)...Personally after a year in Vietnam as a grunt and medic (with the 9th Inf Div/ Mobile Riverine Force) ...I'd like to see our guys at least have the option of something more powerfull...more reliable (in blowing sand) shooting at least a 150 gr FMJ ...imo

[xsrdx]

Ill Advised switch to carbines?? BUMP

[xsrdx]

A shorter barrel means reduced velocity and accuracy at long ranges

The only substantive difference between the M4 and M16A4 is the barrel length (14.5" vs 20") and the buttstock (collapsible vs. fixed).

The M4 is proving wildly popular everywhere, especially with law enforcement, as it's easy to tote around and still offers much of the lethality of a rifle.

Problem is, it's not a rifle -it's a carbine. The short barrel cuts the velocity of the issue M855 considerably, and reduces not only it's effective range but also its terminal performance. Yup, they're bitching about the ammunition - ammunition which, by the way, works just fine from a standard 20" barrel. And while were on the subject, the 11 and 14.5in barreled M4s remain statistically somewhat less reliable than 20" rifles, due to reduced gas system length.

The right answer is to purchase quantities of both rifles, and issue the long guns to troops most likely to need them.

For a tanker, artillerymen or aviator, the M4 is a great rifle. For the infantryman, the 20" M16A4 is the superior choice.

[section9]

What do I think?

How many stores do we have of the M-14 in the Army and Marine inventories?

That's what I think.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[quietolong]

Sounds like a bad ideal and a waste of money!

One of the things needed when we went from the M16A1 to the A2 was a heavier barrel. Not for more accuracy but because the every day GI Joe used it for a pry-bar. Try flipping the lid off a hidden bunker.

The M4 may look cool for all the want to be Rambo’s Just like sitting in an Indy car. But not useful in the every day real world.

Let’s list some of the “old “ weapons that still do a better job B-52s, .50 cals., 1911.....

Can’t afford bullets. But can waste money on hats & toys.