[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.

[fogarty]

I disagree. As a Marine, I would say there are situations where the M-4 is warranted. But there is MUCH historical evidence to the conclusion that most battles beyond urban terrain are often fought beyond 200meters. During the battle of Belleau Wood (WWI) the Germans were astonished that Marine Corps infantrymen were picking them off at distances of 600 meters plus. If the Marines then had the M-4, we would literally have gotten slaughtered by the Germans.

As I said, there is a definite place for the M-4. But let us not cut off 300 meters off our infantry's range of engagement.

[Redleg Duke]

I agree. If you want a long range weapon with the ability to disable a truck, then you need the M-14...if Slick's assholes haven't torched them all.

[glc1173@aol.com]

"The only advantage that the M-16 has is range, however battles are never fought at distances where that range matters."

If so, then why not just issue every guy a Benelli M1 Super 90 semiauto riot gun?