[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.

[Cogadh na Sith]

I agree with your post.

A shorter barrel means reduced velocity and accuracy at long ranges. But it’s unlikely, the Marine review said, that battles would be waged at more than 200 meters.

I don't get it...

All the buzz in the military world is that our forces can be lighter and faster because 'Meeting Engagements' will be a thing of the past as better intell and maneuverability give us stand-off, stand-off, stand-off.

OK, now we've got light and maneuverable stuff and great intell and all that crap and we can't engage anything beyond 200m?!

[mamelukesabre]

What kind of shotgun was it?