Question about the m4a1

[Aculaud 0]

does anyonw happen the know the maximum effective range of the M4A1? just out of curiosity...

edit: that should be "for my own knowledge"

[FetishFool 0]

In ideal conditions (low winds, no rain etc), it's said to be able to hit a man-sized target at 700 meters.

[Aculaud 0]

wow......

Ok, revision. Lets say, how far will the shot go before it wont make an effective kill?

[S.F.F.R 0]

Area target: 2,624.8 feet (800 meters)

Point target: 1,804.5 feet (550 meters)

In ideal conditions

[FetishFool 0]

lol

Have you heard the reports from Afganistan?

It took 5 shots on average to make a skinny-afgani drop to the ground.

I'm guessing that the shots were shot from anywhere between 50 and 300 meters.

[Aculaud 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FetishFool @ June 26 2002,18:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">lol

Have you heard the reports from Afganistan?

It took 5 shots on average to make a skinny-afgani drop to the ground.

I'm guessing that the shots were shot from anywhere between 50 and 300 meters.<span id='postcolor'>

did all five hit him, or do they just jump around a lot or something?

[FetishFool 0]

It sounds like you're researching into an AR-15...  Possibly to own one?

I don't know any specifics on where the bullets hit the Afgani's, but even a shot in the arm should neutralize an enemy.

The US soldiers said that the Afgani fighters were still able to fire back even after taking multiple shots.

edit: poor english

[Harnu 0]

So skinny they turned sideways. Made it really hard to hit then.

[FetishFool 0]

<span style='font-size:17pt;line-height:100%'>=</span>

[Mister Frag 0]

The are lots of factors which determine effectiveness -- the ability to hit a target is just one of them.

Ultimately, terminal ballistics will determine effectiveness, and in order for the SS109/M855 bullet to reach that goal, it has to either destroy or kill the target.

The 62gr. M855 has a steel penetrator core, giving it enhanced penetration against unarmored targets when compared to the original 55gr. M193 bullet used since Vietnam. It is not an AP design, however.

In order to be effective against people, it has to cause massive trauma when striking tissue. The M855 does that through fragmentation, which only happens at velocities above 2600fps. A 20" barrel produces the following ballistics:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE"> 5.56 NATO Ball Ammunition Ballistic Comparison

based on Aberdeen Proving Ground Data

velocity (fps) trajectory (in.) drop (inches) drift (inches)*

range M193 M855 M193 M855 M193 M855 M193 M855

(meters)

0 3,200 3,100 -2.5 -2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

100 2,774 2,751 +2.8 +4.4 -2.2 -2.3 1.3 1.1

200 2,374 2,420 +2.7 +5.8 -9.9 -10.2 5.8 4.9

300 2,012 2,115 -4.9 0.0 -25.1 -25.3 14.2 11.8

400 1,680 1,833 -23.0 -15.0 -50.8 -49.5 27.6 22.4

500 1,373 1,569 -56.2 -42.9 -91.6 -86.7 47.5 38.0

600 1,106 1,323 -113.1 -88.2 -156.1 -141.3 76.4 59.5

700 995 1,106 -206.8 -156.1 -257.3 -220.9 113.5 88.4

800 927 1,010 -339.9 -267.7 -398.0 -339.2 156.1 124.9

<span id='postcolor'>

A 16" barrel would produce a muzzle veloctiy that is about 100fps less.

As you can see, somewhere between 100 and 200 meters, the velocity has dropped to the point where the bullet is no longer going to fragment and be fully effective. The heavier M855 bullet outperforms the lighter M193, but not by much. With a short 16" or 14.5" carbine barrel, terminal ballistics performance is obviously worse.

My assertion is that the M4 isn't really effective past 200 meters, no matter what the military claims the effective range to be. That doesn't mean that you can't still incapacitate or kill the target, but it may require multiple hits.

[Harnu 0]

Dont mind me, im just bumping my way to 500. But I think the M4A1 doesn't work well when its very far. Thats why they use it in close up tacitcal operations?

[timmy 0]

i think that its just used by special ops, becuase of it lighter weight and smaller size.

[Mister Frag 0]

Harnu, you are right on.

The US military has found that few infantry engagements happen at ranges much beyond 200 meters, which is one of the reasons why they switched to the 5.56mm in the first place.

The problem with the M4 (and other) carbines preferred by Special Forces is that the barrel is so short that the bullet doesn't maintain enough velocity to be truly effective.

That's the reason why the SS109/M855 was such a dismal performer in Mogadishu, and the Somalians were taking multiple hits without instantly dropping. There was a mention of similar experiences in Afghanistan, but I haven't heard of any corroborating statements to that effect from anyone who has been there. It wouldn't surprise me one bit, however.

[Aculaud 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FetishFool @ June 26 2002,18:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">It sounds like you're researching into an AR-15...  Possibly to own one?<span id='postcolor'>

Nah, i'm just a fantasy war enthusiast. Just trying to figure out my prefered weapon for a certain conflict i had in mind

[FetishFool 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aculaud @ June 28 2002,01:05)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nah, i'm just a fantasy war enthusiast. Just trying to figure out my prefered weapon for a certain conflict i had in mind <span id='postcolor'>

The last thing you want is an AR-15.

The 5.56NATO round doesn't have the required velocity to cut through wind without deviating.

And the projectile is too light to penetrate a twig without ricocheting.

If you are still confident in the 5.56N round, then you should look into a Galil or G36 for your fantasies

Or go for an AK47, or FAL-type rifle and have a blast.

[Mister Frag 0]

The 5.56 NATO has plenty of velocity -- more than any of the .30 caliber rounds you have in mind. But velocity is not the problem, the BC, or Ballistic Coefficient, is the problem.

Regardless, we aren't talking about target shooting, and whether a bullet travels four or six inches sideways in a crosswind will rarely matter in battle.

[Aculaud 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FetishFool @ June 26 2002,23:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aculaud @ June 28 2002,01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Nah, i'm just a fantasy war enthusiast. Just trying to figure out my prefered weapon for a certain conflict i had in mind <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'>

The last thing you want is an AR-15.

The 5.56NATO round doesn't have the required velocity to cut through wind without deviating.

And the projectile is too light to penetrate a twig without ricocheting.

If you are still confident in the 5.56N round, then you should look into a Galil or G36 for your fantasies

Or go for an AK47, or FAL-type rifle and have a blast.  <span id='postcolor'>

Oh, trust me, i havent decided on the M4. My fantasy rifle for close(er) quarters battles would be either a G3 or M14 rifle.

If i had a G3, theres always the possibility that i could mount an HK 79 and get pretty much the same capabilities as an M4/M203 combo, but with a much more powerful round at my disposal.

If i had an M-14, i'd probably use this stock in black, and mount an Aimpoint Comp M reflex sight and a PVS-14 NV monocular for night ops.

[Mister Frag 0]

Why would you choose a bigger, heavier battle rifle for CQB work where the M4A1 and other carbines excel?

[Renagade 0]

Personally id prefer this for cqb

or maybe this

ps, wasnt the galil meant to be a bit wonky when compared to other assualt rifles of the same class

[billytran 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FetishFool @ June 27 2002,08:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Or go for an AK47, or FAL-type rifle and have a blast.  <span id='postcolor'>

AK's have an effective range of about 100 yards if you're a really good shot. They have really loose tolerances which makes for an extremely inaccurate rifle. Just look at Somalia and Afghanistan. The very accurate M4/M-16 beats an AK hands-down.

The M4/M-16 beats the FAL because it's light enough to engage in closer urban operations and accurate enough out to 200 yards.

G-36's are probably more reliable than the M-16 family but I don't see any other advantages. Galils are too heavy for urban operations. Just look at all the pictures of the Israeli Army's recent operations... nothing but M-16's.

[FetishFool 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (billytran @ June 28 2002,20:23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Just look at all the pictures of the Israeli Army's recent operations... nothing but M-16's.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, Billy, we all have our opinions.

The G36 is considered the best small caliber rifle in the world. Mainly because it's very user-friendly. But that depends ont he individual. Either way, the reliability advantage is enough to throw down the ARs.

The Israeli's are using american weapons because the US gave Israel almost 60 million dollars. The agreement was that Israel had to spend most of that money in the US. So that's why there are so many ARs and American gunships in Israel.

[Harnu 0]

Why does it seem that every day America seems to find a way to kick itself in its own ass? BTW. Happy 500 to me!

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The problem with the M4 (and other) carbines preferred by Special Forces is that the barrel is so short that the bullet doesn't maintain enough velocity to be truly effective.<span id='postcolor'>

The M4 isn't 1-shot effective past 200 meters, yet they send people into the desert with it. Does anyone else see a problem here?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">AK's have an effective range of about 100 yards if you're a really good shot. <span id='postcolor'>

I doubt it. The 7.62x39 is able to retain more energy than the 5.56 NATO at longer ranges because of its heavier weight (123gr vs. 62gr) The AKM (AK-47) is just as effective as an M-16. The M-16 is only a little more accurate.

Here are some energy and velocity charts:

5.56x45 NATO (.223 Rem)

7.62x39 Russian

And just for the hell of it:

7.62x51 NATO (.308 Win)

Tyler

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ June 28 2002,07:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The M4 isn't 1-shot effective past 200 meters, yet they send people into the desert with it. Does anyone else see a problem here?<span id='postcolor'>

duh, US millitary.

on serious note, I guess whoever made decision is that soldiers are better off carrying lighter weapons then havier one.

[Assault (CAN) 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">on serious note, I guess whoever made decision is that soldiers are better off carrying lighter weapons then havier one. <span id='postcolor'>

I can understand that, seeing them with all of the kit they carry. The weight difference between an M-4 and an M-16A2 is only by a few pounds. (3-4) So it doesn't make much difference. Personally, I do not find a fully loaded C7A1 to be heavy at all, it weighs in @ 4.4kg.

Tyler