Cloney 0 Posted January 21, 2003 I personally think the A4 is the better choice. The "experts" say that war is moving into the cities but with the right training you can use a full size M16 in CQB. I also wouldn't want an M4 in a firefight with enemy infantry thats 400m away in a bunker. Some Info: Marines pick M16A4 as Infantry Rifle Marines might replace M16A2 with M4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted January 21, 2003 I havent even seen the m16a3, let alone the a4. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Frag 0 Posted January 21, 2003 There is no substitute for the collapsible 4-position (and now 6-position) stock in CQB work. If you'd ever had a chance to clear rooms in Real Life, you would appreciate the difference. Infantry has no business engaging enemy forces in bunkers that are 400 meters away, regardless of whether it is a M16A4 or M4. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr. Duck 0 Posted January 21, 2003 Hmm, reminds me of an article I read somewhere on the net. I'll post a link soon when the site is available again. But I'd say go fifty fifty (if that's possible), you could use m4's for urban area's and m16's for something like afghanistan. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Infantry has no business engaging enemy forces in bunkers that are 400 meters away, regardless of whether it is a M16A4 or M4.<span id='postcolor'> How about just enemy infantry at that range? edit: ah, here it is. Quite long but it's also about rifles. edit2: removed link, page contained a link to something bad Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Frag 0 Posted January 21, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (mr. Duck @ Jan. 20 2003,17:59)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Infantry has no business engaging enemy forces in bunkers that are 400 meters away, regardless of whether it is a M16A4 or M4.<span id='postcolor'> How about just enemy infantry at that range?<span id='postcolor'> You can hit a soldier at 400 meters with either rifle, but the M16A4 would pack more punch due to the longer barrel. But the SS109/M855 will still not be effective at that distance from either barrel because it won't fragment at velocities below about 2200fps. Also, if the targets have body armor, it would stop the SS109/M855 at that distance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Whoami88 0 Posted January 21, 2003 IF you read the article, the marines picked the m16a4 over the m4 because a4 had less malfunctions then the m4. Â That ive heard that the m4 doesnt have much stopping power because of the short barrel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Frag 0 Posted January 21, 2003 Carbines aren't meant for long-range work. Within the limitations of the barrel length and resulting bullet velocities, the M4 can make the SS109/M855 fragment, which is what makes the bullet effective against personnel. On a separate note, I voted for the M4, but my vote doesn't show up. Yet I can't vote again. Strange... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aaron Kane 0 Posted January 21, 2003 Aww Mister Fragg... I'll sacrifice my vote for you Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ACES_KEVIN 0 Posted January 21, 2003 i say they m4 m4 is lighter and shorter and will not loose much effectiveness in ranges under 500m and in most firefights between infantry men they are closer than 500m Here is a standard M4 kit.^ Here is a m16a4 with some optional accesories. Kev Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
E6Hotel 0 Posted January 21, 2003 There is a (credible) rumor floating around that the A4 was selected because the M4 can't be used for close-order drill. Â Not sure why an M4 would have higher malfunction rates than the A4 when the internal mechanisms are the same. Â Then again, "armorer" is not on my list of MOS's. It should also be noted that the USMC units tasked w/ CQB missions are already equipped with the M4. Semper Fi Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted January 21, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (E6Hotel @ Jan. 21 2003,05:06)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There is a (credible) rumor floating around that the A4 was selected because the M4 can't be used for close-order drill.<span id='postcolor'> lol Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mister Frag 0 Posted January 21, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Aaron Kane @ Jan. 20 2003,18:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Aww Mister Fragg... I'll sacrifice my vote for you <span id='postcolor'> Taking one for the team -- I like that! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Assault (CAN) 1 Posted January 21, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I havent even seen the m16a3, let alone the a4. <span id='postcolor'> Both the A3 and the A4 are like the A2, but the A3 and A4 have flat-top recievers to allow for the easier mounting of optics. The A3 and the A4 are identical with the exception that the A4 fires full-auto and the A3 sticks with the 3 round burst mode of the A2. Got it? There are probably a few reasons why the Marines would go for the A4 over the M4. For one, their basic shooting tests go out to 500m. An M4 would be a horrible performer at that range. The A4 would be a little better for the most part. Leave the M4 in the hands of armoured crew, supply types, and people fighting in close quarters. I don't find the M-16 type weapon to be too long at all, even when things get close. Tyler Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Necromancer- 0 Posted January 21, 2003 That is one huge scope you could attach. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tex -USMC- 0 Posted January 21, 2003 That's a night-vision scope, a new version of the old Starlight scope. And you misspelled 'Qaeda' in your sig. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Whoami88 0 Posted January 21, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Jan. 21 2003,07:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I havent even seen the m16a3, let alone the a4. <span id='postcolor'> Both the A3 and the A4 are like the A2, but the A3 and A4 have flat-top recievers to allow for the easier mounting of optics. The A3 and the A4 are identical with the exception that the A4 fires full-auto and the A3 sticks with the 3 round burst mode of the A2. Got it? Â There are probably a few reasons why the Marines would go for the A4 over the M4. For one, their basic shooting tests go out to 500m. An M4 would be a horrible performer at that range. The A4 would be a little better for the most part. Leave the M4 in the hands of armoured crew, supply types, and people fighting in close quarters. I don't find the M-16 type weapon to be too long at all, even when things get close. Tyler<span id='postcolor'> *Buzzer* a3 is full auto and a4 is 3rd burst I am absolutely positive Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Assault (CAN) 1 Posted January 21, 2003 Are you positive? </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Shooters earn points for each target they successfully hit with their standard-issue M-16A4 rifle. The rifles are modified with a flat-top upper receiver and an added scope to bring long-range targets into view. It’s also fully automatic, unlike its A3 counterpart that has a three-round-burst capability.<span id='postcolor'> Taken from: A news article from a U.S. military website. Good sites on the M-16 series are hard to find. Some say that the A3 is full-auto, not the A4, and so on. So I chose to go with a U.S. military website. Tyler Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paratrooper 0 Posted January 22, 2003 Well we use a Susat (well I don't anymore as I'm Artillery) at 300m and that is about as far as I expect anyone would engage. 500m with an iron sight? That would be a waste of ammunition, aside from giving youself away without laying effective fire down. I can't see why an M4 would be unsuitable, unless it really is a reliability issue. However I am not an expert on either weapon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted January 22, 2003 Whats wrong with the good old M16A2? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Renagade 0 Posted January 22, 2003 Wouldn`t the FAL be better at long range and lol dont break the susat sight or u`ll become radioactive man My idea for the new replacement would be to have something like a browing 50 cal machine gun mounted on a gyroscope balanced arm that attaches the gun on an arm to a harnass u wear like some camera crews have or if i was feeling a little crrazy replace the browingg with a small field cannon. Aiming is done via laser sight and optics attached to the gun fed to a hud on the soldiers helmet. like this minus the blast shield and cart. or this minus the tripod now there wouldn`t be any need to let things like 3 foot concrete walls get in the way of shooting someone Im leaning towards the m16 in the poll but im not voting just yet.Does the m16a4 come in a collapsable stock version? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cloney 0 Posted January 22, 2003 Yes its called the M4A1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
E6Hotel 0 Posted January 22, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ Jan. 22 2003,05:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">500m with an iron sight? That would be a waste of ammunition, aside from giving youself away without laying effective fire down.<span id='postcolor'> I would like to reassure any terrorists out there that you are indeed safe from Marines with M16's 500 meters away. Â Please feel free to approach us at your leisure. Heh. Semper Fi Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cloney 0 Posted January 23, 2003 I was about to say, don't Marines have to qualify at 500m with their M16s? Again, if any terrorist scumbag wants to even start a fight with the Marines, god help them! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Assault (CAN) 1 Posted January 23, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I was about to say, don't Marines have to qualify at 500m with their M16s? <span id='postcolor'> Read one of my earlier posts in this thread. Sheesh, alot of people in this forum have bad memory. About heavier bullets: Short of using heavier metals, there is no way you can make the current 5.56 NATO round for the M-16 any heavier. If anyone here besides myself have used issued 5.56 NATO ammo in a standard 30 round M-16 mag, you will know that the round just barely fits in. It cant be made any longer (ie: longer=heavier). You can always swap a collabsable stock lower with a full length upper. I say, go with the A4. Tyler Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
