AR Sponsor
Posted: 2/15/2005 1:37:04 PM EDT
|
I finally had a chance to make a direct comparison between an 11.5" M16 Commando and a 14.5" M4, to the tune of about 1000 rounds. Both weapons were in similar configurations, with similar Pro-Point red dot optics on similar mounts. Both weapons had late-model M4 tele-stocks. I liked the balance and how handy the 11.5" Commando was. But in my opinion, the full-auto feature did not prove to be of any practical use. The reliability of functioning was not acceptable for a fighting tool. Several stoppages a year would cause me concern. But several in a day? Shooting both weapons back to back, and shooting them along side each other with another shooter, I found that I was hitting more targets with the M4, and I was hitting them faster. Between excessive magazine changes (even with just 2-4 round bursts) and immediate action drills to deal with stoppages, I continued hitting targets with the M4 while the M16 in the other shooter's hands was down. At shorter ranges, the actual time to make the first shot was similar, but the M16 on full auto tends to pitch the third round (and any subsequent rounds) at anything beyond about 25 yards. Then the M16 would either malf or run empty before the end of the string. I also had no problem engaging targets at the longest distance available to us (about 250 yards) with a high degree of accuracy with the M4. I did not see the shooter with the M16 try that. I cannot argue the suppressive value of an M16 mag dump, but even at 50 yards it looks like more of an area weapon. Inside a house, I could see the value of full-auto bursts from an 11.5" weapon. And of course we know that the incapacitating mechanism of injury of M855 and M193 happens at greater ranges with an M4 than an 11.5" weapon. I would not want to have to hump all the ammo required to keep an M16 fed either. I'd be faster on my feet with the ammo load required for a weapon system that is not select fire. It was entertaining, and I'm glad that I had the opportunity, but I think I still prefer the M4. |
|
how was the camparison in semi mode only? in order to have a true 11.5 to 14.5 comparison, they rifles need to be shot the same way. everything needs to be the same between the two except the feature you were comparing. Your comparison seems to compare auto to semi fire rather than barrel length |
|
Being a select fire weapon, the M16 Commando has both full and semi auto functions available to the operator. The other shooter had every option, but like most everybody that picks up an M16, that full auto feature was apparently too much to resist. If you want to compare a 14.5" M4 to an 11.5" AR-based SBR, start another thread and knock yourself out. |
well, do a full auto 11.5 to full auto 14.5 comparison, I don't care, but you can't have a comparision that involves more than one variable because you can't be sure of the conclusion. Was it the barrel length that made the difference, or the firing mode? If you test them both at the same time, how do you tell?  you say you are doing a direct comparision between the two. What are you comparing? barrel or mode? -not busting your chops here, just very interested in the topic. My next build will be a 14.5 or 11.5, I haven't decided yet and I'm looking for data to compare. 
|
AR Sponsor