AR Sponsor
Posted: 3/14/2003 1:16:18 PM EDT
|
What are the specs (bbl length, sights, rifle weight, bbl twist) for current issue AR's issued to a US Army soldier and USMC rifleman? Any trends towards the future? Karl |
|
Quoted: OK... More specific, why has the USMC not adopted the M4 while the US Army has? Karl Because a Marine is a basic rifleman, not a "spray-n-prayer". Also our rifle qualification demands are different, IIRC. There's also some reports that the M4 isn't quite the maiden's answer to prayers that some make it out to be. |
|
The Marines just adopted the M16A4. 20" 1/7 gov't profile barrel with the flattop receiver and detachable carry handle. I read 3 separate Marine test of M16 .vs M4 and the Marines went with the M16. I'll try to find the links and post them here. The entire rifle weights 7.5lbs empty and almost 9lbs with a loaded 30 rounder. Hope this helps - Marc |
|
accurate marksmanship out to 500m is used by the Marine Corps as a "force multiplier" and has helped the Corps to defeat enemys superior in number since the days of wooden ships. we like the M16-A2 just fine for most purposes. the Corps has an endless array of small arms for special situation. M4s, M16-A4, M-14 M-1014 shotgun, MP-5n the Corps has M4s but they are only issued to those who require a light handy carbine. the idea of adopting the M4 as general issue that was being pushed a couple of years ago is a flawed doctrine. |
|
In the Armoured Cav it depended on job. Individual tanks had 2 M16A2's and 2 "Grease Guns" (i forgot the nomenclature) which we were trying to get exchanged for M4's since though we found them les useful than the greasers, the could be stored as easily. All crew have sidearms as well. In an open engagement the M4 is a disadvantage, and from what i have heard, my old infantry unit requested M16A2's for the upcoming war citing better open-range performance. |
AR Sponsor