Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 11/22/2003 5:18:30 PM EDT
Which would you preferred to be issued? I would tend torward the longer M-16 but I am not getting into and out of a vehicle all the time.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 5:22:43 PM EDT
Given a choice, I would take an M-14. If I had to choose beteen an A2 and an M4, I would choose the A2.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 5:37:27 PM EDT
i'm not a vet, but i would go with the M4 [:)]
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 5:55:19 PM EDT
According to some of the accounts in combat in Iraq, the M-16 is being treated more as a personal weapon. If an American unit comes under fire, they withdraw out of range and let heavier vehicle mounted weapons or artillery deal with the enemy. In these scenarios, the m-4's shorter range and penetration wouldn't be such disadvantages. In Afghanistan with the longer ranges and infantry patrols w/o vehicles, the M-16A2 or the M-14 would be better choices.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 6:07:37 PM EDT
For the Security Forces guys I work with, they replaced 70% of their A2's with the M4, and put Aimpoint ML2 on. They report that it is much better for CQB--especially in building searches and what not. The M4 just feels better in my opinion.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 6:15:08 PM EDT
M240 or M249 When the goin' gets tough, the tough go belt fed.
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 6:19:00 PM EDT
M4A1/Aimpoint = Dedicated CQB M16A4/ACOG = General Purpose
Link Posted: 11/22/2003 6:27:40 PM EDT
My choice would be the M4 FT but with a 16" barrel. Short enough for CQB yet longer for reaching out there. Acog with BAC a must as well.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 1:03:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/23/2003 1:08:38 AM EDT by wyv3rn]
I'd prefer an M16/M4 type weapon or derivative there of. My problem would not be with the weapon, anything between 14.5"-20" is fine with me. My bitch would be with the M855 standard issue ammunition. I don't want to have anything to do with that junk. Edited: Crap, sorry for the post.. I'm not a vetran. Maybe I should pay more attention to the topic @ 2am.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 1:38:03 AM EDT
Depends on what you are going into = distance.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 4:03:07 AM EDT
I did not vote, as I do not have the honor of being a vet. However, I would choose an M4 for personal defense and CQB loaded with M193 or OTM or MK262 and have it sighted with an Aimpoint. At the squad level, I think there should be a balance between M16/203s sighted with ACOGs and M249s and M60s and M4s.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 5:31:43 AM EDT
Maybe Bushmaster should be offering the Dissapator as an alternative? Shorter and easier to handle, plus looks like it should handle abuse to the barrel easier.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 7:38:44 AM EDT
Compaired to the M16A1 that I was issued, I defenitly take a "loaded" M4. The ability to add that Aimpoint sold me a long time ago...
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 7:49:17 AM EDT
I carried the M16A2 as a Marines and there was some situations were the M4 would be perfect. Then there was some were the M16A2 would be ideal. There was also some situations were I wish I had a M14. The point is there is no one weapon that a do it all. Remember your always prepared for the conflict before, not the one in the future.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 8:28:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/23/2003 8:31:46 AM EDT by The_Cheat]
My Ideal weapon is a little, well alot different then most of you would pick. Rifle: M4 lower (SEF type) A1 upper, M4 barrel, M203, Iron sights no optics Subgun: IMI Uzi in 9mm Pistol: Jerhico in .40
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 8:53:41 AM EDT
I wouldn't call the M4 a 'better' weapon in functional terms because mechanically it's nearly the same weapon as the M16. It is better suited for urban deployments where daily CQB would be expected and vehicle dismounts must be quick and unobstructed. Never had an M4 issued in the military but if I had to chose my combat rifle I'd cast my vote for the USMC M16A4 over both the A2 and M4 carbine for everything except a dedicated MOUT enviorment. The longer range and higher velocity of the 20" barrel, combined with easy mounting of optics, BUIS, and other accessories, makes it a well rounded combat weapon.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 10:02:10 AM EDT
I'll take the M-4 but that's because I was a tanker. Tried to un-ass an M-1 through the loader's hatch once with an M-16 slung on my shoulder. Murphy grabbed it and turned me into a giant toggle bolt. Everyone who saw it said it was real entertaining.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 1:21:58 PM EDT
As a 12-year Marine Corps veteran, including combat in Beirut, I don't see what all the fuss is about the M4. Lousy stock weld and too short a barrel. A full 16 barrel (not 16 with muzzle suppressor) would be OK but 20" fits more situations. I don't know why the length of the M4 is such a big deal, I did plenty of house to house where my M16A1 was just fine. The main thing you want is to put somebody down when you need to. It's pretty obvious that the M4 AND the ammo they are using aren't doing the job. If I had a choice I wold love to have a high quality version of the AR-180B. I have always felt the M16 is too complicated and prone to failure for a combat weapon. The amount of time you have to spend cleaning them is just ridiculous. Let the flames begin! :)
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 1:23:45 PM EDT
Enjoy carrying the ammo.
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: M240 or M249 When the goin' gets tough, the tough go belt fed.
View Quote
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 1:25:10 PM EDT
I know very little about the Jericho other than it looks like a CZ copy. So I'm curious to know why you would choose it?
Originally Posted By The_Cheat: My Ideal weapon is a little, well alot different then most of you would pick. Rifle: M4 lower (SEF type) A1 upper, M4 barrel, M203, Iron sights no optics Subgun: IMI Uzi in 9mm Pistol: Jerhico in .40
View Quote
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 1:38:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By tthiel: Enjoy carrying the ammo.
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: M240 or M249 When the goin' gets tough, the tough go belt fed.
View Quote
View Quote
I was an M-60 gunner for about 2.25 years while I was in. I never saw combat. But was often carrying the gun and ammo for it. I was also a 90mm RR gunner for a while, while I was a 60 gunner. We even carried the 23 lb sub-caliber devices for the 90mm that are supposed to be the same weight as the real rounds.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 8:42:05 PM EDT
Ball Peen or Claw hammer? It all depends on what I'm hammering! It's no surprise the air force has for years issued GAU's to units who will be using vehicles heavly and regular 16's to SF's You issue the wepaon to the mission not the other way around.
Link Posted: 11/23/2003 9:10:19 PM EDT
I was issued both the M-16A2 and the M4 while I was in the Army. I would choose the M4 if it were up to me, but with the M-203. I honestly don't see the AR type rifle to be a really long range weapon in any case, so the lower velocity and effective range of the shorter barreled M4 doesn't really bug me all that much. Personally, I would like to be able to pick the weapon for the job. In Iraq or Bosnia/Kosovo, where most of the combat is at close range, the M4 or M16 is great (M4 preffered). But in Afghanistan I think the M-14 is a better weapon for the longer range and punch. My choice would be an M-14 or better yet, M1A bush rifle with the 18 inch barrel. Longer range and hitting power than the .223, but shorter and handier than the M-16A2. But then, the procurement system of the military is a little more inflexable than most of us would have liked, and they chose a one size fits all aproach to weapons. FWIW.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 3:25:57 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Special-K: I was issued both the M-16A2 and the M4 while I was in the Army. I would choose the M4 if it were up to me, but with the M-203. I honestly don't see the AR type rifle to be a really long range weapon in any case, so the lower velocity and effective range of the shorter barreled M4 doesn't really bug me all that much. Personally, I would like to be able to pick the weapon for the job. In Iraq or Bosnia/Kosovo, where most of the combat is at close range, the M4 or M16 is great (M4 preffered). But in Afghanistan I think the M-14 is a better weapon for the longer range and punch. My choice would be an M-14 or better yet, M1A bush rifle with the 18 inch barrel. Longer range and hitting power than the .223, but shorter and handier than the M-16A2. But then, the procurement system of the military is a little more inflexable than most of us would have liked, and they chose a one size fits all aproach to weapons. FWIW.
View Quote
So a miss with a 7.62 is more effective than a miss with a 5.56? The use of a 7.62 will not improve long range shooting ability, in its M14 guise, it isn't anymore accurate than the issue current issue weapons (I actually think less, unless you go to match rifle, but those aren't too rugged,they loose there accuracy pretty easily) There was a pretty good AAR from out of the 10th Mountain, it was from the Operation Anaconda. It discussed two soldiers who took quite a time to kill an Al Quada sniper who was around 400-500 meters away. One of the soldiers acted as a spotter and the other acted as the shooter. It took them quite a few rounds to hit the guy, but when the 1 round connected, he went down and stopped shooting. The only thing that would have help in that case was not a 7.62 rifle, but magnified rifle optics.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 5:26:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/24/2003 5:27:53 AM EDT by Coffee357]
I am not a Vet (and so did not vote), but I do deploy from vehicles (law enforcement). Trying to maneuver a 16" rifle around in the confines of a vehicle is a PITA, a 20" would royally suck. The cheek weld could be solved with a fixed A1 stock as the weapon pivots around the pistol grip and the telescoping stock is not that big of deal (still makes an already handy weapon handier, though). My vote would obviously be for the M4. Just my thoughts... Coffee
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 8:56:48 AM EDT
I am not a combat vet so I did not vote, but did serve 8 years as a Infantry man. I was first issued the m16A1, then the A2 and only played with the m4 for a few months before my contract was over. Most of the time we were in Hummvs and there was mounts for the 20 inch guns on the side of the doors. It was easy to get in and out of the vehicle with the weapons. So I have no complaints. Mount and CQB was a different matter though. Most of the time I think the weapons were way to long. I didn't get any training with the m4 in an urban environment but I think that it would have helped if I did mount with them. My ideal rifle would be the M16A2 with auto instead of burst.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 4:02:09 PM EDT
During my time in the army (Infantry, the only way to be!)I was issued the A2 then later the M4 (both w/o optics). Using irons I couldn't easily hit targets much beyond 300 meters with either so the handiness of the M4 outwieghs the theoretical (in my case) range advantage of the longer A2. Clearly if you can pick the weapon/optics combo for the mission that is the way to go but most joes go with what they've been issued so under those constraints I would opt for the M4.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 4:14:51 PM EDT
I think the poll should be M16A4 against M4A1, both flat-tops. M16A2 indeed makes mounting optics harder.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 4:42:58 PM EDT
I spent 4 1/2 yrs as a infantry paratrooper. I was issued a M16A2. The only carbine I used while I was on active duty was my personnal weapon. Pre ban Colt sporter 16" barrel. When I carried a M16A2/M203, I have to admit I really liked it. The 82nd did not issue the M4s until I had gotten out. I now own 2 carbines and 1 A2. If it came down to only one, it would be a m4 or other type carbine.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 5:12:43 PM EDT
I would want a select fire USAS12 with 10 round magazines. The m16 only fires one bullet at a time, the spread of the 12 gauge with 0 or 1 buckshot would be much better. You dont have to be right on the target to hit it, close is good enough. Firing 16 or more .32 cal balls per shot at even a conservative 4 rounds per second adds up to 64 individual bullets leaving the end of the barrel per second. Im sure a USAS fires faster than 4 RPS but you get the picture.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 6:14:47 PM EDT
I was in the 82nd as well; issued M16A2 & SAW. My major gripe was the length of the wpn's in MOUT; I'd much rather have had an M4. Open country though, give me a M14 any day. Oh yeah, and if you have to shoot through anything to hit your target (walls, cars, etc) you better have a 7.62mm...
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 7:58:38 PM EDT
I would prefer to be issued the M16A2 and my enemy be issued the M4. That way if I got hit at any range past 30 yards it would be no worse than being hit by a .22 Long Rifle round. Actually it would produce a cleaner wound than a .22LR so it would be better than being hit by a Ruger 10/22. If I had the misfortune to be issued an M4 and could not get Mk262 ammo, I would look for an AK fast, any AK, in any caliber.
Link Posted: 11/24/2003 8:40:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By STLRN:
Originally Posted By Special-K: I was issued both the M-16A2 and the M4 while I was in the Army. I would choose the M4 if it were up to me, but with the M-203. I honestly don't see the AR type rifle to be a really long range weapon in any case, so the lower velocity and effective range of the shorter barreled M4 doesn't really bug me all that much. Personally, I would like to be able to pick the weapon for the job. In Iraq or Bosnia/Kosovo, where most of the combat is at close range, the M4 or M16 is great (M4 preffered). But in Afghanistan I think the M-14 is a better weapon for the longer range and punch. My choice would be an M-14 or better yet, M1A bush rifle with the 18 inch barrel. Longer range and hitting power than the .223, but shorter and handier than the M-16A2. But then, the procurement system of the military is a little more inflexable than most of us would have liked, and they chose a one size fits all aproach to weapons. FWIW.
View Quote
So a miss with a 7.62 is more effective than a miss with a 5.56? The use of a 7.62 will not improve long range shooting ability, in its M14 guise, it isn't anymore accurate than the issue current issue weapons (I actually think less, unless you go to match rifle, but those aren't too rugged,they loose there accuracy pretty easily) There was a pretty good AAR from out of the 10th Mountain, it was from the Operation Anaconda. It discussed two soldiers who took quite a time to kill an Al Quada sniper who was around 400-500 meters away. One of the soldiers acted as a spotter and the other acted as the shooter. It took them quite a few rounds to hit the guy, but when the 1 round connected, he went down and stopped shooting. The only thing that would have help in that case was not a 7.62 rifle, but magnified rifle optics.
View Quote
No, a miss with a 7.62 is no better than a miss with a 5.56. That having been said, the 7.62 M-14 makes hitting at longer range more easy. The 147gr 7.62 is MUCH less affected by wind drift than 55 or 62gr 5.56. At such longer ranges, the 7.62 is a far more effective round than the 5.56. Thats why the M-14 was turned into the M-21 sniper rifle, and not the m-16 turned into some other sniper rifle. In addition, the M24 and M41 are also both 7.62, not 5.56. Yes, some special forces units are using 5.56 rifles specially accurized, but SF is a whole 'nother ball game and they play by different rules. So while you still have to be a good shooter, the M-14 will make more of that skill than any of the 5.56's available, especially at long distances - 400+. Inside of 200-300 yards it is a different argument.
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 2:29:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/25/2003 3:18:30 AM EDT by STLRN]
Originally Posted By Special-K: No, a miss with a 7.62 is no better than a miss with a 5.56. That having been said, the 7.62 M-14 makes hitting at longer range more easy. The 147gr 7.62 is MUCH less affected by wind drift than 55 or 62gr 5.56. At such longer ranges, the 7.62 is a far more effective round than the 5.56. Thats why the M-14 was turned into the M-21 sniper rifle, and not the m-16 turned into some other sniper rifle. In addition, the M24 and M41 are also both 7.62, not 5.56. Yes, some special forces units are using 5.56 rifles specially accurized, but SF is a whole 'nother ball game and they play by different rules. So while you still have to be a good shooter, the M-14 will make more of that skill than any of the 5.56's available, especially at long distances - 400+. Inside of 200-300 yards it is a different argument.
View Quote
You might want to check into that, the M21 really isn't in use any more. However, the navy army and Marine Corps have introduced improved versions of the M16s as either special application rifles, sniper rifles or advance marksmen rifles. Also look at what the match teams now use, they now longer use NM M14s, they all use M16 variants. Although M14s have been reissued as DMRs in light army formation. There hasn't been any feed back sowing it was more likely to hit a target than the issue M4 or M16A2s. When the Marine Corps conducted experiments with project Metropolis in regards to rifle accuracy they found, that just by giving Marines scopes increased the number of hits, sometimes by a factor of 5. If you take both an M14 and a M16A4 and put the same optics on them, I am pretty sure out to the max range of the weapons your average trooper would be just as likely to hit with either. In the hands of the highly skilled shooter the M16 would probably do better, as has been shown on the national match course of fire.
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 7:15:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/25/2003 8:25:13 AM EDT by tthiel]
It took them quite a few rounds to hit someone 4-500 meters away with a scoped M-14? Rather than a better scope they needed lessons on how to shoot. Marines qualify with the M16 (iron sights) up to 500 meters. 4-500 meters should be an easy shot with a scoped M-14.
Originally Posted By STLRN:
Originally Posted By Special-K: There was a pretty good AAR from out of the 10th Mountain, it was from the Operation Anaconda. It discussed two soldiers who took quite a time to kill an Al Quada sniper who was around 400-500 meters away. One of the soldiers acted as a spotter and the other acted as the shooter. It took them quite a few rounds to hit the guy, but when the 1 round connected, he went down and stopped shooting. The only thing that would have help in that case was not a 7.62 rifle, but magnified rifle optics.
View Quote
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 7:20:56 AM EDT
I am simply amazed that anyone would consider ease of carry to be more important than lethality or reliability. The M4's are not as reliable because they overheat quickly and are more stressed than a full size M16. I think going to the M4 was a grave mistake by the Army and am glad to see the Marines had enough sense to go with the M16A4. But then I never really doubted that they would. Even though I am VERY familiar with the M16 I have never been impressed with it as a combat rifle. I don't think th M14 (essentialy an upgrade M1 Garand) is the answer either. It's time to look at something new. I think a high quality AR180 would be pretty interesting....
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 7:44:39 AM EDT
Originally Posted By stormbringer66: Ball Peen or Claw hammer?
View Quote
Ball peen. Where do I vote?
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 8:23:26 AM EDT
The Army does not emphasize marksmanship whereas in the Marine Corps it's a religion. From what I've seen the Army also emphasizes much more burst fire than single shot. No offense but we always though Army marksmanship training was pitiful. Not nearly enough live fire exercises either in the Army. People invaribaly get hurt or killed in large live fire exercises and thats a career ender if your in charge. Hopefully the Marine Corps still does lots of live fire. My experience is dated though since I was in the USMC from 1977 to 2000. I'm sure the advent of optics has changed things alot but I don't really know how. My combat grunt instinct is to not trust optics to hold up but again I don't know from direct experience how well ACOG's etc are holding up. The only optics I used was a Redfield 3X9 scope as a sniper and that a different story from your regular infantryman.
Originally Posted By Moe-Ron: During my time in the army (Infantry, the only way to be!)I was issued the A2 then later the M4 (both w/o optics). Using irons I couldn't easily hit targets much beyond 300 meters with either so the handiness of the M4 outwieghs the theoretical (in my case) range advantage of the longer A2. Clearly if you can pick the weapon/optics combo for the mission that is the way to go but most joes go with what they've been issued so under those constraints I would opt for the M4.
View Quote
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 8:26:50 AM EDT
I bust out laughing when I read that. Good one.
Originally Posted By Robert2011: I would prefer to be issued the M16A2 and my enemy be issued the M4. That way if I got hit at any range past 30 yards it would be no worse than being hit by a .22 Long Rifle round. Actually it would produce a cleaner wound than a .22LR so it would be better than being hit by a Ruger 10/22. If I had the misfortune to be issued an M4 and could not get Mk262 ammo, I would look for an AK fast, any AK, in any caliber.
View Quote
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 8:56:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/25/2003 8:59:42 AM EDT by STLRN]
Originally Posted By tthiel: It took them quite a few rounds to hit someone 4-500 meters away with a scoped M-14? Rather than a better scope they needed lessons on how to shoot.
View Quote
No it was with a M4 with CCO, a M-14 without optics (which quite a few have been issued) would have done no better.
Originally Posted By tthiel: Marines qualify with the M16 (iron sights) up to 500 meters. 4-500 meters should be an easy shot with a scoped M-14.
View Quote
Really I would never have know that with my 14 plus years of service in the Marine Corps. I am mustang officer, I am very aware of what the Corps does and doesn't do. I am also so not so brain washed to believe some of the propaganda over real world capabilies. I have fought 2 wars in the desert so far, and in both the "Long range" shooting that allot talk about didn't happen. We used machine guns, shot Artillery and brought air in and the rifle fire was at very short range. Even the last war, the longest shot a Marine Scout Sniper took was only a little over 600 meters, well within the capability of a A4 with ACOG.
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 1:49:01 PM EDT
I'm a former Marine and I would definately prefer the full length M16. Most likely with an Aimpoint optical as well...contrary to popular opinion, you CAN perform CQB with a 20" barrel, just a little more tricky. And you never know when you're gonna need the extra range.
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 3:28:13 PM EDT
In Mechanized combat. Give me an AK underfolder. (not counting the vehicle's weapon systems.)
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 5:59:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery: M240 or M249 When the goin' gets tough, the tough go belt fed.
View Quote
HOOAH! I humped an M-60 for little over two years in the 2nd Infantry Division and the 101st Airborne. And i had a BALL humping the ammo-cause if I humpoed it, I got to shoot it, and HAPPINESS IS A BELT FED WEAPON!
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 6:58:19 PM EDT
MK-19 and rain all over their parade!!!!
Link Posted: 11/25/2003 7:06:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By davidenorth: MK-19 and rain all over their parade!!!!
View Quote
It does seem to me that the rifles are losing their importance and the support arms got the job done in Iraq.
Top Top