Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Infantry Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: M16a3 or M16a4???
SteelGear    3/14/2006 12:11:39 AM
The USMC chose the M16a4 over the US Army's Choice of the M4a1 as the primary battle rifle for the following reasons: 1. The M4 is bit short to use with a bayonet 2. Heat problems in desert conditions (during prolonged use) 3. M4 offers less precise aiming due to the four inches less sighting radius when compared with an 16A2/A3/A4. One wonders why go with an M16a4 when you can have an M16a3. the M16a3 has the ablity to full auto unlike the M16a4 which has the triple burst firing option of the M16a2. Going full auto is something that would very useful in a CQB style engagement which happens very often in MOUT situations. Is the reason why the USMC selected the M16a4 instead of the M16a3 because they have big attachment to burst fire rather than full auto or is there something else?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5   NEXT
shek    RE:M16a3 or M16a4???   3/14/2006 9:40:40 PM
SteelGear, Full auto is not an advantage in CQB. See the Good Riddance M16 thread on the Weapons of the World Forum for more information.
 
Quote    Reply

SteelGear    RE:M16a3 or M16a4???   3/14/2006 10:21:39 PM
--SteelGear, Full auto is not an advantage in CQB. See the Good Riddance M16 thread on the Weapons of the World Forum for more information.-- This thread just tells me why the M16 is inadequate but not why the USMC went the M16a4 rather than the M16a3. Is there that much of an advantage the burst fire have over full auto that I am not aware of?
 
Quote    Reply

shek    RE:M16a3 or M16a4???   3/14/2006 10:38:14 PM
You didn't read through the thread then. Full auto doesn't give any advantage in CQB situations - aimed fire is more accurate than just spraying bullets, and a single round through the spine is just as effective as 10 rounds through the spine, and you'll have more rounds left over. If anything, full auto can deplete your ammunition much too fast. Small units will tend to go with a full auto weapon simply because they don't have the complement of automatic rifleman/machine gun crews that a conventional unit will have, and so it makes sense to have such a capability available for when you need to break contact. However, since you are talking about the USMC, since they have AR and MG slots in their units, there is no need to give rifle automatic fire capability when it doesn't serve their purpose as riflemen. If you are confused about a particular argument on the "Good Riddance M16" thread, let me know, and I can try to clarify whatever the issue is.
 
Quote    Reply

shek    RE:M16a3 or M16a4???   3/14/2006 10:47:19 PM
Steel Gear, I'm curious where you got this information: 1. The M4 is bit short to use with a bayonet 2. Heat problems in desert conditions (during prolonged use) 3. M4 offers less precise aiming due to the four inches less sighting radius when compared with an 16A2/A3/A4. The reason I asked is that 1) I never had issues with my M4 fitted with a bayonet, 2) I would think that the heavier barrel of the M4 helps to compensate for its shorter length, and 3) I shot just as well with my M4 as I did my M16A2, there's no reason why you couldn'y change the diameter of your sight rings to compensate for the shorter distance, and most pertinent, your iron sights aren't your primary sighting system any way, with the primary sighting systems eliminating any parallax issues. Maybe there's specific citations from testing/field performance of the currently fielded M4, but I don't ever recall seeing these comments before or even being concerned about any potentiality of these problems. One thing on nomenclature - the Army went with the M4 - the M4A1 is the SOF version that does have full auto and has the accompanying SOF MOD kit.
 
Quote    Reply

SteelGear    RE:M16a3 or M16a4???   3/14/2006 11:02:41 PM
OK Shek....if automatic weapons are not an advantage in CQB ops, then why do special ops troopers use them since they do training using these weapons on a regular basis. Weapons like the M4a1, Mp5a4, AKS74U, G36K/C the list goes on. I have looked at the "Good Riddance M16" thread and you seem to be one of the voices advocating automatic is a waste of ammo and shouldn't be on a rifle. While is true in most regards but this really comes down to training, when to use and not to use full auto. I don't claim to be an expert in this CQB but logic would dictate if your target was less than 5 meters away you are not going to have time to take a single well placed shot (with him getting their weapon pointed at you and firing from the hip). In this situation pointing your weapon in the general direction of the target and spraying him with bullets might be the only way to make sure that you live and your target dies. If this is the wrong thing to do in this situation then what would be the "proper" method to deal with this situation?
 
Quote    Reply

SteelGear    RE:M16a3 or M16a4???   3/14/2006 11:07:13 PM
 
Quote    Reply

shek    RE:M16a3 or M16a4???   3/15/2006 8:50:37 AM
SG, SOF and automatic fire weapons: 1) as a smaller unit, they can't carry the complement of automatic weapons that a conventional unit has due to load/personnel constraints, and so they need on their weapons 2) the most trained scenario that I am aware of where automatic fire is used is for breaking contact 3) the standard for CQB training within SOCOM is the controlled pair, semi-automatic fire 4) the MP5 is used in a niche market within SOCOM (e.g. counterterrorist units) whose level of marksmanship far exceeds that of conventional soldiers and is even a cut above the rest of SOCOM 5) training on other nations' automatic weapons is just that - training so that in a contingency, they can be used, and so in a FID scenario, they know how to train other nations' soldiers how to use their own equipment Since the discussion you started is about the USMC, just as the "Good riddance M16" thread was about the US Army, to discuss an exception (i.e. SOCOM units) is frivolous as the maturity and training levels aren't comparable. So, while I hold the above comments about SOF and automatic fire to valid (just as I did in the "Good Riddance M16" thread), they just aren't applicable here. Secondly, the standards for CQM/CQB training for the conventional Army (and my assumption is that the USMC uses the exact same standards based on the AARs and MOUT Battle Lab materials I have read) were filtered to the conventional side from SOCOM. That is, the SOCOM standard for room clearing is controlled pairs due to all the factors that I went through on the "Good Riddance M16" thread. So, even the units that have the ability to use automatic fire use semi instead. That should be telling. As far as the target 5m away, common sense tells me that a shot into a target's lethal zone will be more effective than a spray and pray method. 10 quickly fired rounds don't mean squat if they don't hit the target. A single round from a controlled pair into the lethal zone will be just that - lethal. Next, when you are discussing actual room clearing, why I won't go into the details, the battle drill ensures that targets will have double coverage and that redundacy is built in. This overwhelming application of force in tight situations will ensure that targets are "serviced" - and it also necessitates the need for well aimed shots and not spray and pray which can ricochet into the path of another clearing team member. In reality, a well trained CQM marksman, which if a unit goes through the standard CQM tables, will be able to acquire a target and neutralize very quickly - and the fielded close combat optics (Aimpoint, EO Tech) assist in this marksmanship a great deal. Lastly, I read the article, and I found it lacking. His comments on accuracy are pure speculation and not grounded into the reality called the US Army. Your accuracy is affected only at the extreme end of the effective range, i.e. at 500m, at which point naked eye and 1x scope engagements aren't all that effective IMO anyway. However, put an ACOG on, and you're back in business out to 600-800m. Marksmanship scores in my experience were no different between the M16A2 and the M4. Furthermore, WTF is he doing shooting a M4A1 on full automatic from the hip? I don't ever recall carrying my M4 at the hip. That right there destroys his credibility to authoritatively discuss the M4 IMO. Anyways, I think you'll find that the vast majority soldiers who have actually been trained on CQM/CQB and have extensive experience with it will 1) like the M4 and 2) argue that controlled pairs are more advantageous than automatic fire in close quarters.
 
Quote    Reply

SteelGear    RE:M16a3 or M16a4???   3/15/2006 5:02:07 PM
Tis now clear to me......thx Shek
 
Quote    Reply

daubin       9/13/2008 11:46:13 PM
The A4 has a picatinny rail for scopes, laser sighting, night vision, etc.
 
Quote    Reply

daubin       9/13/2008 11:47:21 PM
The A4 has a picatinny rail for scopes, laser sighting, night vision, etc.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics