M16A2 (A4 as well) question

[[R-CON]MikeAP]

Why would you want an M16A4...?

An M4 is so much better and more effective to have around. Not only is it more compact, but is also way lighter. In fact, the M16A4 is a few pounds heavier than the M16A2. Either way, screw the M16..M4 is where its at. I cant even believe I once used the M16. I can hardly fit that thing in the hatch of my Stryker.

[Sgt.North]

Hmmm let me think ......

Longer barrel..
More bullet Velocity..
More damage done at longer range..

Lets face it, M4 250m tops M16A2/4 etc 400-500m with a good sight and operator.

[[R-DEV]Jaymz]

I think the M4 can go a bit over 250m, and it's much better for situations like Iraq.

[Sgt.North]

im not saying it can't. bad wording on my part i admit.
what i meant was i wouldn't like to have to take an accurate shot at a distance of over 250m, at a drugged up Taliban fighter and rely on the 5.56mm round putting him down with the 1st hit.
I'd much rather have a longer barrel weapon, M16A2/4 or L85 etc which will have a higher muzzle velocity and a greater level of accuracy.

and yes, in Iraq, the CQC i can see the point of the M4, closer engagement distances, easier to react with a lighter more compact weapon.

[[R-CON]MikeAP]

Originally Posted by Sgt.North

im not saying it can't. bad wording on my part i admit.
what i meant was i wouldn't like to have to take an accurate shot at a distance of over 250m, at a drugged up Taliban fighter and rely on the 5.56mm round putting him down with the 1st hit.
I'd much rather have a longer barrel weapon, M16A2/4 or L85 etc which will have a higher muzzle velocity and a greater level of accuracy.

and yes, in Iraq, the CQC i can see the point of the M4, closer engagement distances, easier to react with a lighter more compact weapon.

Maybe in video games this works, but in real life the pro's of the M4 are worth the slight loss in muzzle velocity.

[myurko]

MikeAP, I had heard that in some Marine core tests that the M4s were a lot more prone to jamming than the M16A4s . That's why I personally think that we should switch to the HK416 (same price and alot more reliable with minimal new training).

[The_motivator]

Corps! not Core, not Corpse! CORPS!

[[R-CON]MikeAP]

Originally Posted by myurko

MikeAP, I had heard that in some Marine core tests that the M4s were a lot more prone to jamming than the M16A4s . That's why I personally think that we should switch to the HK416 (same price and alot more reliable with minimal new training).

No and no.

[[R-MOD]Bob_Marley]

Originally Posted by myurko

MikeAP, I had heard that in some Marine core tests that the M4s were a lot more prone to jamming than the M16A4s . That's why I personally think that we should switch to the HK416 (same price and alot more reliable with minimal new training).

some reports suggest that the Colt made M4 has a higer frequency of factory defects than the FN produced M16A4/A2.

Other than that, they should both be equally reliable.

[DOAW]

Actually, there could be some truth to that. Because of the M4's much shorter gas tube, there is more pressure on the gas system. That leads to greater wear and tear on the moving parts which can give you a higher rate of mechanical failure. Also, the higher gas pressure leads to a higher rate of fire which can in turn affect feeding malfunctions. I think overall it was deemed a necessary evil to gain the benefits of a much lighter and more maneuverable carbine.

And given the amount of time and money that has been put into the m16 series, especially in light of the recent large purchases of M16a4s and M4s, it seems unlikely that the military would just drop the current rifles in favor of a new design. Theres just too little funding and too much institutional inertia To buy into a whole new system at the drop of a hat.

Although it does seem odd that no one has developed a successful workaround to the gas-tube problem. You would think that it would be feasible to just increase the diameter of the tube to account for the shorter length, but what do I know?