Why the difference?

[yosel]

Is the M-4 the official, standard Army issued rifle? If so why do the Marines use the M-16 as their standard issue? I am going by what I see in the photographs from Afghanistan and Iraq and some info from various forums.

If I remember correctly, during VN, we were all issued the same standard weapons, ( M-14, and later M-16) except for those who had special issue items (shotgun, shortened M-16,etc.).

[shittercrewchief]

Yes you are correct the army is pretty much M-4 all around.
While the standard in the USMC is the M-16A4 with M-4 for those with a carbine requirement .
Biggest drawback with the M-16A4 is the fixed stock in conjunction with body Armour.

Marine wanted to be different and chose it so its our fault.

[Tangotag]

They do use the M4 already but not in full extent.
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/12/marine_m4_122609w/

"Every Marine is a rifleman" holds strong in training. That 20" barrel is a distance shooter.
USMC tends to be on the end of the supply upgrades.

[shittercrewchief]

USMC tends to be on the end of the supply upgrades.

While true in most cases this is not one.

All M-16A4 are brand new.

[yosel]

Thanks guys. The MC Times article pretty much answered the question.

[sinister]

Is the M-4 the official, standard Army issued rifle?

No, the M16A4 is.

The M4 carbine is the organic weapon for many Army Infantry and Stryker brigades, while the M16A4 is the organic weapon for most combat support and combat service support units.

The M4A1 is the standard for most US Army Special Operations Command units while the SCAR is being interim fielded.

[13F3OL7]

No, the M16A4 is.

The M4 carbine is the organic weapon for many Army Infantry and Stryker brigades, while the M16A4 is the organic weapon for most combat support and combat service support units.

The M4A1 is the standard for most US Army Special Operations Command units while the SCAR is being interim fielded.

There are still units within Stryker brigades that are issued M16A4's as their primary weapon. I had two soldiers who were issued M16's as their primary weapon. Gotta love working in BDE HQ's.

[ThirdWatcher]

I've often wondered why the Army doesn't issue the M4 to support troops. It has a collapsable stock and shorter barrel and in effect is what the M-1 Carbine wanted to be and never was.

Both my warrior princesses are issued M-16s with full stocks and 20" barrels. In order to shoot, they have to put the butstock on top of their shoulders. They both are qualified Expert, but I suspect that this in spite of the size of the weapon, not because of it.

As for the Marines, I like the fact they have autonomy in the selection of their weaponry and equipment.

[ForTehNguyen]

marines using M16s never had complaints about the M855 62gr not stopping targets, only the soldiers with 14.5" M4s did (fragmentation is unreliable at longer ranges)

[TOrrock]

I've often wondered why the Army doesn't issue the M4 to support troops. It has a collapsable stock and shorter barrel and in effect is what the M-1 Carbine wanted to be and never was.

Both my warrior princesses are issued M-16s with full stocks and 20" barrels. In order to shoot, they have to put the butstock on top of their shoulders. They both are qualified Expert, but I suspect that this in spite of the size of the weapon, not because of it.

As for the Marines, I like the fact they have autonomy in the selection of their weaponry and equipment.



The irony is that the M4 was developed to arm support troops, just as the M1 Carbine was.

[mark5pt56]

Hey all, keep it on track and not argue over who does whatever first in regards to chest thumping. Both services through time have outstanding performance and no particulair one is necessarily better than the other.

[tirod]

There is no mandate that one service must use the same weapons at the others. Military history from WW1 up shows a lot of different weapons peculiar to a specific branch.

Right now, IIRC the Navy is preparing to buy a type specific M16 for their own use - from Sabre Defence.

What has happened over the years is that one proponent branch was in charge of procurement with the understanding that other branches would use the item once approved. The Air Force bought into the M16 early on, and was in charge of the M9 project, too.

The Army has had a long reputation of foot dragging in approving new acquistions, taking three years or longer. What was recognized (finally) was the Marines could do it in half the time and even field the equipment - nice when you have a few million less troops. As the Army looked at budgeting, it became obvious they should just adopt the item, too, without duplicating a wasteful and ineffective process to come to the same conclusion two years late and even less off the leading edge of development. They could spend the money on something more important, like bullets or fuel.

Yeah, that is funny, I almost choked on that one. If I wasn't a 22 year Army Retired Reserves vet, it wouldn't hurt so much.

No, the Marines don't have to use Army equipment, and the Army can't make them because the Navy has that final authority. They all benefit from cost effective use of resources, and when it comes down to bidding on firearms, buying a proven item is certainly good career insurance - rather than taking a risk on a lone wolf approach.

For further examples, just look at the lack of camo uniformity we are currently experiencing.

[Iraqgunz]

Currently in Afghanistan there are plenty of M16A2's being used by the U.S Army as well as the M16A4 and M4. Many of the Marines that I see on a daily basis are using either M16A4's or M4's.

[mark5pt56]

I'll just close this toobox before I find the mallet in it.:rolleyes: