View Full Version : M16A2/A3/A4 question
I realize that "reports of it's demise may be greatly exaggerated", but the US military sems to be increasingly commited to the M4 and carbine-length weapons. The full-length rifle seems (to the layman, anyway) to be on it's way out, or at least out of favor with most users.
For all practical purposes, it seems that the carbine can do anything the M16 rifle can do, in a somewhat handier package. Is that a fair assessment?
GeorgiaBoy
01-29-12, 18:16
The rifle's sight radius is better and the longer barrel produces greater velocity.
Other than that, yes.
The development of better ammunition, i.e. Mk 262, has largely done away with the velocity advantage of the 20" barrel. The Army doesn't teach marksmanship outside of 300 meters. Hell, the Army doesn't really teach marksmanship any more, so what's the point of hauling around a full sized rifle?
CarlosDJackal
01-31-12, 11:17
Plus, have you ever tried to rapidly un-ass or get back into a vehicle (any vehicle) while lugging one of them Muskets?
I was probably in the last unit to fully switch to the M4. During my 03 tour only my LT had an M4. Then in 05 every NCO had them. After I got out in 06 they gave them to everyone. I never really had a problem with the A4 rifle but the carbine is a lot handier and works perfect for the ranges where combat actually takes place most of the time. The M4 is definitely accurate enough to make hits at 500 meters.
Without an ACOG, it's tough for me to hit at 500 yards with a carbine sight radius. Much easier on an A2 rifle.
With the ACOG, the M4 is the clear winner.
I realize that "reports of it's demise may be greatly exaggerated", but the US military sems to be increasingly commited to the M4 and carbine-length weapons. The full-length rifle seems (to the layman, anyway) to be on it's way out, or at least out of favor with most users.
For all practical purposes, it seems that the carbine can do anything the M16 rifle can do, in a somewhat handier package. Is that a fair assessment?
FYI we started the switch to the M4 in 1995, as a LT in the 101st I got my first one in 1996, the M4 and M68 CCO is not new.
FYI we started the switch to the M4 in 1995, as a LT in the 101st I got my first one in 1996, the M4 and M68 CCO is not new.
We started fielding them in the 82d in 1996, but XVIII Abn Corps always seems to be just a few years behind SOCOM when it comes to new gear. Even the leg units like the 10th and 101st :D.
I don't know of any combat arms units in any active Army (or NG) unit that are still issued the M16A4 or A2. The Marines are still clinging to the idea of the full length rifle, but that has more to do with their philosophy (IMHO) that every marine is a rifleman than any practical benefit. On the contrary, trying to use a full length A2 stock with body armor and an ACOG is a huge PITA, and the average infantryman would probably prefer an M4 if given the choice.
Rob
maddawg5777
02-01-12, 01:28
Got to love seeing some troop who is vertically challenged dragging around one of those dinosaur a2's lol, The damn thing nearly touches the ground!!! Back on topic, the m4 is just more maneuverable and fits better with today's mil than a full length rifle.
Belmont31R
02-01-12, 01:33
Echo everyone elses comments.
The worst was an A2 with the kevlar helmet. The body armor would push on the back the helmet pushing front down over your eyes in the prone. Im 6', and the A2 is simply too long to be comfortable with wearing body armor and a helmet. The ACH fixed a lot of that but the A2 stock is just friggin long.
Getting in and out of vehicles is also a challenge as is going through rooms. Even at my height the A2 is a big friggin gun.
vicious_cb
02-01-12, 02:21
The rifle's sight radius is better and the longer barrel produces greater velocity.
Other than that, yes.
Iron sights are pretty much a secondary sighting now anyway so I don't even see that as an advantage anymore.
Eurodriver
02-01-12, 06:42
I've always preferred the a4 if qualifying. Not only for the sight radius but also the longer hand guard for kneeling positions. With irons at 500 yards you struggle with the carbine sight radius.
The Army not teaching marksmanship is sad...and scary. Our girls shoot better and farther....
I've always preferred the a4 if qualifying. Not only for the sight radius but also the longer hand guard for kneeling positions. With irons at 500 yards you struggle with the carbine sight radius.
The Army not teaching marksmanship is sad...and scary. Our girls shoot better and farther....
The Army is teaching marksmanship, we start the trainees off slick on known distance ranges then slowly ramp them up to full kit, combat and SRM shooting. Also, the iron sights are secondary sights and have been since 1995.
I've always preferred the a4 if qualifying. Not only for the sight radius but also the longer hand guard for kneeling positions. With irons at 500 yards you struggle with the carbine sight radius.
The Army not teaching marksmanship is sad...and scary. Our girls shoot better and farther....
I wouldnt say that they dont teach marksmanship. When I graduated in 02 I was a decent marksman. The 300 meter silhouette target was no problem for me with irons. That being said from what i have read and heard from Marine family/friends the USMC does teach it better.
I for one was never taught in Basic that the trajectory of the 300 meter zero has rounds sailing a foot high at 150 meters or so. I think that is very important information that should be drilled into every trainees head every day at the range.
Luckily for me some of the leadership in my unit after I graduated Basic was big on rifle marksmanship and we hit the range with some regularity including the 500+ meter ranges we had at Ft. Benning.
I for one was never taught in Basic that the trajectory of the 300 meter zero has rounds sailing a foot high at 150 meters or so. I think that is very important information that should be drilled into every trainees head every day at the range.
Luckily for me some of the leadership in my unit after I graduated Basic was big on rifle marksmanship and we hit the range with some regularity including the 500+ meter ranges we had at Ft. Benning.
This is the single biggest issue I ran across during training. Units get new stuff and no one breaks out the FM. Or even better, the FM doesn't say anything and everyone's qual scores drop five points and no one knows why.
One unit I was in couldn't even grasp the concept of POA\POI. I had young troops that didn't even know how to adjust their own sights because it was done for them in basic.
Another unit had a decent training program, and some pretty experienced troops. They still had issues the first time they shot the M4 because of the difference in trajectory between that and the A2 rifle.
The Army needs to dump the A2. If it really needs a full length rifle then just issue the A4 with the carbine stock kit.
Eurodriver
02-01-12, 11:43
One unit I was in couldn't even grasp the concept of POA\POI. I had young troops that didn't even know how to adjust their own sights because it was done for them in basic.
Seriously?
If I were in Iraq I would prefer an M4, if I were in Afghanistan I would take a M16A4 (or even better and A5 with the adjustable stock). The bottom line is you can reach out more accurately and with more velocity on the round with a full length rifle than you can with a carbine. Yes I know you can still hit targets with a carbine at 500 meters :rolleyes: but shooting at some one in a gunfight I want every advantage I can get to hit him before he hits me.
It is not THAT hard to get out of an armored vehicle with a full length rifle, I did it for ten years.
The bottom line is you can reach out more accurately and with more velocity on the round with a full length rifle than you can with a carbine. Yes I know you can still hit targets with a carbine at 500 meters :rolleyes: but shooting at some one in a gunfight I want every advantage I can get to hit him before he hits me.
I basically agree... except for the accurately part. We were hitting out to 700 yards with a 12.5" AR in 5.56.
But hell yes I'd take the added velocity of the 20" barrel all things equal.
I wouldnt say that they dont teach marksmanship. When I graduated in 02 .
BRM at basic training has changed significantly since '02.
If I were in Iraq I would prefer an M4, if I were in Afghanistan I would take a M16A4 (or even better and A5 with the adjustable stock). The bottom line is you can reach out more accurately and with more velocity on the round with a full length rifle than you can with a carbine. Yes I know you can still hit targets with a carbine at 500 meters :rolleyes: but shooting at some one in a gunfight I want every advantage I can get to hit him before he hits me.
It is not THAT hard to get out of an armored vehicle with a full length rifle, I did it for ten years.
The average Infantry load in Afghanistan is around 110lbs for a 3 day mission, I'll keep my M4, that we've had since 1995, and be happy that I can still hit 500-600 meters with it.
BRM at basic training has changed significantly since '02.
For better or worse?
For better or worse?
Better, see my other post.
I basically agree... except for the accurately part. We were hitting out to 700 yards with a 12.5" AR in 5.56.
But hell yes I'd take the added velocity of the 20" barrel all things equal.
Yea, depending on the shooter its possible to hit a moving and obscured target at 700 yards - my bigger concern is how much ooomph the round is going to have in it still.
If you can shoot that tight with a 12.5", then how much farther can you reach with a 20"?
To be quite honest I have met very few shooters that can hit a human target with the first shot while actively engaged in combat with them over 200 meters away.
Todd00000 - I never had a real problem with the weight myself. Some of my Marines did - war sucks.
Seriously?
All my info is from the last six years in the NG. There is Army strong, and there is Guard lazy. I was on the line with the HHC section of an MP company in late '10 zeroing for night fire. I saw E6's on up that had to be talked through adjusting their sights.
I was in a signal BN for three years. I came back in in '06 so both wars had been going for quite a while. The new troops coming out of AIT for signal and other support MOS's were almost completely ignorant of BRM. Most of the NCO's I had to work with were even worse.
The single biggest problem I see is inertia. There were some very knowledgeable people in both these units, but they don't want to do shit. They hide in plain sight and have to be made to train when problems surface. They don't read the TM's, and they won't spend any of their personal time taking care of business never mind learning something.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.