I have relevant experience. In reference to lengthening barrels and adding KAC NT4’s... even on the end of a 14.5 in gun, those things get heavy and awkward. Especially in a mountainous region. Makes a M4 longer and heavier than a M16. On a range, its not an issue, but reallistically Soldiers spend most of their time NOT shooting, but they carry their rifles everywhere. Everytime you kneel to look at a map or something, muzzle in the dirt. Trying to get out of a vehicle, clunkety-clank. Long azz guns are a pain.
If you can’t reach a target with a M4, thats what DMRs, snipers, mortars, air, etc. are for. If you can’t see the target to designate it for those guys, well you can’t hit it with a better rifle, either. I’m not necessarily against cans or 16” barrels, but I wouldn’t like to employ them together. I would be perfectly happy issued a 11.5 with a Surefire Mini. Sub-optimal for the fight you are describing, though. There’s no perfect answer, but the standard M4A1 is almost certainly the best infantry rifle ever fielded, by anyone, in its standard configuration. There are things I would change, given the budget, but it just works.

Originally Posted by
vicious_cb
Optimizing for what is essentially an outlier in terms of combat distance is a bad idea. We shouldn't make the mistake of thinking future wars will be fought like Afghanistan.
Nailed it.
RLTW
“Your posts will be more accurate and received much better if you form your opinions with less emotion and more objectivity and then express them as if you’re in a discussion with friends, rather than an injured and cornered animal fighting for its life.” -Revolution 9 on the hide
Bookmarks