-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
The Marines are slowly saying goodbye to the M16 rifle
- Thread starter Coyote33
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2010
- Messages
- 5,783
- Likes
- 3,073
I thought USCG were the only ones still using the M16A2. Thought the combat arms types had switched over entirely to M-4's.
Yup. I was responding to this:
The Marines weren't using the M16A2 -- they were using the M16A4 -- and they haven't (yet) switched over to M4s.
So true, so true.
All the tough boys that sing the glory songs about the 7.62mm , I really would like to see you complete a 50 mile hike with an AK + 7 mags or an M4 + 7 mags, or run and roll for cover, those few pounds of difference influencing your speed might mean one limb less, or one life less. You'll basically marry a M16 platform after that.
I prefer an M4 for field ops (fits in my tent better and is lighter to carry around the FOB/on convoys)...but an M16 for table 1 at the range (200, 300, 500yd qualification)...either way, even though I was trained on irons at boot, I'm always preferring a little more magnification than the acog can offer when shooting at the 500. I love distance shooting, and haven't noticed much of a difference in accuracy at the 500 between the M4 and A4…i think it's just a comfort thing.
Much like anything else change comes from prices,needs, and end use. I think the average GI will shoot a M4 carbine or A4 rifle to about the same accuracy as what ever they are using for ammo?
Also with the switch from MARKSMENSHIP to optics there's no need for a longer sight radius.
Logistically it makes sense also.
Also with the switch from MARKSMENSHIP to optics there's no need for a longer sight radius.
Logistically it makes sense also.
Ok, I went and looked it up, this looks like a decently thought out comparison of barrel lengths for the 556 platform. Here's what I take from it:
http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=1093
Sound pressure wave is significantly higher the shorter the barrel, I'll admit, I don't know enough to know the true difference between 8k psi vs 5.7k for a 14.5 vs 20 inch barrel in actual Db, they are both loud enough to hurt.
More to the point, the average velocity drop from 20 inches to 14 inches seems to me to be within spec (200 fps average). I'd need a reloader/anal shooter to dispel this one, but I've seen chronos spread across 200 fps from the same firearm using reloads. Have not seen someone actually test commercial loads as extensively as their handloads. This is just my experience, nothing repeatable, I don't work for NIST.
How switching to a heavier bullet affects terminal performance vs a faster lighter bullet (Ford vs Chevy argument).
It would seem to me that the only real effect would be at the extreme ranges. Do these types of engagements happen often enough to warrant the heavier weapon platform? I'm thinking all the techno crap they are putting on military weapons platforms, any weight savings would be beneficial to grunts.
I was never in the military, but I know about humping weight through a desert. Every ounce counts.
http://www.sadefensejournal.com/wp/?p=1093
Sound pressure wave is significantly higher the shorter the barrel, I'll admit, I don't know enough to know the true difference between 8k psi vs 5.7k for a 14.5 vs 20 inch barrel in actual Db, they are both loud enough to hurt.
More to the point, the average velocity drop from 20 inches to 14 inches seems to me to be within spec (200 fps average). I'd need a reloader/anal shooter to dispel this one, but I've seen chronos spread across 200 fps from the same firearm using reloads. Have not seen someone actually test commercial loads as extensively as their handloads. This is just my experience, nothing repeatable, I don't work for NIST.
How switching to a heavier bullet affects terminal performance vs a faster lighter bullet (Ford vs Chevy argument).
It would seem to me that the only real effect would be at the extreme ranges. Do these types of engagements happen often enough to warrant the heavier weapon platform? I'm thinking all the techno crap they are putting on military weapons platforms, any weight savings would be beneficial to grunts.
I was never in the military, but I know about humping weight through a desert. Every ounce counts.
I believe they were also carrying a lot less crap in WWII.
And able to kick Kraut butt, millions in a few short years. We like our modern wars drawn out in decades and only kicking a few hundred thousand in that short timeframe. I happily loved my M4, this is why I have several now, along with my several old timers rifle, the Garand.
- - - Updated - - -
This is my rifle, I sleep and PHUCCk it!
M16A4 looks much like an A2 - 20" barrel and a fixed stock. It does have a removable carry handle.
The M4 has a 14" barrel, flat top, and collapsible butt stock.
the army still requires qualification with iron sights. Then the Soldier attaches the cco and quals with that. In case the cco fails the Soldier needs to be able to use iron sights. The m4 is not a flat top rifle like civilians drool over. You actually can sight through the cco and use irons.
- - - Updated - - -
Um sorry. My entire unit was issued the m4in 2010 for our deployment and they are not flat top. The ccco attaches and u can still see the iron sites throug the cco
M60
NES Member
Same old story. Everyone wants to carry light and when the SHTF they all want the heavy stuff. Thing is, if you don't hump it through the boonies, you shoot what you hump. Nothing is free.
I do have to say, the M4 is pretty darn slick.
I do have to say, the M4 is pretty darn slick.
But no one really carries light, that's the deal, we had mm.. 50lbs of gear on us when in full gear, if it's 10 or 17lbs than the spread is not big deal, if it's 50 or 57 it is a pretty darn big deal. The get go is that you are going to be piled with so much crap, might as well save some on the ammo weight, or for the same "price" carry 30-40 rounds more.
it's great to carry a 7.62 load if you're jumping from a vehicle or from above, when your day to day opp was walking.. and walking.. and crawling, you become somewhat fanatic about the weight.
I wonder if it's noticeable about me
![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
Last edited:
Many (most?) M4's don't have carry handles. They have a flat top receiver and fixed front sight.
But no one really carries light, that's the deal, we had mm.. 50lbs of gear on us when in full gear, if it's 10 or 17lbs than the spread is not big deal, if it's 50 or 57 it is a pretty darn big deal. The get go is that you are going to be piled with so much crap, might as well save some on the ammo weight, or for the same "price" carry 30-40 rounds more.
it's great to carry a 7.62 load if you're jumping from a vehicle or from above, when your day to day opp was walking.. and walking.. and crawling, you become somewhat fanatic about the weight.
I wonder if it's noticeable about me
Oh, I dunno. Jumping from a plane is already heavy enough; the heaviest ruck I ever jumped topped 80 lbs, though in fairness I got rid of the radio as soon as I landed.
As as for walking, well, paratroopers do plenty of that too. Jumping is just the commute; after that, you're just another light fighter.
i feel if you train to haul 7.62, you'll do fine hauling 7.62; if you don't, you won't.
Last edited:
M60
NES Member
But no one really carries light, that's the deal, we had mm.. 50lbs of gear on us when in full gear, if it's 10 or 17lbs than the spread is not big deal, if it's 50 or 57 it is a pretty darn big deal. The get go is that you are going to be piled with so much crap, might as well save some on the ammo weight, or for the same "price" carry 30-40 rounds more.
it's great to carry a 7.62 load if you're jumping from a vehicle or from above, when your day to day opp was walking.. and walking.. and crawling, you become somewhat fanatic about the weight.
I wonder if it's noticeable about me
LOL. Brother you're preaching to the choir. All I know is that no one carried the weight that the machine gunner carried when I was in. I also humped most of my backup ammo. No one really wants to be that close to the machine gunner when the SHTF and if your ammo humper gets wacked before he makes his way to you, your really kinda SOL if you don't carry your own back up ammo.
Last edited:
M60
NES Member
+1. Listen to this guy folks. He speaks truth about carry weight.
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2010
- Messages
- 5,783
- Likes
- 3,073
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 16,367
- Likes
- 4,835
Current Marines have been using ACOG scopes for a few years now, even in bootcamp and to qualify. Since they're using a ACOG anyway, it doesn't make much sense to run the longer barrel.
Rumor is even the CMP will be allowing optics on service rifles for the national matches next year. Proficiency with irons is becoming a lost art.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 6,920
- Likes
- 615
Wow, that is very interesting, but makes sense now that optics are being made so reliable and durable these days. It's kind of like when I was in college taking CAD classes, it was required to take 2 semesters of manual board drafting! I still think it's not a bad thing to know how to draw prints mechanically, but certainly very few if any companies still employ people that don't use CAD. The reality is that even with a non functional optic, most people who can qualify with an optic should be able to at least hit minute of man with irons.
Somehow they've managed to add another role with even more weight: the electronic warfare guy.
Yes it is. It's a short rifle, but still a rifle. Considering I could reliably hit steel e-type silhouettes out to 800 meters with my issued M4, ACOG, and M855, I don't think you can complain about that "carbine" being inadequate for long range marksmanship.
It's about time the Marine Corps joined the 21st century. The M4 is plain and simply a better tool for modern warfare. It's still plenty capable out to 500 yards and is night and day better in urban operations, dense jungle, and when dismounting vehicles. Want to reach past 500 yards? Well then bring up machine guns and get on the radio. Or, implement SDMs like the Army has.
I heard the same thing at Perry. I REALLY hope that it's just RUMINT. That would be a sad turn of events.
Last edited:
This is technically a requirement, but many units don't follow it. They zero the irons and optics, and then qual with the optics.
The M4 is indeed a flat top rifle. Whatever your unit has is quite rare in the Army and is not an M4. Even the M4A1 has a flat top. It sounds like either you have some XM177s floating around somehow, or an armorer at some point converted M16A2s into carbines. Or maybe your unit is using M231 port firing weapons.
Did your unit just keep the carry handles attached?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2009
- Messages
- 16,367
- Likes
- 4,835
Much more than a rumor from what I can tell. I know of one .mil team that already picked out their scope....
What did you shoot at Perry? CMP and NRA high power weeks this year for me.
Similar threads
