There is an interesting article at Human Events Blog about the US Army culture favoring the M4, while the Marines culture being pro-M16A4.
Two years ago when I was in Iraq, I noticed there were essentially two different primary infantry weapons (the M16 automatic rifle and the also-automatic M4 carbine) carried by America’s two primary ground forces — the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Army. Marines for the most part were carrying the M16. The Army on the other hand was primarily carrying the M4: a shorter, lighter version of the M16 with a collapsible-stock.
Link here:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33255
Question is.. why is the Marine Corps favoring a 20" heavy barrel, full size stock rifle over more advanced technology? Why is a rifle that is optimized for the Parade Grounds and Rifle Range being carried in battle today in 2009?
Two years ago when I was in Iraq, I noticed there were essentially two different primary infantry weapons (the M16 automatic rifle and the also-automatic M4 carbine) carried by America’s two primary ground forces — the U.S. Marine Corps and the U.S. Army. Marines for the most part were carrying the M16. The Army on the other hand was primarily carrying the M4: a shorter, lighter version of the M16 with a collapsible-stock.
Link here:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=33255
Question is.. why is the Marine Corps favoring a 20" heavy barrel, full size stock rifle over more advanced technology? Why is a rifle that is optimized for the Parade Grounds and Rifle Range being carried in battle today in 2009?