• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Army M4 vs. Marine M16A4

ChuckMK23

ChuckMK23

FERS and TSP contributor!
pilot
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?
 
FlyinRock

FlyinRock

Registered User
Could be a basic difference in training and philosophy of "spray and pray" as opposed to "One Shot, One Kill" ??
Every Marine a Rifleman regardless of MOS.
I am still disturbed by the number of rounds downrange for a kill or ineffective combatant. It speaks to training and mind set. If you have an inexhaustable supply why bother being selective? OTOH, if you only have a few rounds, where are you going to place them?
Semper Fi
Rocky -Distinguished Pistol Badge, yada yada yada
 
Rocketman

Rocketman

Rockets Up
Contributor
ChuckMK23 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Some Marines will tell you that the A4 with RCO mounted is optimized not for the parade deck but for killing bad guys at ranges beyond where an M4 can play. Right or wrong, big green has felt that way for a long time.

A few months ago Lt Rocketman was issued a brand new in the wrap M4 (with RCO ACOG) at TBS to train with. They also train with the good old A4. The A4 still sleeps with him at night in his room at TBS as well.

Cpl Rocketman did a deployment in Al Anbar last year as a Ma Duce gunner with Security Company. They were all issued A4's even though 95% of their work was mounted security. He said keeping up with a .50 cal and a 20" A4 in the turrent was a bitch until he got used to it but in the end he learned to live with it. I'm not sure he would have changed it if he could after all was said and done. M4's would seem to be the obvious choice in that application of course but as you know old attitudes change slowly in the Corps. The supply chain changes even more slowly.

I think I'm correct in saying that some if not all grunt units are issued M4's now? Just in time for the longer range shots of A'stan?.....Hopefully they are still issueing A4's to the units going to the 'stan.
 
Jim123

Jim123

DD-214 in hand and I'm gonna party like it's 1998
pilot
I can't say how the Army trains the Army, but two years ago during the basic marksmanship and combat skills training the Army gave us IAs I kept hearing the phrase well-aimed fire. During the live-fire practice with people shaped foam targets we were told two single-shots at the center of mass. I figured the reasons for this redundancy were in case you miss one of your shots and even if you hit both the 5.56 round doesn't always put somebody down (soldiers I served with told me that this second issue was often a problem for them). We never did use the 3-round burst position on the selector switch (well... a few guys had fun with that using blanks). The rifle qualifying lanes went out to 300 yards. This was different from a dynamic range where you had to walk or run between different firing positions at about 50 yards.

Don't know if the reality for regular Army line units is "spray and pray" or "well-aimed fire," but I think it is probably somewhere in between.. I know my guys had kills as close at 10 yards and in what had to be a serious contender for the "great big brass ones award" one of the soldiers I served with got the better of a DShK gunner in a Kia Bongo Truck (think of the pickup truck "Technicals" in Blackhawk Down). Never found out if he used an M-4 or M-16 for that shot... doesn't really matter...


-Jim "I paid attention to my instructors and I qualified on the range yippee" :)
 
A4sForever

A4sForever

BTDT OLD GUY
pilot
Contributor
If memory serves ... has not the Corps always been more 'resistant' to 'go along/get along' when it comes to how they arm their Marines vice an Army way of thinking ... as over time, didn't the following take place??

>The Corps was the last to switch from the '03 Springfield to the M1 Garand in WW2 days ... for a variety of reasons, sure, but still the last ... in point of fact, the Corps was STILL using the scoped '03 as a sniper rifle in Korea while the Army had pretty much wholesale gone to M1C/M1D scoped Garands ... and even when the USMC accepted their 'own' 1952 M1C variant, they STILL had to come up w/ their OWN scope ... :)
>The Corps was 'reluctant' to embrace the M1 Carbine as an issued weapon in lieu of a Garand in grunt infantry units ... WW2 and Korea ...
>The Corps was at the end of the line (some might say on purpose) when the transition from the M14/.308 to the M16/5.56 was taking place during Vietnam ...
>The Corps was 'reluctant' -- at least, more so than the Army -- to switch en mass from the 1911/A1 & .45 ACP to the Beretta & 9mm ...
>The Corps has hung onto their combat shotguns ever since the Philippine Insurrection & WW1 while their popularity waxed & waned within the Army (Gen. Douglas MacArthur even attempted to 'restrict' use of the shotgun in combat) and the Army frequently asked: "What are you doing with those ... ?" That is, until they 'caught on' again ... and again ... and ...

Different philosophies in the employment of individual weapons all the way down the line ... or is someone just late to the party?? I'm not sayin' who is 'right or wrong' .. just that the two are 'different'.

I defer to the grunt-experts herein on the tactics and combat philosophy of the discussion (and I think they both hit it), but has not the Corps ALWAYS hummed the Sinatra refrain when it came to doing things THEIR way or 'the Army way':

For what is a man, what has he got?
If not himself, then he has naught.
To say the things, he truly feels,
And not the words, of one who kneels.
The record shows, I took the blows ---
And did it my way! :)

I mean ... one of the arguments FOR a Marine Corps has always been: we're NOT the Army -- we're Marines ... i.e., if you're just gonna' be a smaller, carbon copy of the Army, then why have a Marine Corps, yea-as ??? :D
 
Rocketman

Rocketman

Rockets Up
Contributor
A4sForever said:
I mean ... one of the arguments FOR a Marine Corps always been: we're NOT the Army -- we're Marines ... i.e., if you're just gonna' be a smaller, carbon copy of the Army, then why have a Marine Corps, yea-as ??? :D
Click to expand...

Bingo. Spot on. I think more than anything the Marine Corps feels like they HAVE to be different. And so they are.
 
Pat_Lucas

Pat_Lucas

Dumb New Guy
Contributor
ChuckMK23 said:
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?
Click to expand...

In my opinion it has to due with the fundamental differences in mindset between the services. The Army has always had the money to buy equipment tailor-made for their current mission ( Matching flak jackets and camis, M4 with EOtech) whereas the Marine Corps has always tried to find the system that is versatile enough for any situation(A4 with ACOG RCO, Coyote Brown gear).

The A4, while not as maneuverable in tight spaces as the M4 allows you both long range engagement, and close in engagements. The only thing I wish they would have done was put a collapsible butt stock on the A4 to give it even more versatility, but oh well.
 
ChuckMK23

ChuckMK23

FERS and TSP contributor!
pilot
Kyoowashugi said:
They're looking into it:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/03/marine_M16A4stock_032109w/
Click to expand...

Interesting move. I hope Magpul's excellent UBR stock is in the mix as a contender:

MPUBR.jpg
 
insanebikerboy

insanebikerboy

Internet killed the television star
pilot
None
Contributor
For DCM (distinguished) matches the A2/A4 rifle is what is required, no M4 style rifles. Those matches have an obvious emphasis on accuracy, which I think corresponds well with the same mindset that the Marines place on individual accuracy.
 
sodajones

sodajones

Combat Engineer
As has already been briefly mentioned in the article, acquiring a proper cheek weld with armor, backpack and camelback shoulder slings, and other equipment that can get in the way can be frustrating. I'm glad the Corps has stuck with a 20" barrel as the standard issue, especially with hostilities in A-stan and any other future contingencies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top