-
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
M-16 vs M-4 vs What?
- Thread starter Fly Navy
- Start date
Thanks Fly
Let the party begin.... I love the M-14/M1A ... and the M-16/M4 ... and the AK series .... and combat shotguns. But it all kinda depends on where it will be employed. If I was in the jungle --- an AK or M4/M-16 or a 12-guage shotgun. If I was shipboard or in the desert --- an M14:
1. The M14 rifle was the shortest lived front-line combat rifle in modern US military history. The rifle was too heavy--nearly as heavy as its direct predecessor, the famous M1 Garand of WW II. The cartridge was too heavy to be carried in quantity, the parts breakage problems persisted, and the cartridge/rifle combo was simply too powerful for a select fire (full-auto capable) weapon that could be carried by the individual infantryman. It was a fine rifle, but its design was old and it was not suited to mass employment on a modern battlefield.
2. Post WWII studies had shown the value of massed firepower on the enemy. The lessons of the WWII German "assault rifles" and Soviet "sub machine guns" were not lost on US Army planners -- nor the Congressional bean-counters. They mandated the development of an easily carried rifle, with a lighter -- but still powerful cartridge that could be employed in great quantities by the individual rifleman. The result was the M16 rifle and 5.56mm cartridge, both of which will probably be with us for many years to come.
3. Initial deliveries to troops in VietNam resulted in problems. The 5.56mm cartridge had an additive in the powder designed to improve shelf life that caused fouling and subsequent jamming of the rifle in the humid conditions of Southeast Asia. The troops who received the "little black rifle" in-country had not received the proper training on field cleaning and care of the rifle prior to its introduction in combat.
4. This resulted in many documented failures which were greatly over exaggerated by misinformed press reports. One failure is too many, but the problems stemming from the premature introduction of the M16 were overblown. The powder problem with the cartridge was corrected and the training on the rifle improved. All the troops bringing the rifle from the U.S. were given thorough training on the M16 and the early problems disappeared. The rifle gained universal acceptance and is one of the most reliable military service rifles in existence today....
Soooooo ... I like 'em all. Very preliminary and off the cuff. More on the M4 later -- but a quick & dirty? The barrel overheats too easily. .... I am gonna dig out some stuff I wrote a while back for an opinion piece.
Where are the Marines when you need them ??? Maybe they'll chime in also ....
Let the party begin.... I love the M-14/M1A ... and the M-16/M4 ... and the AK series .... and combat shotguns. But it all kinda depends on where it will be employed. If I was in the jungle --- an AK or M4/M-16 or a 12-guage shotgun. If I was shipboard or in the desert --- an M14:
1. The M14 rifle was the shortest lived front-line combat rifle in modern US military history. The rifle was too heavy--nearly as heavy as its direct predecessor, the famous M1 Garand of WW II. The cartridge was too heavy to be carried in quantity, the parts breakage problems persisted, and the cartridge/rifle combo was simply too powerful for a select fire (full-auto capable) weapon that could be carried by the individual infantryman. It was a fine rifle, but its design was old and it was not suited to mass employment on a modern battlefield.
2. Post WWII studies had shown the value of massed firepower on the enemy. The lessons of the WWII German "assault rifles" and Soviet "sub machine guns" were not lost on US Army planners -- nor the Congressional bean-counters. They mandated the development of an easily carried rifle, with a lighter -- but still powerful cartridge that could be employed in great quantities by the individual rifleman. The result was the M16 rifle and 5.56mm cartridge, both of which will probably be with us for many years to come.
3. Initial deliveries to troops in VietNam resulted in problems. The 5.56mm cartridge had an additive in the powder designed to improve shelf life that caused fouling and subsequent jamming of the rifle in the humid conditions of Southeast Asia. The troops who received the "little black rifle" in-country had not received the proper training on field cleaning and care of the rifle prior to its introduction in combat.
4. This resulted in many documented failures which were greatly over exaggerated by misinformed press reports. One failure is too many, but the problems stemming from the premature introduction of the M16 were overblown. The powder problem with the cartridge was corrected and the training on the rifle improved. All the troops bringing the rifle from the U.S. were given thorough training on the M16 and the early problems disappeared. The rifle gained universal acceptance and is one of the most reliable military service rifles in existence today....
Soooooo ... I like 'em all. Very preliminary and off the cuff. More on the M4 later -- but a quick & dirty? The barrel overheats too easily. .... I am gonna dig out some stuff I wrote a while back for an opinion piece.
Where are the Marines when you need them ??? Maybe they'll chime in also ....
A4s, it's finally nice to talk to someone about the M-16 that is informed. Too many critics don't understand HOW the problems in Vietnam happened and that they were indeed corrected.
What's your experience with the FAL? I've heard many say they would prefer it over the M-14.
What's your experience with the FAL? I've heard many say they would prefer it over the M-14.
A4sForever said:Where are the Marines when you need them ??? Maybe they'll chime in also ....
Yeah, I'd like to hear what experienced Marines have to say about it. Though, I've found they too can be very ignorant. I once had an Infantry Marine tell me that the 7.62x39mm round is sub-sonic and that the 5.56 NATO round tumbles through the air. Some people will believe anything you tell them I guess.
Fly Navy said:
Not too much ... none with Belgians. I had an Aussie Lithgow L1A1 and finally sold it. I got the L1A1 as it will accept either inch or metric magazines. Too much screwing around with the gas system for me. I like it when it either works or it doesn't (M-14/M1A). The problem was probably ME ... as I understand the FAL/L1A1 gas system is one of its attractions (?). I also didn't like the L1A1 sights --- but probably because I wasn't used to them.... ??
Most "inch" pattern FALs were made in British Commonwealth countries (UK, Canada, Australia) and have had folding cocking handles and were mostly limited to semi-automatic fire only (except for Hbar versions like C2). Most "metric" pattern rifles had non-folding cocking handles and may or may not have select-fire capability, but as with other light select-fire weapons chambered for 7.62x51mm NATO round, the controllability of the full auto fire is disappointing and shots spread in burst are extremely wide. But, regardless of this, the FAL is one of the best known "battle rifles" -- reliable, comfortable and accurate in semi-auto. It is somewhat sensitive to fine sand and dust but otherwise is still a great weapon.
BTW, the FAL-pattern rifle almost became the US issue battle rifle in the tests done which adopted the M14.
Australian Litgow L1A1 set up like mine --- wood stock and handguard. BTW a very limited import run @ USD $3500 5-7 years ago ...
I hope you don't mind me jumping in, but I'll take A4s request for some Marine feedback. During my limited time in the Corps, I have learned a new respect for the M16A2. It is a reliable weapon as long as you keep it clean, and it has very good accuracy even at long range. Some problems with the feed system were fixed with the addition of the forward assist which enables a semi-fed round to be forced into the chamber. From my buddies who have been to Iraq/Afghanistan/Haiti, and from senior enlisted who were in Desert Storm/Somalia, there seems to be an agreement that the 5.56 round doesn't have the stopping power needed. Many have fired multiple chest shots in order to bring down a single target. The M4 does lack the range of an M16, but this is rarely a factor. AK47 is a good weapon- it is very reliable (I'm sure everyone has heard the stories of those that were found buried in sand and then still able to shoot). The stopping power of the 7.62x39mm is much better than the 5.56. The AK47 definitely does not have the effective range or accuracy of the M16 though. The effective range is 400 meters, but that is a questionable number if you have ever fired one. The Marines, as you may know, qualify out to 500 yds, and 600 and 800 yards is possible with a well trained shooter.
Final word- everything I have heard about the new M16A4 being issued is good (I have yet to fire one though).
Just my two cents.
Final word- everything I have heard about the new M16A4 being issued is good (I have yet to fire one though).
Just my two cents.
At a far enough distance it begins tumbling...but that is where max effective range starts coming into play. Also, I believe the A1 was more prone to tumbling due to less grooves in the barrel and a lighter round. The lighter round also tumbled on impact and bounced around people's internal organs when it hit. The A2 fires a heavier ball round and does less of that I believe.
--
I have fired the A2, the M4 and the Colt SMG. Haven't gotten my hands on the A4, since I have been out of the loop for so long. Didn't like the M4. Seemed like you would do most (if not all) of your firing with the stock extended, so why not use the (arguably) better A2/A4?
Colt SMG was fun though. Just like the M16/M4 guys only smaller. Don't know how great of a weapon it is in actual use, but it was fun to fam-fire with it.
Geoff08 said:
I've heard both sides of this coin. I think this is a universal b!tch with any weapon. You think every soldier dropped from one shot with the M1? Nope. Many Germans and Japanese took multiple hits and kept on trucking. That's the thing with the human body and mind... it's very complex and can overcome a lot. The only sure way to down a person is to hit them in the A zone in the head.
I'm going to argue against this. The terminal ballistics of the 5.56 NATO are better than the 7.62 Soviet. They always have been. It's faster, its wound is nastier, and it's much more accurate. I've never been shot with one though.... so..... all I can say, like most of us, is 2nd hand or 3rd hand.
By the way, thanks for chiming in.
HueyCobra8151 said:
Only way the round will tumble in flight is if it loses its spin stabilization at a low enough speed, or it is shot out of a barrel that doesn't have enough twist to stablize it in the first place. This will happen with any bullet, it's called a keyhole.
What the round does when it penetrates is it yaws. When it yaws, there is a weak point in the bullet which causes it to fragment, given enough velocity on the initial impact. It does not go tumlbing around the body on average. It will break up before it does in 99% of cases. The M-16 and M-16A1 were designed for the M193 55gr bullet which had MUCH better terminal ballistics in terms of tumbling and fragmentation than the current M855 62gr bullet with the "penetrator", which was designed for the M249 and in their infinite wisdom, they changed the M-16 twist to fire it also. It works good int he 20"... it can be a disadvantage in the M-4.
Body armor and bulky clothing. I know most people find the A2 stock to be too long, myself included. Wear a bunch of sh!t and a collapsable stock can make your world happier. Plus, that compactness works nice in say an aircraft or tank.
That's what I was implying...at the max effective range it is losing enough velocity to start tumbling.
Also what I meant when I said I believe the problem was more prevalent with the A1 because it had a lower groove ratio in the barrel. I don't know the A1, the A2 is 1:7
Fly Navy said:
Fly, I think I love you .....
