With the 3 round burst, it was designed to prevent troops going rock and rolling too much, and burning through thier ammo. The 3 round burst means they can still put down a lot of fire without the temptations to hold the trigger. That's what I've read from a lot of places. It comes down to personal preference, like the Marines in Nam - some love the 16 and other stuck to thier 14. Can't give an informed opinion, never shot either of them. But's as I said, that's what I've read. Pucka

the biggest problems facing the M-16/M4 series is that everytime they make a new model, they chop the barrel down a bit more. With the resulting loss of velocity, neither the 55- or 62- grain bullet are performing as they were originally intended to at the higher velocities. Perhaps that is one reason why there is considerable interest in the 6.8mm round... (because the military hasn't had their hands on it enough to screw it all up yet!).

I don't know. The sight is not especially complex, and the windage adjustments are easier to make than my recollection of an M16A1. The heavier barrel makes the weapon more accurate inside 300 meters, as well as allowing greater overall range. Compared to the M16A1 I fired once at the range (admittedly an old weapon, I believe) the M16A2 is very much an improvement. Now, I'm not so sure about the burst setting, but that was post Vietnam stuff where someone decided that the troops could not be trusted to control their own fire . . .

>>The 3 round burst means they can still put down a lot of fire without the temptations to hold the trigger.<< Yeah, but there are precious few situations where you should ever be firing an M16 (or any other AR) on anything but semi, anyway. You can quick fire a semi-automatic M16A2 as rapidly as you can burn through a mag on burst, and as accurately (or inaccurately). The only times I'd see auto being appropriate for an AR would be things like break contact drills, where you're trying to suppress and make noise as much as hit the enemy, and close range ambushed where you just want to pour rounds onto a target, again to suppress the enemy (and keep him in your kill zone) as well as kill him.

>>the biggest problems facing the M-16/M4 series is that everytime they make a new model, they chop the barrel down a bit more.<< M16A1 to A2 kept the same barrel length, likewise the M16A4. M4 dropped from 20" to 14.5", M4A1 kept the same length. I've heard the SEALs want something as short as 12" or even 10" . . . but that weapon would, understandably, only be suitable for CQB (though I admit the 11.5" barrel versions are quite cool looking . . .). Now XM8 with the 12" barrel . . . that seems like a bad idea to me. Perhaps they are basing that on the newer 77 grain+ 5.56mm rounds, as well as the possibility of 6.8mm, but I'm not entirely certain . . .

Good point about the burst setting. As I've said, that's just the reason I've read in several sources. Shorter Range Rifles for more compact liughter weapons...... it looks to me to be case of forces willing to accept trade offs..... It would also depend on the outlook - individual or squad/formation weapons, which would include SAWs, GPMGs, so maybe lightness with volume of fire might be the go. Combat Environment is a big factor, such as the AR15 being in Nam lighter and mor moblie than the M14, good for short range stuff, but a range comparitivly next to useless, whereas as 7.62 from an M14 is effective out to about 800m..... Trade offs..... It's all anout trade offs.... Pucka

>>Trade offs..... It's all anout trade offs....<< Definite agreement. Any cartridge/weapon combination will come up short in some scenario, etc.

EArly on with the A2 (which started as a USMC project, I gather), somebody at Army Ordnance wanted to give it a "pull-through" trigger, ala' the then-new Steyr AUG; single, burst, or full-auto depending on which "step" you pulled it back to. Part of me thinks this might be agod idea, but the rest of me wonders what hapens if the shooter is wearing gloves/is fatigued/it's beastly cold and their fingers are near-frozen etc.? (Anyone with first-hand experience with the AUG want to comment?).

Seems like a feature that would reward skilled shooters (which you'd want your combat arms types to be), but something that would leave most rear-echelon types and inexperienced troops spraying the countryside on full auto.