M16a3 or M16a4???

	News As History - January 7, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest
Advertisement

New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices

1.	Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.	Commander: Napoleon at War
3.	Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.	Gallic Wars
5.	Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies

Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use
Infantry Discussion Board
Sign In Return to Topic Page

Subject: M16a3 or M16a4???
SteelGear 3/14/2006 12:11:39 AM

The USMC chose the M16a4 over the US Army's Choice of the M4a1 as the primary battle rifle for the following reasons:
1. The M4 is bit short to use with a bayonet
2. Heat problems in desert conditions (during prolonged use)
3. M4 offers less precise aiming due to the four inches less sighting radius when compared with an 16A2/A3/A4.

One wonders why go with an M16a4 when you can have an M16a3. the M16a3 has the ablity to full auto unlike the M16a4 which has the triple burst firing option of the M16a2. Going full auto is something that would very useful in a CQB style engagement which happens very often in MOUT situations.

Is the reason why the USMC selected the M16a4 instead of the M16a3 because they have big attachment to burst fire rather than full auto or is there something else?

Quote Reply

Latest
News

Most
Read

Most
Commented

Hot
Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

shek RE:M16a3 or M16a4??? 3/14/2006 9:40:40 PM

SteelGear, Full auto is not an advantage in CQB. See the Good Riddance M16 thread on the Weapons of the World Forum for more information.

Quote Reply

SteelGear RE:M16a3 or M16a4??? 3/14/2006 10:21:39 PM

--SteelGear, Full auto is not an advantage in CQB. See the Good Riddance M16 thread on the Weapons of the World Forum for more information.-- This thread just tells me why the M16 is inadequate but not why the USMC went the M16a4 rather than the M16a3. Is there that much of an advantage the burst fire have over full auto that I am not aware of?

Quote Reply

shek RE:M16a3 or M16a4??? 3/14/2006 10:38:14 PM

You didn't read through the thread then. Full auto doesn't give any advantage in CQB situations - aimed fire is more accurate than just spraying bullets, and a single round through the spine is just as effective as 10 rounds through the spine, and you'll have more rounds left over. If anything, full auto can deplete your ammunition much too fast. Small units will tend to go with a full auto weapon simply because they don't have the complement of automatic rifleman/machine gun crews that a conventional unit will have, and so it makes sense to have such a capability available for when you need to break contact. However, since you are talking about the USMC, since they have AR and MG slots in their units, there is no need to give rifle automatic fire capability when it doesn't serve their purpose as riflemen. If you are confused about a particular argument on the "Good Riddance M16" thread, let me know, and I can try to clarify whatever the issue is.

Quote Reply

shek RE:M16a3 or M16a4??? 3/14/2006 10:47:19 PM

Steel Gear, I'm curious where you got this information: 1. The M4 is bit short to use with a bayonet 2. Heat problems in desert conditions (during prolonged use) 3. M4 offers less precise aiming due to the four inches less sighting radius when compared with an 16A2/A3/A4. The reason I asked is that 1) I never had issues with my M4 fitted with a bayonet, 2) I would think that the heavier barrel of the M4 helps to compensate for its shorter length, and 3) I shot just as well with my M4 as I did my M16A2, there's no reason why you couldn'y change the diameter of your sight rings to compensate for the shorter distance, and most pertinent, your iron sights aren't your primary sighting system any way, with the primary sighting systems eliminating any parallax issues. Maybe there's specific citations from testing/field performance of the currently fielded M4, but I don't ever recall seeing these comments before or even being concerned about any potentiality of these problems. One thing on nomenclature - the Army went with the M4 - the M4A1 is the SOF version that does have full auto and has the accompanying SOF MOD kit.

Quote Reply

SteelGear RE:M16a3 or M16a4??? 3/14/2006 11:02:41 PM

OK Shek....if automatic weapons are not an advantage in CQB ops, then why do special ops troopers use them since they do training using these weapons on a regular basis. Weapons like the M4a1, Mp5a4, AKS74U, G36K/C the list goes on. I have looked at the "Good Riddance M16" thread and you seem to be one of the voices advocating automatic is a waste of ammo and shouldn't be on a rifle. While is true in most regards but this really comes down to training, when to use and not to use full auto. I don't claim to be an expert in this CQB but logic would dictate if your target was less than 5 meters away you are not going to have time to take a single well placed shot (with him getting their weapon pointed at you and firing from the hip). In this situation pointing your weapon in the general direction of the target and spraying him with bullets might be the only way to make sure that you live and your target dies. If this is the wrong thing to do in this situation then what would be the "proper" method to deal with this situation?

Quote Reply

SteelGear RE:M16a3 or M16a4??? 3/14/2006 11:07:13 PM

I got this info from here: link

Quote Reply

shek RE:M16a3 or M16a4??? 3/15/2006 8:50:37 AM

SG, SOF and automatic fire weapons: 1) as a smaller unit, they can't carry the complement of automatic weapons that a conventional unit has due to load/personnel constraints, and so they need on their weapons 2) the most trained scenario that I am aware of where automatic fire is used is for breaking contact 3) the standard for CQB training within SOCOM is the controlled pair, semi-automatic fire 4) the MP5 is used in a niche market within SOCOM (e.g. counterterrorist units) whose level of marksmanship far exceeds that of conventional soldiers and is even a cut above the rest of SOCOM 5) training on other nations' automatic weapons is just that - training so that in a contingency, they can be used, and so in a FID scenario, they know how to train other nations' soldiers how to use their own equipment Since the discussion you started is about the USMC, just as the "Good riddance M16" thread was about the US Army, to discuss an exception (i.e. SOCOM units) is frivolous as the maturity and training levels aren't comparable. So, while I hold the above comments about SOF and automatic fire to valid (just as I did in the "Good Riddance M16" thread), they just aren't applicable here. Secondly, the standards for CQM/CQB training for the conventional Army (and my assumption is that the USMC uses the exact same standards based on the AARs and MOUT Battle Lab materials I have read) were filtered to the conventional side from SOCOM. That is, the SOCOM standard for room clearing is controlled pairs due to all the factors that I went through on the "Good Riddance M16" thread. So, even the units that have the ability to use automatic fire use semi instead. That should be telling. As far as the target 5m away, common sense tells me that a shot into a target's lethal zone will be more effective than a spray and pray method. 10 quickly fired rounds don't mean squat if they don't hit the target. A single round from a controlled pair into the lethal zone will be just that - lethal. Next, when you are discussing actual room clearing, why I won't go into the details, the battle drill ensures that targets will have double coverage and that redundacy is built in. This overwhelming application of force in tight situations will ensure that targets are "serviced" - and it also necessitates the need for well aimed shots and not spray and pray which can ricochet into the path of another clearing team member. In reality, a well trained CQM marksman, which if a unit goes through the standard CQM tables, will be able to acquire a target and neutralize very quickly - and the fielded close combat optics (Aimpoint, EO Tech) assist in this marksmanship a great deal. Lastly, I read the article, and I found it lacking. His comments on accuracy are pure speculation and not grounded into the reality called the US Army. Your accuracy is affected only at the extreme end of the effective range, i.e. at 500m, at which point naked eye and 1x scope engagements aren't all that effective IMO anyway. However, put an ACOG on, and you're back in business out to 600-800m. Marksmanship scores in my experience were no different between the M16A2 and the M4. Furthermore, WTF is he doing shooting a M4A1 on full automatic from the hip? I don't ever recall carrying my M4 at the hip. That right there destroys his credibility to authoritatively discuss the M4 IMO. Anyways, I think you'll find that the vast majority soldiers who have actually been trained on CQM/CQB and have extensive experience with it will 1) like the M4 and 2) argue that controlled pairs are more advantageous than automatic fire in close quarters.

Quote Reply

SteelGear RE:M16a3 or M16a4??? 3/15/2006 5:02:07 PM

Tis now clear to me......thx Shek

Quote Reply

daubin 9/13/2008 11:46:13 PM

The A4 has a picatinny rail for scopes, laser sighting, night vision, etc.

Quote Reply

daubin 9/13/2008 11:47:21 PM

The A4 has a picatinny rail for scopes, laser sighting, night vision, etc.

Quote Reply

panzerc 9/17/2008 3:02:18 PM

actually the m4 is not the army's standard battle rifle, the m16 is still king in this matter.i know that most army line units got issued m16a4 as well as the m4. so its not just a marine weapon. i actually used the m16a4 for 18 months before i was issued my m4, and i still draw my m16 some days. and my unit is still keeping all of their m16s. i guess its all dependant on where you get deployed. iraq is mostly urban so you'll need a shorter rifle where as afghanistan is open mountainous terrain where you might actually need the m16. i consistantly shot 39 and 40 while qualifying with my m16 and 36-38 with my m4 so there is just a slight difference in accuracy. while i must admit i never missed the 300m target with either rifle. but i guess it just depends on what is issued to you at mob, which now where ever you go is most likley the m4.

Quote Reply

theBird 9/28/2008 2:03:11 AM

Another advantage the longer barrel can have is a higher muzzle velocity, which can result in a better chance of the 5.56 bullet fragmenting once it hits, causing even more damage.

Quote Reply

HB117 10/31/2008 5:12:54 PM

You have it turned around. The M16A4 is the only M16 that goes semi-auto and fully automatic. The M16A3 has semi-auto and 3 round burst such as the M16A2.

Quote Reply

panzerc 11/3/2008 6:06:51 PM

im gonna try to make a correction to this although i might be wrong. But the m16a4 I used was burst and not full auto. however a good reason for this could be that we used the lower recievers for an m16a2 and used the upper recievers for the m16a4 which could very well be the reason. but the wear and tear on the lower recievers was non existant meaning they were brand new. and the it only takes the changing of one small piece in the lower reciever to make a weapon into burst or auto.

Quote Reply