M16 vs M4

[storealex]

Which weapon do you think is the most useful for all round army purpose? It seems like the M4 carbine type is getting increasingly popular, while the older M16 is getting fased out.
I've used both, and I found that the M4 is simply easier to move around with. It's especially handy when you're mounted on a vehicle, and accurate enough even on 400 meters. However, if the wind is blowing hard, you have to compensate more than with a M16, and the M16 does more dammage due to the increased barrel lenght. The latter being especially important, since reports from Iraq and Afghanistan complain about the stopping power of the M4. Enemies would just continue to fight, unless hit in the vital organs or the head.

But these are just my thoughts, and since Im far from being an expert, Im interested in other opinions.

The M4 is light and compact.

The M16 is longer and heavier, but more accurate and powerful.

 

[Lillefix]

Sounds to me it depends on the situation. In urban places with houses and rooms and M4 would be suitable. In deserts and other open places the M16 is preferred. The only weapon I have had experice with is the G3 which is more powerful.

 

[Patroklos]

Another problem with the M4 is its penetration. Most of the structures in Iraq and Afgahanistan are clay brick or concrete and thus it is harder to reach out a touch an insurgent in a bunkered position.

Of course in certain situations that lack of penetration can be a plus like when you are actually storming a building or when civilians are around, but then again the reason you have to storm the building is probably because you can't shoot through the walls in the first place.

 

[storealex]

Patroklos do you know which weapon is the most used in the US army, which units has which and so on?

 

[RedRalph]

Don't tell him Pat, he's gathering info for a Danish invasion of the US

 

[Patroklos]

Patroklos do you know which weapon is the most used in the US army, which units has which and so on?

They are leaning heavily to the M4 right now. I would bet there are still more M16s than M4s just because of legacy inventories though. In theatre however, as far as I can tell the M4 dominates but we only have less than 10% of our troops deployed.

Don't tell him Pat, he's gathering info for a Danish invasion of the US

I am a member of the Danish Defence Task Force. Its only member

 

[IglooDame]

According to wikipedia, the M16A2 fires rounds at 3050fps, while the M4 sends them downrange at 2900fps. It doesn't seem to me like a difference of 5% in velocity would make such a big difference in penetration or "stopping power".

 

[MobBoss]

Quick summary:

M4: urban ops.

M16: everything else.

 

[Quackers]

Which weapon do you think is the most useful for all round army purpose? It seems like the M4 carbine type is getting increasingly popular, while the older M16 is getting fased out.
I've used both, and I found that the M4 is simply easier to move around with. It's especially handy when you're mounted on a vehicle, and accurate enough even on 400 meters. However, if the wind is blowing hard, you have to compensate more than with a M16, and the M16 does more dammage due to the increased barrel lenght. The latter being especially important, since reports from Iraq and Afghanistan complain about the stopping power of the M4. Enemies would just continue to fight, unless hit in the vital organs or the head.

But these are just my thoughts, and since Im far from being an expert, Im interested in other opinions.

The M4 is light and compact.

The M16 is longer and heavier, but more accurate and powerful.

Have you been to Iraq/Afghanistan? Are Denmark in their?

 

[tycoonist]

from my experience in COD4, i prefer the M16 for its awesome power.

 

[GenMarshall]

Give me a good olde AER9 Laser Rifle and I'll be a happy camper seeing my enemies turn to a pile of ash

 

[civ_king]

AR-15 with Grendals is boss!
what's the weight difference?
@igloo, part of it is that the M16 has longer barrel

 

[pau17]

Isn't the M4 getting replaced by the FN SCAR?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_SCAR

 

[IglooDame]

AR-15 with Grendals is boss!
what's the weight difference?
@igloo, part of it is that the M16 has longer barrel

Right, the longer barrel is what creates the higher muzzle velocity of the bullet (and also tighter shot groups, and more accurate aiming if using the longer sight radius that iron sights would provide). Twenty inches for the M16, and fourteen inches for the M4 if wikipedia is correct.

But it brings me back to, would 5% difference in bullet velocity significantly change the penetration capability of the round?

 

[snakeseare]

But it brings me back to, would 5% difference in bullet velocity significantly change the penetration capability of the round?

Yes.

The effectiveness of the 5.56 round is based on its velocity. I know it sounds strange, but think of the difference between a lump of uranium just below critical mass and one 5% larger. A 5.56 round tumbles when it hits because it's traveling fast enough. Take 5% off and it's not fast enough to do its magic act. And what an act it is!

edit: when I rode in armord vehicles we traded in our M16s for this:

What a piece of junk!

 

[MobBoss]

Right, the longer barrel is what creates the higher muzzle velocity of the bullet (and also tighter shot groups, and more accurate aiming if using the longer sight radius that iron sights would provide). Twenty inches for the M16, and fourteen inches for the M4 if wikipedia is correct.

But it brings me back to, would 5% difference in bullet velocity significantly change the penetration capability of the round?

Problem isnt with the weapon, its with the round. The 5.56 was specifically chosen in that it creates a wounded enemy, not necessarily a dead enemy. The round is light enough that it tends to tumble, deflect or fragment on bone, thus creating more soft tissue damage. There are instances of guys getting shot in the hand by a 5.56 round, and instead of the round simply passing through the hand, it deflects and travels up the arm, out the shoulder or back - or something similar.

Taking away a bit of the muzzle velocity only increases that effect. But it also decreases the actual stopping power of the round. In urban ops, this is seen as a benefit, as you dont want rounds penetrating walls that might hit innocent civilians - or even teammates.

 

[IglooDame]

@snakesneare and MB: Thanks for the info.

Here's how wikipedia explains it:

The 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge with the standard military ball bullet (NATO: SS109; U.S.: M855) will penetrate approximately 15 to 20 inches (38 to 50 cm) into soft tissue in ideal circumstances. As with all spitzer shaped projectiles it is prone to yaw in soft tissue. However, at impact velocities above roughly 2,700 ft/s (820 m/s), it may yaw and then fragment at the cannelure (the crimping groove around the cylinder of the bullet).[citation needed] These fragments can disperse through flesh and bone, inflicting additional internal injuries.[8] Fragmentation, if and when it occurs, imparts much greater damage to human tissue than bullet dimensions and velocities would suggest. This fragmentation effect is highly dependent on velocity, and therefore barrel length: short-barreled carbines generate less muzzle velocity and therefore lose wounding effectiveness at much shorter ranges than longer-barreled rifles. The rapid transfer of energy also results in wounding effects beyond the tissue directly crushed and torn by the bullet and fragments.[2][3] These remote wounding effects are known as hydrostatic shock.[4]

There has been much criticism of the poor performance of the bullet on target, especially the first-shot kill rate when using firearms that don't achieve the velocity to cause fragmentation.[9] This wounding problem has been cited in incidents beginning in the first Gulf war, Somalia, and ending in the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. In recent lab testing of M855, it has been shown that the bullets do not fragment reliably or consistently from round-to-round, displaying widely variable performance. In several cases, yawing did not begin until 7"-10" of penetration. This was with all rounds coming from the same manufacturer.[9] This lack of wounding capacity typically becomes an issue at increasingly shorter ranges (beyond 45m when using an M4 or 140m when using an M16 w/ a 20" barrel) or when penetrating heavy clothing, but this problem is compounded in shorter-barreled weapons. The 14.5-inch (37 cm) barrel of the U.S. military's M4 carbine generates considerably less initial velocity than its big brother, the 20" barreled M16 and terminal performance can be a particular problem with the M4.