Army M4 vs. Marine M16A4
There is an interesting article at Human Events 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.
Hat Tip: Say Uncle
Having served in the infantry in both the Marines and the Army, and having served in Iraq 2005-2006 in an army mechanized infantry platoon with an M16A4, I concur with the author’s assessment. Nearly every Army infantry soldier in Iraq patrolled in humvees or otherwise had a permanently-assigned seat in a vehicle, while Marines see vehicles as merely a way to get from one foot patrol to another. Humvees are cramped (despite their size) and a 39-inch rifle is difficult to get in and out of the vehicle. The problem is much worse with up-armored humvees, which have more restrictive door openings. For troops that see the humvee as home, the M4 is the way to go. In Iraq, I patrolled in Bradleys, and never minded having the longer M16A4, because there was plenty of room for it, and the former Marine in me liked having the long barrel…
That’s because the Army is for weaker smaller men who couldn’t be Marines, thus they need a smaller gun. The Marines on the other hand can handle a full size rifle. Oh that and they actually like to hit their targets.
Bbboooyah
I wonder if the reason is that the Marine command don’t have the budget or desire to spend dollars in new M4’s.
Despite Dave’s incorrect above thoughts, large chunks of the Army still use M16s. The Unit I was with up till a year ago was using, and still uses, M16A4s, with a scattering of M4s for Lt’s and drivers and that’s about it.
The more interesting aspect of the article in my mind is the mentioning of the current rifle being the plateau of rifle design.
As a former Marine, let me assure you that the main reason you don’t see as many M-4’s as you do A4’s is because the USMC spends more money on recruitment posters than they do on rifle magazines. The USMC doesn’t have the money to spend on M-4’s because they spend too much money on television commercials.
As a former Range Instructor of Marines, let me assure you that there are a number of Marines who couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn and they are incorrigible. We called them “UnqSperts” because they were expert at failing to qualify, no matter how many extra rounds you slipped them on the 500 yard line, or how many extra relays you gave them to shoot.
Some of the best Marines I knew were guys who had served in and disliked the Army, and most of the best Marines I knew got the hell out because they disliked the USMC. Some of those guys joined the Army and some of them joined the Air Force, and a lot of them became Law Enforcement.
Personally, I would much prefer an M-16 for most things.
hey Dave…I have a 31 year old brother who just got top gun and honor grad in sniper school at Fort Benning… and from my understanding, that was the first time in 10 years… oh…and he is Army…don’t lump all the rocks into one bucket while having a diamond in the rough at the bottom
Interesting commentary. I would be surprised to hear that Marines tend to break M4’s but not A4’s. Marines can be hard on anything.
Military traditions is one of the hardest thing to break so it better not to fight it.
These military traditions goes back to the founding of Army and Marine Corp. The Army have their way of doing things. The Marines has theirs.
Marines still use the M16A4 because its part of the Martial Arts/Close Combat Program. I forgot what the exact quote was but many of the basic movements are performed with the butt of the weapon. The M4 is good to go and serves its function well. I think the point about the Army being highly mechanized (like someone said before) dictates this more than anything. Aren’t they suppose to be getting even more Stryker Brigades? As a side note a bunch of Marine Gunners are suppose to be lobbying the Commandant to get the collapsible butt stock for the M16A4…supposedly the Commandant is resisting because of the hand to hand issue.
What year did the M16A4 come out? 1994, or earlier??
I don’t remember where I saw the article, but it was more than a year ago (maybe two?), where the USMC was evaluating what to replace the M-16a2 with. At the time the Army still clung to the XM-8 as an ‘eventual’ replacement weapon, but the Marines wanted to replace the M-16a2 immediately.
The candidate weapons under consideration were the M-4 and the M-16a4. Supposedly tests demonstrated the longer weapon as more reliable and that was the primary reason it was selected in preference to the M-4.