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
Yes the m16a4 has way more muzzle velocity and will punch harder and longer than an m4. I understand the use of the m4, but now both Marines and Army are moving completly towards the m4. Not all combat occurs in close quarters, in Afghanistan engaging distances vary widley, but in the mountainous terrain, its well over 400 meters so the m16a4 would be way better for these types of engagments.
i probably have no clue what i am talking about because i am only twelve but, i would choose the m16a4. it has the longer barrel which means more effective range. i would think the m4 would be better for vehicle operations but, even though a lot of people say the m4 is better in cqb i would differ. i have an airsoft m16a4 and i can easily maneuver it in small spaces. i like m16s more too because of the long barrel because i have always liked long range.
also, i like the army more even though they use more m4s.
ps: is it really common to switch branches of the military like that?
and for the people who have please say which you like more army or marines.
The main reason the Army uses more M4′s then the Marines is yes, They operate in Humvees more. But the Marines live in them just as much as the Army does. The Marines are usually the last ones to get the good stuff, And are usually the shortest on budget, So they use what is more available… Not because they want more posters then mags. But when the Marines do get a chance to get their own things its usually important. Like marpat or the new Amphibious shit coming out in a few years. But let me assure you both branches use both the M4′s and M16A4s.
Which rifle is more effective?
What is the primary rifle of the
Army
Marines
Air force
Navy
And how many more years will they use it primarily
Oh boy some of the infamous internet commandos are in full force on this post. Sheezzz!!
The way i see it is this, it simply comes down to physics and the role each service plays in combat operations
The A4 has a longer barrel this affords it two things the shorter M4 doesn’t have 1. more time in the barrel means higher muzzle velocity. 2. The additional time in the barrel also means the bullet is spinning faster when it is ejected from the muzzle both of these factors gives the A4 higher accuracy and more kinetic energy at longer ranges.
The primary mission of the marine corp is amphibious assault and immediate action (typically 48 hours on less) meaning the Marines are first to fight and conditions in the early stages of a war favor M16A4. When your are storming a beach you want that ability the blow the enemy machine gunners head off at 500 yards. With only 1 sq foot of him exposed between the sand bags.
By the Time the army arrives the situation has changed now the enemy is retreating hiding urban warfare is what you are most likely to encounter, conditions favor the M4 with a shorter barrel it easier to get in and out of vehicles building a what have you additionally engagements are at closer ranges the higher long range accuracy of the A4 is not required as often.
So both weapons serve each branch in their particular roles best that is not to say that their isn’t some overlap of missions where soldiers or marines might be better served to have the other weapon but from a overall perspective and looking at the Primary Missions of each branch the M4 best serves the Army and the M16A4 Best serves the Marine Corp.
Facts is facts fellas……..
The M16a4 has better stopping power and better range than the M4. Could someone who is a great shot qual on the 500yd range with an M4? Sure, but a few things make that a moot point.
1) The same dude, shooting an A4 would do better 10 times out of 10.
2) The M16a4 sends it’s rounds downrange at a higher velocity than the M4; I’m not an expert in physics, but from what I do know, that equals more “oomph” when hit hits.
3) This is just my personal experience; the M16A4 is simply more reliable than any shorter barreled version. If I had to guess, I’d assume that this has something to do with a more powerful buffer spring, and a gas recoil system that has a full barrels worth of gas to tap into.
There is no doubt that the M4 is lighter, but the difference in weight isn’t huge. Also, while the shorter barrel does make the weapon handier, it doesn’t change the fact that an MP5 is shorter that both…..and I don’t hear a huge clamoring to make THAT the primary weapon.
My thoughts, the M4 is sexy. The M16A4 will kill better.
Marines are using the M4 in Iraq and Afghanistan …my last deployment we had them, and people who didnt have them were admin Marines…..why did it take the Marines so long to get these weapons??? Ever try and convince a Marine he is wrong? Especially an old Marine? Good luck. The other reason is funding, we get the smallest piece of the DOD budget pie. Were used to using less to do more than everyone else. As for the M16A4′s go, just about everyone I knew wanted to toss them in a ditch and get their A2′s from boot camp back haha.
Sgt, why did they want to ditch the A4? Weight?
About Matt Groom’s comment, I know the requirements for a US marine and they need to be acurate with the M16A4 at 500 yards and greater. They also spend more time in training at the range than any other branch of the United States military.
Last time I checked and I’ve been in the Army infantry for the last 6 years. Aside from SF standard issue A4s and M4s are not full auto. just sayin
My brother just came back from marine ocs and they were the first class to train with the m-16a4 he says that it comes equiped with a fully automatic mode along with a three round burst, just like the m4 but has a better effective range and reliability than the m4.
Damn, I’m not that old, but I was issued the M16A1 back in 1984. There were still some of those POS rolling around in the armories. I would have given a testicle for an M16A2, let alone A4 or an M4 carbine. Times change.
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.
What year did the M16A4 come out? 1994, or earlier??
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
what is wrong with you?
army put there lives in danger for our country too
they were the first branch also
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…