A Few Thoughts On The M16A4
Is the M16A4 worth the extra weight and length it brings? Howard of LooseRounds has weighed in with an article relating some of his experiences with the rifle. His conclusion is as follows:
I have often told people that the M4 is a jack of all trade, but master of none. Truthfully, the M4 really excels at many of the roles it is used in. The M16A4 type rifle falls into an odd place where it doesn’t particularly do any one thing significantly better than the M4, yet is inferior in handling and weight.
For some this will come as a surprise, but Howard carefully considers what the M16A4 brings to the table as an infantry weapon – and doesn’t feel that it makes up for the greatly increased weight and inferior handling that comes with it.
One topic this broaches is that of barrel length of standard military rifles: How much is appropriate, and why? How important is muzzle velocity, and to what degree should handiness and ease of use be compromised to improve it? It’s a question with a lot of depth – more than I can plumb – and every user may have a different answer, but Howard’s conclusions mirror the decisions made by numerous armed forces around the world: Shorter is better, says the dominance of carbines with barrels less than 16″ long.
I strongly urge readers to click through and read the whole thing.
Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. He can be reached via email at nathaniel.f@staff.thefirearmblog.com.
More by Nathaniel F
Comments
Join the conversation
All I have to say on this matter is, "personal opinion".
The beauty of the M16/M4 [ and the AR ] is that it should be possible to issue one lower and several uppers depending on what the days task is. 800-1200 meters, put a 24" 7.62x51 NATO upper, CQB urban, issue the M4 or even shorter.
They could use the 7.62x51 lower and an adapter to use the 5.56x45 magazine in the larger lower.
Or just issue two rifles to each grunt,
Civilians in the US are never satisfied with one rifle, why should the government fail to issue the tools needed to win in battle?
And why can't soldiers bring their own 9mm or 45 ACP, the handgun is primary only for tunnel rats in the tunnel. But a pistol has saved many soldiers life because it is there, at hand when the rifle may be 5 yards away on the other side of the tent.