Marines like that M4 carbine because it looks cool. And I’ve had some Marines complain to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying ‘you know, the officers are getting these things, but we’re still having to carry this rifle.’ Well, the Marine Corps will always be a rifle Marine Corps. The carbine is an extension of the pistol, not a reduction of a rifle. And in the Afghanistan scenario where you’re shooting long distances you gotta be able to reach out and touch 'em. And a carbine is just not designed to do that.
Not looking to start any USMC vs Army BS about who shoots better or some such nonsense. Just interesting to compare and contrast the services’ different approaches. For instance, look at the optics - the Army issues the M68 to most of its Soldiers while the Marine Corps prefers the RCO.
Personally, I carried an M16A2 and A4 as a lieutenant, and an M4 ever since. I like the M16A4, particularly for 0311s. Officers and SNCOs carry M4s because it is not their job to shoot people, but if it becomes necessary they still have the capability to join in.
The average M4 is capable of greater accuracy at distance than the average Marine.
The M1 carbine may have been intended as an extension of the pistol, but the M4 is literally the reduction of a rifle and it’s illogical to say otherwise.
The only advantage of barrel length is muzzle velocity. Considering the wound ballistics of the 5.56mm is dependent on the velocity of the bullet upon striking the target, one has to consider the environment one is operating in. If your range of contact is 200m or less, I’d go with the M4. If greater then 200m I’d go with the M16A2/A4 or more preferably a SCAR H or M14.
I loved my A2 and I loved my M203 even better. The M4 was cool when I got one but I’ll always love my A2. I like what one Marine General said, “How in the hell are you going to cave an enemies skull in with a collapsible plastic stock?”
Past 200m (140m, on average), bullet fragmentation is unreliable and, for all intents and purposes, all M4/16 variants are equal in wounding capability. All that matters is shot placement at those ranges. Obviously some models are more accurate than others, but this has nothing to do with inherent lethality.
14.5" barrels reliably fragment (on average) up to 100yds.
18" barrels reliably fragment (on average) out to 125yds.
20" barrels reliably fragment (on average) up to 140yds.
Between 100yds to 140yds, then M16 has an edge. Past that, it’s all about the shooter’s accuracy until you get to the 600yd to 800yd distances. At these distances, you’re virtually out of velocity, where the marginal advantage of the 18" and 20" barrels start to make a difference because they allow an extra 200yds+ of range.
ammo oracle is saying 20" can reliably frag up to 200m, 16" 150m, these are the ranges where the bullet slows down to 2700fps, the threshold for reliable frag
20" barrels can fragment out to 200m using XM193 or 150m using M855, but those were using specific sets of atmospheric values, namely 75* F @ 25% RH. Adjust those values to less favorable conditions and you’re looking at reducing those ranges, hence the “average” values originally supplied.
Molon on TOS made a good chart showing the average reliable (that’s the key word) distances that the bullets will fragment at under most all conditions.
My only complaint is not the barrel length but the lack of a collapsible buttstock.
Seen way too many dead men shot at beyond 200m to get behind you on this one.
The shorter the rifle is, for whatever reason, the more that soldiers around the world want it–even if it degrades performance. The Galil Micro is a good example of this. 5.56 isn’t exactly at its best coming from a ~7.5" barrel.
I also have to disagree with the Commandant. I do not consider the carbine an extension of the pistol. The carbine is the current end result of a long search to find the happy medium between the compactness of a pistol with the capabilities of a rifle. Many different approaches have been made throughout the years. They range from basically revolvers with shoulder stocks and long barrels, to semi/full-auto pistols with shoulder stocks (Mauser C96’s and BHP’s), to subguns (Thompsons, MP5’s, American-180 (probably one of the best examples of volume of fire v. caliber)), “smaller” rifles like the M1 Carbine, and the current “short” rifles like the M4 carbine.
This is still ongoing and will be an issue far into the future.
So, in short, I do not consider the carbine to be an extension of the pistol but just another attempt at the perfect meld of the rifle and pistol. One could just as easily call the M4 a compression of the rifle.
It is near impossible to have proper shooting form, for fighting, with a A2 stock unless you are one lanky fella. It will blade the hell out of your stance with body armor on. The RCO is difficult to shoot with such a long stock as it requires very short eye relief, and the issues are exacerbated in a dynamic situation where your moving. The rifle is fighting the user as its set up.
If rifle length…uh…rifles… can be made to fire reliably (which I am lead to believe they can be as that is what the Canadian Army is running) w/ collapsible stocks…then that is a pretty clear answer. Some skinny extra barrel hanging off the front of the rifle isn’t as big a deal as the part that interfaces with the user at the opposite end. In the case of Afghanistan then it may actually be helpful given engagement distances.
This isn’t even an issue of needing to buy new rifles. If they wanted full on M4’s…it’s only a barrel, gas tube, stock assembly, buffer, and spring away. This isn’t hard.
The Marine brass is simply pimping the gear it’s service has…which is par the course in the military. I’m sorry but an M4 doesn’t make a shooter less lethal. Its ballistic semantics. But an A2 definitely affects proficiency of a shooter. I am all for ringing out every bit of possible performance from a rifle, but there is a point of diminishing returns. There is no free lunch. To make THIS platform, the AR series platform perform better at distance with M855, you have to make it more awkward and ungainly for CQB fighting. The M4 might be a case of the porridge being too cold, M16 too hot, and a 20’’ barrel w/ collapsible stock just right.
Nevermind the silly premise of this as rest assured, you can beat someone to death with a collapsible plastic stock just as well with a fixed plastic stock…But how are you going to butt stroke someone when you are utilizing a sling as any combat serving Soldier or Marine would?
Muzzle strike. To the sternum. Hard.
These are the silly premises that rifles and equipment SHOULDN’T be picked on. A stock is either durable enough for combat or it isn’t. By default if it can survive the rigors of combat, it can survive being struck against someones head with enthusiasm.
All I know is that:
I hate low caliber guns like the military issues most of us.
The longest range confirmed sniper kill as of 2006 was with an M4, as per the Army Times.
My wife hates all of the issued optics except the ACOG on her M4 (she and I disagree on the M4; she loves it).
And in my current job with the Army, if I’m worried about long range shooting, something has gone so terribly wrong on the job that I’m probably not too worried about long range shooting. Anything they issue me is good enough out to 100 yards.
edit: I do, however, most certainly want the guys in my unit who are decent shots, to be able to reach out and touch the bad guys wherever they may be…
Interesting premise: A combat weapon has to have an adjustable stock to fit an armored soldier.
ONLY in the last few years, ONLY for those issued the armor. Up to now, the standard hasn’t been armor. Rifle stocks did the job. The majority of shooters outside LEO/MIL don’t have armor. They don’t need the stocks - but they sure do buy them.
Expressing the concept that a 14.5" barreled M4 is ballistically equivalent to the 20" M16 leads me to think there are more experienced folks here who can explain that.
As usual, the real discussion is one of degree, a percentage difference in the performance of a cartridge. It’s an intermediate assault rifle, it can be tailored to one end of the spectrum or another. The current trend to shorten it is just that - for vehicular use, urban infrastructure, and CQB. It’ll be all sorted out just in time for the next war, which in Afghanistan is turning out to be a bit more open in range, and lacking the built up areas.
If anything, the General’s comment shows the difference in battle philosophy between branches of the armed forces. It’s not which is right/wrong, win/lose, it’s a matter of which to apply to the current situation. BOTH are needed in the long run.
“Marines like that M4 carbine because it looks cool. Translation: ‘My opinion of the rank-and-file Marine is THAT low. I’m an occifer, and I Know Things, man… Things!’ And I’ve had some Marines complain to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying ‘you know, the officers are getting these things, but we’re still having to carry this rifle.’ Well, the Marine Corps will always be a rifle Marine Corps. The carbine is an extension of the pistol, not a reduction of a rifle. That was the freakin’ M1 Carbine, you @$^&*@#$. It’s the 21st @#%#^% Century! And in the Afghanistan scenario where you’re shooting long distances you gotta be able to reach out and touch 'em. And a carbine is just not designed to do that.” I don’t have enough ink in my pen to write about what you don’t know about what your Marines and their M4s would be capable of, if only you Old Guard Luddites stop letting the ‘traditional’ competitive shooters hold sway over the USMC marksmanship program.
Good god, we’re hosed. SO hosed. No wonder we can’t get a goddamned thing done for the Marines, the anchorweight behind the institutional inertia is just too big, and it’s title is ‘Commandant.’
That’s it, stop the Corps. I wanna get off. We’re Big Army, now. Slow, plodding, methodical, risk-averse, mired in the past and the Fulda Gap scenario.
“The carbine is an extension of the pistol, not a reduction of a rifle.”
If the M4s were using handgun calibers, I would agree with this, but since they are using the same ammo, not so much. I suppose a 20" barrel would be better for long range shooting, but then again, lots of things would be better than an M16 for long range shooting…would he favor issuing the Marines only with 24" bolt action .308s? After all, they are riflemen first…