I would have thought that it’s an M4 carbine world for both us and our allies, but evidently someone still wants M16A4’s. Any practical reason for retaining the rifle?
“ARMY CONTRACTING COMMAND WARREN (DTA) PROPOSES TO SOLICIT, NEGOTIATE, AND AWARD TWO, FIVE-YEAR, FIRM FIXED PRICE, INDEFINITE DELIVERY INDEFINITE QUANTITY (IDIQ) CONTRACTS UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 16.504 INDEFINITE-QUANTITY CONTRACTS FOR THE FOLLOWING ITEM: NSN: 1005-01-383-2872, NOUN: M16A4 5.56MM RIFLE, MINIMUM QUANTITY: 18,000 EACH, MAXIMUM QUANTITY: 215,000 EACH. EACH SUCCESSFUL AWARDEE WILL RECEIVE A GUARANTEED MINIMUM ORDER OF 9,000 EACH OF NSN: 1005-01-383-2872. FUTURE ORDERS WILL BE COMPETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OUTLINED IN THE SOLICITATION AND RESULTING CONTRACT.”
I can see why the Military would what M16’s over M4’s for places like Afghanistan, Africa and more open places like them. The M16’s longer barrel gives it a couple hundred FPS over the M4’s shorter barrel.
The 5.56 round depends on velocity to work correctly, as in fragment and yew. A M16 has more velocity, therefor has a longer range then a M4….but you knew that.