Could be, but if I’m going to poke a bad guy with a knife on a stick, I want a longer stick.
You obviously don’t get it. Yes, it would be nicer to “poke him” from another 5 inches away but remember this- they were looking into a shorter barrel. They used the carbine gas system and then had to find a barrel length that would work with bayonets so bayonets wouldn’t have to be remade for a new length.
What I understand is something along these same line. The 14.5" barrel allows for minimal loss in external and terminal ballistics from the 20-inch M16s. The shorter barrel allowed for a more “manageable” rifle.
But since I am no expert in this arena, this is all based on my (fading) memory. Doc Roberts could probably give us the real reason for the 14.5" barrel.
The 14.5" also permits use of m7 and M9 bayonets.
Yes, exactly.
that’s another vote for “bayonet.”
My understanding is that the 14.5" barrel is the minimum length you can go and still get the required reliability and performance. If memory serves, your still better off with a 20" bbl. but of course they lack the agility of the M4. And with all that said, I still hear much negitivity regarding performance in the arid, sandy enviroment of the middle east.
Danger Close’s response is “very close.”
M4 was a designation we (USMC Development center @ Quantico, Va.) assignded to a program to replace Recon’s M3A1 Grease Guns (.45 ACP SMG’s). We started with Colt Commando’s that had 11.5" barrels. We were happy with them as SMG’s, but then the bayonet requirement latter was adressed by other potential 5.56mm SMG Marine users. To answer this, Colt re-entered with 14.5" barrels…and so it went.
By the way, real Marine M4’s back then had M16A2 upper receivers.
A real collectable out there somewhere would be the orignial Marine Corps Operator Manuals that our Master Gunnery Sergrant Nicoliaision produced for this program. Unfortunately, we subsequently failed to optain Congressional funding for the M4’s purchase four consecutive years in a row, and after that series of budget failures, the USMC Comptroller would not allow us to include it in our samall arms budget thereafter. About this time, the Army’s 18th Airborne Corps started a campaign to replace their rifles with a similar carbine…so there goes the story.
And as Elmer Keith would say…“hell, I was there.”
So then the answer is simply because of a bayonet then…
Interesting details!
so when’s the military gonna adopt mid lenght gas systems? :o
If I’m not mistaken the 16 inch barrel is the best compromise for ballistics,reliability and acceptable range with 5.56 ammo. The only drawback,you can’t mount a bayonet.Right?
And, as for the mid length gas system good luck with that just like the army adopting 6.8 rem.
This is not so much a compromise for performance as it is for “civilian legal” issues.
I think Mark Westrum of the new Armalite was first to make his 16" carbines with the mid-length gas tube (Thank You, Mark). IMO, this solved more a cosmetic issue with too much barrel protruding from the traditional AR front sight/gas block than functionng issues. I mean the civilian legal 16" Colt’s, etc., just did not look “right.” I say this, not because I don’t actually personally prefer the 16" barrels myself, but because the M4’s shorter gas tube has proven itself well enough over the years, especially in semi-auto only guns.
The 16" mid-lengths also resulted in many of us buying, or building, yet another upper, or two just to have something different and thus increasing the AR’s low tech popularity. This is probably one of the best reasons the AR is so popular because its so flexible and easy/simple for so many of us to work on “at home.” Unlike the M1/M14 which are hardly "garage-handyman friendly.
Well, that answers that, thank you for the info.