Why did the U.S. Army adopt the M4? Isn't the loss in range that a soldier can hit a target a step backwards? Did they do it just so that soldiers don't have to carry heavy equipment?
>>28426657
20" barrel hard to do in close quarters, senpai.
>>28426657
at 50000 rounds per kill, theyre better off just buying whatever is cheaper and lighter
>>28426673
That's it? What happens if they need to fight in a field
>>28426719
You suppress until airstrike, armor or artillery gets there.
>>28426719
You shoot him.
The m4 isn't a ppsh, dipshit.
>>28426719
The bullets don't fucking stop after 10 feet because you no longer have a 20" barrel you idiot.
>>28426657
>Squad MG/Marksman suppresses
>riflemen move up to engage at a more favorable distance/location
>>28426673
/thread
>>28426657
99% of firefights dont happen at a range where having a 20in barrel gives you an advantage over a 14.5in. just because your bullets can reach out to 600m doesnt mean much when you spend all your time plinking hadjis with AKs at the mosque 2 blocks away.
>>28426719
M16 - 550 meters max range on point target
M4 - 500 meters max range on point target
Big woop.
>>28426903
Hell you can probably do better with an RCO on it. I never shot my M4 beyond 500 yards though. It would be nice to try with a milspec M4.
I wouldn't be surprised if a good shooter in the prone could hit a man sized target at 600 or so.
>>28426719
It's not uncommon Innastan to have some DMR guy.
Alternatively, if you have a guy with a M2, you let the .50 do its job. The .50 has way more reach than your gun will.
Plus, Ahkiim with an old AK probably can't hit shit at that long range anyway.
>>28426944
The funny thing is, people don't understand that's most determined by the design accuracy, which has nothing to do with barrel length. The M14s max effective range on a point target is 500 meters too. Just because you can shoot a long distance, it doesn't mean you're going to hit shit just by the inherent capabilities of the design.
>>28426981
Uh..mate, you realize most guns can easily out shoot the shooter? That is to say, the gun is usually a hell of a lot more accurate than you think it is because you aren't as good at shooting as you think you are.
Also
>most determined by design accuracy
>nothing to do with barrel length
>barrels are no longer part of the design
m8.....
>>28427015
>nothing to do with barrel length
>barrels are no longer part of the design
A-are you actually retarded senperus?
Barrel length is now all there is to a barrel? Weeew.
>Uh..mate, you realize most guns can easily out shoot the shooter?
...and?
>That is to say, the gun is usually a hell of a lot more accurate than you think
Actually those are the max effective ranges put out from military testing, which is more legit than anything you and I can say from anecdote.
Nvm, you are retarded.
>>28426961
But Ibrahim could with the thousands of enfields they still use over there
>>28427036
Mate, you are the one who said the barrel length isn't part of the design. Not me. I was simply pointing out that silliness.
>muh military testing
What is Appeal to Authority Fallacy for 500 Alex.
Like I said, I would confidently bet that a good shooter could accurately hit targets out to 600 yards with a M4 that has a RCO mounted on it. Ditto with pretty much any rifle in the same configuration (rifle with aprox. 4x optic) you would care to name.
Some guys in the squad have muskets....
>>28426657
Even if you had a gun that can effectively shoot out to 1000m doesn't mean it's going to make soldiers that effective. You are limited by human capability, and soldiers are barely even capable of hitting, even seeing, a target out at 500m. Understand that a war fighting system isn't about a soldier and his rifle--it's everything available to him. Heavy machine guns, sniper systems, close air support, indirect fire, etc. That's how wars are fought these days.
Some have M14s
>>28426657
Because generally speaking 800 m/s is enough and the M4 is more than capable of exceeding that. There is a reduction in accuracy, but not enough to make a significant different. War is not a shooting range; you do not get extra points for hitting the guy a quarter inch closer to the center.
>>28427067
>design accuracy
>design
>same thing
Uuuur guuurrr duz help i type liek this?
>I would confidently bet that a good shooter could accurately hit targets out to 600 yards with a M4
>I don't know what a point target is
>I don't know what an area target is
>I don't know why I'm a moron switching from meters to yards constantly
Why is this you? You can be smarter than this.
>What is Appeal to Authority Fallacy for 500 Alex.
>Like I said, I would confidently bet that a good shooter
What is baseless assumption?
>>28426758
Bingo. Combined arms answer. I'd also take "not wasting precious bullets TRYING to maybe hit something beyond 400m.
Because it's a slower rifle, so the soldiers who are poorly trained can use it, too.
IMO, they should use marksman rifles like in COD Ghosts
>>28426657
The military, after more than a century, finally realized that "The Rifleman" is a myth, and people don't make hits with rifles very often past 150 yards.
Yes, you will hear stories otherwise. I know a guy who killed an Afghan with an M4 at 500 yards. It's such a rare occurance that it makes more sense to have a lighter, more ergonomic rifle rather than a giant M16 that is difficult to work while carrying. (The latter is my biggest complaint with M16s. I carried an A4 overseas, and it's a motherfucker to carry slung while doing anything.)
Anyway, HE is what kills people in modern warfare. It's a more efficient and reliable way to ensure the person gets killed.
>>28428464
AR fuccibois (not all AR fans, mind you) will disagree because then this means the AK is a perfectly fine combat weapon, which in the warped minds of some, makes their rifle seem shittier.
Personally, I never even saw the reason to engage with small arms anything past 350m or maybe a bit more since it seems like that'll just give you away while putting you at risk for a firefight. Returning fire is a different story, but if I had the first move, I'd say mark the location and just blow it away with artillery if possible.
>>28426657
they did it to accommodate women and manlets, the shorter barrel and weight also helps in close quarters but thats the main reason from a logistical standpoint. too man useless women and useless manlets were claiming back and nerve damage from marching and training with the super duper heavy m16
>>28429300
This is the explanation I always hear - manlets and females get issued m4s, complain when they don't because they unq with a m16.
I got out in 08 and I never cared enough to do any research so everything I know about the changeover is second hand.
>>28426657
Everyone in this thread has never carried a weapon in the military, ever.
Imagine, you had to carry a weapon 100 percent of the time, literally 24/7, regardless of the circumstance. Would you rather carry a heavier weapon with s slight SLIGHT increase in lethality over a lighter weapon with DECREASED lethality literally 24/7 for the next several years?
Why aren't people lining up in infantry units to carry the 240B machine gun on EVERY ruck march, on EVERY exercise? Because the machine gun is fucking heavy, and the M-4 is light.
The M-4 is perfectly capable, at every range. It is perfectly lethal, at every range. Sure, the 240 or the 249 are more lethal, they are machine guns, but ask 99 percent of grunts what they want to CARRY 99 percent of the time and they will answer the M-4.
The M-4 isn't a snipers rifle, but the vast majority of the military isnt a sniper. They want the lightest most capable rifle, and an M-4 will kill an enemy dead just fine.
>>28428464
Then why doesn't a squad carry HE?
Something like an HV-40 which would be capable of shooting airburst 40mm grenades out 1000 yards.
But of course, then you are running into the limitations of light infantry and why the military needs to fully mechanize
since its fucking 2015
>>28429409
How fucking tiny are you that you think a c1 m16a2 is heavy?
>>28429300
>>28429327
>manlets
How does that make sense? Average male height has been increasing over the past century.
>>28426685
Underrated post. Shit, be better to give the fuckers knives.
>>28426657
I found that the m4 was more accurate than m16. I believe this was because of a better trigger in the m4. It had lighter and shorter trigger pull resulting in better shots.
>>28429487
I wonder what the average height of a Marine is. Seems like seeing someone over six feet was a rarity when I was in.
>>28426685
More like 250,000 per kill xDDD
>>28426758
underrated post
>>28429445
They do. Typically two or more m320s.
>>28426685
This
Modern infantry combat goes like this
>contact
>spray boolits and spam nades while you seek cover
>call in air support
>BRRRRRRT
>>28427068
That's a Texas Nasty Girl. We don't allow them to have real guns.
>>28429446
>muh waifu isn't heavy when I carry it from my house to the car
>Give your grunts a compact rifle that's lighter and allows for easier room-clearing
>Give them a full-length that's heavier, more cumbersome, and has a range advantage over the carbine that is almost never utilized and doesn't even really matter when a JDAM crams its way down Abdul's throat 10 minutes later anyways.
According to Colt Canada the 14.5 barrels are more accurate than the 20 inch within 300 meters, beyond this the 20 inch gains a slight advantage due to increased muzzle velocity or something like that
>>28429632
expected/10
Maybe you should've been supply, little guy.
>>28429578
m320 is low velocity 40mm
I was talking high velocity, 40x53..
Maybe that programmable airburst stuff they talked about too.
>>28429511
M4 trigger feels like taking a cold shot every time after switching from an m16. I thought it was just the rifles I was issued until I got a bit of range time with the m4.
>>28428464
>. It's such a rare occurance that it makes more sense to have a lighter, more ergonomic rifle rather than a giant M16 that is difficult to work while carrying. (The latter is my biggest complaint with M16s. I carried an A4 overseas, and it's a motherfucker to carry slung while doing anything.)
This. Even though there isn't much barrel length change, and the stock isn't that different an m4 just feels way lighter and is easier to carry around than an M16 it doesn't seem like a big difference but when you have to carry one around it seems a lot more significant. M16 with a full rail instead of handguards might as well just have a SAW to lug around at that weight.
>>28429748
shouldn't bigger people be supply since they're more capable of carrying more stuff and smaller guys be up front since they are smaller targets and more agile?
>>28429793
are you a bigot? what happened to equality?
>>28429813
equality in the military kills.
>>28427110
Not a ranger
