Marine Mike Presents Games and Ammo: M4 Carbine

Daverson

New member
Nov 17, 2009
1,164
0
0
Firstly, my upmost respect for anyone who serves their country. What I'm about to say is basically a rebuking of some of the finer points you've said, but I do really respect that you're trying to educate the misinformed, so I hope people won't view this as a "omg ur wrung dun be wrung" post, but rather, as a more in-depth view of ballistics as a whole, particularly from a more scientific approach =)

Anyways...

Just a cursory glance, but I think you've made a few major mistakes;
1. Muzzle velocity for all 5,56 rifles is going to be different. For example, the L85A2 has a muzzle velocity of 940 m/s while the Ak101 has a muzzle velocity of 910 m/s. It'll also depend on the quality of the ammo used. Even then, muzzle velocity isn't a good approximation of how much "damage" a bullet is going to do when it impacts. You have to take into account the bullets deceleration (a heavier bullet carries more of a punch closer up, but a lighter one won't slow down as much at longer ranges) and the "payload" of the projectile as well. (Hollow-point, FMJ, Armour Piecing, subsonic, etc.)

2. Accuracy primarily depends on the internal mechanism, not the barrel length. Accuracy is itself kind of a weasel term. In any firearm, what you'll really want to look at for "accuracy" is flatness and grouping. Flatness is, in laymens terms, how flat the trajectory of the bullet is (and primarily influenced by both weight and muzzle velocity) whereas grouping determines how far apart projectiles shot under the same ideal conditions will possibly be. Ironically enough, these work against each other in barrel length, so a longer barrel will mean better grouping, but less flatness, whereas a shorter barrel can get a flatter bullet, but a worse grouping. (Again, a simplification, as it doesn't take into account rifling or the sweet spot for muzzle velocity, but a valid comparison nonetheless)

3.
The M4's predecessor in the carbine family was the M1 Carbine, which had variations known as the M2 and M3, which was in service from World War Two through the Vietnam Conflict.
This isn't strictly true. I won't bore everyone with the details. The M2 is more comparable to the M16A3, while the M3 is more comparable to the SAMR. I don't want to go into details now (I will if people insist) but M-designations during WW2 and Korea were different to what they are right now.

4. No mention of the difference between the M4 and M4A1. Never mind SOPMOD.



If you're taking suggestions, I think you should cover the XM8 or L85 series of rifles next. Far too many people seem to view these guns are some kind of "megaawesomesupergunrifles", which simply isn't the case.
 

TimeLord

For the Emperor!
Legacy
Aug 15, 2008
7,508
3
43
Marine Mike said:
TimeLord said:
Yay! I love your reviews!

I also love the M4 in any FPS you care to mention because of exactly what you said. It isn't a specialised weapon. More of a general all rounder.

For example, in MW 1+2 I always use the M4 all the time (up until the P90 is unlocked but that isn't important) because it is an all rounder. Decent fire rate and recoil in short-medium range situations. And in a pinch, long range also.
Good man! I'm partial to the M16 rather than the M4, but thats a product of my training. Used properly the M16 is good for short, mid, and long range. Although I will admit that the M4 is more ideal for the urban environments.
I like the M16 in medium - long range situations with great accuracy, but not in short range because the time between burst leaves you vulnerable to the enemy. For example; if I'm sneaking around a building in CoD and an enemy rounds a corner in front of me, I have maybe 2 bursts with the M16 so only 2 chances to hit him before he will kill me. When playing with the M4 in the same situation, I can just hold the trigger and adjust my aim without the risk of giving my opponent a chance to attack.

I am aware that is not a viable tactic in the real world.

SnipErlite said:
TimeLord said:
0_O Why that avatar?! WHY?. They're so scary dammit!

OT: Nice review, I knew about it being a good all rounder-customise fest, but not most of the other stuff :)
Tis my Halloween avatar. So scary is good!
 

GRoXERs

New member
Feb 4, 2009
749
0
0
Yaaaaay! Marine Mike is back! =D

A question: Isn't muzzle velocity actually at least as important as bullet size for damage done? I mean, the formula for kinetic energy is .5mv[sup]2[/sup], so any change in bullet velocity is magnified by the fact that it's squared. This is why, for example, a .50 AE (think Desert Eagle) cartridge delivers roughly the same energy on target as the much lighter but faster 7.62x39mm cartridge fired by the AKM (although with very different penetration and terminal ballistics).
 

NoDamnNames

New member
Feb 25, 2009
374
0
0
Marine Mike said:
When it comes to determining what damage a rifle can do, you look to the ammunition, and the actual weapon has very little influence. With the exception of suppressors, the same round will have almost the same muzzle velocity regardless of what is firing it.
Not necessarily true, some weapons have more efficient mechanisms for gas sealing and re-cock cycles resulting in higher FPS from the same round, likewise a closed bolt manual operated firearm will also benefit from this effect.

On the suppressor, this is one inaccuracy that drives me crazy in video games. A suppressor does not slow a bullet down, and if it is designed for the fire arm you are specifically using it with It will not decrease accuracy, nor will it remove the sonic boom from a gunshot. To fully benefit from a silencer one must be using subsonic ammunition, which does travel at a lower FPS (under sound barrier) and will likewise do less damage. Most subsonic ammunition will not even re-cock most fire arms mechanisms with stock springs, which doesn't seem to apply in the video game world but meh.


Liked your review though! Will be reading them again.
 

ultrachicken

New member
Dec 22, 2009
4,303
0
0
In Fallout: New Vegas, the M4 is a very high-value weapon. Unfortunately, not very customizeable, as the only mod I've found so far is a silencer.

Anyways, keep the reviews coming.
 

Marine Mike

New member
Mar 3, 2010
467
0
0
Daverson said:
Firstly, my upmost respect for anyone who serves their country. What I'm about to say is basically a rebuking of some of the finer points you've said, but I do really respect that you're trying to educate the misinformed, so I hope people won't view this as a "omg ur wrung dun be wrung" post, but rather, as a more in-depth view of ballistics as a whole, particularly from a more scientific approach =)

Anyways...

Just a cursory glance, but I think you've made a few major mistakes;
1. Muzzle velocity for all 5,56 rifles is going to be different. For example, the L85A2 has a muzzle velocity of 940 m/s while the Ak101 has a muzzle velocity of 910 m/s. It'll also depend on the quality of the ammo used. Even then, muzzle velocity isn't a good approximation of how much "damage" a bullet is going to do when it impacts. You have to take into account the bullets deceleration (a heavier bullet carries more of a punch closer up, but a lighter one won't slow down as much at longer ranges) and the "payload" of the projectile as well. (Hollow-point, FMJ, Armour Piecing, subsonic, etc.)

2. Accuracy primarily depends on the internal mechanism, not the barrel length. Accuracy is itself kind of a weasel term. In any firearm, what you'll really want to look at for "accuracy" is flatness and grouping. Flatness is, in laymens terms, how flat the trajectory of the bullet is (and primarily influenced by both weight and muzzle velocity) whereas grouping determines how far apart projectiles shot under the same ideal conditions will possibly be. Ironically enough, these work against each other in barrel length, so a longer barrel will mean better grouping, but less flatness, whereas a shorter barrel can get a flatter bullet, but a worse grouping. (Again, a simplification, as it doesn't take into account rifling or the sweet spot for muzzle velocity, but a valid comparison nonetheless)

3.
The M4's predecessor in the carbine family was the M1 Carbine, which had variations known as the M2 and M3, which was in service from World War Two through the Vietnam Conflict.
This isn't strictly true. I won't bore everyone with the details. The M2 is more comparable to the M16A3, while the M3 is more comparable to the SAMR. I don't want to go into details now (I will if people insist) but M-designations during WW2 and Korea were different to what they are right now.

4. No mention of the difference between the M4 and M4A1. Never mind SOPMOD.



If you're taking suggestions, I think you should cover the XM8 or L85 series of rifles next. Far too many people seem to view these guns are some kind of "megaawesomesupergunrifles", which simply isn't the case.
The M2 was a select-fire version of the M1, and the M3 was an M2 with a night scope attached... I'm not sure what comparison you are trying to make.

Plus, you are correct that there are any number of things that determine accuracy in a rifle. But, I'm going to stand firm in my belief that the barrel of a rifle is most influential. I was referring to accuracy as being the weapon's ability to keep tight groupings, since flatness of trajectory is useless if you can't rely on the weapon to hit where you aim it consistently. Not only barrel length, but its weight and rifling play a large part too.

Your point about the damage potential and muzzle velocities is correct also, but I mentioned that the muzzle velocities of different weapons of the same caliber will vary. However, since they are firing the same ammunition, all of the other variables you mentioned are the same. So, what you end up with is two very similar terminal results compared to rifles of a different caliber. The point I was trying to make was that if you want more takedown power, you are not going to stay with the same ammo and choose a weapon that affords a higher muzzle velocity because the result would be negligible compared to if you were to just change the caliber of weapon you are using.
 

Daverson

New member
Nov 17, 2009
1,164
0
0
Marine Mike said:
The M2 was a select-fire version of the M1, and the M3 was an M2 with a night scope attached... I'm not sure what comparison you are trying to make.
As far as I know, neither the M2 or M3 were standard issue (though I could be wrong about the M2). I must have misread what you said the first time though, because even I'm not too sure what I was getting at there =\

I've always considered the M4's predecessor to be the XM-177. That's probably what I meant to say. I think I got a bit sidetracked...
 

Protocol95

New member
May 19, 2010
984
0
0
Wait the M4A1 is bad in video games did you say? Odd it's typically my weapon of choice in games. And one quick question, due to how customisable the M4A1 is, is it easy to make it excel in one area such as accuracy?
 

Marine Mike

New member
Mar 3, 2010
467
0
0
Protocol95 said:
Wait the M4A1 is bad in video games did you say? Odd it's typically my weapon of choice in games. And one quick question, due to how customisable the M4A1 is, is it easy to make it excel in one area such as accuracy?
The M4 is a decently accurate weapon for its size, and you could put a scope to effective use on it. But if you are looking to engage targets beyond 400 meters you would be better off with the full sized M16, I personally have hit targets at 500 meters with iron sights and at least 600 meters with an ACOG with one. After that you are looking at more of a specialized marksman rifle with some decent optics to engage beyond 800 meters (0.5 mile).
 

LogicNProportion

New member
Mar 16, 2009
2,155
0
0
Great stuff! I like the M4, and the M16! So much more than that bloody ACR that's stalking around nowadays.

If I could make a suggestion for a future review,I think a handgun would be a viable option. Maybe go old school with the SAA Revolver, or the 1911?
 

IBlackKiteI

New member
Mar 12, 2010
1,613
0
0
Its pretty amazing that the gun is so modular and versatile.

Although I'm curious as to how militaries began to shift from full size rifles and battle rifles to assault rifles and carbines?

I know that some army units during the Cold War era (Australian troops in Vietnam for instance) often favoured the more powerful battle rifles over M16 style weapons, but nowadays battle rifles seem to be obsolete.
 

Valkyira

New member
Mar 13, 2009
1,733
0
0
I never understood some of you guy's obsession with guns.

Make love, not war!
 

Kwaren

New member
Jul 10, 2009
1,129
0
0
This is why I bought an AR-15. It's like a M-4 but it is semi auto only. So far i have an Eotec holo sight on it. I want to get a fore grip as well but need to get a rail system first.
 

Retardinator

New member
Nov 2, 2009
582
0
0
Marine Mike said:
TimeLord said:
Yay! I love your reviews!

I also love the M4 in any FPS you care to mention because of exactly what you said. It isn't a specialised weapon. More of a general all rounder.

For example, in MW 1+2 I always use the M4 all the time (up until the P90 is unlocked but that isn't important) because it is an all rounder. Decent fire rate and recoil in short-medium range situations. And in a pinch, long range also.
Good man! I'm partial to the M16 rather than the M4, but thats a product of my training. Used properly the M16 is good for short, mid, and long range. Although I will admit that the M4 is more ideal for the urban environments.
This is what I've been wondering about for a longer while. What is the actual difference between an M16 and an M4?
And how do you tell them apart?
 

Steppin Razor

New member
Dec 15, 2009
6,868
0
0
Another good review. That picture with all the accessories is ridiculous, I never knew that the M4 was so versatile.

A quick question - do you know anything about the F88 Austeyr? I was wondering how the M4/M16 and Australian Army's modified Steyr matched up against one another.
 

Mad World

Member
Legacy
Sep 18, 2009
795
0
1
Country
Canada
Great review!

In FPS games, I tend to stick to the M4; it's just a good, all-around weapon. Also, I've always liked its design.

I have a question. In some action movies, characters use Desert Eagles. How realistic is that, really? I would have thought that a Desert Eagle would really be a more-impractical choice; it has a ton of recoil, and it doesn't have that many shots in a clip. Would you agree with that?

I'm sure that it has its purposes, but I'm talking about in general.
 

Goosevich

New member
Nov 2, 2010
13
0
0
Damn good review mate ! Keep it up.

You've made few very important points right there

So is the m4 an assault rifle?
TBH it depends on army nomenclature that is used in Your country. In poland for example it's more like carbine/sub-carbine. Anyway it's much easier to class Soviet/Russian weaponry.
 

Blizzarded Soul

New member
Jan 27, 2010
230
0
0
This is the first time ive stumbled across you and your articles, and I must say thank you. They are all really informative, and banish misconceptions about guns and equipment in FPS games. I look forward to reading more.
 

Divine Miss Bee

avatar under maintenance
Feb 16, 2010
730
0
0
IBlackKiteI said:
Although I'm curious as to how militaries began to shift from full size rifles and battle rifles to assault rifles and carbines?
coming about as a product of the shift to more urban fighting environments seems like the most logical answer to this-carbines' unique design and abilities lend it well to close situations, as used to be done in the more urban settings before insurgents got smart about it and began engaging military personnel at a greater distance.