Marine Mike Presents Games and Ammo: M4 Carbine

[Simon1]

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.

Also, battle rifles tend to fire heavyer, larger rounds,(I think) and with the switch from open to confiened space warfare, a larger bullet could overpenetrate, or have the same damage as a smaller round, but in more recoil. (Also, (this is a crazy idea, I think), but wouldn't a .22LR Sub-Machine Gun be just as effective as a carbine in urban warfare and close quarter battles due to the fact that it would have low recoil and impact, but a high rate of fire and ammo capacity? (Just thinking here)

 

[Marine Mike]

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.

Also, battle rifles tend to fire heavyer, larger rounds,(I think) and with the switch from open to confiened space warfare, a larger bullet could overpenetrate, or have the same damage as a smaller round, but in more recoil. (Also, (this is a crazy idea, I think), but wouldn't a .22LR Sub-Machine Gun be just as effective as a carbine in urban warfare and close quarter battles due to the fact that it would have low recoil and impact, but a high rate of fire and ammo capacity? (Just thinking here)

A .22LR weapon would become ineffective beyond about 15-20 meters, and also lacks the ability to defeat armor of any variety. While the rate of fire and ammo capacity would lend itself well to urban warfare, you have to consider the range of... ranges... that urban combat involves. You need a weapon that is effective inside a building, but you also need that same weapon to be useful if you were on that building's roof engaging targets several buildings over.

 

[acosn]

So in real life, the m4 can be customized to fit many firearm roles but not to entirely replace? Good to know.

So is the m4 an assault rifle?

"Assault Rifle" is actually a very vague term. Really all you need for it to be quantifiable as an assault rifle is a detachable magazine, a rifled barrel, and selective fire. You can technecally extend the specification to include intermediate rounds (Which is to say, large caliber than a pistol round, but lower than a full blown rifle like your KAR 98's and Ensfields.) but then you start to run into sticky territory- the earliest models of assault rifles used rifle rounds. While you might not know what an MP44 is, you've probably heard of an AK 47. Both used full rifle rounds.)

Heck, the definition for Carbine is vague in itself. Really the only distinguishing factor is that it have a shorter barrel than it's standard counterpart, and usually fire rounds at lower velocities. In that respect they occupy an odd middle-niche between assault rifle and sub-machine guns where they aim to be more accurate than an SMG but still less than an assault rifle. Meanwhile an SMG will typically aim to have a higher rate of fire, and often a larger standard magazine size.

Most terminology for guns is vague or stuck-on by external media.

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.

Also, battle rifles tend to fire heavyer, larger rounds,(I think) and with the switch from open to confiened space warfare, a larger bullet could overpenetrate, or have the same damage as a smaller round, but in more recoil. (Also, (this is a crazy idea, I think), but wouldn't a .22LR Sub-Machine Gun be just as effective as a carbine in urban warfare and close quarter battles due to the fact that it would have low recoil and impact, but a high rate of fire and ammo capacity? (Just thinking here)

Battle Rifles fire larger rounds, this is correct, though at the moment they're fairly unfavored. They loose a great deal of effectiveness in much of urban warfare because of the drop in their rate of fire- battle rifles are typically semi-automatic.

And again, the difference between carbines and SMGs is fairly minimal. At best it's a different size round fired at different rates. One is less accurate, but fires faster.

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?

What actually separates an M16 from an M4 is fairly minimal. Between the M16A2 and the M4 the two have literally 80% of their parts being compatible, which is a major factor in why the US adopted it as their replacement for said M16.

The only things that really distinguish the two are rate of fire (or, rather, that the M16 has an almost mandatory 3-shot burst), and barrel size. It's a smaller difference, but the carbine can fit a smaller under-slung grenade launcher to it.

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.

It's incredibly impractical. The US armed forces don't even use it as a standard issue weapon, and for a number of reasons the weapon in itself is more of a status symbol than anything else. The caliber of round is completely unnecessary, especially given the recoil. It's secretly a pistol that wants to be a rifle.

Beyond that it's prone to jamming.

The clip size is fairly irrelevant- really if you need more bullets for a pistol you're either not putting the bullets where they need to be, or you're just not using the right tool for the right job. What's comical is that at higher calibers you're liable to sprain your wrist before you even finish the magazine.

Oh. And it's magazine by the way. Guns that are clip fed are actually fairly unusual, and they're almost always rifles, not pistols.

 

[GundamSentinel]

Ah, another excellent review. Though I'm not much of a gun nut I always enjoy reading about the reality of firearms. Thanks!

 

[Marine Mike]

What actually separates an M16 from an M4 is fairly minimal. Between the M16A2 and the M4 the two have literally 80% of their parts being compatible, which is a major factor in why the US adopted it as their replacement for said M16.

The only things that really distinguish the two are rate of fire (or, rather, that the M16 has an almost mandatory 3-shot burst), and barrel size. It's a smaller difference, but the carbine can fit a smaller under-slung grenade launcher to it.

There is absolutely nothing mandatory about the M16's burst selection. Also, the M4 that I was issued had only semi-automatic and burst selection as well. There are fully automatic variants of the M4, primarily in use by special forces. Also, only the US Army decided (leave it to the Army for terrible decisions like this) that the M4 should replace the M16 as the standard service rifle. During my time in the Marines our standard rifle was still the M16, with the M4 being issued to officers and weapon crews like a carbine is supposed to be. The same M203 grenade launchers fit to both the M16 and the M4. To answer the original question, the difference between the M4 and M16 comes down to the buffer rod, spring, and length of the barrel.

 

[acosn]

What actually separates an M16 from an M4 is fairly minimal. Between the M16A2 and the M4 the two have literally 80% of their parts being compatible, which is a major factor in why the US adopted it as their replacement for said M16.

The only things that really distinguish the two are rate of fire (or, rather, that the M16 has an almost mandatory 3-shot burst), and barrel size. It's a smaller difference, but the carbine can fit a smaller under-slung grenade launcher to it.

There is absolutely nothing mandatory about the M16's burst selection. Also, the M4 that I was issued had only semi-automatic and burst selection as well. There are fully automatic variants of the M4, primarily in use by special forces. Also, only the US Army decided (leave it to the Army for terrible decisions like this) that the M4 should replace the M16 as the standard service rifle. During my time in the Marines our standard rifle was still the M16, with the M4 being issued to officers and weapon crews like a carbine is supposed to be. The same M203 grenade launchers fit to both the M16 and the M4. To answer the original question, the difference between the M4 and M16 comes down to the buffer rod, spring, and length of the barrel.

Not that it really matters, but the grenade launcher fitted to an M16 is larger than on an M4. Or so Wikipedia says.

And I could have sworn that the US army got sick and tired of people wasting ammo, which lead them to at least highly suggesting that people at least rely on the 3-shot burst to maintain accuracy without overly compromising the rate of fire. I'm probably wrong on that part though.


Why they'd have the M4 become the standard rifle is beyond me as well, but I'd imagine it's got something to do with some well-connected senator who's buddy owns a factory that makes the things more than anything else.

I know that the air force keeps getting these mega transport planes from Boeing even though they said they don't need any more a long time ago for that exact reason.

 

[Retardinator]

What actually separates an M16 from an M4 is fairly minimal. Between the M16A2 and the M4 the two have literally 80% of their parts being compatible, which is a major factor in why the US adopted it as their replacement for said M16.

The only things that really distinguish the two are rate of fire (or, rather, that the M16 has an almost mandatory 3-shot burst), and barrel size. It's a smaller difference, but the carbine can fit a smaller under-slung grenade launcher to it.

I've also seen that the M4 has a collapsible stock, while the M16 has a fixed one. I'm wondering if this applies to all manufactured rifles, as I'm usually having a hard time visually distinguishing the two right away.

 

[acosn]

I've also seen that the M4 has a collapsible stock, while the M16 has a fixed one. I'm wondering if this applies to all manufactured rifles, as I'm usually having a hard time visually distinguishing the two right away.

Depends purely on the model. Sometimes they can collapse. Sometimes they won't. Yet again it plays into portability.

 

[mb16]

i play arma2 which is a military simulator and i have always liked the M4 but now i am starting to prefer the SCAR-H (its technically a battle rifle) due to its good stopping power and range.

 

[Marine Mike]

What actually separates an M16 from an M4 is fairly minimal. Between the M16A2 and the M4 the two have literally 80% of their parts being compatible, which is a major factor in why the US adopted it as their replacement for said M16.

The only things that really distinguish the two are rate of fire (or, rather, that the M16 has an almost mandatory 3-shot burst), and barrel size. It's a smaller difference, but the carbine can fit a smaller under-slung grenade launcher to it.

There is absolutely nothing mandatory about the M16's burst selection. Also, the M4 that I was issued had only semi-automatic and burst selection as well. There are fully automatic variants of the M4, primarily in use by special forces. Also, only the US Army decided (leave it to the Army for terrible decisions like this) that the M4 should replace the M16 as the standard service rifle. During my time in the Marines our standard rifle was still the M16, with the M4 being issued to officers and weapon crews like a carbine is supposed to be. The same M203 grenade launchers fit to both the M16 and the M4. To answer the original question, the difference between the M4 and M16 comes down to the buffer rod, spring, and length of the barrel.

Not that it really matters, but the grenade launcher fitted to an M16 is larger than on an M4. Or so Wikipedia says.

And I could have sworn that the US army got sick and tired of people wasting ammo, which lead them to at least highly suggesting that people at least rely on the 3-shot burst to maintain accuracy without overly compromising the rate of fire. I'm probably wrong on that part though.


Why they'd have the M4 become the standard rifle is beyond me as well, but I'd imagine it's got something to do with some well-connected senator who's buddy owns a factory that makes the things more than anything else.

I know that the air force keeps getting these mega transport planes from Boeing even though they said they don't need any more a long time ago for that exact reason.

There is a short-barreled version of the M203 that is designed specifically for the M4, but the standard M4 is compatible with both the M16 and M4 variants. Like I said before, both the M16 and M4 models I am familiar with are semi-auto and 3-round burst capable only, neither is fully automatic (I also said that there are fully automatic versions of the M4, mostly for special forces). The US Military trains us to use our weapons with single, well-placed shots. From personal experience, the 3-round burst option is fairly ineffective if you are hoping to reliably score more than one hit on target. My opinion: leave the suppression to the SAW gunner, and leave your weapon on semi. On semi-automatic you still maintain a rate of fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, except you maintain control and fire more efficiently.

Also, the standard issue M4 that I am familiar with has a collapsible stock, while the M16 has the full size composite stock. Although, the stock is one of the customizable parts and can be changed to suit your personal needs in both the M4 and M16.

 

[Valkyrie101]

What actually separates an M16 from an M4 is fairly minimal. Between the M16A2 and the M4 the two have literally 80% of their parts being compatible, which is a major factor in why the US adopted it as their replacement for said M16.

The only things that really distinguish the two are rate of fire (or, rather, that the M16 has an almost mandatory 3-shot burst), and barrel size. It's a smaller difference, but the carbine can fit a smaller under-slung grenade launcher to it.

There is absolutely nothing mandatory about the M16's burst selection. Also, the M4 that I was issued had only semi-automatic and burst selection as well. There are fully automatic variants of the M4, primarily in use by special forces. Also, only the US Army decided (leave it to the Army for terrible decisions like this) that the M4 should replace the M16 as the standard service rifle. During my time in the Marines our standard rifle was still the M16, with the M4 being issued to officers and weapon crews like a carbine is supposed to be. The same M203 grenade launchers fit to both the M16 and the M4. To answer the original question, the difference between the M4 and M16 comes down to the buffer rod, spring, and length of the barrel.

Now I can understand weapon/vehicle crews, but why are officers issued carbines?

 

[Marine Mike]

What actually separates an M16 from an M4 is fairly minimal. Between the M16A2 and the M4 the two have literally 80% of their parts being compatible, which is a major factor in why the US adopted it as their replacement for said M16.

The only things that really distinguish the two are rate of fire (or, rather, that the M16 has an almost mandatory 3-shot burst), and barrel size. It's a smaller difference, but the carbine can fit a smaller under-slung grenade launcher to it.

There is absolutely nothing mandatory about the M16's burst selection. Also, the M4 that I was issued had only semi-automatic and burst selection as well. There are fully automatic variants of the M4, primarily in use by special forces. Also, only the US Army decided (leave it to the Army for terrible decisions like this) that the M4 should replace the M16 as the standard service rifle. During my time in the Marines our standard rifle was still the M16, with the M4 being issued to officers and weapon crews like a carbine is supposed to be. The same M203 grenade launchers fit to both the M16 and the M4. To answer the original question, the difference between the M4 and M16 comes down to the buffer rod, spring, and length of the barrel.

Now I can understand weapon/vehicle crews, but why are officers issued carbines?

Officers are typically found issuing orders, talking on the radio, consulting maps, or conversing with locals or squad leaders. So it makes sense that they carry a more maneuverable weapon, so they typically carry an M4 carbine and an M9 Beretta.

 

[GRoXERs]

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.

Also, battle rifles tend to fire heavyer, larger rounds,(I think) and with the switch from open to confiened space warfare, a larger bullet could overpenetrate, or have the same damage as a smaller round, but in more recoil. (Also, (this is a crazy idea, I think), but wouldn't a .22LR Sub-Machine Gun be just as effective as a carbine in urban warfare and close quarter battles due to the fact that it would have low recoil and impact, but a high rate of fire and ammo capacity? (Just thinking here)

A .22LR weapon would become ineffective beyond about 15-20 meters, and also lacks the ability to defeat armor of any variety. While the rate of fire and ammo capacity would lend itself well to urban warfare, you have to consider the range of... ranges... that urban combat involves. You need a weapon that is effective inside a building, but you also need that same weapon to be useful if you were on that building's roof engaging targets several buildings over.

I think you and I are using different .22LR rounds. True, it'd be completely ineffective against body armor at any range, but within about 150 m the penetration is still plenty to kill or incapacitate squishy targets (We used to have a coyote problem where I live. The howling bastards ate my cat. We don't have a coyote problem anymore.). I agree, though, that a .22 submachine gun wouldn't be very practical, or even particularly safe. Generally, rimfire rounds are a VERY poor choice for a fully automatic weapon, and .22LR short-barreled weapons aren't hugely accurate.

 

[Marine Mike]

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.

Also, battle rifles tend to fire heavyer, larger rounds,(I think) and with the switch from open to confiened space warfare, a larger bullet could overpenetrate, or have the same damage as a smaller round, but in more recoil. (Also, (this is a crazy idea, I think), but wouldn't a .22LR Sub-Machine Gun be just as effective as a carbine in urban warfare and close quarter battles due to the fact that it would have low recoil and impact, but a high rate of fire and ammo capacity? (Just thinking here)

A .22LR weapon would become ineffective beyond about 15-20 meters, and also lacks the ability to defeat armor of any variety. While the rate of fire and ammo capacity would lend itself well to urban warfare, you have to consider the range of... ranges... that urban combat involves. You need a weapon that is effective inside a building, but you also need that same weapon to be useful if you were on that building's roof engaging targets several buildings over.

I think you and I are using different .22LR rounds. True, it'd be completely ineffective against body armor at any range, but within about 150 m the penetration is still plenty to kill or incapacitate squishy targets (We used to have a coyote problem where I live. The howling bastards ate my cat. We don't have a coyote problem anymore.). I agree, though, that a .22 submachine gun wouldn't be very practical, or even particularly safe. Generally, rimfire rounds are a VERY poor choice for a fully automatic weapon, and .22LR short-barreled weapons aren't hugely accurate.

The accuracy part of a .22LR SMG is what I think would make it unreliable beyond 20 meters. I'm sure that a well-placed round from a .22 rifle could injure or otherwise incapacitate an unarmored target at those ranges, but when you add fully-automatic and shorter barrel length to the equation the effective range will suffer dramatically.

 

[WolfThomas]

Oh. And it's magazine by the way. Guns that are clip fed are actually fairly unusual, and they're almost always rifles, not pistols.

This is one of my pet peeves. I was watching the second episode of The Walking Dead, the main character who is a sheriff, says he's "got a beretta with 15 in the clip". I groaned, it would have been acceptable for any other character, but as a cop he should have known better.

 

[Souplex]

So if you could give it a number on the Reese's/Spork scale, where would you put it?

 

[electric method]

As an aside to this topic. I don't think I saw training listed in regards to a weapons accuracy. This, probably more than any other factor,can and will decide a paticular weapons accuracy.

For instructional purposes only, let's assume that two people are both firing the M16A2. Both are firing exactly the same make of ammunition. Both firing from the same position and distance, let's say prone at 200 yards. Both weapons have been BZO'ed at 200 yards. If both shooters have the same training, then they both should be equally accurate. However, if that is not the case whomever has more training will be accurate.

Further, training allows one to know when to switch between firing modes of the weapon. As an example there are specific times that burst fire is superior to semi-automatic well aimed shots and vice versa. The same applies to knowing when a paticular weapon fits the bill.
Or, which type of ammo is needed to get the job done. Training is the key to all of that.

It never fails to amaze me that people will choose SMG's in FPS and then use them as precision weapons. Or that game designers allow things of that nature to occur.

By the by, Happy 235th Birthday to the U.S. Marine Corps, Semper Fi!

 

[Carrotslayer]

Keep up the good work.

However, I think your missing one detail when it comes to this review: Reliability.
You talked about size, caliber and the M4 ability to fill different rolles. But is the M4 a weapon that is prone to jaming? Is it a good design or does it have any design flaws? Does it work well in different climates? Like sand, water and such.

Oh yeah, and this: