Alright; M-16 or M-4 veterans only please, i wanna know what they think?

Question

My Uncle just got back from Iraq and has gone on and on about wanting to buy an AR-15, but i've constantly heard good things about the M-4

Answer 1

The M-16 and the M-4 are basically the same weapon, the M-4 being a carbine, having a shorter barrel and stock. This allows for better control and quickness in CQB (close quarters battle, room clearing, etc.), while the M-16 offers greater range and accuracy.

The recoil on the M-16 and the M-4 is almost nil, and allow you to come back on target fairly quick. The recoil spring in the M-16 is almost 18" long, and absorbs the bolt carrier very well.

As far as one being better than the other, that is determined solely by the mission. A regular infantry unit would carry M-16's, while a unit going into an urban combat situation would carry M-4's.

Answer 2

I'm a vet, but never used the M-4. The m-4 was a good weapon, but was "outdated" In reality, this usually means that someone needed $ to get votes in his constituency. The original M-16 was an unreliable, fragile weapon that usually ended up as fatal to the soldier carrying it as it was to the enemy. Even the modern (m-16 a2) is suceptable to dirt, dust jamming. (depending on the Ak-47's country of manufacture)The ak-47 was more accurate, and simple a weapon. The M-4 was more accurate, and had a longer range. The major handicap for the m-4 was it's weight.. Being a much heavier weapon, with higher caliber ammunition. Subsequently, it's more expensive, and less manageable in the field. Other than that, I dunno WHY they went with it.

Answer 3

They are completely different guns, the m4 has full auto capibility while the m16 has three round burst capibility. The m16 is a full sized rifle designed for long range combat, while the m4 is designed for medium/CQB combat, and has a colapsable stock so it doesn't interfere with movement in a building or confined area. As far as the m4, it is more suited to a confined conflict such as Iraq, in which marines may need to fire from a vehical, or storm a building. The m16 was really more of a weapon to fight the U.S.S.R. in an open battlefield, conventional warfare. Here's the enemy, kill them.

Answer 4

Well i liked my M16 better than my M4. But in the end i would always have a special place in my heart for the M249.

But if i had to pick on i would go with the M4. It has far more bells and whistles than the M16 ever did. I just would miss the good old butt stroke to the head action that the 249 and the 16 gave.

Answer 5

I don't think black Sabbath has any clue what he is talking about

I am all about the M-4, smaller and lighter with the same range and firepower.

In Iraq I had an M-4 with a M203 as well as a M-9 sidearm.

I would not have wanted anything else.

Answer 6

Veteran of OIF2, for close-quarter everyday tasks, I'd go with M4. M16 is now nicknamed the "Musket". With all the bells and whistles of sights and sensors, M4 is the most capatable. Also as a tanker M4's fit a lot better in the turret

Answer 7

I have to go old school with the M16A1. It has the best of both worlds -- full automatic fire AND its big enough incase an unfriendly needs a butt stroke to the head.

All I can say about the M4 is that they are soooooo cute when they are that size....

Answer 8

M-16 kicks way more *** than the M-4.... but I'm not a veteran so my answer doesn't count.

Answer 9

As you have probably gathered from previous answers, it really depends on the situation you might be in and in some cases just personal preference.

Each has its good points depending where you are and what you expect to encounter.

Answer 10

illegal to have