M-16, M-4 family: fish or cut bait?

Question

FOR AMERICAN COMBAT VETERANS ONLY:

So I have heard many good things and bad things about the M-16 weapons family:

Good:
Light
Easier to maintain
Smaller caliber = more ammunition
High rate of fire

Bad:
Jamming problems
Lack of stopping power
Lack of penetration
Relatively fragile contruction

What I am basically asking is that, in a firefight on the streets of an Iraqi city, would you rather have your "trusty" M-16, M-4, M-249, (5.56mm) or would you rather have something bigger, like an M-14 or M-240 (7.62mm). Sure its a heavier weapon, and you can carry less ammunition, but is it worth the weight?

Answer 1

I've been assigned, at various times, the M16A2, M4, M249, M14, M240B, M2, and M9. Of these, the only ones I never carried in a time of war are the M16A2 and M9.

The M249 is total, unmitigated garbage. If you want catastrophic failure to hit you (to the point where you have to kick the charging handle to dislodge the bolt) then go for it. I've heard of M249 barrels from my sister Battalion launching out the weapon and slamming into targets on the range at 50m out. It is a piece of hopeless junk.

You asked about the M16 or M4. I don't agree with your "Good" and "Bad" assessments, but these are reasons too detailed for an answer here. Suffice to say that I would rather have an M14. I know it won't jam, I still have a good rate of fire, "reach out and whack you" distance out to 800m easy under optimal conditions, and the ability to punch through car doors and minor obstacles with ease under 200m. Sure, if I'm clearing rooms, the length is a bit problematic, but I can still clear rooms (especially with a SAGE stock). I can't clear rooms with a M240B. Have you ever handled one of those?

Mind you, I know I'm taking at least a 30-40% cut in ammunition from switching to an M14 from an M16 or M4, but that's what your squaddies are for. MOUT typically burns 5-10 times more ammunition that other forms of combat (suppressive fire is VERY important) so you just have to be cognizant of where your friends with the belt-fed weapons are, so you can support them with precision fires.

If I never have to clean another filthy gas tube, filthy star chamber, and filthy bolt on an M16 or M4 again, somehow I don't feel I'll miss that very much at all.

Answer 2

Let me try and answer your question: First I have to disagree with the bad about the M-4........the only weapon I used in combat. As long as you keep it clean it does not jam, feel free to stand within 300 meters of me and if I shoot you I bet you go down.......for good, why do I need to tear up a building when I can call in artillery on it if necessary, remember I am not trying to kill the infrastructure, just the people in it, and as far as being fragile, if you take care of it just like any weapon it won't break. Next, in an infantry squad you will wind up probably with both the SAW and the M240 being carried by someone as well as an M203 attached to the M-4. It depends on your job assignment as to which weapon you carry. Once again people(you have heard), rumor control, in addition overall the M-4 is a great weapon. I am sure there are instances where it did not function properly but about 99 percent of that can be brought back to the soldier not maintaining his weapon. I would recommend you stop listening to those individuals who don't know. Even if they have been in combat(IRAQ/AFGHANISTAN), how many did you hear from......10-20, not a good representation of the truth at all. Did you talk to truck drivers or infantrymen/scouts on the ground? Enough said, all weapons have their benefits, light and heavy.

Answer 3

That would depend on the tactical situation at the time, but you can't go into combat like Duke Nukle Em carrying 16 different weapons. Too much weight and ammo concerns.
I always preffered a 7.62 NATO weapon, despite the ammo weight.
Having said that, we're issued an M-16 derivative, so you make do.

Answer 4

Not a combat veteran and I wont pretend to be, but from military tests it shows the m-16 5.56 mm does not have the penetration it needs to clear most buildings, especially from an angle into brick and concetrete it typically wont penetrate. Not a very good caliber for urban combat in my opinion. I would reccomend the larger calibers because it will go through buildings better and the larger round will create larger wound cavities which have a higher chance of killing/ disabling your enemy.

Answer 5

There is no problem with penetration of the M-16. I heard of a suicide in Israel with an M-16. The bullet went through this guy's head, though an interior wall and then through a solid stone exterior wall.

The main reason for the lack of stopping power is that hollow points are banned by international law. Armor piercing ammo prevents the bullet from mushrooming.

One of the complaints that isn't comming out of the fighting is the jamming problems even though they are in sand and even marshes.

Answer 6

I would rather have a M-4 its better for close combat and is a moderate 5.56 NATO round. The AK-47 are heavier and have a 7.62 round.

Answer 7

I would rather use an AK. It has more stopping power, less jamming, and they have a lot in the middle east!!!