Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus
I thought it had to do with the Marine Corps' institutional emphasis on marksmanship. The M16A4 has a longer effective range than the M4.
It also has a nifty forward pistol grip and a flat-topped, picatinny compatible receiver for the mounting of optics.
I've read a couple of accounts of the Marines' battles in Fallujah and I have yet to come across any complaints about the longer M16A2-A4 in CQB scenarios.
From a pratical as well as an asthetic standpoint, I prefer the M16A4 to the M4 carbine.
|
This was the issue when I was in. As grunts we where pissed off as to the fact that the Corps was using drill as one of the reasons for not going to the M4 carbine. Drill is worthless and has nothing to do with fighting the good fight. The marksmenship view I can understand, but then again we did not train how we would fight at the qualifying range. We didn't wear a helmet or any other bullshit body armour. It was duece gear and a soft cover. Another reason, a general told a hand full of us once was that the carbine was found to be less reliable to the rifle. The Marines have this hard-on with trying to outshine everyone even when it's reasons are not the best of reasons. All the body armour is the real probelm with the full size rifles, it adds extra inches to your shoulder and makes shouldering it a bitch. Outside built up areas I would rather use a fullsize rifle, but nowdays those open ranges are rarer happenings then the close ones.