M4A1 Carbine vs M16A2 Assault Rifle game mechanics

[Mahatatain]

I had an interesting query from one of my players last night - his character is armed with a M4A1 carbine and he pointed out that (apart from the higher ROF) it seems to be a much poorer weapon than an M16A2. Now he's focussing on the Range increment and the way the game mechanics works with range but his point was that if the American forces have seen fit to convert most of their units from the M16 platform to the M4 platform then that seems to be contrary to what most roleplayers would do and is therefore a challenge to the rules.

Does he have a point here? Is the range increment for the various M4 Carbines too low and it should be much closer to the M16's range increment?

Opinions please.

Thanks.

[Tegyrius]

Roleplaying games are not accurate reflections of real-world performance. In dealing with firearms, game engines tend to focus on simplified models of external and terminal ballistics, often to the exclusion of all other considerations. They very rarely consider factors that drive weapon design and adoption but can't readily be operationalized into damage dice and squares of range.

In the case of the M4 versus the M16, the carbine's major advantages are lower weight, shorter overall length and its benefit to maneuverability, and the collapsible stock's ability to adjust length of pull for individual user dimensions (with or without body armor). Of those factors, the only one most gamers will examine is the weight reduction, and then only if the GM is being a hard-ass about encumbrance. The trade-off is reduced muzzle velocity and a shorter iron sight radius, which translate in game terms to reductions in damage, penetration, and range increment - all factors which are of concern to many gamers. Thus, the game engine "favors" the M16, while considerations outside the game engine's ability to model may tell a different story for the real world.

(The 93GS design team tried to address this in 2013's Reflex System. This is why Bulk and Speed play a greater role in that combat engine. In Reflex, an M4 may be a better choice than an M16 for closer engagement ranges because of its relatively quicker attack speed.)

- C.

[Raellus]

If I understand correctly, the M16A2 has a slightly greater effective range because of the longer barrel. In terms of game rules, a GM could adjust range and armor penetration accordingly. This is a an arbitrary (and perhaps innaccurate) example, but a GM could make weapon performance for the M4 and M16A2 equal at 100m and less. Over 100m, the M16A2 could receive slight range, damage, and armor penetration bumps.

The army's decision to replace the M16A2 with the M4 in combat units is that the modern battlefield (i.e. MOUT/CQB) is a lot smaller than it used to be when battles were fought across open fields. It's only taken most militaries a century to adjust to the increasing urbanization of the battlefield. The M4 is also easier for mechanized and airmobile troops (pretty much all combat troops, nowadays) to use because of its more compact size. As a GM, you could give innitiative bonuses to PCs using shorter weapons when conducting CQB operations.

[HorseSoldier]

For what it is worth, in the real world and using modern optics, I don't see much difference between the M16A2 and M4A1 in terms of ability to make hits. I used to shoot a lot on unknown distance ranges and with an M4A1 and ACOG, the bigger limiter on repeatable hits was ammunition (M855 green tip being significantly less capable of making shots past 400 meters or so than Mk 262 match grade ammunition).

[The Rifleman]

Well, how far do we want to go "into the weeds" with this, thats the real question. Lets look at the difference between an M16A1 and M16A2. The A1 has a much lighter barrel. Its easier to shoot while standing, however, the heavier barreled A2 doesn't get hot as easy. So we need to give a bonus to a player using an A1 when shooting standing, but limit his ROF due to over-heating?

The differences between the M4 and M16 have more to do with the shooter than the weapon. Vintage M16s don't have optics, hence the M4 shooters are doing equally well. I shoot my M4 with just the plain old iron sights and my shooting equals youngsters with EOTECHs and ACOGs. If you were to take those devices away, they would probably initally shoot more poorly, but as they learned, they probably would come close to matching their capabilities. Just my opinion, but for a seasoned shooter, optics are only a partial edge, unless you are talking about shooting at 300 meters or further. At that range, you need the assistance aquiring the target. So lets discuss that.

I shot comptetively with an M16A2. At 400 meters, using iron sights only, I was able to consistantly get a very tight group. Under combat conditions, I do not think that I could do that, but that's me, the shooter, not the rifle.

With an M4 using iron sights, I am not quite able to get the same group at 300 meters, despite my best efforts and competitive nature. With current technology, its impossible to reduce the barrel length by about 1/3 and expect the same performace. However, that 5.5" shorter barrel and reduced sized stock make it faster into/out of vehicles.

Going back to my A1/A2 example, some call me crazy, but I noticed that the shorter stock on the A1 also makes it easier for me to shoot. Two people could walk up to the exact same rifle and get different results. A DM could handle this a number of ways:

-Track small arms ability by type of weapon by each player
-give players certain bonus when shooting a specific PERSONAL weapon (as it is not only zeroed for that player, but also because of a familiarity with that type of weapon)
- tweak the weapons stats instead of the player stats. For example, remove weight for this weapon, or add range to that one.

[Mahatatain]

Thank you for all your information, insights and suggestions. Very useful and I've worked out how to proceed.