The "M-4" IS an M-16a2 carbine. Anyone that doesn't get that, and the fact that it is 50% LESS capable than its 20 inch predecessor is a moron. The 5.56 is about as small as a man killer can get and still work. 99.999% of everything written about its ability to nuke small city's and "Knock a man down at 800 meters" (Max Velocity blog) is just bullshit. In 1983 the official US Army published maximum effective range for the 20 inch M-16 was 250 yards. The Max effective range for the 14 inch M-4 carbine is LESS than half that. The M-4 was developed as a temporary replacement for the M-3 SMG ,meant as a PDW for AFV crews. The "M-4" is a cheap flimsy alloy and plastic M-16. Its not a "battle rifle". Its a worthless ass M-16. Only cheaper made and less effective. Always was Always will be.
I still find it incredibley ironic that the corrupt AFP goes to Remington to buy weapons when Armscor is perfectly capable of manufacturing them domestically. I have also observed models manufactured by other local companies that were nicer than my USGOV issue turds.
Philippines has the tech, there is no question of this as I regularly interact with Filipino manufacturers and engineers.
The problem is that AFP draws it's leadership and troops from a lower class of society that in the US would be referred to as the hood rat.
Unless they're using the new MK 262 or MK 318 rounds I can't see how an M4 is more powerful than an M16 and even then those rounds would probably be more effective being fired from an M16. With that said the M4 is a good, solid rifle for what they'll be using it for and probably is better liked by Filipino soldiers than the M16.
6 comments:
The new M4 is "lighter but more powerful" than the M16.
They shoot the same 5.56 NATO round. How are they more powerful?
The "M-4" IS an M-16a2 carbine. Anyone that doesn't get that, and the fact that it is 50% LESS capable than its 20 inch predecessor is a moron. The 5.56 is about as small as a man killer can get and still work. 99.999% of everything written about its ability to nuke small city's and "Knock a man down at 800 meters" (Max Velocity blog) is just bullshit. In 1983 the official US Army published maximum effective range for the 20 inch M-16 was 250 yards. The Max effective range for the 14 inch M-4 carbine is LESS than half that. The M-4 was developed as a temporary replacement for the M-3 SMG ,meant as a PDW for AFV crews. The "M-4" is a cheap flimsy alloy and plastic M-16. Its not a "battle rifle". Its a worthless ass M-16. Only cheaper made and less effective. Always was Always will be.
anon 7:26
I'd rather have the M3. those damned things work every time. simple blowback .45...nothing to go wrong.
No 5.56 rifle was ever more lethal that the 55gr M-193 out of the M-16's 20' 1/12"twist barrel, at 3250 fps.
It's done nothing but get worse since the M-16A1.
I still find it incredibley ironic that the corrupt AFP goes to Remington to buy weapons when Armscor is perfectly capable of manufacturing them domestically. I have also observed models manufactured by other local companies that were nicer than my USGOV issue turds.
Philippines has the tech, there is no question of this as I regularly interact with Filipino manufacturers and engineers.
The problem is that AFP draws it's leadership and troops from a lower class of society that in the US would be referred to as the hood rat.
Unless they're using the new MK 262 or MK 318 rounds I can't see how an M4 is more powerful than an M16 and even then those rounds would probably be more effective being fired from an M16. With that said the M4 is a good, solid rifle for what they'll be using it for and probably is better liked by Filipino soldiers than the M16.
Post a Comment