M16 and M4

Not having fired the M4, I can't speak for it, but I would expect it to be fairly close to the family it evolved from. I have fired the M16, M16A1, and M16A2 and found them very accurate in the hands of a competent marksman. I've hit plenty of bullseyes at 500 meters and without a scope - just the Mark I Eyeball.
 
Just wondering how will XM-8 compare to M16 with its nifty 12.5" barrel :?
a farewell to those 500 meter bullseyes when/if xm-8 enters service.
 
a farewell to those 500 meter bullseyes when/if xm-8 enters service
Click to expand...

It's a different world. The new weapons reflect that. More urban fighting and less in large open fields of fire, however, farewell? You think we don't still have snipers? :sniper:
 
"You think we don't still have snipers?"

Of course you'll still have snipers :) but I meant that standard XM-8 with 12.5" barrel its even shorter than in M-4. The M16 and M4 rifles are good right? So if it ain't broken why fix it surely your troops could have something more practical with that money that's going to be spent :D
 
Most engagements even in the past often occured within 200 meters. Basically you don't need a rifle that can hit a coke cap at 1000 meters issued to every solider. You just need something that's easy to handle, light to carry and will still pack a sufficient punch.
Who knows. The slightly less accurate XM-8 might even unintentionally fix the whole "bullet gliding through the target" problem.
 
I would rather have spent the $$$ on rolling out a new calibre...but that's just me. From what I've done, seen and experienced (shot M16 a couple times) the design shouldn't be changed. I still say they should just have issue new uppers, rechambered to 6mm-223 and added good combat optics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top