Jump to content

Photo

Can we start using the M16A4?



  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1
SPC G.Hernandez

SPC G.Hernandez

    Specialist

  • 3rd Infantry Division
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts

How come we aren't allowed to use the M16A4s? It's really just the M4's "bigger brother". We've use them through BCT & AIT during the marksman training and qualify for the M16, but I've never seen a M16A4 since training. I'd just like to add a little bit more variety in the battlefield and not only see a M4A1/M240 (or '49 I don't really know what ARs use) and rarely the Mk11. JUST LOOK HOW BADASS IT LOOKS!m16a4_l2.jpg


  • PV2 A.Wolfstein likes this

#2
CPL H.Giordano

CPL H.Giordano

    Corporal

  • 3rd Infantry Division
  • PipPipPip
  • 41 posts

I know when i was in a weapons squad, Our javelin gunners used M16A4's due to the longer ranges we usually engage at. Im not sure how practical this would be for normal squads due to the burst, but i'm sure that isnt much of a barrier to get over.


H.Giordano.jpg


#3
SGT M.Murakami

SGT M.Murakami

    Sergeant

  • 3rd Infantry Division
  • PipPipPip
  • 169 posts
  • LocationFt Wainwright, Alaska

Donator

oh no... For real though we phased those out for the M4 because of our current Mission taskings, the m16 and m4 have the same accuracy at pretty much the same range, (IRL i think the m16 has 100 more meters in point target?) Regardless the only dudes who still have M16s are the Marines and some random non combat arms units. There are little to no benefits to using the m16 besides having a whole bunch of dudes running around with different weapons


  • WO1 S.Retch likes this

Posted Image


#4
SPC G.Hernandez

SPC G.Hernandez

    Specialist

  • 3rd Infantry Division
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts

I'd just prefer it over the M4 even though the stats are nearly identical. It's a nice, good lookin' rifle that we should be able to choose if we use it on the training course. If the stats ARE the same, then what's wrong with being able to use a different looking rifle? I feel it would be a little more interesting seeing the 3rdID using the weaponry used in the U.S Army. 



#5
WO1 S.Retch

WO1 S.Retch

    Warrant Officer 1

  • 3rd Infantry Division
  • PipPipPip
  • 267 posts
  • LocationDüsseldorf - NRW

 

of the carbine's lighter weight, compact length, and ability to address modern combat situations that happen mostly within close quarters (Wiki)

Simple as that, yes it looks nice but looking at the technical side of it it's simply to bulky.


S.Retch.jpg


#6
PV2 M.Frannis

PV2 M.Frannis

    Private Second Class

  • 3rd Infantry Division
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • LocationGreece / GR / Athens

I would agree. We need more variety just like the US army has exactly that variety. And I believe we are called "realism unit", is that correct? xD



#7
CPL M.Benitez

CPL M.Benitez

    Corporal

  • 3rd Infantry Division
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts

Donator

The "musket" as we nickname it was phased out of line units years ago in favor of the more maneuverable M4/M4A1. The capabilities are essentially identical, particularly due to better tech and bullets that were designed for use out of the M4 barrel. The only M16 variants in use by line units up to date on their MToE are Squad Designated Marksman variants with a heavier barrel and other accessories. 

Anyone who has used an M4 will probably agree with the sentiment that getting issued M16 is a let down. The telescoping stock, much shorter barrel, and sling attachments points are 3 reasons enough why to never field the old rifle in a rifleman capacity again.


Posted Image


#8
SGT M.Murakami

SGT M.Murakami

    Sergeant

  • 3rd Infantry Division
  • PipPipPip
  • 169 posts
  • LocationFt Wainwright, Alaska

Donator

I'd just prefer it over the M4 even though the stats are nearly identical. It's a nice, good lookin' rifle that we should be able to choose if we use it on the training course. If the stats ARE the same, then what's wrong with being able to use a different looking rifle? I feel it would be a little more interesting seeing the 3rdID using the weaponry used in the U.S Army. 

 

 

I would agree. We need more variety just like the US army has exactly that variety. And I believe we are called "realism unit", is that correct? xD

 

 

Because the M16 is phased out, meaning we do not use it as our combat arms rifle. You will see our DMR dudes carrying Sr25s and our MGs carrying 240s/249 based on MOS but you will never see M16s unless you are like BSB or some shit. Even in buttfuck Alaska we all have M4s. It would actually be unrealistic for us to be running around with different weapons. If you wanted to replicate realism all of you guys running around with 152s and 148s wouldn't be allowed to and only TL and above would have them.


  • CPL M.Benitez likes this

Posted Image


#9
CPL M.Benitez

CPL M.Benitez

    Corporal

  • 3rd Infantry Division
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts

Donator

Because the M16 is phased out, meaning we do not use it as our combat arms rifle. You will see our DMR dudes carrying Sr25s and our MGs carrying 240s/249 based on MOS but you will never see M16s unless you are like BSB or some shit. Even in buttfuck Alaska we all have M4s. It would actually be unrealistic for us to be running around with different weapons. If you wanted to replicate realism all of you guys running around with 152s and 148s wouldn't be allowed to and only TL and above would have them.

 

#SGT M.Murakami

The radios are actually being phased out in the ArmA unit to match reality. TLs and up will have the PRC-152s, and the joes will carry single channel, 2/3km rifleman radios.


Posted Image


#10
SGT M.Murakami

SGT M.Murakami

    Sergeant

  • 3rd Infantry Division
  • PipPipPip
  • 169 posts
  • LocationFt Wainwright, Alaska

Donator

noice. My scouts will still be utilizing the 152s and 119s though because of the nature of our job


Posted Image


#11
WO1 J.Lex

WO1 J.Lex

    Warrant Officer 1

  • 3rd Infantry Division
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts

Regardless of the quality and capabilities of the M4 or M16, units deploy with one or the other. A unit that deploys with M4's will deploy with 100% M4's for the personnel assigned such a weapon in the MTOE. 

 

There are exceptions to this rule such as M16 DMR's, and Battalion/Brigade staff. Those are based on "role" rather than "the rule of cool".

 

There is a difference in performance between the two. Particularly in the round's trajectory and vertical spread. It can be noted at 25m (in the zeroing targets), and it is very noticeable beyond 200m. The M4 round peaks earlier so you have to aim lower beyond 150m and hitting anything beyond 250m consistently requires a bit of divine intervention.  :D

 

I switched back and forth several times as I moved to different positions and I always felt more confident with the Old M16 in terms of accuracy. I'll admit that for motorized units and urban environments the M4 is a better fit. I'd rarely take a shot at anything smaller than the width of the front post (or the dot) with the M4 though. 


Posted Image


#12
CPL M.Benitez

CPL M.Benitez

    Corporal

  • 3rd Infantry Division
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts

Donator

Instead of a suggestion thread for command staff, this should just be a question for SL/CoC requesting permission to use an M16 instead of the M4.


  • SPC D.Polen likes this

Posted Image


#13
SGT J.Millner

SGT J.Millner

    Sergeant

  • 3rd Infantry Division
  • PipPipPip
  • 536 posts
  • LocationWisconsin Rapids

Instead of a suggestion thread for command staff, this should just be a question for SL/CoC requesting permission to use an M16 instead of the M4.

No it would be a CStaff Decision because it Deals with the SOP created by them.


  • PV2 J.Lancaster likes this

Posted Image


#14
CPL M.Benitez

CPL M.Benitez

    Corporal

  • 3rd Infantry Division
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts

Donator

#SGT J.Millner from my observation, SOPs are more of a suggestion/guideline rather than a strict interpretation of what soldiers will carry.


  • SPC D.Polen likes this

Posted Image


#15
SGT J.Millner

SGT J.Millner

    Sergeant

  • 3rd Infantry Division
  • PipPipPip
  • 536 posts
  • LocationWisconsin Rapids

#SGT J.Millner from my observation, SOPs are more of a suggestion/guideline rather than a strict interpretation of what soldiers will carry.

Do you have access to a full arsenal during operations?


Posted Image


#16
CPL M.Benitez

CPL M.Benitez

    Corporal

  • 3rd Infantry Division
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts

Donator

#SGT J.Millner No, the arsenal boxes in 2PLT are typically restricted to one item per category and whatever is currently carried inside the uniforms/vests like magazines and grenades. Assuming they're even present.


Posted Image


#17
SGT J.Millner

SGT J.Millner

    Sergeant

  • 3rd Infantry Division
  • PipPipPip
  • 536 posts
  • LocationWisconsin Rapids

#SGT J.Millner No, the arsenal boxes in 2PLT are typically restricted to one item per category and whatever is currently carried inside the uniforms/vests like magazines and grenades. Assuming they're even present.

Exactly, Your SOP is restricted entirely. This is due to a C Staff decision that was made 6+ months ago. 


Posted Image


#18
CPL M.Benitez

CPL M.Benitez

    Corporal

  • 3rd Infantry Division
  • PipPipPip
  • 81 posts

Donator

#SGT J.Millner yet Soldiers run with kit not on the SOP list. Examples include the M16, despite the fact that no official loadout has it assigned and only 4 in the entire unit have it on their personnel file. Other examples are SL/TLs carrying AT weapons, changing modifying loadouts for more magazines and grenades, swapping out the 100 round bag for a 200 round bag for the SAW, and having TLs use the M320 instead of the M203. We are not SOP restricted entirely.


Posted Image


#19
1LT D.Lipnitz

1LT D.Lipnitz

    First Lieutenant

  • Command Staff
  • 711 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey

Donator

Your suggestion was heard and your opinions are stated. 

Alpha Co staff will review this and will provide you a decision once they made one.


D.Lipnitz.jpg






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Pending

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users