Marine brass endorse infantry plan to ditch M16 for the M4

[HCM]

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/stor...--m4/30145257/

This, or at least an A5 collapsible stock system on the M16 are long overdue.

Hopefully they will authorize a collapsible stock for the support troops who will continue to use the M16.

[breakingtime91]

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/stor...--m4/30145257/

This, or at least an A5 collapsible stock system on the M16 are long overdue.

Hopefully they will authorize a collapsible stock for the support troops who will continue to use the M16.

Finally. Always pissed me off to see our support troops with M4's while straight leg dudes were running around with a musket of an m16. This seems like a dick thing to say but most support troops would be fine with a A2 and the money saved should be put into ammo/training for grunts.

[HCM]

I'm a fairly large dude, 6'2" and I've always found the A2 stock too long, even without body armor. Agreed on the A2/A4 but given there are several COTS collapsible stock options including the VLTOR A5 and the Canadian C7 the A2 stock needs to go, even on the muskets.

[Paul]

Finally. Always pissed me off to see our support troops with M4's while straight leg dudes were running around with a musket of an m16. This seems like a dick thing to say but most support troops would be fine with a A2 and the money saved should be put into ammo/training for grunts.

I got to disagree with that, being a POG I can tell you that I was still fair game, and that it makes a lot of sense for enemy forces to attack soft rear echelon and support troops, than try to get in a head on-balls out gun fight with an infantry unit.

When I was in, the the rumors floating around on the adoption of the A4 were that the drill field and the KD range, not the infantry got the final say on the adoption of the service rifle. Something along the lines that it would have been too hard to rewrite the drill manual for a collapsible stock, and the the 14.5" barrel didn't fit into the "traditional" model of the Marine marksman. 20 years too late is better than never, I guess.

[breakingtime91]

I got to disagree with that, being a POG I can tell you that I was still fair game, and that it makes a lot of sense for enemy forces to attack soft rear echelon and support troops, than try to get in a head on-balls out gun fight with an infantry unit.

When I was in, the the rumors floating around on the adoption of the A4 were that the drill field and the KD range, not the infantry got the final say on the adoption of the service rifle. Something along the lines that it would have been too hard to rewrite the drill manual for a collapsible stock, and the the 14.5" barrel didn't fit into the "traditional" model of the Marine marksman. 20 years too late is better than never, I guess.

Not sure what your situation was but I was refering to people that never leave the fob. The marine corps does things kind of backwards to me when it comes to that. With that said POGs and Grunts will never see eye to eye

[Chuck Haggard]

IMHO there is a place for the 20" gun, with a flat top upper and a collapsible stock.

[breakingtime91]

IMHO there is a place for the 20" gun, with a flat top upper and a collapsible stock.

Our DM's would take their lowers from the m4's and put it on their 20" suppressed upper. They did some good work with them in 2010..

[Kyle Reese]

Why wasn't this done in 2003/2004?

[Chuck Haggard]

The first 20" gun I saw with a collapsible stock was an M16a1 and that was in the 1970s.

[BehindBlueI's]

Why wasn't this done in 2003/2004?

Because military.