Marine brass endorses infantry plan to ditch M16 for M4. Long overdue?

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:34:01 -0400

Marine leaders have made the momentous recommendation to ditch the iconic M16 in favor of the M4 carbine as the new universal weapon for infantrymen.

The recommendation to swap the venerated rifle that has served as the grunt's primary implement of war since Vietnam now sits on the commandant's desk, pending his final review and a decision. But, the swap appears imminent and if approved will relegate the M16 to a support role. It follows a similar shift already underway in the Army.

With the endorsement of several major commands already supporting the switch — including Marine Corps Combat Development Command; Combat Development and Integration; Plans, Policies and Operations; Marine Corps Systems Command; and Installations and Logistics — final word is possible in weeks or months.

"The proposal to replace the M16A4 with the M4 within infantry battalions is currently under consideration at Headquarters Marine Corps," according to a jointly written response from the commands provided by Maj. Anton Semelroth, a Marine spokesman in Quantico, Virginia.

The change would be welcomed by infantrymen who say the M16A4 was too long and unwieldy for close-quarters battle in Iraq or vehicle-borne operations in Afghanistan. They tout the M4 for its weight savings, improved mobility and collapsible butt stock, allowing the rifle to be tailored for smaller Marines or those wearing body armor.

"I would have to say my gut reaction is it's the right choice and will do a lot of good for the guys in the infantry," said Sgt. Nathan West, an explosive ordnance technician with 8th Engineer Support Battalion, who carried an M4 on dismounted patrols and vehicle-borne operations during two deployments to Afghanistan as an anti-tank missileman.

"The M4 is a great weapons system that has done everything I have ever asked of it," he added.

The proposed switch also gets the thumbs up from senior marksmen such as the 1st Marine Division gunner, Chief Warrant Officer 5 Vince Kyzer.

"The carbine is a great weapon system for its time," he said. "...It will increase the war fighter's lethality and mobility."

Ultimately, if the move to the M4 is approved by Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford, the M16 would be used exclusively by support personnel in communities like logistics or admin. Once approved, the swap could happen as fast as unit armories can issue weapons because the 17,000 M4s needed to outfit infantrymen who don't already use one are in the current inventory, said Barb Hamby, a Systems Command spokeswoman. Thus, officials described the move as an "improved capability for the infantry at no additional cost."

Wider adoption of the M4 is part of an overall small-arms modernization strategy that will look at incremental improvements, based on existing technologies as funding becomes available, according to a Marine official who said more details will likely be revealed in the months ahead.

For now, here is what Marines need to know about the infantry's next likely weapon of choice — the M4 carbine.

The call for a compact weapon

The M4 makes maneuvering in tight urban spaces easier with a 14.5-inch barrel and an overall length that is about 10 inches shorter than the M16A4, in a package that is a pound lighter at just over six.

No fight illustrated the need for a smaller primary weapon during ferocious close-quarters combat better than Operation Phantom Fury in November 2004, when Marines fought to wrest control of Fallujah from Iraqi insurgents, sometimes going hand-to-hand.

Rounding corners and getting on target in small rooms was difficult, leading to use of a tactic called "short-stocking," when a Marine places his rifle stock over his shoulder – instead of securely against the chest and cants his weapon45-degrees so he can still use his optics. It helps in maneuvering, but compromises recoil management and follow-up shots.

"We were taught to short stock around tight corners when we got to our platoon for deployment — it was something unofficial," said Ryan Innis, a former scout sniper with 2nd Reconnaissance Battalion, who left the service as a sergeant in 2013 after serving on the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit's anti-piracy raid force near East Africa.

Innis trained for shipboard operations — the closest of close-quarters combat — and said he was fortunate to be issued the M4 because the weapon's shorter length proved better for tight spaces.

"I would definitely agree the M4 is the way to go," he said.

The longer M16 was also challenging when hopping in and out of vehicles in full battle rattle, said West, who made his second deployment to Afghanistan in 2012 with 3rd Battalion, 9th Marines, as part of a vehicle-borne combined anti-armor team.

"Anytime you operate out of a vehicle, something compact makes life easier, especially when you need to get out quickly and engage [the] enemy," he said.

Even when he conducted dismounted patrols on his first Afghanistan deployment in 2011 with 1st Battalion, 6th Marines, the M4 he was issued helped in clearing compounds, jumping walls and crossing deep ditches, he said.

West never wanted to go back to the M16 because of the weight savings alone.

He said he started his first deployment carrying an M16A4; a Thor radio-controlled bomb jammer, a metal detector, and ammo for an M240 machine gun.

"There was even a time carrying an M32 grenade launcher, so you can see the amount of weight we were carrying at that time," he said. "Anything that takes weight off and keeps guys from getting tired so they are more aware of things around them is good. It is just a little less weight and just as effective of a weapon."

That is what the Marine Corps found when it began testing the ballistics of its infantry rifles and carbines using their improved M318 Mod 0 Special Operations Science and Technology round.

"The Marine Corps conducted an evaluation of its individual weapons (M4, M27 and M16A4), with specific focus on comparing accuracy, shift of impact and trajectory with improved ammunition, and determined the M4's overall performance compares favorably with that of the M27 IAR, the most accurate weapon in the squad," according to the written responses provided by Semelroth.

Negligible drawbacks

There are a few minor drawbacks to adopting the M4, but infantrymen seem to agree those are insignificant compared to the advantages.

Both Innis and West said trading in the M16's 20-inch barrel for the M4's 14.5-inch barrel does sacrifice some muzzle velocity, which translates into a slightly shorter effective range — although Colt markets both with an effective range of about 650 yards. But that isn't a significant concern given the closer ranges at which Marines and soldiers commonly engage enemy in modern warfare.

To strike the enemy beyond the range of the M4 or even the M16, each Marine fire team already has an M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle, which in semi-auto with its free-floating barrel and precision trigger also now doubles as the designated marksman's rifle. It's a role that will no longer be filled by the Squad Advanced Marksman Rifle, a match-grade M16 with a scope.

When the M27 can't get the job done, combined arms doctrine means indirect fire and air assets are just a radio call away, West said.

"As far as accuracy, there is not an effect," he added, saying a longer rifle only really matters when using iron sights.

Greater distance between a weapon's front and rear sights, known as sight radius, makes a weapon easier to aim. But that doesn't apply with the Rifle Combat Optic that the Marine Corps began using in 2005. The RCO is a type of reflex sight with which a Marine only needs to ensure the reticle is on target without regard for sight alignment.

When asked if the Marine Corps is making the right move, preeminent firearms expert Larry Vickers gave a resounding yes.

"I'm the first one to subscribe to this," Vickers said of the M4's increasing popularity as the preferred option for modern combat.

The M4's profile got a boost when the Army, which adopted the M4 in 1994 for special operations, began issuing it more broadly to deploying infantry.

Vickers, a retired master sergeant who served 15 years in the Army's 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment – Delta, commonly known as Delta Force, dismissed arguments against the carbine based on its shorter effective range, saying nearly all real-world infantry engagements happen inside 200 yards.

"Some argue beyond that the M4 carbine lacks effectiveness versus the M16, but the M16 is like driving a sports car with a six-cylinder engine," he said, because it is limited by the same small 5.56mm cartridge as the M4. "You can shoot 400 to 500 yards away, but you are still shooting a 5.56."

A longer barrel would make sense with a heavier hitting round like the .308, but unless Marines are given a larger caliber Vickers said the M4 is "bringing so much more to the table."

"It is the world's gold standard," he said.

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/2015/07/27/marine-officials-endorse-infantry-plan--ditch-m16--m4/30145257/

Marine brass endorses infantry plan to ditch M16 for M4

Marine leaders have made a momentous recommendation to ditch the iconic M16 in favor of the M4 carbine as the new universal infantry standard. The

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2015 9:41 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:41:44 -0400

This is great news. Now let's ditch that combat 2 point sling and we'll be in business!

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made Jul 27 at 2015 9:51 AM

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:51:59 -0400

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2015 9:57 AM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:57:11 -0400

It will be interesting to see how long distance marksmanship will trend.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Jul 27 at 2015 10:02 AM

SrA Edward Vong — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:02:42 -0400

So is every Marine no longer a rifleman? The M4 is a carbine. (Joking)

In all seriousness. In a tactical building clearing scenario, I can see how the M4 can be considered superior to the M16, but the best AR-15 variant for the would be an M4 with a Close-Quarters Battle Receiver. I guess the standard M4 is that in between for long and short range. I don't think Marines should rid of the M16 entirely, it should be case by case for the needs of the mission.

I'm not a Marine, nor have I been in combat, so I'm not sure if anyone can chime in and help me out.

Response by Cpl Dennis F. made Jul 27 at 2015 10:11 AM

Cpl Dennis F. — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:11:44 -0400

OK Marines. get ready for another big change that will date the M4 overnight. We always seem to be at least one generation/war behind as far as gear and guns go.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jul 27 at 2015 10:18 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:18:44 -0400

There are advantages to both. Longer barrel and sight radius vs shorter overall & lighter weight length for room clearing.

Response by Cpl Christopher Bishop made Jul 27 at 2015 10:29 AM

Cpl Christopher Bishop — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:29:26 -0400

I do not believe that the future should involve requiring any sort of snipers or otherwise great shooters just to be able to handle 500m. I suspect the M4 could dumb things down a bit.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Jul 27 at 2015 11:09 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:09:29 -0400

It is a calculated trade off. Weight and length of weapon vs. long range accuracy and some muzzle velocity. The shorter barrel is better in close the longer barrel for shooting longer distances. I don't know if they will rethink rifle qualification at 500 yards or not.

Response by MSgt Manuel Diaz made Jul 27 at 2015 11:36 AM

MSgt Manuel Diaz — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:36:59 -0400

As long as the enemy doesn't outgun you, and can't pick you off before yours can be in range

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2015 12:20 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:20:04 -0400

Since the KD course was all I had to contend with, I don't believe I would have had an issue firing the M4 at 500 and I believe the 200 standing would be a little easier with the shorter barrel. I'll have to take the time to hit the long range near ft worth to test out that theory.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2015 12:33 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:33:49 -0400

The M16 has been a work-horse but I have personally preferred the M4 for about 14 years (since I first had some training with it).

The weight difference and adjustable stock are huge.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2015 12:41 PM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:41:42 -0400

In the opinion of a "squid" from "the patron state of shooting stuff"...

I've carried the M4 in a combat zone and trained on a variety of contemporary weapons...I own a very similar civilian counterpart. Personally, I find that the 5.56/.223 is good for what it was designed for...but not much else. The Springfield 30-06 and the 7.62/.308 rounds just seem more versatile to me, but the available platforms are too heavy/cumbersome for modern ops. All the same, I humble submit there's a reason the M-14 still has a home in the SPECOPs community.

All grandstanding and posing aside...if I "really" found myself having to pick up a single weapon of my choice to fight with, I think I'd snag a 30-30 with a QD mid-range scope. Barrel length is short enough for CQB...the round has awesome stopping power...pretty good accuracy inside of 175 yards for the average guy...a lot more with a scope and a decent shooter. You'd have to train expenditure discipline and focus on sight picture more...but there's no comparison for simplicity, ruggedness and reliability.

Short of that, I've often fantasized about a shortened 1903 Springfield :)

Response by CPT Ahmed Faried made Jul 27 at 2015 2:16 PM

CPT Ahmed Faried — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:16:59 -0400

way overdue.

Response by Sgt Ronnie Mack made Jul 27 at 2015 2:30 PM

Sgt Ronnie Mack — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:30:02 -0400

It's about damn time. We have been telling the boys on the hill this for years! Now one of them say it and all of a sudden it's a good idea?! Go figure!!!!!

Response by Capt Lance Gallardo made Jul 27 at 2015 2:33 PM

Capt Lance Gallardo — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:33:55 -0400

It is an interesting move, but leaves so many other possibilities up in the air . . .why does the Marine Corps not provide and train all Marines on Match, two stage triggers?? Most Ar-15 enthusiasts say if you want to improve your basic marksmanship on the M-4 platform, install a better trigger. Fairly cost effective, and as far as I know they are just reliable as the stock triggers. Also moving to the M-4 Platform still does not address the inherent weaknesses with the 5.56 round . . .is the Marine Corps still looking at the 6.5 MM Grendel round, or some of the other ballistically superior rounds to the venerable and aging 5.56mm . . . -300 AAC Blackout, 6.8 SPC:
Other Intermediate Cartridges
What makes the 6.5 Grendel better for general military operations than all the other intermediate AR cartridges? Nothing can match the Grendel’s range. Cartridges such as the 6.8mm SPC and .300 Blackout are 300- or 400-yard cartridges at best. The Grendel is a 500-plus-yard cartridge. Bullets are the key.

“When Remington introduced the 6.8 SPC at SHOT the same year as the Grendel, we thought we were going to get exterminated,” Alexander said. “But they couldn’t have handed it to us on a plate any better. We really only started showing up in magazines and such when writers compared us to the SPC. The results really spoke for themselves. Otherwise no one would have ever heard of us.”

The 6.5mm hits a ballistic sweet spot for optimal bullet flight, much more so than the squat, fat bullets used by other cartridges. Most 6.5mm bullets higher than 100 grains start with ballistic coefficients of more than .400, something a 110-grain 6.8mm bullet (.360 BC) or 125-grain .300 Blackout bullet (.153 BC) could never hope to match.

To its credit, the .300 Blackout is much easier to suppress with 200-grain and up bullets, and it works well in PDW-length uppers. Most importantly, the Blackout uses 5.56mm magazines. The 6.8mm SPC has a little more case taper and is theoretically more reliable, but from an external ballistics standpoint, the Grendel is far superior to both."

Read more: http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammo/6-5mm-grendel-the-round-the-military-ought-to-have/#ixzz3h7O45dYl

6.5mm Grendel: The Round the Military Ought to Have - Shooting Times

The world's most versatile intermediate AR cartridge, the 6.5mm Grendel has what it takes to be the military's next service cartridge.

Response by Capt Walter Miller made Jul 28 at 2015 7:51 AM

Capt Walter Miller — Tue, 28 Jul 2015 07:51:33 -0400

Too bad some variation of the M-14 can't come back to the fore. It was the product of a 20 year development program. And guys, the Emperor has no clothes on this - we never should have adopted a 5.56mm weapon at all. The attached pic is of me with my trusty M-14 rifle number 1071205. I am the skinny lance coolie in the center.

Walt

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Jul 28 at 2015 11:37 AM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:37:24 -0400

Oh great guys, were giving you one sucky weapons for a shorter barreled sucky weapon. What a great decision. Nothing in the world of weapons out there that is better? Nothing , really nothing? Really looked hard on this one, or does it have to do something with the fact that a former 4 star sits on Board of Colt? Didn't a certain USMC Major General also sit on COLT as well?

Bloomberg News

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 28 at 2015 6:42 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 28 Jul 2015 18:42:37 -0400

I like my .243 rounds. More punch, distance, and accuracy than 5.56. Lots of long range target shooters use .243. The only drawback is barrel life.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 28 at 2015 6:58 PM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 28 Jul 2015 18:58:21 -0400

The Army has been making the switch for years.

Response by Capt Lance Gallardo made Jul 29 at 2015 1:52 PM

Capt Lance Gallardo — Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:52:19 -0400

If the Marine Corps is truly an Elite ground Fighting Force, than its primary infantry weapon should be the best rife and the Ballistically Superior Round/Ammunition that money can buy! I have made my argment here for the 6.5 Grendel. What I am really arguing is that supply considerations along with interchangeability in parts for supply purposes with the US Army or our NATO partners should not be the driving consideration of what battle Rifle the Marine Corps supplies its war fighters with. How often have we gone to war with our NATO allies in the last fifty years where the supply considerations of small arms ammunition have affected the battlefield? This has been one of the "sacred cow" arguments for why we have been clinging to an aged and outdated 5.56 MM standard Ammunition. Most private owners of the Ar-15 rifle are well aware of this and many private Americans have modularized their rifles around task specific Calibers and Ammunition. With Interchangeable Upper receiver groups, it is possible for an AR-15 owner to have a 300AAC blackout Upper receiver for Hog (and/or 450 Bushmaster) and Deer hunting, and a 6.5 Grendel upper receiver group (or complete rifle) for his primary self defense rifle (also good for Hog/Deer/Bear). Almost none of the AR-15 owners I now use an M16A4 stock, they are all running M-4 variants, including myself.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2015 2:03 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 29 Jul 2015 14:03:57 -0400

It's about time.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jul 31 at 2015 7:48 AM

PO1 John Miller — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 07:48:41 -0400

I think the military should revert to the M1903 Springfield! With an effective range of 914 meters and the extremely powerful 30.06 cartridge, made it an excellent killing machine.

In all seriousness though, I thought all the branches had switched to the M4 by now...

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jul 31 at 2015 4:57 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:57:10 -0400

I carried an A4 on my first deployment to set the example. Higher muzzle velocity means more precision at long range. Climbing in and out of vehicles is an unimportant concern, I'll grant import to weight savings and CQB. I carried an M4 on my second deployment with an advisor team.

There were a lot of engagements in Afghanistan at long range. The history of the Corps is one of long range rifle fire when other forces opted for intermediate ranged weapons and large expenditures of ammo.

I'll have to defer to those more experienced in frequent infantry combat on this one.

Response by Capt Lance Gallardo made Jul 31 at 2015 9:10 PM

Capt Lance Gallardo — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 21:10:40 -0400

All good points LTC Labrador, but I still will argue that most of the innovations and breakthroughs at least as far as in the Ar-15/M-16 platform are coming from the civilian side of the house, rather than the so called professionals, usually large corporations such as Colt, which has now filed for BK reorganization. They are also being driven by civilian demand as the AR-15 platform is quickly becoming (or has already become) the Nation's favorite center-fire rifle. You also have now have a flood of incoming innovators who have retired or left active duty in the Army and the Marine Corps, many with multiple combat tours in Iraq/Afghanistan and dark places all over the world. They are collectively bringing that vast amount of experience to small start up manufacturing companies mostly working on the M-16/Ar-15 platforms with the 308/7.62 and the 5.56 caliber, and with every caliber in between (and outside of that range of calibers). It would be a horrible shame if the next John Moses Browning (1911, BAR, M-2 50 cal MG) or John C. Garand out there is not allowed to develop the next generation of US battle rifle because of a myopic insistence of retaining a fifty year old, cold war era cartridge, and interchangeability with our feckless NATO allies who are spending less than the targeted 1.5 % of their country's GDP on defense. The M-1 Garand only saw service as our main battle rifle from 1936-57, just over twenty years. The M-16's 5.56 x 45 mm NATO was standardized in 1963 when the US Military adopted the Armalite M16 in the same year. So we are now at 52 years with the 5.56 MM round, with its numerous advancements and permutations. Just how far should we continue to stretch out the service life of this cartridge? With the advent of quick change barrels for modular Ar-15s/M-16s, you can mix and match your ammo, and stay within the 5.56 family but have different "twists" (rifling) for different loads, or complete uppers (barrels and BCGs) for different calibers. With modern designed upper receivers, such as the monolithic from Knights Armament, it literally takes seconds to switch out a barrel to change the caliber from 5.56 to 300 AAC, same BCG used, same magazines. My guess as to why the Brass/Top civilian Leadership in DOD is so resistant to thinking about innovating away from the 5.56 round, is that most of them are not gun enthusiasts and the whole AR-15 phenomena has completely passed by their window without notice. If they had been AR-15 (and hunting) enthusiasts they probably would be more open minded to the exciting things that are happening with the modular Ar-15 platforms and the different calibers that are task specific. The whole 3 in 1 gun phenomena would be something that might merit serious consideration or at least serious testing in the US Military's proving grounds. The Airforce gets a new bird (or two or three) every 20 years or so, at the cost of trillions of the taxpayers dollars, while the US Army Infantryman and US Marine gets a new rifle once every fifty years (or less), are you kidding me?

From Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO
MK318 5.56MM
Following early engagements in Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S. Special Operations Forces reported that M855 ammunition used in M4A1 rifles was ineffective. In 2005, the Pentagon issued a formal request to the ammunition industry for “enhanced” ammunition. The only business that responded was the Federal Cartridge Company, owned by Alliant Techsystems. Working with the Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane Division, the team created performance objectives for the new ammo: increased consistency from shot to shot regardless of temperature changes, accuracy out of an M4A1 better than 2 minute of angle (2 inches at 100 yards, 3.9 inches at 300 yards), increased stopping power after passing through “intermediate barriers” like walls and car windshields, increased performance and decreased muzzle flash out of shorter barrel FN SCAR rifles, and costs close to the M855. The first prototypes were delivered to the government in August 2007. Increased velocity and decreased muzzle flash were accomplished by the type of powder used. The design of the bullet was called the Open Tip Match Rear Penetrator (OTMRP). The front of it is an open tip backed up by a lead core, while the rear half is solid brass. When the bullet hits a hard barrier, the front half of the bullet smooshes against the barrier, breaking it so the penetrating half of the bullet can go through and hit the target. With the lead section penetrating the target and the brass section following, it was referred to as a "barrier blind" bullet.[37][100]

Officially designated the Mk318 Mod 0 "Cartridge, Caliber 5.56mm Ball, Carbine, Barrier", and called SOST (Special Operations Science and Technology) ammunition, the 62-grain bullet fragments consistently, even out of a 10.5 in barrel. The lead portion fragments in the first few inches of soft tissue, then the solid copper rear penetrates 18 in of tissue (shown though ballistic gelatin) while tumbling. Out of a 14 in barrel, the Mk318 has a muzzle velocity of 2,925 fps.[37][100]

"In February 2010, the U.S. Marine Corps adopted the Mk318 for use by infantry. To be fielded by an entire branch of the military, the round is classified as having an "open-tip" bullet, similar to the M118LR 7.62 NATO round. The SOST bullet uses a “reverse drawn” forming process. The base of the bullet is made first, the lead core is placed on top of it, and then the jacketing is pulled up around the lead core from bottom to tip. Conventional, and cheaper, bullets are made with the method of the jacket drawn from the nose to an exposed lead base. The reverse drawn technique leaves an open tip as a byproduct of the manufacturing process, and is not specifically designed for expansion or to affect terminal ballistics. The Pentagon legally cleared the rounds for Marine use in late January. The Marines fielded the Mk318 gradually and in small numbers. Initial studies showed that insurgents hit by it suffered larger exit wounds, although information was limited. SOST rounds were used alongside M855 rounds in situations where the SOST would be more effective.[37][100][101] In July 2010, the Marines purchased 1.8 million M855A1 Enhanced Performance Rounds, in addition to millions of Mk318 rounds in service, as part of its effort to replace its M855 ammo.[102] As of May 2015, Marine combat units still deploy with a mixture of both SOST and M855 rounds.[103]

As the issue of environmentally friendly ammo grew, the Marines looked to see if the Mk318's lead could be replaced while still meeting specifications. They found that by replacing the lead with copper and slightly stretching the jacket around to crimp the nose even more, the bullet's ballistic coefficient increased. To avoid visual confusion with the Mk 262 round, the bullet was entirely nickel-plated for a silver color; the enhanced silver-colored copper jacketed, open tip match, 62-grain projectile was named the Mk318 Mod 1. The Marine Corps will make a decision as whether to field the Mk 318 Mod 1 or M855A1 as its standard rifle round.[104]

Response by Cpl Christopher Bishop made Aug 15 at 2015 8:55 AM

Cpl Christopher Bishop — Sat, 15 Aug 2015 08:55:09 -0400

I disapprove of the obvious reduction of standards in marksmanship. Were some people thinking the Corps is trending to issue more Marksman shooting badges, and less Sharpshooter or Expert badges these days? So the M4 reduces max range....so they are going to have to bulldoze the 500m lines off of Rifle Ranges and rebuild them at 400-450m ? Good Lord, you're gonna have to call a Scout Sniper in if a future enemy is 501, out now eh? I'm not getting into all of the other details about the M16 vs M4 debates, I'd prefer my range not be cut. This only serves to weaken America (yet another one of many things going on towards that goal lately).

I noticed the quote above about the Delta guy stating that "most real-world engagments happens in under 200 yards"....and I thought:

Its going to become really silly should I ever believe I was more accurate with the M-203 than some of these younger so-called "Riflemen" will be with their M4.

Semper Fi

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 18 at 2015 8:32 AM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 18 Aug 2015 08:32:59 -0400

The M4 is a good weapon for personal defense and close quarters battle, however, the M16 provides better accuracy and more stopping power. Not to mention with the M16 the RCO doesn't block the leaf sight on the 203 at closer ranges. The T/E that we have seems to work well. In my opinion though, infantrymen should be equipped with the M27. Exceptions being Grenadiers keep the M16A4 and Weapons Marines(mortarmen, machine gunners, assaultmen, missilemen, and LAV Crewmen) continue to use the M4.