Professional Soldiers ® - View Single Post

**The Reaper** · 05-05-2009, 07:55

This has been discussed here and elsewhere. Let me hit the highlights and provide an executive summary.

Like many things in life, it is a compromise. Shorter barrels equal lower muzzle velocity, period. Lower muzzle velocity, for the 5.56, is a bad thing. It seriously affects lethality, and makes shot placement harder due to increased bullet drop.

M855 ammo exacerbates this problem. It is slower, less effective, shorter range, and less accurate than the M193 it replaced. The Mk 262 is a better choice for most purposes, if you can get it, and it is much more accurate than the M855 or the M193, for that matter.

Since the M-16 was designed to function with a 20" barrel, anything less represents a potential reliability problem. 20" M-16s run, almost always reliably. 18" SPRs usually present no problems. 16" M-4s are almost as good. 14.5" M-4s are starting to get to the barrel length where problems pop up. A 10.5" or 11.5" CQB-R is really a race car. When it runs, it runs at the bleeding edge of reliability. Some do not run out of the box. The ones that do will require significantly more care and maintenance to keep running.

A 10.5" should really be treated as a submachine gun. If you are in a vehicle or doing dedicated CQB with little need to engage targets beyond 25 meters, it is a great weapons package. You can hit targets well beyond that range, but shot placement is going to be critical. It is also more easily concealed than the M-4 or M-16. IMHO, too many people carry them because of the CDI factor and they look cool.

The 14.5" M-4 is a carbine. It is able to reach out and put targets down reliably out to 100 meters or so. It has some of the advantages of the CQB-R, and some of the same disadvantages. If you need a weapon to do everything, with a healthy dose of vehicle, aircraft, or CQB work, yet still need to reach out a little further on occasion, the M-4 is your baby. Honestly, it should not be the dedicated weapon for a conventional infantryman in a non-CQB environment.

If you need the gun to be completely reliable, to reach out beyond 100 meters and drop people regularly to 200 or so, provide better precision, yet do not do a lot of mounted or airmobile infiltration, and have little need for a CQB weapon, then the M-16 rifle is your baby. If you are in OEF and are getting into far ambushes and engagements beyond grenade range, you need the rifle, not a carbine or SMG.

The full-length M-249 SAW is a squad automatic weapon. The shorter version is a specialty weapon, and if you have to ask, you aren't special enough to need one.

In my opinion, the shorter barrels are more status symbols than anything else. "Look at me, I'm special!" If you are doing dedicated CQB, PSDs, or almost exclusively mounted ops (and shooting the weapon from inside the vehicle), the 10.5" CQB-R might make sense. If you are not, the M-4 is a better choice, more effective, and more reliable as well.

Just my .02, YMMV.

TR

05-05-2009, 07:55	#5
The Reaper Quiet Professional Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Free Pineland Posts: 24,835	This has been discussed here and elsewhere. Let me hit the highlights and provide an executive summary. Like many things in life, it is a compromise. Shorter barrels equal lower muzzle velocity, period. Lower muzzle velocity, for the 5.56, is a bad thing. It seriously affects lethality, and makes shot placement harder due to increased bullet drop. M855 ammo exacerbates this problem. It is slower, less effective, shorter range, and less accurate than the M193 it replaced. The Mk 262 is a better choice for most purposes, if you can get it, and it is much more accurate than the M855 or the M193, for that matter. Since the M-16 was designed to function with a 20" barrel, anything less represents a potential reliability problem. 20" M-16s run, almost always reliably. 18" SPRs usually present no problems. 16" M-4s are almost as good. 14.5" M-4s are starting to get to the barrel length where problems pop up. A 10.5" or 11.5" CQB-R is really a race car. When it runs, it runs at the bleeding edge of reliability. Some do not run out of the box. The ones that do will require significantly more care and maintenance to keep running. A 10.5" should really be treated as a submachine gun. If you are in a vehicle or doing dedicated CQB with little need to engage targets beyond 25 meters, it is a great weapons package. You can hit targets well beyond that range, but shot placement is going to be critical. It is also more easily concealed than the M-4 or M-16. IMHO, too many people carry them because of the CDI factor and they look cool. The 14.5" M-4 is a carbine. It is able to reach out and put targets down reliably out to 100 meters or so. It has some of the advantages of the CQB-R, and some of the same disadvantages. If you need a weapon to do everything, with a healthy dose of vehicle, aircraft, or CQB work, yet still need to reach out a little further on occasion, the M-4 is your baby. Honestly, it should not be the dedicated weapon for a conventional infantryman in a non-CQB environment. If you need the gun to be completely reliable, to reach out beyond 100 meters and drop people regularly to 200 or so, provide better precision, yet do not do a lot of mounted or airmobile infiltration, and have little need for a CQB weapon, then the M-16 rifle is your baby. If you are in OEF and are getting into far ambushes and engagements beyond grenade range, you need the rifle, not a carbine or SMG. The full-length M-249 SAW is a squad automatic weapon. The shorter version is a specialty weapon, and if you have to ask, you aren't special enough to need one. In my opinion, the shorter barrels are more status symbols than anything else. "Look at me, I'm special!" If you are doing dedicated CQB, PSDs, or almost exclusively mounted ops (and shooting the weapon from inside the vehicle), the 10.5" CQB-R might make sense. If you are not, the M-4 is a better choice, more effective, and more reliable as well. Just my .02, YMMV. TR __________________ "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat." - President Theodore Roosevelt, 1910 De Oppresso Liber 01/20/2025
The Reaper is offline