300ft/s difference might not seem like much but when we actually

File: godzilla girl.jpg (56KB, 296x375px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 296x375px

>>33858364
The M4 is lighter and much more compact than the M16, which makes life a whole lot easier when you're either A) Marching through a desert shithole with it or B) Riding humvees and APCs across a desert shithole with it.

These benefits significantly outweighed the loss of energy, at least in the minds of Army brass.

>inb4 some faggot starts acting like he knows better

>>33858412
Largely covers it and newer rounds close the gap rather well. Only time I ever wanted the m16 was when we were too small a ng unit to rate acogs for anyone under E5. Iron sight only yeah the lonfer sight radius is great and with the a4 setup it isn't terrible in a turret. That said once optics and shit get slapped on m4 all the way

>>33858364
Did you really feel like you had to make a whole thread about your fucktarded beliefs that got shat on in the other thread?
>>33856892
>>33857965

army uses 62 grain ammo. so that 14 inch barrel is even worse compared to 20.

>>33858758
Those aren't my posts, also, the tremendous energy loss is irrefutable.

>>33858779
May want to check out m855a and one of the m2something series that were made for carbine and are issued in theater. Statside is using up old shit that yes does better out of 20.

>>33858804
It's really not so tremendous when you consider the fact that .223 will kill niggers just as dead out of a 14" barrel as it will out of 20".

>>33858804
The rounds the chart is relevant to are not used to often in theater at the moment. The newer shit has faster burning powder and a slightly higher pressure load that was optimized for carbine length. ....... and punching through durka ork armor

>>33858859
Especially in urban engagement distances

>>33858859
And yet we keep having all these complaints of how the 5.56 is anemic or something.

>>33858412
why not adopt a bullpup then
Or a round that performs better

>>33859086
Cost, and cost.

>>33859096
cost of a new service rifle is negligible, they could sell their old rifles to recoup the price on it too

Meanwhile they buy planes at 200+ million dollars each

>>33859086
Already did new rounds they work great. Bullpup not worth cost, training, and has disadvantages re reloading so m4 till we get a better similar design

>>33859099
Rifle is the cheap part you also need the manuals, spare parts (3-5x rifle cost), trained armorers, and most critically companies geared up for production numbers that can exceed demand or you get an ares scr situation for effective vaporware

>>33859137
Then you replace things gradually for a lesser cost

One size fits all is rarely the way to go

>>33859200
You have never had to maintain a fuckton of abused equipment I see. Real talk 5.56 is here to stay for most soldiers. We may do a 6-7mm battle rifle for afghan issues. And for the m4 short of some near production sci fi shit the pattern is here to stay until we use up 30-50 years worth of spare parts. Best case we MIGHT try for a piston upgrade but I think a telescoping case round is way more likely to come first

>>33858364
>t. man who has never heard of Mk318 or Mk262

>>33859714
Or 855a but thank you I totally blanked on the other two carbine/short barrel optimized rounds