MAF abandon Steyr after 15-year service
-
Gary said NO ARMY issues the M4 as standard.Originally posted by kotay:I was just curious about Chino's assertion that the M4 has replaced the M16A4 in the USMC as well.
He insists that only SF use M4.
I said the USMC issues it as standard. Did not say it's a blanket replacement of the M16.
I've already made one post to explain this. Fror example, all officers are REQUIRED to use the M4 up to the rank of Col or something. But many other USMC troops are also issued M4 not just the vehicle crews. Anyway, ALL of them ride in one vehiclece or other during ops. -
Originally posted by chino65:
Oh really ... he said that?
Gary said NO ARMY issues the M4 as standard.
IINM, this is what he actually posted ...Originally posted by gary1910:
There is a distinction between "standard issue" and "standard infantry assault rifle".
Lastly as I asked you guys is there any army using M4 as a standard infantry AR???
If you guys can't even read each others postings properly, it's no wonder you're still arguing ... or maybe I'm the one reading everyone wrongly ... in which case - my bad
yeah ...Originally posted by chino65:
By this qualification, even the SAF issues a M4 analogue as standard. Heck practically every Army in the world does that ...
I said the USMC issues it as standard. Did not say it's a blanket replacement of the M16.
or maybe I just misread your original post ...Originally posted by chino65:
Not just "standard issue" or "A standard arm/weapon" but "THE standard arm" ....
The M4 is ALREADY the standard arm for the US Marines.
my apologies for being pedantic. just explaining why I was seeking clarification from youse ... thanks for qualifying your post. -
Originally posted by Daniel-Lim:
I'm cool. As per my previous post, just some idiot being pedantic about semantics.
He said standard issue. He didn't say "replace".
Just like in SAF the SAR-21 and the M16/M203 are BOTH standard issue to SAF infantry sections. Not that one replaces the other.
Coming from the Generic Issue environment of the SAF, I'm not too familiar with Non-SOF US Army/USMC TO&E procedures.
Since all troops operating in Iraq and Afghan are mounted, troops issued with M16 may decide to draw a M4 from the armoury for certain missions or becos the vehicle is cramped etc. Or the grenadier may choose the M4/M203 cos it's lighter, while his section mates stick to full length M16.
They're at war, not on parade. So uniformity is less crucial. And as stated, more and more choose the M4 over the M16 given the choice.
Are you saying that the average grunt in the US Army gets to choose his weapon of choice (M16/M4) on a per mission basis? Must be an interesting armoury he's drawing his arms from then. I'd have thought that such flexibility was the purview of the SOF community.
I have seen US soldiers mail-order bells and whistles for their arms ... but I was under the impression that their standard arms are issued and not chosen at will. -
And now let me quote Mr Wikipedia:Originally posted by kotay:I'm cool. As per my previous post, just some idiot being pedantic about semantics.
I have seen US soldiers mail-order bells and whistles for their arms ... but I was under the impression that their standard arms are issued and not chosen at will.
"The basic infantry weapon of the U.S. Marine Corps is the M16 assault rifle family, with a majority of Marines being equipped with the M16A2 or M16A4 service rifles, or more recently the M4 carbine—a compact variant."
I quote Gary:
"Lastly as I asked you guys is there any army using M4 as a standard infantry AR??? Remember the operative word is standard infantry, not SF."
Nobody is talking about the M16 being replaced by the M4. But is the M4 on standard issue? According to this quote, YES. So please move on.
Are you being pedantic?
You decide. -
Captioned as a Lcpl paying respects to his Sgt. Weapons Company USMC. -
US Marines in Fallujah, 2007. -
US Marines in Fallujah.
By no means blanket issue. But a VERY STRONG PRESENCE of M4 in Marine units in Iraq.
So are we reaching you Kotay? Or do you want to pursue this pedantic line of debate?
Your demand that a "standard" rifle means everyone use the same thing is OLD FASHIONED and NARROW.
In a typical USMC section today, you may find some or all of the following weapons:
- M16
- M16/M203
- M4
- M4/M203
- M249 SAW
- M240 GPMG
- M21 Designated Marksmen Rifle
- Shotgun -
US Army, Iraq...
-
M4 is also present amongst M16-armed USMC units in Afghanistan.
None of these are SF troops or vehicle crewmen. -
Originally posted by chino65:
Dude, I know I'm being pedantic ... mea culpa.
And now let me quote Mr Wikipedia:
"The basic infantry weapon of the U.S. Marine Corps is the M16 assault rifle family, with a majority of Marines being equipped with the M16A2 or M16A4 service rifles, or more recently the M4 carbine—a compact variant."
I quote Gary:
"Lastly as I asked you guys is there any army using M4 as a standard infantry AR??? Remember the operative word is standard infantry, not SF."
Nobody is talking about the M16 being replaced by the M4. But is the M4 on standard issue? According to this quote, YES. So please move on.
Are you being pedantic?
You decide.
Like I said before, how I read your posts is dependant on how you people write your posts ... so if terms like "THE" standard arm or "standard infantry AR" are used ... how would you propose I read it?Originally posted by chino65:
But hey, as I've said before. I have no problem with your qualification on the USMC issue.
By no means blanket issue. But a VERY STRONG PRESENCE of M4 in Marine units in Iraq.
So are we reaching you Kotay? Or do you want to pursue this pedantic line of debate?
Your demand that a "standard" rifle means everyone use the same thing is OLD FASHIONED and NARROW.
When I thought you meant that the USMC is going the way of the US Army, I asked for your clarification.
Now that I understand that you meant it is only a standard issue arm just like the way the M249, M240 are also standard issue (but not used/issued to everyone), I have no problem with that.
Imagine if I said that the M240 is THE standard arm for the USMC ... how would you have read that? More accurate if I had said the standard issue MG. How we understand the posts is dependant on how they are worded ... -
Nice pics btw ... but I do recall looking at exercise pictures of the USMC in Australia and also Thailand ... IINM, I don't remember seeing as much M4s.
Could it be that the prevalence of M4s in the USMC is a theatre specific thing and not a reflection of USMC TO&E in general?
[edit for the following]
I could post carefully selected pictures to prove my point but I'm lazy ... if any of you are interested, you can scroll through the galleries yourself and play spot the M4 ...
Pics from the homepage of the 31st MEU based in Okinawa
Exercise Talisman Saber Pics
Exercise Cobra Gold Pics
Pics of Marines in Fallujah/Iraq
what the heck ... I'll do one picture cos I really like this one ...
More pics from MOD Aus can be found here...
Exercise Talisman Sabre 2005
Excercise Talisman Sabre 2007
Exercise Crocodile 2003 -
\
isnt that M16A3? -
What makes you say that?Originally posted by tankfanatic:isnt that M16A3? -
there M16A3 -
I thought this is what a M16A4 looks like ...
Flat top, pic rails (and seemingly typical for the USMC, ACOG sights and the foregrip thingy ...)
IINM, the essential difference for the A3 is full auto instead of 3-round burst.
I will leave it to our weaponsmiths across the pacific to answer this when they wake up ...
-
i think u are rite..M16a4
-
Are these supposed to be some sort of statistical proof? I don't see them as valid. We can easily fish out pictures of marines strolling with their M-16s too. At least I don't because I don't consider pictures to be proof of anything.Originally posted by chino65:M4 is also present amongst M16-armed USMC units in Afghanistan.
None of these are SF troops or vehicle crewmen.
Its like how the MAF Youtube video, the editor sneaked in a shot of the CV-90. Pictures don't mean nothing.
The M4 is a standard carbine issue, but its by no means the primary infantry combat rifle. -
wah...u all fight like gonna win a million dollars liddat..does it matter?hahahahahah
-
You mean we don't get a million dollars if we "win"? S**t.Originally posted by Rockhound:wah...u all fight like gonna win a million dollars liddat..does it matter?hahahahahah -
Please read:Originally posted by Shotgun:Are these supposed to be some sort of statistical proof?
(I quote myself)
"By no means blanket issue. But a VERY STRONG PRESENCE of M4 in Marine units in Iraq. '
"M4 is also present amongst M16-armed USMC units in Afghanistan. "
...
I didn't say the M4 REPLACED the M16. -
Originally posted by kotay:
I quote Gary:
Now that I understand that you meant it is only a standard issue arm just like the way the M249, M240 are also standard issue (but not used/issued to everyone), I have no problem with that.
Imagine if I said that the M240 is [b]THE standard arm for the USMC ... how would you have read that? More accurate if I had said the standard issue MG. How we understand the posts is dependant on how they are worded ...[/b]
"Lastly as I asked you guys is there any army using M4 as a standard infantry AR??? Remember the operative word is standard infantry, not SF."
Yes - you're right - I should have said the "M4 is a standard infantry AR". I don't mean "the". -
The pictures' only intention is to show the M4 is indeed issued in the USMC. Never said it replaced anything.Originally posted by kotay:I could post carefully selected pictures to prove my point but I'm lazy ... if any of you are interested, you can scroll through the galleries yourself and play spot the M4 ...
Again, why shift the goal posts? When I answer one query, you focus your microscope on another. -
Originally posted by chino65:
You were posting pictures and, like shotgun, I couldn't see the relevance of your pictures. I thought you were starting another tack with your pointed emphasis on prevalence of M4s in Iraq and Afghanistan ... so I thought I'd post some pictures to ask the question of whether it was a theatre specific thing or a Corp wide thing.
The pictures' only intention is to show the M4 is indeed issued in the USMC. Never said it replaced anything.
Again, why shift the goal posts? When I answer one query, you focus your microscope on another.
It wasn't about shifting the goalpost ... just following your lead.Originally posted by chino65:
Dude, that was basically all I was trying to tell you and get you to acknowledge.
Yes - you're right - I should have said the "M4 is a standard infantry AR". I don't mean "the".
I had misread the intent of your post because of the words used. Once you clarified that, I was happy to accept that the M4 is only standard issue but not the standard arms for the USMC ... it is in line with what I understand the case to be.
Now that it's all cleared up ... we good?
Now can we go back to the previous show which I so rudely interupted? The one which goes something like this ...
Gary: MAF is nuts, the 416 is a better weapon.
Chino: The M4 is the best solution for the MAF, you then nuts
G: But the 416 is better ... both you and MAF nuts
C: Doesn't matter, SAS makes the M4 look good ... you siow
G: 416 don't jam in sand ... who use M4 anyway ... gila ...
So please do go on while I bow out ...
PS: The US Army IS replacing the M16A2 with the M4. It is not YET the standard infantry AR but it will soon be -
-
That's a pretty ominous-looking crack in the floor on the left of the image...Originally posted by tankfanatic: