Whats usmc getting in 0.7

KP · Post by KP » 2007-08-03 16:40

Me too.

Post by **Matrox** » 2007-08-03 16:47

Yeah, It's US army though, so wrong thread.... eek.

KP · Post by KP » 2007-08-03 16:50

No matter; it's sexy.

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2007-08-04 22:11

Sounds like the Marine Corps will be adopting the M4 for certain personnel

http://defensenews.com/story.php?F=2875371&C=america

Staff Sergeant's and above (enlisted), 2nd Lieutenants through Lieutenant Colonels, Chief Warrant Officers, and sailors E-5 and below will be issued the M4.

Phoenix.86 · Post by **Phoenix.86** » 2007-08-04 22:24

Meh had hoped for some nice m4 or m16a4 pics at game-artist, but thats one beautiful piece of vehicle work

Lampshade111 · Post by **Lampshade111** » 2007-08-04 23:59

Cerberus wrote:Sounds like the Marine Corps will be adopting the M4 for certain personnel

http://defensenews.com/story.php?F=2875371&C=america

Staff Sergeant's and above (enlisted), 2nd Lieutenants through Lieutenant Colonels, Chief Warrant Officers, and sailors E-5 and below will be issued the M4.

They have already begun to do this but they are issuing M4A1s instead.

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2007-08-05 01:15

Lampshade, show your source that they are issuing M4A1s to anybody other than MSOB or Recon, because it is doubtful. M4s are fitted with flat-top receivers and RAS just as M4A1s are, so the only way to tell is by reading the trigger group, which is not visible in that picture.

Zybon · Post by **Zybon** » 2007-08-05 01:19

You need to keep in mind that when most people are referring to them they don't distinguish between M4 and M4A1 (just like with M16s.)

I posted a quote from two Marines earlier saying they were using them, one with the majority of his platoon (many others backed him up) and one with only certain personnel...

Eddie Baker · Post by **Eddie Baker** » 2007-08-05 01:31

Zybon wrote:You need to keep in mind that when most people are referring to them they don't distinguish between M4 and M4A1 (just like with M16s.)

I posted a quote from two Marines earlier saying they were using them, one with the majority of his platoon (many others backed him up) and one with only certain personnel...

He may have been mistaken; as reported by veterans on this forum, refurbished / converted receivers were still stamped M4A1 despite being 3 rd burst only. Also, the quote didn't say anything about unrestricted full-automatic fire being one of the reasons they were liked. And since the Marines have decided not to issue ungoverned full-auto rifles to their regular grunts, it seems quite unusual to say the least to give them to Navy FMF Corpsmen (who don't go through the SOI). So, until proven otherwise, I call bullshit on the Marines issuing unrestricted full-auto M4A1s to anybody except their FAST and Recon/SO Men.

Cerberus · Post by **Cerberus** » 2007-08-05 02:18

Is there any possibility that the officer and corpsman classes in PR will be issued the M4?

pasfreak · Post by **pasfreak** » 2007-08-05 02:45

Lampshade111 wrote:I still believe one of the Army kits should have the M16A4 for those who want it.

Or you could give their special forces class the M16A3. (reuse the M16A4 model and give it full auto)

the m16a3 is an m16a2 with full auto,not an m16a4. you'd have to take out the picatinny rail. besides, sf rarely use full length rifles. they either use compacts or a DMR

Lampshade111 · Post by **Lampshade111** » 2007-08-05 06:19

From what I have read the M16A3 has the removable carrying handle or at least later production weapons do. The weapon your typical SF soldier has really depends on the group. Army Rangers often use full length rifles or at least they used to.