Marine Mike Presents Games and Ammo: M4 Carbine

[Marine Mike]

<font color=808000>Logo created by: Frequen-Z






Welcome Escapists to the Iowa edition of Games and Ammo, the review series where I take my knowledge of modern warfighting and compare it to the world of video games. With my apologies to those of you who enjoy my reviews, and no further delay, I am pleased to present you with my review of the:
M4 Carbine







It always seems to be considered the entry level "peashooter" of an assault rifle. Despite the small caliber of the M4 carbine, it has certainly earned its place as the primary weapon of the US Army.
The M4 Carbine fires the 5.56x45mm NATO cartridge. The very same round as the M16, G36, L85A2, and FAMAS; yet when these weapons are encountered in-game they rarely have the same damage models. When it comes to determining what damage a rifle can do, you look to the ammunition, and the actual weapon has very little influence. With the exception of suppressors, the same round will have almost the same muzzle velocity regardless of what is firing it. So, if force equals velocity multiplied by mass, bullets that weigh the same and are travelling the same speed will have the same amount of force on impact. This makes the M4 no less viable for killing the enemy as any of the other battle rifles chambered for the same round. The M4 Carbine may be a peashooter, but chances are it is shooting the same peas as over half of the game's available arsenal.


<img src="http://i602.photobucket.com/albums/tt104/vor033/USMC%20-%202/59e1acc7.jpg" width=375>

So if the damage potential for all rifles of the same caliber is roughly the same, what, other than aesthetics, sets them apart from each other? A couple factors, but this section deals with accuracy.
Barrel length is a major contributing factor to the accuracy of an individual firearm. Generally, the longer the barrel the more accurate the weapon. From personal experience the M4 with the standard issued ACOG can effectively engage targets out to 300 meters, even with the carbine barrel length of 14.5 inches. That being said, 300 meters is a great range if the weapon were being used in the role it is designed for. Now, I will refrain from going on the whole "military intelligence is an oxymoron" rant, but when you make a carbine the almost exclusive primary weapon of every soldier and put them in a situation where engagements regularly take place outside the range of said carbine, you have nothing other than yourself to blame when combat effectiveness hits the wall. A carbine is a shortened version of a full sized rifle designed for paramilitary forces, special operations, urban situations, and crews for vehicles or guns. Which brings us straight into the next topic.


<img src="http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd139/michsimm/M4A1_ACOG.jpg" width=375>
<img src="http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSMoY3zrNNAvmkSLRfSmG-ueWyIKU6tdwj5yfqg6GX-0BpkETw&t=1&usg=__8lJy99IGo2BGKBQZJWnuKhDWqis=" width=375>


The M4 is a carbine that excels at being what it is designed to be, unfortunately everyone seems to hold it to the same standards as a full-sized assault rifle.
The M4's predecessor in the carbine family was the M1 Carbine, which had variations known as the M2 and M3, which was in service from World War Two through the Vietnam Conflict. The M1 Carbine still fired a 7.62mm projectile, but was a shortened version of the full sized cartridge fired by the M1 Garand. Because of the shortened ammunition, the M1 suffered from reduced penetration and range capabilities compared to the .30-06 ammunition used by the Garand rifles. These limitations left the M1 Carbine with an effective range of about 200 meters and reduced effectiveness on target, limitations overcome by the M4 carbine since it fires the same 5.56x45mm round as the full sized M16. Before the M1 was the Thompson sub machine gun. Not actually a carbine, the Thompson fires the .45 ACP pistol round. Devastatingly effective at close range, the round limited the effective range of the weapon to under 100 meters. When compared to its predecessors in the carbine family, the M4 surpasses them in both accuracy and versatility, while keeping the same damage potential as its larger counterpart by using the same ammunition.



As you an see by the first picture of this article, the M4 Carbine is greatly customizable to fit into just about any combat situation you could desire.
The level of customization that the M4 affords will allow it to fill several roles beyond that of a carbine, leading to misconceptions about its overall performance. With a 100-round drum magazine it can fill the role of a squad automatic weapon, but the M249 tends to be the better choice. You can attach a bipod and scope, and you have a fairly effective designated marksman rifle. But again, in that role there are better alternatives. Being able to fill these roles makes the M4 excellent for special forces operations where versatility is valued over specialization, but in the larger unit setting its best to go with specialized weapons to fit those roles and leave the M4 to what it does best. Being a carbine, a compact version of the M16 firing the same ammunition so weapon and vehicle crews have the same firepower in a more manageable size. Don't judge the weapon by its performance outside of its intended role when the proper weapon for the situation is available to you.

Yes, we all know the M4 is actually a decent, reliable weapon system now. But why does it still suck in first person shooters?
Just like the point I was trying to get at earlier, the M4 is specifically designed as a carbine. When you throw the weapon into a video game in the same category as other full-sized assault rifles of course you can expect it to be outperformed by a lot of them. Its size could easily lend itself to being realistically put in with the SMG category, but would likely cause some balance issues. Imagine being able to take your Barrett M82 with an M4 as your secondary weapon. It would be seen as unfair, especially with all the grief snipers get as it is, but is entirely plausible and that is exactly the role the M4 was designed for. Is the M4 the "entry-level" gun that all others in the category outperform? Absolutely not, but are there a multitude of weapons in the same category that will better suit the specialization you seek? Of course. You could operate pretty efficiently with just customizing your M4 to whatever role you are looking to play, but don't look at versatility as a weakness for the weapon. First person shooters don't really put players into the sort of situations where the virtues of the M4 can really be appreciated. If you only had one and only life and you had to choose a weapon that would allow you to tackle any reasonable combat situation that could arise. Would you take the accurate but ineffective at close range sniper rifle, the inaccurate but devastating weight of firepower machine gun, or the versatile M4 that could effectively engage distant targets as well as being effective in close quarters? So before you talk badly of the M4, think if you are judging based on its actual role or compared to a completely different category which by virtue of being comparable makes it an exceptional weapon system.

<youtube=9pKehYJGCFs>
Also, the M4 with a 100-round drum.
<youtube=fBGptDvomrI>

Thank you to everyone who enjoys my reviews, and actually puts up with the absurd wait times between them. I've actually relocated to Iowa from Florida now, but life seems to be on the upswing thanks to a certain exceptional person. I look forward to any comments or discussion you can give, and I'll have links to my previous articles up soon. Next up on the slate to review is going to be C4, an exceptionally easy topic for me.


Bullet Penetration
RPGs, Rockets, and Backblast
M18 Claymore
Magazines and Reloading
Grenades
Combat Optics Pt. 1
Combat Optics Pt. 2

Things to know about me: I served in the US Marine Corps for four years from 2003-2007 as an Infantry Anti-Tank Assaultman. I've had two deployments to Iraq and one to Haiti, and love to talk about my experiences to anyone willing to listen.
...and remember: Improvise. Adapt. Overcome.
Ikaw ay akin. Yes, I'm talking to you

 

[Virtual_Dom]

So in real life, the m4 can be customized to fit many firearm roles but not to entirely replace? Good to know.

So is the m4 an assault rifle?

 

[TimeLord]

Yay! I love your reviews!

I also love the M4 in any FPS you care to mention because of exactly what you said. It isn't a specialised weapon. More of a general all rounder.

For example, in MW 1+2 I always use the M4 all the time (up until the P90 is unlocked but that isn't important) because it is an all rounder. Decent fire rate and recoil in short-medium range situations. And in a pinch, long range also.

 

[Marine Mike]

Yay! I love your reviews!

I also love the M4 in any FPS you care to mention because of exactly what you said. It isn't a specialised weapon. More of a general all rounder.

For example, in MW 1+2 I always use the M4 all the time (up until the P90 is unlocked but that isn't important) because it is an all rounder. Decent fire rate and recoil in short-medium range situations. And in a pinch, long range also.

Good man! I'm partial to the M16 rather than the M4, but thats a product of my training. Used properly the M16 is good for short, mid, and long range. Although I will admit that the M4 is more ideal for the urban environments.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

I actually REALLY enjoyed this review. I've never been much into guns, but this really interested me. makemore in the future! It's awesome!

 

[batti]

any chance of you linking to your other articles, if this isn´t the first one?

 

[Marine Mike]

any chance of you linking to your other articles, if this isn´t the first one?

I have several more, I'll be linking them to the end of the article in a little bit.

So in real life, the m4 can be customized to fit many firearm roles but not to entirely replace? Good to know.

So is the m4 an assault rifle?

Technically the M4 will fit the criteria for an assault rifle, but its actually the carbine version of the M16 assault rifle. But, like the M16, the M4 can be customized to fit just about any combat role for engagements out to 300 meters and is not limited strictly to its role as a carbine.

 

[Baneat]

So, if force equals velocity multiplied by mass, bullets that weigh the same and are travelling the same speed will have the same amount of force on impact.

Great review, but your physics need a little tuning. In this case it was not relevant since mass was a constant (Projectile) But force does not equate to mass.velocity, it's mass.acceleration. now whether that's relevant in this I'm not sure, won't the longer barrel of the full-sized rifles allow more of the gas to apply force to the bullet as it reaches its target? Or what about rifling in the barrel? Won't the longer barrel have more rifling to allow the round to spin at a higher angular velocity, negating more of the air friction over distance Surely if we take an extreme example, a snub nosed revolver vs. one with a ridiculously long barrel, at a long distance the momentum of the longer barrel would be greater? Provided it actually hits what it was aiming for, won't the long barreled one hit harder?

I'm guessing this is not remotely relevant at the usual range you use these guns at in games (E.g CoD4 where you're hitting people 10m away from you) but at the extremes, I don't think a carbine can retain the same momentum as a regular rifle.

 

[Badabukavich]

So the M4, jack of all trades but master of none.

the equation is F=ma with force equaling mass * acceleration, although to me it would seem that the energy (Mass * Velocity^2)/2 would matter more because even if the bullet is bigger you might have more force but slower velocity may cause less energy

 

[Marine Mike]

So, if force equals velocity multiplied by mass, bullets that weigh the same and are travelling the same speed will have the same amount of force on impact.

Great review, but your physics need a little tuning. In this case it was not relevant since mass was a constant (Projectile) But force does not equate to mass.velocity, it's mass.acceleration. now whether that's relevant in this I'm not sure, won't the longer barrel of the full-sized rifles allow more of the gas to apply force to the bullet as it reaches its target? Or what about rifling in the barrel? Won't the longer barrel have more rifling to allow the round to spin at a higher angular velocity, negating more of the air friction over distance Surely if we take an extreme example, a snub nosed revolver vs. one with a ridiculously long barrel, at a long distance the momentum of the longer barrel would be greater? Provided it actually hits what it was aiming for, won't the long barreled one hit harder?

I'm guessing this is not remotely relevant at the usual range you use these guns at in games (E.g CoD4 where you're hitting people 10m away from you) but at the extremes, I don't think a carbine can retain the same momentum as a regular rifle.

You are correct that closer to the extreme effective range of the carbine the force of the round won't hold up quite as well as a full-sized rifle, the M4 has a muzzle velocity of 884 meters per second while the M16 has one of 948. This reduces the effective range of the M4 to a little under 400 meters while the M16 remains effective out to closer to 800, but when operating within the effective range the round maintains roughly the same degree of lethality for both weapons. I was making the point in comparison to the M1 Garand/Carbine situation where the carbine fired a smaller cartridge than its counterpart, compared to that the difference in force between the M16 and M4 becomes almost negligible.

 

[Baneat]

So, if force equals velocity multiplied by mass, bullets that weigh the same and are travelling the same speed will have the same amount of force on impact.

Great review, but your physics need a little tuning. In this case it was not relevant since mass was a constant (Projectile) But force does not equate to mass.velocity, it's mass.acceleration. now whether that's relevant in this I'm not sure, won't the longer barrel of the full-sized rifles allow more of the gas to apply force to the bullet as it reaches its target? Or what about rifling in the barrel? Won't the longer barrel have more rifling to allow the round to spin at a higher angular velocity, negating more of the air friction over distance Surely if we take an extreme example, a snub nosed revolver vs. one with a ridiculously long barrel, at a long distance the momentum of the longer barrel would be greater? Provided it actually hits what it was aiming for, won't the long barreled one hit harder?

I'm guessing this is not remotely relevant at the usual range you use these guns at in games (E.g CoD4 where you're hitting people 10m away from you) but at the extremes, I don't think a carbine can retain the same momentum as a regular rifle.

You are correct that closer to the extreme effective range of the carbine the force of the round won't hold up quite as well as a full-sized rifle, the M4 has a muzzle velocity of 884 meters per second while the M16 has one of 948. This reduces the effective range of the M4 to a little under 400 meters while the M16 remains effective out to closer to 800, but when operating within the effective range the round maintains roughly the same degree of lethality for both weapons. I was making the point in comparison to the M1 Garand/Carbine situation where the carbine fired a smaller cartridge than its counterpart, compared to that the difference in force between the M16 and M4 becomes almost negligible.

Relatively the same degree of lethality:

Remember, that that degree is much more pronounced in a computer game, where you can often survive multiple rounds, which is obviously not a real issue. When you get shot, you're out or you die, but those rules can't really apply in games like CoD(sorry for coming back to it) where you can actually take two M4 rounds to the head from point blank and survive (30x1.4^2 *2 is less than 100 (These follow the damage formula ingame, base*headshotmultiplier*StoppingPower perk * number of shots)

So while, yes, from a real experience, they are both just as deadly, but in these scenarios it might actually count for something.

 

[SnipErlite]

snip

0_O Why that avatar?! WHY?. They're so scary dammit!

OT: Nice review, I knew about it being a good all rounder-customise fest, but not most of the other stuff

 

[Divine Miss Bee]

excellent review, as always. i'm looking forward to the C4 one. i tend to avoid the M4 in shooters when i can, because i've never liked it as much as other weapons. but the versatility sounds appealing, so i may just try it out.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Remind me not to make you angry :{} but other then that it was descriptive and me likes!

 

[Obrien Xp]

Out of curiosity have you or will you do one for the C7/C8 or should this review be close enough as the C7/C8 is almost the same.

(In truth I know little about guns).

 

[Skorpyo]

I hate to bring it up in intelligent conversation, but the M4 In CS:S is arguably superior to many other rifles in that game, as far as usefulness and gameplay.

Unfortunately, you are quite right about the "Many guns, same ammo" problem in games. In CS:S (again, I know, I'm sorry), the Galil, M4, FAMAS, SG552, Scout, AND Steyr AUG ALL use .223 rounds.

It annoys the HELL out of me.

 

[Stoic raptor]

Finally. I love your reviews, but it takes too long to read them


Great review. It is nice to see the reality vs. the fiction.

 

[Yureina]

I was wondering when I would see these reviews again...

A great read, as always. As it turns out though... I always seem to use the M4 in all the online shooter games I play when I have it as a choice.

 

[WanderingFool]

I personally love the look of the M4. I was actually able to fire one (my cousin was in the marines) and I thought it was impressive.

 

[Break]

Relatively the same degree of lethality:

Remember, that that degree is much more pronounced in a computer game, where you can often survive multiple rounds, which is obviously not a real issue. When you get shot, you're out or you die, but those rules can't really apply in games like CoD(sorry for coming back to it) where you can actually take two M4 rounds to the head from point blank and survive (30x1.4^2 *2 is less than 100 (These follow the damage formula ingame, base*headshotmultiplier*StoppingPower perk * number of shots)

So while, yes, from a real experience, they are both just as deadly, but in these scenarios it might actually count for something.

But once you're talking about games, physics and bullet type don't matter, because already we have rifles firing the same calibre of bullet at similar muzzle velocities, resulting in different damage ratings by design. He was talking specifically about the behaviour and effectiveness of the weapon in the real world. When most developers set the power of a weapon, they generally aren't thinking of how much damage the real-world gun would do in their vitual universe. The main questions they're asking are things like: "how strong should this gun be considering it's got a magazine capacity of X, and a firing speed of Y, and ammunition for it is Z rare?"