G36 Vs M16 And M4a1
Lt.Realness
Join Date: 2004-03-17 Member: 27379Members
Join Date: 2004-03-17 Member: 27379Members
in Off-Topic
<div class="IPBDescription">Which one is better?</div> I'm a german so I have to compare these two nice weapons =)
The H&K G36 (Gewehr 36) is the german standard rifle and the M16 with it's little brother (M4A1) is the american opponent.
G36
<img src='http://www.15thmilitia.com/img/armoury/g36.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://rk-westhausen.regioforum.de/info/bw-waffen/grafik/g36.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
M16 + M4A1
<img src='http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/cat/m16.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://www.scottsdalegunclub.com/mga_machineguns/mgphotos/M16_soldier.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://double.uhome.net/gun/gun640/fgun/m4a1_carbine.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/m4/M4A1.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
does anyone have technical facts? I know that the G36 has fewer weights than the M16. The G36 also hasn't a strong recoil.
The H&K G36 (Gewehr 36) is the german standard rifle and the M16 with it's little brother (M4A1) is the american opponent.
G36
<img src='http://www.15thmilitia.com/img/armoury/g36.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://rk-westhausen.regioforum.de/info/bw-waffen/grafik/g36.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
M16 + M4A1
<img src='http://www.clw.org/pub/clw/cat/m16.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://www.scottsdalegunclub.com/mga_machineguns/mgphotos/M16_soldier.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://double.uhome.net/gun/gun640/fgun/m4a1_carbine.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
<img src='http://www.isayeret.com/weapons/assault/m4/M4A1.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
does anyone have technical facts? I know that the G36 has fewer weights than the M16. The G36 also hasn't a strong recoil.
Comments
Great for getting the <!--emo&::lerk::--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/lerk.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='lerk.gif' /><!--endemo--> off of the cliffs.
<!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The best gun? The one that keeps you alive in combat.
Really it is hard to comment as very few of us have fired both weapons in conditions necessary to test them. I have only fired the m-16 and its variants and none of the other modern assault rifles.
I can comment that I enjoyed firing the m-4 immensly and was really impressed with its utility.
the M16 was said to look like a toy when it was first introduced: but it was said to look like a BB gun. the M8 looks like a f*ing super soaker.
M4 = w1nn3r
The difference is slight enough to be negligable in an urban situation. The smaller frame and extensive rail system of the M4A1 makes it a much better weapon for what the US is doing these days. Just look at what we've done in Iraq - when's the last time you saw most of the soldiers using M16A2's?
To be honest, though, it really just comes down to what you need the weapon to do. If those extra yards the M16 provides are going to save your life in a certain situation, it's a good weapon for the situation. If the extra inches and pounds are going to prevent you from shouldering the weapon in time, it may not be the right tool for the job.
As far as the M16 & M4 weapons versus H&K's lineup argument goes, I can't really comment. I do know that the XM8 can load the same magazine as the M16 and M4 (and M249, for that matter), so I wouldn't expect to see the M4 phased out very quickly when the OICW and XM8 are introduced.
the M16 was said to look like a toy when it was first introduced: but it was said to look like a BB gun. the M8 looks like a f*ing super soaker. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why bother? a shot to the knee would be just as effective.
I would only chose the M4 if I expected to engage within a few feet of the enemy (like indoors). Actually, in that case I'd probably choose a gun that isn't one of the choices, but the M4 will get the job done.
And here we have just about the only person on this forum who would know.
The G-36 is generally considered to be a little more reliable since it uses a piston instead of dumping gas directly into the action. However the M-16 and M4 have (as far as I know) performed well in Iraq. The problems of the past aside, both weapons will take care of you with proper maintinence.
I personally perfer the telescoping stocks on the M4 vice the folding stocks on some of the G-36 versions because a telescoping stock is simply more flexible. You can adjust it to get a proper wield on the rifle even if you're wearing bulky body armor.
The M-4's advantage is obviously it's superior to the M-16 when it comes to tight spaces. Unfortunately, the shorter barrel means a lower overall muzzle velocity and therefore reduced effectiveness of the 5.56mm round.
Since a rifleman might fight in a variety of terrain and conditions, I think a 16" barrel is a nice compromise between length and effectiveness.
<img src='http://www.gagedesigns.com/viking-hand-axe.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
And here we have just about the only person on this forum who would know. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Zig's a soldier-boy isn't he? And im from Canada, wouldnt have a clue. Colt must be doin something right though.
It's one of the oldest Assault Rifles still used today. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
the M16 was said to look like a toy when it was first introduced: but it was said to look like a BB gun. the M8 looks like a f*ing super soaker. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why bother? a shot to the knee would be just as effective. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
tell that to someone who's been in the infantry. you learn close quarters, hand to hand combat for a reason. your service weapon should be durable enough to be a weapon with or without ammunition.
It's one of the oldest Assault Rifles still used today. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats because you can drag it through the mud, throw it off a cliff, and run it over with a tank and it will still fire on the first try.
Ok so disclaimer: I don't really know if thats true, I just hear that its a pretty durable wepon.
The difference is slight enough to be negligable in an urban situation. The smaller frame and extensive rail system of the M4A1 makes it a much better weapon for what the US is doing these days. Just look at what we've done in Iraq - when's the last time you saw most of the soldiers using M16A2's?
To be honest, though, it really just comes down to what you need the weapon to do. If those extra yards the M16 provides are going to save your life in a certain situation, it's a good weapon for the situation. If the extra inches and pounds are going to prevent you from shouldering the weapon in time, it may not be the right tool for the job.
As far as the M16 & M4 weapons versus H&K's lineup argument goes, I can't really comment. I do know that the XM8 can load the same magazine as the M16 and M4 (and M249, for that matter), so I wouldn't expect to see the M4 phased out very quickly when the OICW and XM8 are introduced. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
there have been many complaints about the M4A1 and its use in Iraq: a lot of combat takes place at medium-long range and the M4A1 does not provide the necessary accuracy and distance offered by the M16(A2/A4).
<b>skulkbait:</b> it's not made of titanium or anything. the action is just structured in a very tough way. it'll shove sand and muck out of the way to fire better than most other weapons do. it doesn't possess any magic durability qualities: in fact, most captured AK's in Iraq have been notoriously deteriorated and in POS condition.
Ah well, there you have it.
Ah well, there you have it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's also one of the world's most common (if not the most common) assault rifle - an estimated 100 million are in use in the world today.
*coughs* uhm you can clap over the G36s back look here...it's universal and also good for airborne soldiers.
<img src='http://remtek.com/arms/hk/mil/g36/g36kfold.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />
yes and you are able to fire with it in that mode..
The M16's recoil spring is so large you can barely feel it. You can hear the recoil spring after every shot.
I would say the G36. Its lighter, same caliber, built in scope, 1,2,3 and full auto fire modes, and it has the reliability of HK to boot.
I was in Germany recently, and they were cutting military spending and equiping everybody with G3's, or so I thought..
As for the comparision between the three, it's kinda hard to compare three different guns made for entirely different reasons. As said before, the M16 is ideal for long range targets, and the M4 perfect for house to house fighting. The G36 is quite durable from my understanding, and would be more well suited for airborne troops and anyone that spends a lot of time in tight quarters when going to the battlefield, such as in a Bradley APC.
The M4's accuracy makes the scope's added weight a questionable decision. I think it works better in its case to just make up for single-bullet accuracy by making good use of copious ammo reserves. In other words, fire alot.
The SOPMOD kit is nice, but not everyone in the fireteam will make use of its abilities. I'd certainly like having M203 rounds available, but not for the whole team. On non-explosive points, I'd say the G36 still wins, even when there's an attachment for that.
1 G36, 1 M4 with M203 launcher, a machine gun, and either a G36 or fairly standard M4 depending on expect distance of engagements would be a good mix.