Dslyecxi

This isn't terribly accurate info, and parts of it are flat-out incorrect.

The M16A4 and M4 are different in the following areas:
Barrel lengths: M16A4 20", M4 14.5"
Muzzle velocity: Of course the M4 muzzle velocity is lower because the barrel is quite a few inches shorter. This has an influence on effective range overall as well distance at which the most damaging wound types are created (approx 90m for the M4 and approx 140m for the M16A4 for the most incapacitating wounds).
Mode of fire: M16A4 is single or burst, M4 is single or burst, M4A1 is single or auto
Stocks: M16A4 has a fixed stock, M4 and M4A1 have a six-position telescoping stock

They are identical in these areas:
Barrel twist rate, round fired, sights (with the exception that the sight radius is different on the M4/M4A1 due to the front sight being a bit closer thanks to the shorter barrel), "moddability" (both have picatinny railed handguards), and pretty much everything else with some minor cosmetic differences.

The M4 is considerably more usable in most situations due to its size - while an M16A4 can be clumsy to use in MOUT/CQB situations as well as from a vehicle, the M4/M4A1 with their smaller form factors (and adjustable stocks) do not pose nearly the same problems and provide very similar performance to their bigger brother. Most Army infantry units, as I understand it, have switched to the M4s exclusively (aside from SPRs/DMs and such), and I believe the Marine Corps has pushed heavily towards that as well and has equipped most if not all infantry units with M4s.

Note finally that ArmA is not high-fidelity enough in its weapons modeling and movement system to really show off the differences between these two weapons.

__________________

J.Agnew7

Ain't that just a big slap in the face:P lol

Well I wouldn't say i was 100% wrong or right. I did get the Size right, and that the M4A1 has Full Auto capabilities. I was just going by what i sorta remembered from playin Americas Army, three years ago. I didn't pay much attention to it because i didn't need that information, thats just kinda remenence from whats in there. And I was somewhat right about stocks. I knew for a fact M16 was fixed. Oldest models using a wood one and newer using plastic(?) ones, I think. I said a folding stock but i guess its just adjustable.

Dslyecxi

Nope. M16s have never had wooden stocks.

__________________

J.Agnew7

o damn.. lol

JAMerica

Thanks for the info. I more or less suspected that there really wasn't a difference in ArmA so I guess I can stop scratching my head when looking in the ammo crate

__________________

--------------------------------------------
Jamerius (Feral Druid)

jex

Hey Dyslexci,

Have you used/r u using NWD's ballistics mod? If so, what do you make of it?

Thanks!

__________________
Jex

Dslyecxi

I've used it briefly. I have plenty of experience with VBS2, which has accurate ballistics. My general impression is that ballistic improvements are nice, but it's not a terribly huge issue for me. We may incorporate the NWD ballistics into a future iteration of our ShackTac pack, but that remains to be seen.

__________________

Gillespie

I'm a bit late to the discussion, but I concur with Dsly. Even in real life, the difference between the M16 and M4 (in terms of range) are nearly neglible. There is a difference, as you can reach out and touch someone at a greater range with the M16 variant, but the ranges at which most modern infantry conflicts ensue are far less than what the M16 is capable of (I've managed to hit silhouettes on the range at 700m with the ironsights on a windy Colorado day... with a spotter, of course ;P).

The M4 is more than capable of replacing the role the M16 once filled. Take the neglible differences in the real world and place them into a game that doesn't have an absolutely-realistic ballistics model and those differences pretty much disappear. Just take what you like using. If you want to reach out and touch someone, just grab the SPR or the M24. If you're hunting light-skinned vehicles, grab an M107.

Switch

I tend to find scoped weapons unusable at close/medium ranges due to the lag/stuttering that happens when you zoom in on something. When the targets far and moving slowly its not an issue. When they're not far and you need to sweep the gun quickly its impossible to track a target with all the chop that occurs as textures render.

All in all, i usually just hold down rt mouse and try to hit targets unscoped if im wielding a sighted weapon and im in a city scape or other close range situation.

On the flip side, sniping is very difficult at range when the target is moving and a server is doing its regular yellow chain, red chain, yellow chain cycle.

__________________
|TG|Switch

Better known as:
That noob who crashed the chopper.
That noob who ran over the mine.
That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle.
That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC...

Gillespie

LOL. That drives me insane. One time I fired an M136 round at a tank; perfect lead on a moving target 300m away. Then I hear someone call out, "Short!"

Stupid lag warped the tank 100m back where it turned a corner and fled. Couldn't believe it. ;P

jex

Do you not find that when at range, the AI do that little lag dance? Where they run, then warp a couple of metres forward and continue running? Drives me nuts

__________________
Jex