Error creating thumbnail: File missingWorld IMFDB Exclusive: Screen used Faux M203 Launcher with M16A1 with Quadrant and Front ladder sight - 5.56x45mm. This is verified screen used from the film Scarface. Two 30 round magazines have been taped together with black gaffer's tape to emulate the way Tony Montana loaded his weapon in the film. What is interesting is that the tape in the movie does really appear to be motion picture gaffer's tape, which would only be common on ... a movie set.M4A1 with Trijicon TA47 ACOG scope and Surefire M500AB weaponlight. This is one of the screen-used weapons seen in S.W.A.T. - 5.56x45mm.Error creating thumbnail: File missingAn M4 Carbine (5.56x45mm) from Battle: Los Angeles; the weapon pictured here is the actual screen-used M4 used by Aaron Eckhart in the film, as it appeared on the Instagram account of XTreme Props, which supplied all weapons used in the film. Note that the M4 features a number of accessories not issued in the USMC, including a Surefire RIS (as opposed to the issue Knight's Armament RAS), a TangoDown vertical grip (as opposed to the issue Knight's Armament "Broomhandle"), and a Magpul MBUS rear sight (the USMC issues Knight's Armament and MaTech BUIS). According to XTreme Props, this is also a Colt M4 upper on a Desert Ordnance lower receiver group, instead of a Colt or FN-made lower.Colt Law Enforcement Carbine with ACOG scope and PentagonLight MD3R weaponlight, screen-used weapon from I Am Legend - 5.56x45mmError creating thumbnail: File missingA rubber prop of M16, used in We Were Soldiers.Error creating thumbnail: File missingScreen used custom AR-15 carbine carried by Sgt. Michael Stonebridge (Philip Winchester) in Strike Back - Season 4 - 5.56x45mmError creating thumbnail: File missingScreen used custom AR-15 sniper rifle carried by Sgt. Julia Richmond (Michelle Lukes) in Strike Back - Season 4 - 5.56x45mmError creating thumbnail: File missingDeadshot's custom AR-15. Note that as opposed to the one seen in the film, this one is fitted with a standard AR-15 pistol grip instead of the Magpul MOE and a Magpul AFG instead of an vertical foregrip.Error creating thumbnail: File missingScreen used stunt SEAL Team 3 Mk 12 Mod 1 SPR from American Sniper. Image from Prop Store of London.Error creating thumbnail: File missingScreen used stunt SEAL Team 3 Mk 12 Mod 1. Image from Prop Store of London.Error creating thumbnail: File missingScreen used stunt MK 18 Mod 0 CQB (Kyle's) from American Sniper. Image from Prop Store of London.Error creating thumbnail: File missingScreen used stunt MK 18 Mod 0 (Kyle's). Image from Prop Store of London.Error creating thumbnail: File missingDaniel Defense MK18 upper fitted to Noveske N4 lower, used Extraction 2 - 5.56x45mm. Image courtesy of ISS (Independent Studio Services).
...I seriously doubt anyone will ever see an underslung version of the M203 used in a film, all by itself, ...
but there have been stand alone M203 launchers (modified with a pistol grip and stock like the M79LF 37mm launchers) as well as the M203 being attached to guns other than the M16 (take Rambo III for example where they attached it to an AK). Having a section on the M16 w M203 on the M16 page makes sense since that is where people will look if they're curious about that particular combo appearing in a movie. But I like having a separate page for the M203 to address more detailed history of the launcher plus any applications where the launcher is used with other weapons. Just a thought...
We do need a page where M203s are used as stand alone launchers, rare, but it has happened. But we should shift all M203s underslung to M16s to the M16 Page and have a note directing users to that page when looking for that combination on the M203 page. Just IMHO.... MoviePropMaster2008 01:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense, that configuration. Also, there was a standalone M203 on Bones, and there might be others (sometime WAY in the future, when a director wants to use a "modern" version of an M79, like how James Cameron used the fictional roto-craft in place of the Huey).
Do well really need to have an "A2" and "A3" category?
MoviePropMaster2008 has already explained that just about all of the "M16A2s" used in movies are actually A2 uppers on A1 lowers, often with A1 flash hiders. By this definition, none of them are true "M16A2s", and might actually be considered M16A3s roughly. But since they're usually seen impersonating M16A2s, I say designate by receiver style only (both the A2 and A3 have what is usually called the "A2 receiver").
In other words, I think we should ditch the M16A3 category completely. It makes no sense to distinguish between A2s and A3s when basically all of the "Hollywood" A2s and A3s are the same type of gun. -MT2008 20:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I never got anyone's feedback on this, but...I decided to go ahead and ditch the M16A3 entry, for the reasons I explained above. It doesn't make sense to try and distinguish between "A2s" and "A3s" in movies when MoviePropMaster has explained that they're all basically the same thing - A2-style uppers on fully automatic A1 lowers. By that definition, none of them are true "M16A2s", but since they're obviously supposed to portray such rifles in movies, it makes more sense to call them A2s. -MT2008 01:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree, because the M16A3 was made for Navy SEALs and SeeBees, no civilian hands hae touched them. -Winchester (1-26-09)
I believe the 1995 remake of Village of the Damned portrayed the National Guard using burst fire. --AdAstra2009 03:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
(the above was in reply to a comment that the author deleted as i posted.) --AdAstra2009 03:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Also I think Colt sold A3s to foreign entities, National police of allied countries, Elite units, etc. Any country with which we are friendly and Colt has sold weapons in the past. I've heard that A3s were sold as samples to France, U.K. and Germany (but that was a casual comment that I heard years ago). There 'could' be A3s in the armories of foreign movie productions. That is a completely grey area with which I have no one to verify anything. :( MoviePropMaster2008 05:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
This is strange. I posted a comment here a couple hours ago, asking how many movies are there were burst fire is portrayed? I know Black Hawk Down has one instant. Excalibur01 05:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I've seen some films that had three round burst fire. I will try to get the titles and list them 205.172.16.102 01:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
There is a significant difference between a true A2 and A3 M16. Externally, they look identical, however the A3 is full auto and the A2 is 3 shot burst. Simply put: A1 and A3 are full auto, A2 and A4 are 3 shot burst. The external differences are what make it a little easier to identify. We all know what an A1, A2, and A4 M16 look like, but the A3 is just an A2 that is full auto. Hope this helps; Its my first time posting. --Ranger12 10:14, 29 October 2011 (CDT)
The caption to the M16A1 w/ M16A2 handguards...
I was in the National Guard in the early '90's and that's exactly what we had. I was also issued an M16A1 with A2 handguards in basic training. It turns out that it's simpler and--from what I heard--cheaper to replace the 'A1 guards with 'A2 guards because the 'A2's are less complex and you only need to stock one type instead of 'lefts' and 'rights'. Also, the 'A1'a in the national guard were freshly rebuilt, tested, and had the serial numbers laser etched into the bolt carriers. They were issued with all 'A2 furniture.
Yeah, I've seen plenty of A1s with A2 hand guards elsewhere. In fact, if you ever watch footage of the current offensive into Gaza, you can see both IDF personnel and Hamas militants using them. The Israelis received a lot of M16A1s and have updated many of them with the M16A2 hand guards. Many of these rifles were passed into Israeli's "allies" in Fatah, and then Hamas stole plenty of them during their war with Fatah (some were also probably stolen from the IDF themselves). -MT2008 22:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
just for the record here is an M16A1 with A2 handguards in service
I put one on the Live Free or Die Hard page that I took from another site. -MT2008 01:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks I pasted it from that page but we should probably look into getting a noncopyrighted one.
-User:AdAstra2009
Well, you can ask MoviePropMaster2008 if he has a Mark 12 upper in his company's inventory. I imagine he also knows armorers at Cinema Weaponry (the guys who supplied the weapons for Live Free or Die Hard), so he might even be able to get us one of the same guns used in that movie. But he's very busy of course and has LOTS of other image requests to tend to, so it might be a while before he gets around to it. -MT2008
Rate of Fire on the M16A1
Does anyone know the rate of fire on the M16A1?Oliveira 22:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I assume it's about 800 rounds a minute Excalibur01 08:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
That would be correct, it's around 750 to 800 RPM. Spartan198 15:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
What is this?
It's not really from a movie, but a music video, and I havn't been able to figure out what this AR is yet, there are two others in the video, one's an M16A1, the other an A2, but I just can't figure this one out.
Looks like an M733, what is this from? Excalibur01 08:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The gun in the first 'cap looks different from the CAR-15s in the other pictures. Maybe it's a fake XM177?-Oliveira 12:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
It's from the music video for Hero Of War by Rise Against, the main soldier uses it, his two buddies use an M16A1 and M16A2, I'm almost 100% sure there are only three rifles in the video. Yeah, I'm thinking M733 too... Alex T Snow
XM607 Commando Carbine
I do remember the weapon from Pink Cadillac an XM607, or an AR-15 modified to imitate one. The weapon may not have been officially adopted but kits were released to the public though:
That is definitely an older-model LaFrance Specialties M16K. It doesn't have the triangular front sight post of the XM607. -MT2008 18:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
The Photoshopped M16 images
Can people please stop posting the images of M16 variants that were edited using MPM's photos? There's a reason I've removed them before. We don't need to have every variant on the page, and many of them are inaccurate, anyway. The only one we allow is the XM16E1, because we don't have a good photo of one of those yet, and even that may get replaced. -MT2008
The Colt 607 image I posted wasn't one of MPM's [unless someone stole it and re-hosted it], I got it from google. Only put it here because the page for the The World Is Not Enough videogame didn't have a 607 image. Vangelis 05:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Why do we have Colt Model 727 by itself
When the Model 727 is just the commercial Colt name for the M4 carbine? it doesn't make sense to have the exact GUN made by Colt with it's commercial name (for law enforcement sales or international sales) with a separate category, when it should just be merged in with the M4/M4A1 category. The M16 page is getting out of control. MPM2008
I agree that the Model 727 should be merged with the M4 category, but it's not exactly a commercial name for an M4. The Model 777 is the commercial name for the very first M4 (the one that didn't have the detachable carry handle). The 727 and 777 are identical, but the 727 is safe-semi-auto and the 777 is safe-semi-burst. -MT2008
Good point. But in the overall view, I think all that info (a) should be in the M4 category, (b) should be a footnote, NOT a separate category and (c) people are endlessly creating separate categories for weapons that are essentially the same guns as other categories. Experienced IMFDB users/Mods already know that most of the M16 variants seen in films are build ups of other guns. We usually just get the accessories and barreled uppers and put them on our full auto or semi auto lowers. Why spend thousands to get new guns when we're sitting on dozens and dozens of other M16s? Also, in VideoGames and Anime, again, they don't have to specify the new or commercial model unless it's specifically stated or named explicitly. Even then it can be a footnote in the original category.
Adding images
I'm getting a little annoyed with people adding images we don't need on the page, including many that are crap and which aren't necessary. Not to mention that half of them aren't even using the "br clear=all" command to ensure that the images won't drift into the next gun entry. So, I'm putting a stop to this now. No more without talking about it here first. Next person who doesn't respect my wishes gets a 1-week time out. -MT2008 17:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
They're still doing it. I have removed the custom A1 upper mounted on an SP1 lower with A2 handguards from this page several times. It is not a common real like frankengun (but it has happened). I originally built this and photographed it for the HEAT page until better screenshots proved that Wes Studi's AR15 was an A1 style lower, not an SP1. MoviePropMaster2008 21:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more, for some reason, these users seem to think that every single picture of a gun needs to be on it's page. It especially frustrates me when they're sticking all customized guns that only appear in one movie onto a page, they may look cool, but they're not even standard configurations! All they end up doing is turning the gun page into a cluttered, sloppy mess of pictures, I mean just look at the Remington 870 and Mossberg 500 pages.--Alienqueen11 22:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Figured that since the other sections on the page have pics of the 'basic' and 'tricked-out' versions, why not this one? Orca1 9904 21:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have any pictures of a heavily modified M4 style platform? ex- The Unit, BlackHawk Down, Tears of the Sun? Dirtdiver6421 17:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
So why not update this page to include current issue M16A4 rifles?
(unless you don't know what they are....)
A Warm Thank-You
For years I have been trying to find out what the guns were Peter & Roger used in Dawn of the Dead. This site solved what the problem so many other "gun experts" on IMDb could not. Again, thank you.
Thats what IMFDB is for =) --AdAstra2009 18:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Let's See If You Can Figure This Out
I couldn't find a real picture so I put this together. Its an M4A1 with the old style stock, and a straight (no cuts) 16" barrel; or its a Sporter (or one of those older three number ones like that) with a removable carry handle; take your pick. I was just wondering what it actually is...
P.S. Every detail is intentional and exactly how its supposed to be even though its not a real picture, just so everyone knows that. ;)
It would be a hybrid commercial AR variant. It has an M16A1 style lower receiver, so it is NOT a Sporter I or II. Basically, it's an M4 Carbine with a flat top and detachable carry handle, with an old style buttstock and a civilian HBAR Carbine barrel outfitted with RIS forearms. Various manufacturers made similar guns to this design, like Bushmaster and a few others. Also many builders of AR15s made similar guns from parts kits from M&A, Patriot Arms, (the now defunct Nesard), Sun Valley, and others. With the advent of custom builds from aftermarket parts from dozens of manufacturers, the AR15 has become the ultimate "mutt". I can tell you this is NOT an issued military variant, so it would NOT have an "M" designation unless it was built from an M4 to begin with. Also nearly everyone uses the step down M4 style barrels for carbines, unless it's the ultra light. The HBAR Carbine style barrels are becoming rarer by the day since their heyday was the 1990s. MoviePropMaster2008 07:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, very informative answer. This is the "M4 Carbine" in Call Of Duty 4, and I've been trying to figure out exactly what it really is for a while. I didnt say where it was from because I figured the answer I'd get would be something like "its a videogame, so its probably not a real model", but I knew that ;) I like the look and have been trying to make it as an airsoft project, this helps a lot... too bad airsoft HBAR barrels are very hard to come by. Alex T Snow 07:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
How did you make that? At first I thought it was Pimp My Gun, but PMG doesn't have an M16A1 pistol grip yet. Spartan198 14:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
No, you thought right my friend, it is Pimp My Gun, I just used MS Paint to remove the little finger nub and made the HBAR barrel by copying and pasting the largest part of the barrel over the rest of it. That's all the "photoshopping" that I did. Alex T Snow 07:45, 13
February 2010 (UTC)
If it's from CoD4, then blame lack of details on modelers that made that gun model. They simply saved some poligons for improved performance of the game. Same thing with lack of gas-block when front sight is removed. It supposed to be M4A1 and i'm 100% sure they had pictures of military issued M4A1's as a reference.
I'm sure they wanted it to be an M4A1, but I've seen a lot of movies where HK94s were converted to be MP5s, or 92FSs were converted to be 93Rs and last I checked on this site we identify guns on what they are, not what they're supposed to be... Alex T Snow 00:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
M16A1 series' portray
In the present, does anyone think that like the Ak47 and its variants, the M16A1 series is sometimes stereotypically portrayed as a bad guy's gun?
I've seen the IRA, FARC guerillas, Mexican drug lords and some gangbangers use them.
Overall is this true?
In the real world, the USSR dumped millions of AKs into the hands of satellite states and insurgents around the world. In the Vietnam and immediate post Vietnam years the U.S. dumped millions of M16A1s to our allies. With the fall of Vietnam, all of the South Vietnamese M16A1s ended up in the hands of communist guerillas (as well as the AK). The AK and the M16 were the most prolifically distributed weapons of the last 50 years. There is no conspiracy to make them 'look bad'. They're in the hands of everyone so it is invevitable.
Even Iran uses a variant of the M16A1, a copy of the Norinco CQ called the S-5.56, as their standard rifle. Spartan198 15:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
AR Series firing 5.7 Ammo???
I was in a gun shop in Michigan today and saw a weapon with an AR-15 type body but with the mag of a P-90 running along the rail. I asked the guy at the shop and he did confirm the weapon did fire the 5.7 round. Anyone have any idea who makes the weapon and what it may be called? Incidentally the store was The Firing Line in Westland Michigan. --Charon68 03:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
They sell those uppers here in California all the time. My local gun store has 5.7mm firing AR15 uppers that take the P90 magazine. But I never bothered to check who made it, that's what GOOGLE is for. I just never had an interest MoviePropMaster2008 07:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I have seen examples of this conversion as well. It is actually a specially-made upper receiver that can be mounted onto pretty much any AR-15 style lower receiver. The magazine mounts along the top of the weapon as with the P90, and the original magazine well in the lower receiver becomes the ejection port with the spent brass falling down through there instead of being spit out to the side. As for the manufacturer, I can't quite recall who makes it, but it is definitely quite an interesting piece of hardware. Orca1 9904 07:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
As long as my memory goes, is called the AR-57 and is manufactured by 57Center, or something like that --Yocapo32 15:17, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The manufacturer's web site, as Yocapo32 pointed out, is 57 Center. Their web site is here: http://www.57center.com/
What's interesting is that the AR magazine well is where the brass gets ejected. The only problem I can see with having a P90 magazine mounted on top is that it leaves limited rail space on top for mounting accessories. You could have a scope or iron sights, and not much else. -MT2008 15:44, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info guys, again, I know this was not germane to the topic, it was just a little odd to see something like that as I had never heard of it before. --Charon68 16:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Stolen M4A1s
In real life is there ever any incidents where police have seized M4A1 carbines from criminials or terrorists during raids?
Do you mean mil-spec M4s, as opposed to semi-auto AR-15 carbines that are patterned after the M4? I would doubt it. -MT2008 21:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Never, or else it has never been reported anywhere, ever. And I am talking about real select fire 14.5" barreled M4/M4A1 carbines. However, California has had a rash of MP5s and MP5Ks stolen out of police cars, which were left unlocked when the cops were in a strip club. Seriously. they have not shown up since....MoviePropMaster2008 06:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
They're probably somewhere in Mexico right now, if you catch my drift. Spartan198 03:39, 29 March 2012 (CDT)
Suitable combat weapon
Which weapon is considered better for infantry? An M16A1/M203 combo or an OICW?
M16A1/M203. The XM29 weighs damn near 20 lbs., compared to 8 or 9 lbs. for the M16 when fitted with a 203. Fire control system or not, the last thing I'd want to be stuck with on a 60 mile march is an F-ing 20 lbs. rifle. And sign your posts by typing four ~ after them. Spartan198 23:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The M16/M203 combo is definitely superior; it has been proven in real-world combat situations over the last 30-plus years, whereas the only live-fire situation the XM29 has seen at the most is at the Aberdeen testing ranges. The closest replacement the M16/M203 will likely see anytime soon is an FN SCAR/M320, and even then the SCAR is only in limited use with the 75th Ranger Regiment at present. Orca1 9904 05:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The real question is whether or not the XM8 Carbine is better than the M4A1/derivatives (H&K 416, REC7, etc). And we probably won't ever know.
Also, the OICW was more of a man-portable version of a Doom gun than anything that you would actually bother carrying on duty. 20mm airburst auto-loader, saboted sub-5.56mm rounds? What could you use that for other than trying to clear a drug cartel's fortified mansion by yourself?
One of the many things that led to the death of the XM29 was its sheer size. The Army wanted it scaled down to the size of an M4 [1] and 14 lbs max (which an M4 with all its mods gets pretty close to), but with today's technology, it just wasn't possible. Maybe in 20 years or so it will be, but the XM29 is presently dead for the foreseeable future. Spartan198 17:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Installation of a front Flip up/down Iron sights.
I was watching The Losers, and while I agree that those 4 characters all had M4A1s, they seemed to switch between fixed front sight and flip up/down iron sights. I was wondering how hard it would be to take an M4A1, remove the front factory sight and replace it with a flip up/down sight. I know it's pretty easy for the rear sight, but I wasn't sure about the front sight. (OK, I also want to ask this question because I, like many people, have played Modern Warfare 2 and seen the M4 with a flip up/down front sight.) --Gunkatas 03:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Not really that difficult. Spartan198 04:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe the process would involve removing the muzzle brake and the existing front sight/gas block assembly and replacing it with a gas block that has either a rail to mount your choice of front sight, or a folding front sight, then reinstalling the muzzle brake. You can find instructional videos for this process at various gunsmithing websites. Orca1 9904 14:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Forward Assist
Does anyone know when reloading if it is a good idea to hit the forward assist after hitting the bolt release or its ok just to start firing after hitting the bolt release?
The idea behind hitting the forward assist after reloading is to ensure the bolt is fully seated and that the weapon is ready to fire. It's generally not really nessicary at the range, but when in a combat situation where you might have dirt or whatnot fouling the chamber, it's a good idea to do that to ensure that the weapon will fire when you need it to.Orca1 9904 23:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
The M16 series are the ONLY assault rifles (except the HK G41, which is made to be like the M16 and is no longer produced) in the world to have a forward assist. Why don't other assault rifles have a forward assist? (ie. the AK-74, G36 etc.) Because other assault rifles are more reliable and don't need it. :)
Uh more associated with the design of the Bolt than being more reliable. The AK series have a bolt handle attached DIRECTLY to the bolt carrier as do many other designs. If there is debris or fouling in the chamber which keeps a round from seating properly you can just jam the handle forward (I've done this in the field when my AK / Garand / Galil / M 14 / etc jammed) I once had a tiny piece of bark (I was firing under trees) which fell from above and fell into the ejection port and made the round 'stick' really badly in the chamber so that it would not seat properly. The M16 design has no way other than the forward assist to nudge the bolt & carrier forward enough to fire and kick that crap free of the action. But I wouldn't bash the M16 as an "unreliable" rifle. I'd sure take it into battle right now. MoviePropMaster2008 20:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Alright, I understand. thanks for the extra info. I'm not saying the M16/M4 is a complete piece of crap, but it's definitely not the BEST ASSAULT RIFLE IN THE WORLD! like we Americans like to state all the time (*rolls eyes*). You and me both know the M16/M4 is no where as reliable as the G36 or the AK series. But at least it's better than the L85 series, now that's a piece crap rifle. :D *Edit: Well at least the L85A1, the L85A2 is OK. kinda like the M16/M16A1s sucks but the M16A2/A4s are good.
I have to completely disagree with what you say, i don't wish to come off as passive aggresive but you sound like a mall ninja that learned their weapons knowledge from seeing them perform in videogames or hearing public opinions on weapons from the news or other sources. The M16 family of rifles are both fine and fairly reliable weapons, while much of that view has been skewed by the fact they were portrayed as unreliable during conflicts such as Vietnam, is incorrect to a degree. The M16 is a reliable and capable weapon when cleaned and properly maintained, it simply lacks the ability to stay so when not properly serviced, as some other rifles such as the AKM can function fine without cleaning, the M16 can not. As for your comment on the L85 series, yes they were somewhat poor and unreliable weapons at first, coupled with poor grips and clumsy to handle for certain users, however the newer models have made large improvements and are very capable firearms. As i feel it needs to be said (or typed) a common mistake people make is assuming that militaries have access and funding to field their troops with the best weapons available, which is not always the case as most countries don't have the money to field an Army with rifles that can cost up to $5000-10000 per unit. Which is where the workhorses like M16's come in, you go for the "good" rifle not the "great" one. Also, although off-topic it somewhat pertains to the M16, most mall ninja's assume the AK-family is better because it is more reliable and fires a heavier cartridge, I've always asked "would you want a round that's going to pierce right through an enemy and leave an easy to treat wound, or have a round that hits an enemy and fragments inside them causing an ungodly bloody mess?" Hopefully esteemed imfdb members such as MPM2008 will agree with and share my viewpoint concerning this subject, as well as not condemn me for my long comment. Doc345 13:24, 06 March 2011 (UTC)
The issues of jamming during the Vietnam War had more to do with ammunition and the lack of a chrome-lined chamber and barrel than the rifle's so-called "dirty" gas system. In 1964 the Army switched from stick powder to ball powder, which increased the rate of fire to over 1,000 RPM and left a lot of dirty residue in the weapon. This was only exacerbated by the lack of cleaning kits and training on how to maintain the weapon. They fixed the issue by fitting the rifle with a buffer system (which slowed the ROF down) and chrome-plated chamber. Training programs in weapon maintenance were instituted and an instruction book on how to maintain the rifle was circulated among troops. After further modifications resulted in the M16A1, many of the reliability issues disappeared (although even today, the weapon has yet to shed its bad reputation). The M16A2, A3, A4, and M4 carbine of today are an entirely different breed of warrior than the prototypes that were issued back in the 60s. While it may admittedly be a bit finicky, the M16 today is a good weapon. Spartan198 11:29, 19 June 2011 (CDT)
Yeah but it's still a very fussy weapon, it's not very durable, and it has much more malfunctions/jams then say the H&K G36, but none the less it's still a excellent weapons platform, mostly. - Mr. Wolf 14:28, 19 June 2011 (CDT)
I was always taught that the forward assist, while useful in combat, in situations where dirt or grime can jam a weapon, overall, if you DO need to use it, its a good indication of a malfunction and should be addressed, especially if its at a range. Theres a video somewhere on youtube, of a guy shooting some sort of AR, and repeatedly hits the forward assist, without clearing or checking the bore, until the entire gun explodes, probably from a round hitting one stuck in the bore. -MissySummers- 18:47, 8 January 2012 (CST)
Are you talking about the video where the magazine blows apart on one guy's AR-15 when he pulls the trigger? If so, I've seen it and while I don't recall exactly what the description said the cause was, I'm pretty sure it was an issue with the ammunition (probably a hot cartridge) rather than the oh-so-pined-upon gas system. Spartan198 03:48, 29 March 2012 (CDT)
One element to remember when criticising the AR-15's reliability is that when it was first issued in the field, it was touted to not need any maintenance nor be cleaned. Immediately, this was realised to be a mistake, but that initial belief that it never needed cleaning and inevitable memory of fouling sticks around. --Rebusdi 14:20, 14 August 2012 (CDT)
No, the AR-15 was never touted as not needing maintenance or cleaning. The belief that it was is a myth, one of the many surrounding the weapon system. It was an "educated" assumption made based on previous experiences with the AR-15's predecessor, the AR-10, which did prove to be quite reliable without maintenance or cleaning (I believe it was the Sudanese who used it in sub-Saharan Africa and gave reviews that were nothing short of glowing). Now whether AR-10s manufactured today share this trait, I don't know. Spartan198 (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2013 (EST)
When soldiers were trained on it they were told it was pretty much self-cleaning, but don't know if this was from Colt of an invention by the US Army. Although there were cleaning kits they were only issued at a rate of something like 2 per platoon, as it was not believed that the weapon would require regular maintenance. When the Marines got it they had no cleaning kits at all. The parts which they were critically short of until the late 60s were the cleaning rods, and chamber brushes. Chamber brushes were not originally issued as the chamber was stated as not requiring specific cleaning, and it wasn't until 1966 after repeated protests from in theatre officers that it was procured. Something else that is worth bearing in mind, is that instructions on how to clean the M16 were not published until (I think) December 1966, so up until this point it was pretty much word of mouth and hearsay leading to a lot of misconceptions (for example a lot of troops were lubricating their ammunition, which was a big no-no leading to a lot of malfunctions with both the magazines and rifles). --commando552 (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2013 (EST)
The comment about the SPR Mk 12 shooting full auto...
The design--at least the original ones--used a match grade trigger group that actually fired full auto.
If my Web Fu is correct, NSN 1005-01-562-0901 from Knight's Armament.
The original, intended purpose was to allow the uppers to be swapped out for a short barreled model initially so a marksman could use a short range weapon on the way in and out and the more accurate upper at the objective.
States the Special Purpose Receiver (Early designs) specifies:
"(C) OTHER PERFORMANCE GOALS: (1) Increased reliability, durability, corrosion resistance, ease of cleaning, lubricity/reduced friction; fully functional for a minimum of 15,000 rounds (Threshold)/30,000 rounds (Objective), performing up to the standards and firing rates to be published in the Solicitation, functional reliability exceeding that of the standard M4A1 carbine at high and low temperature extremes as well as other hostile (sand/dust/dirt/mud/surf) environmental conditions (2) Improved safety- delay cook-off, fail-safe features, fires/functions safely and without delay of draining in the Over-The-Beach (surf zone, weapon flooded with water) environment. (3) User Acceptance: operational suitability, increased live-fire hit scores, decreased live-fire engagement times, speed/accuracy of engagement, controllability in semi-automatic and full automatic fire, improved handling qualities, light weight, snag free in movement through vegetation and battlefield obstacles." (Accent added)"
Standard Issue M4 vs. M4A1
Does the Army issue regular infantry (i.e. 4th Inf. Div.) the three-round burst M4 or the M4A1? I always thought it was the M4A1 (and please forgive me if I got to the party late), but from what I've read, it seems like they issue the regulars the Model 920, leaving the 921 for Special Forces and the like. -
i think it all depends on the on-base armory. for example some armory's might still have some M4s. but i think the regular infantry does use the M4A1. however. Special forces dont use the M4A1 or the M4. they use the hK416/417. Dirtdiver6421 17:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
- Though I don't know for certain, I wouldn't imply Spec-Ops units use only the new HK rifles - As you've said, it all depends on what's around, and to a degree what the soldiers prefer (in the case of Special units). Though the aforementioned HK rifles are in inventory, that doesn't automatically cancel the M4s out - some personnel might still use 'em. Plus there are other weapons around, namely the FN SCAR series. Though I would agree use of the M4 with Special Forces probably isn't as common these days. As for a regular-issue weapon, I agree that the M4 and M4A1 are both in use nowadays, with the A1 perhaps being more prominent. StanTheMan 19:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Stan, my understanding is that it's the opposite. The M4 is the most common version, not the M4A1. U.S. military doctrine still discourages full-auto for infantry rifles, so it seems unlikely to me that the M4A1 is going to be more common. As for the SCAR, SOCOM just decided this past June that they weren't going to order any more SCAR-Ls for the foreseeable future, which means that even amongst most SF units, the M4 will remain their standard weapon. -MT2008 01:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- Well, I wasn't too sure, but I guess that does make sense to stick with the burst-fire M4. Good point. StanTheMan 01:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The only SF unit that uses the M4 (920) that I can think of is the Asymmetric Warfare Group, but that's only 'cause they had to hand in their HK416s. According to a book I've got, that decision went over like a lead balloon with the AWG. -
thank god. im not a huge fan of the SCAR-L i find it pointless. if you want to go with a new alternative to the M4/M16. why the hell would you take an unfamiliar weapon. alas the hK416. same rate of fire. same Picatanny rail, same attachments, same stock, same barrel, same trigger group, and extremely similiar internals. and Stan, i do agree. if i made it sounds like all SF use the hK416, i didnt mean to. i/we really DONT no what they all use. they pick their own. they could carry an AK-47 or a CAR-15 if they wanted to. we cant make generalizations about units that get custom made equipment. Dirtdiver6421 20:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- No prob, dude - I'm just glad you got what I was gettin' at. StanTheMan 20:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
i would be shocked if they couldnt pick their weapons. their the best soldiers on the planet. it just doesnt make sense not to be able to. it would be like giving a star baseball player a 10 dollar glove. itll do but why wouldnt they get the best thats out there. Dirtdiver6421 01:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Reg army units use the burst M4, not the full auto A1. Spartan198 05:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
A couple of months ago when I was at a military base there were Marines conducting a weapons demo with the M4 carbine. It was the 3-round burst rifle, but a question came up about the M4A1. One Marine said that they got rid of all M4A1s and only have M4s. I personally don't see the need for a full-auto rifle and 3-round burst is fine because it forces the user to slow down and most of the time the user uses semi-only, combat or not, but that is my opinion. The M4A1 is still probabley used by the US Military, but I'm not sure, I haven't seen one in a long time.--MarineCorps1 23:29, 21 July 2011 (CDT)
From what I hear, the Army is planning on replacing every full-size M16 and original M4 with the M4A1 by 2014; dunno how that'll work out. Kadorhal (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2013 (EST)
I think that has more to do with the trigger pull than fire modes. I've heard the burst trigger is shyte, though I'm not familiar with the technical side of it ATM. Spartan198 (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2013 (EST)
Colt Accurized Rifle
After seeing several pages of real firearms appearing in only one film or game, I was wondering if I should expand this page with a new section for the Colt Accurized Rifle, which to my knowledge has only ever appeared in S.W.A.T. 4. Before I do that, I need to confirm two things:
Is the Colt Accurized Rifle indeed another variant on the M16 line of rifles, or a separate take on the AR-15 design altogether? I suppose there's a reason why we don't include the Z-M LR 300 in the M16 page because it's the latter--I need to know if the Colt Accurized Rifle falls in that category.
Including it on this page would make it the first Designated Marksman Rifle variant here. So far I only see assault rifles or carbines here. Would including a DMR in this page be a problem or not?
If there are no real problems, I'll make a new section for it, but I have no idea where I'll get a non-copyright infringment image of one. --Mazryonh 01:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
It'd be the second DMR on the page. Spartan198 05:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, but can someone confirm that the Colt Accurized Rifle is indeed descended from the M16 line of assault rifles and not a separate take on the AR-15 design like the aforementioned LR-300 is? I still have no idea where I can get a photo of this DMR that respects copyright. All I have are game screenshots. Some help here, please? --Mazryonh 22:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Removeable Carry Handle for Colt 9mm SMG?
Does such a Gun exist?
Not as a production gun (Colt's website makes no mention of one, anyway), but the modular nature of the AR system makes such a configuration entirely possible. Spartan198 14:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Why do we have a Colt AR-15 SP1 category that is separate from the M16/SP1 category?
The guns look the same, sure the SP1 had a design change in 1978 (three prong flash hider was changed to birdcage, rear sling swivel was changed to A1 style and the color went from greenish grey to straight grey) but unless we see the stamp on the side that says "Property of U.S. Government" we can't tell if it's a real M16 (which WERE sold via Title II dealers to armories) and a Colt AR15 SP1 which was converted to full auto (which was done A LOT prior to 1986). MoviePropMaster2008 19:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Am trying to pin down what a gun is for a page I'm working on. It has a forward assist but no deflector, A1 rear sight, M4 length tubular handguard, 16" barrel with birdcage flash hider and a solid stock. Basically it matches the gun in the picture for the Model 653 on the main page, apart from having a solid stock but that is easily changeable. However, every source I can find about the 653 says that it has a 14" barrel. Was the gun made in different barrel lengths but kept the same designation, and if not, anyone know what the gun is that is pictured as a 653? Also, while I'm on the topic of obscure colt carbines, does anyone know of a model that will match a 725 (original C8 without the flat-top) but has an A2 rear sight? Thanks, --commando552 18:16, 16 April 2011 (CDT)
Can anyone figure out what this is?
I found this hidden in my computer, I think it's a Colt Canada C7A1 as a base, I can tell it's C7 because of the Canadian leaf on the the lower receiver, it would be an A1 because of the removable carrying-handle. What the heck is that hand-guard? - Mr. Wolf 01:02, 28 April 2011 (CDT)
Colt Model 750/Diemaco C7 Light Support Weapon - A modified C7 with an enlarged gas tube (hence the square handguard) and a heavy barrel for sustained fire in the squad automatic weapon role. The C7 LSW is not used by the Canadian Forces but has seen service with the Dutch and Danish militaries. --Markit 01:34, 28 April 2011 (CDT)
Ha! I thought so, thanks. :) Should I remove this section or keep it. - Mr. Wolf 13:53, 28 April 2011 (CDT)
That's not Colt LSW, that's Colt Automatic Rifle. Follow the link and you will see that the image is the larger version of the official one. Meanwhile, Colt LSW has optional folding carry handle. --Masterius 09:09, 29 April 2011 (CDT)
Thanks guys. :) - Mr. Wolf 12:02, 29 April 2011 (CDT)
Just to clarify, the Colt automatic rifle, LSW and LMG are all the same weapon. The original version that looks like the one above was the Colt Model 750, which featured a fixed A2 carry handle and barrel mounted bi-pod, and the newer version above is the current production Model 950, with the relocated bi-pod and A4 rear sights. As you said, the folding carry handle is removeable, and the picture on the Colt website is just one without it fitted (note the longer centre vent on the top of the handguard is the mounting point for the handle). --commando552 02:48, 1 May 2011 (CDT)
Guys, remember back in the 1980s when Colt was trying to vie for the SAW role? Sure the FN Minimi was never knocked off its perch, but Colt came out with a Colt light Machine gun that looked a lot like this. They were selling the barreled uppers on the market for a while in the early 1990s (I know a few friends who have them, but I never got one). This looks like that reincarnated!!! LOL!MoviePropMaster2008 15:24, 29 April 2011 (CDT)
Interesting reading, methinks :) --Masterius 03:13, 30 April 2011 (CDT)
Yeah it was. :) You know, I kinda knew LMGs were dying out. :/ - Mr. Wolf 01:07, 1 May 2011 (CDT)
Not overall, it's just the role they are being used in (automatic rifleman). SAW is still very good in defensive role and laying fire on attacking forces ;) --Masterius 11:33, 1 May 2011 (CDT)
Heat Dissipation Performance of Carbine Barrel Types?
I was wondering, does anyone know what kind of effects the 'cuts' (originally meant for the mounting of the M203 grenade launcher) in the barrel of the M4 and similiarly-styled M16 & AR-15 series carbines has on the heat dissipation performance of the barrel? Do the cuts help the weapon release heat from prolonged firing better than a barrel that has a uniform thickness, or does it hamper that? Any input anyone can provide on this would be greatly appreciated. Orca1 9904 17:46, 8 May 2011 (CDT)
The step down for the grenade launcher is actually pretty negligible in terms of cooling (although it does create a point of weakness to bending), as what you can't see is the fact that as soon as the barrel goes under the handguard it is reduced down to the same narrow diameter as in the cut out, which creates a much bigger effect on cooling. The narrower profile sections have the effect of cooling down the barrel quicker, but they also conversely mean that the barrel heats up quicker, and the heat has a larger effect on the accuracy of the gun. The main advantage however is that it reduces the weight quite a bit. The original reason that the M4 barrel reduces in size behind the handguard is based on the M16A2, which does exactly the same thing where its heavy barrel is actually only thicker past the front sight. This was due to a cock up in the design, where they designed the gun with a full thickness straight barrel, and found that they could then no longer clamp the M203 to the barrel, so the barrels were simply turned down from behind the front sight post. The front of the barrel was left thick due to the fact that the thinner barrels on the M16A1 were being bent at the front from being used as pry-bars to get the loading bands off of shipping pallets. --commando552 04:53, 6 June 2011 (CDT)
There is a heavier "SOCOM-profile" barrel that maintains the same diameter beneath the handguards as the standard M4-profile barrel does around the M203 cut and it can mount the M203 just fine.[2]Spartan198 11:40, 19 June 2011 (CDT)
can you tell me what model of m16/car 15 this is
sorry i do not have a pic but i can tell you what is like. me and my dad were talikng about some of the guns he used in the army and he was telling me about this one he said was like an carbine version of the m16a2 and it was like the m4 but had a fixed carring handle and it was used befor the m4 it had safe semi and burst and he said it just had ar15 on the side.-Steviebleckley
Sounds like the first batch of M4s that were delivered. This is the Colt Model 777, which is basically an M4 with a fixed carry handle, and 3-round burst as opposed to full auto. It is the brother of and visually identical to the 727 mentioned on the main page, where the 727 as full auto as opposed to the burst. If it didn't have the M4 profile barrel though, god knows. Probably a model 654 on an M16 lower receiver or something. --commando552 15:02, 13 June 2011 (CDT)
yes it had the same profile as the m4. i gess it was the 777.I will show him the pic of the the 727 since there the same well the 727 is full auto thanks for the info - Steviebleckley
Question about the buffer tube
I'm not one hundred percent sure what it does, and (like the forward assist) that almost no other guns have it. If someone could just clarify, what does it do, why does this rifle series have it, and why don't others/what replaces the buffer tube in other rifles? Thank you in advance. --Rebusdi 07:27, 12 July 2011 (CDT)
Basically, it was installed in order to slow down the rate of fire. The very first M16s ended up using a different ammunition powder than they were designed for, which caused a higher rate of fire than desired (about 800 to 1000 rpm I think), leading to excessive fouling in the chamber, and hence lots of stopages. From the M16E1 onwards a buffer tube was added to slow the rate of fire to about 600-700 rpm, and a chrome lined chamber and barrel was added as well. --commando552 11:47, 12 July 2011 (CDT)
I'm not sure if this is practical in any way, or even possible, but is their a way to increase the rate of fire on an M16 without the problems of the carbon build-up in the chamber?--MarineCorps1 23:29, 21 July 2011 (CDT)
Why would you want to increase the rate of fire? - Mr. Wolf 00:40, 22 July 2011 (CDT)
No reason, just wondering if it's even possible with a full-auto M16.--MarineCorps1 08:09, 22 July 2011 (CDT)
Probably, I see no reason why you couldn't. - Mr. Wolf 13:40, 22 July 2011 (CDT)
I'm assuming the reason that the high rate of fire caused fouling was that the rate of fire was so quick that the bolt was unlocking and opening before all the powder was fully burnt in the chamber, leaving residue. I'd imagine that you could increase the rate of fire by removing the buffer, and just make sure that whatever powder you were using was fully burnt in the time it takes the bolt to open. --commando552 14:29, 22 July 2011 (CDT)
That would make sense, since I heard the nightmare version of that was when the gas pressure was still holding the spent case in place while the extractor was trying to eject it, which tended to result in Horrible Things happening to the case while it was still inside the rifle. Evil Tim 21:08, 27 July 2011 (CDT)
This might be a silly question, but why is it that the AR-15 design required the buffer tube, and other rifles do not? Is it just located differently, and if so why? It just strikes me that the lack of a folding stock option is a poor design, especially when compared to most assault rifles designed today, SCAR, ACR, etc. --Rebusdi 18:57, 27 July 2011 (CDT)
I'm guessing here, but from what I've read it's that the rifle had already been designed, so they had to work inside the box, as it were. The only options were either to make the components of the action a lot heavier so their momentum prevented the weapon cycling too fast (which would rather defy the point of using a lightweight aluminium receiver and suchlike) or add something on to slow it down, which is what they did. Rifles designed since have been designed from the ground up to avoid this kind of problem, so don't need to have a tube attached to a hole in the back of the receiver to fix them. Evil Tim 21:08, 27 July 2011 (CDT)
The buffer tube does two things: 1) contains the buffer and spring and 2) allows the bolt carrier to recoil part of the way into it. The combination means that the AR15-series rifles are functionally a long-recoil design where the bolt does not slam into anything rigid during recoil and stops based on the pressure of the buffer spring. This--in turn--enhances the straight-line recoil and therefore controllability during automatic fire or rapid semi-automatic fire. It also allows the AR15 design to use the rear of the bolt carrier to actuate the automatic sear meaning the probability in this design that you can set a round off with the bolt unlocked during automatic fire is nil. (Look up some of the problems with the "Lightning Link" to get a better idea of why this works the way it does.)
Other designs often do incorporate additional recoil buffers in the stock, the FN FAL's without folding stocks do this and the plastic-stocked SAW's, but the AR15 design simply trades the ability to fold a stock for enhanced recoil handling... The idea behind the design was to make a weapon where the entire recoil force is in a direct line between your shoulder and the end of the barrel with as little jarring as possible. This is also one reason for the use of a direct gas impingement system and one reason why gas-piston AR's tend to eat the front of the buffer tube and buffer tube area of the lower receiver due to bolt carrier "tilt". The "lateral" forces of the piston tapping the top of the bolt carrier misaligns the bolt carrier off its straight line path and pushes that chunk of steel into the aluminum.
Oh, and the forward assist is to compensate for not having a rigidly connected bolt handle. (Like someone already mentioned). The reason why is the design is meant to be operated in a manner where you ONLY use the charging handle for initial loading and then unloading at the end (administratively). Every other time, you actuate the bolt using the bolt release on the left side of the weapon... --Deathbunny 01:28, 11 September 2011 (CDT)
Noob Question
Ok I have a really dumb question, what is the difference between the Colt M4A1 and the Colt M4A1 Carbine? Or are they the same exact thing? The only reason I asked is when I was looking at the page, the M4A1 and the M4 Carbine look exactly the same, so how can you tell one from the other? - User:1morey July 22, 2011 11:21 AM (EST)
The M4A1 and M4A1 'Carbine' are the same thing, the 'carbine' is just optionally showing the proper firearm type. As for the M4 and M4A1, well it does say the difference in the section but to answer - the M4 has Safe-Semi-Burst fire selection ala the M16A2/M16A4, the M4A1 has full-automatic instead of burst, ala the earlier M16s/M16A1/M16A3. Otherwise they're pretty much identical appearance wise (The M4A1 also has a heavier barrel inside the handguard, which of course you can't tell from the outside). It also notes some commercial AR-15 carbines are given an 'M4' moniker, but aren't the same as actual military M4s. StanTheMan 12:17, 22 July 2011 (CDT)
Colt or not?
If a M4 or M16 variant is listed on a page, should it by prefixed by Colt? I've noticed some people doing this but isn't it incorrect as the term M16 is the army designation as opposed to the Colt name (for example the Colt Model 603 for the M16A1). Either way, I would imagine that quite a few M16s or M4s in movies are manufactured by companies other than Colt, and even the US military rifles are not necessarily made by Colt these days. --commando552 17:43, 3 September 2011 (CDT)
I am curious... if the military M4 and M16 are not made by Colt these days then by whom? --Masterius 14:58, 6 September 2011 (CDT)
There was a stretch in the 1990s when Colt lost the military contract and all the M16s were built by Fabrique Nationale (FN). Though many companies build AR15 platforms, only the company who has the contract with the Dept. of Defense can call the M16 theirs. If there ARE any other manufacturers being represented on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, someone needs to find out. I certainly don't have any contacts who would know information which is THAT current. :( MoviePropMaster2008 15:48, 6 September 2011 (CDT)
FN have stated that “the vast majority of M16A2, A3 and A4 contracts as well as spare parts contracts for these systems since 1989”, and they had a $7 million contract to make M16A4s between 2005 and 2008. Sabre defence also won a contract for a minimum of 4,952 M16A3 and 702 M16A4 rifles in July 2008 for the US navy/Marine corps respectively. Having said that FN also stated: ”...never was FN Manufacturing LLC, or any other small arms manufacturer, awarded M4 contracts. The M4 cannot be competed and always has been awarded sole source to Colt because of licensing rights restricting full and open competition until 2009” although it has stated its intention to bid for M4 contracts past this point. The US government took ownership of the M4 design on the 1st July 2009, so the M4 can now be manufactured for the government by other companies, but I don't know if this has actually been done yet. Regardless, M4 and M16 are government designations, so surely calling a gun a "Colt M4" is incorrect? --commando552 17:09, 6 September 2011 (CDT)
Just checked the United States Army official website. It lists M4 Carbine as being manufactured by Colt and M16 Rifle by Colt and Fabrique Nationale.
Oh, and take a note of M16: "The M-16A3 is identical to the M-16A2 but has a removable carrying handle that is mounted on a Picatinny Rail (for better mounting of optics) and is without burst control. The M-16A4 is identical to the M-16A2 except for the removable carrying handle and Picatinny Rail."
United States Marine Corps websites: [3][4] don't mention the current manufacturer for M16 Rifle. So I am not sure about them. --Masterius 02:24, 7 September 2011 (CDT)
Just to throw a bit of confusion in here, there are actually a number of different rifles designated as the M16A3 by the US military. The first is the Colt Model 646, also known as the M16A2E3, which was introduced in small numbers at the same time as the M16A2 and is an A2 with an A1 lower. Then you have the flat-top Colt Model 901 which was introduced at the same time as the M16A4 (in 1994 I think) and I'm assuming this is the version that the above page refers to. You also have the Colt Models 941 and 942 which are the HBAR and HBAR LMG models respectively, but I don't know if they are used. Not that any of this really matters as we identify all these guns as A2/A4 anyway. --commando552 03:24, 7 September 2011 (CDT)
Well, that's because armorers don't have access to military M16A3s, so they just slap A2/A4 uppers to A1 lowers (correct?) because what Hollywood film director would want fixed burst firing gun (ignoring the fact that that's what soldiers and marines use) ? Or modify civilian semi-automatic replicas to fully automatic fire. In which case the weapon is to be identified as such. --Masterius 03:54, 7 September 2011 (CDT)
Didn't mean to imply we are doing anything wrong, just that the definition of the A3 models isn't that important as they don't appear. Having said that, the original M16A3/M16A2E3 was just an A2 upper on an A1 lower, so this is actually what a number of movie guns are, but I understand that they are going for a standard A2. Regardless, back to my original question, do we call them Colt or not? My opinion is no obviously, as it seems that some if not the majority of M16s are manufactured by other companies, and there is the future possibility of this with M4, and regardless it is a military designation of a rifle that goes by another Colt name. --commando552 05:31, 7 September 2011 (CDT)
My opinion: M4 & M4A1 should remain as Colt. And so should older M16s. Modern M16s (M16A3 & M16A4), since they have at least 3 official manufacturers (Colt, Fabrique Nationale and Sabre Defence), should go without Colt. --Masterius 06:37, 7 September 2011 (CDT)
For the record, the M4/M4A1 was sole-source production from Colt between initial adoption up until just recently. This was because, unlike the M16, Colt was sole owner of the M4 technical data package. The US government providing this TDP to other manufacturers (Bushmaster, etc.), who built their own M4 carbines from it, was one of the reasons of the "M4" lawsuit. Spartan198 (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2013 (EST)
How to NOT shoot an M16 rifle!
[5] - Seriously, this is either really funny, or just painful to watch... you decide. --ThatoneguyJosh 00:19, 25 September 2011 (CDT)
Wow, that was bad. Glad that guy's alright! - Mr. Wolf 20:46, 25 September 2011 (CDT)
Also, notice how many times the gun clicks and the guy keeps saying it's a "bad primer". And then he keeps hitting the forward assist, pulling on the charging handle (which is seen ejecting the unfired rounds) and hitting the bottom of the magazine even though it's already back in the gun after he kept taking it out and putting it back in prior (Someone else in the video even says 'Jesus [name withheld], you don't know how to load these.' and the shooter responds with 'I didn't load these, [name withheld] did.'). I think that could have been a contribution to the gun exploding in his hands. But then again, I'm not the expert on M16 rifles, I'm only guessing. Anyone else got a better explanation? --ThatoneguyJosh 17:05, 26 September 2011 (CDT)
It was the shooter saying that the guy who came to help didn't know how to load them, and then that assisting guy said it was someone else. There is nothing wrong with tapping the magazine even when it appears to be seated correctly, as it makes sure it is all the way into the well. Although he did hit forward assist unnecesarily once or twice, I don't think it would have done any harm or contributed to the kaboom. The file description and all the comments say that this was a squib, and it was all the shooters fault for not identifying it and checking the barrel (there are also quite a few people that seem to think it is possible the load 2 or 3 rounds into the chamber at a time by repeatedly pulling the charging handle, but this is Youtube after all). But I don't think it was, as on the first misfire there was only the click of the hammer, and when he pulled the bolt back a round was ejected which wouldn't have been chambered if the previous "bang" was a squib. I've never fired a round with primer but no powder, but surely there would still be an audible "bang" rather than just the click of the hammer? When exactly did the bullet get stuck in the barrel, or am I missing something? Regardless, I would never use ammo I hadn't loaded myself, particularly not done by a friend of a friend. --commando552 17:33, 26 September 2011 (CDT)
I think it's safe to say that the idea of unintentionally loading 2 or 3 rounds into the chamber of an M16 rifle is an overstatement and pretty much absurd (I've NEVER heard of such a thing happening with the M16 rifles). But one person's explanation in the comments is that when the hammer struck the primers of the "squib" rounds, the 'click' in question was the popping of the primer, which popped with enough force to lodge the bullets into the barrel of the gun, but without the 'bang' sound since the powder of the "squib" rounds were bad. So when the explosion happened, it was because the hammer struck a perfectly fine round, or one with enough charge in it's powder load, and that bullet impacted the other bullets stuck in the barrel, which caused a high-pressure situation ending with the magazine blowing apart, and leaving the M16 rifle damaged (probably for good). Talk about good craftsmanship going to waste! But at least the shooter in the video was not injured in any way. --ThatoneguyJosh 05:51, 30 September 2011 (CDT)
I could be wrong as have never done it myself (I am not a moron) but I am fairly sure that a primer going off with no powder in the round makes a louder noise than just a click, which is all that is heard in this video. Anyone know how loud just the primer from a .223 would be? --commando552 07:05, 30 September 2011 (CDT)
Apparently this is a .308 primer. Now bear in mind how far down the audio is turned (as you don't have to wear ear protection when he fires), I can kinda see that might end up sounding like a click. Evil Tim 07:52, 30 September 2011 (CDT)
Yeah, most of the time all cameras (except for maybe the professional ones used by filmmakers) capture certain sounds differently. It is possible for the primers of "squib" rounds to discharge with enough force to lodge the bullets into the barrel of whatever gun it's fired from (and sometimes it will stay there until the owner disassembles their weapon and removes the lodged bullet), and most of the time, the "popping" sound of the primers sounds like a "click" when captured on a camera similar to the one used in the video of the M16 blowing up in that guy's face. --ThatoneguyJosh 00:28, 1 October 2011 (CDT)
I've seen this video before, looks like the guy was pulling a half-assed SPORTS drill several times while the weapon was malfunctioning on him. But yeah, shooting custom-loaded ammo with no reliable means of quality control is definitely not a good idea, as this video clearly demonstrates. Orca1 9904 23:52, 4 October 2011 (CDT)
Not working
Why is the M16 page not working. It locks up my computer, and the network wont respond. It takes about 5 to 10 minutes before it will work.Gunner5
It might be your browser and / or RAM is having trouble with the size of it; this is the largest page on the site. What's the spec of your PC? Evil Tim 00:03, 5 October 2011 (CDT)
Difference between original M16 and M16A2
I know how to distinguish XM16E1s, M16A1s, and M16A4s from each other, but how are both the M16 and the M16A2 different visually? Both rifles have no forward assist or removable carrying handles and the M16 can also appear with a "birdcage" flash hider. - Kenny99 00:34, 6 October 2011 (CDT)
I'll try. Also with the caveat that I have to replace the movie M16s on the site. An IMFDB member whom I am eternally grateful for, pointed out that I had A2 lowers on A1 uppers. Though that works, it's also not correct. I have to replace the M16 pics with exact versions of each one, but that will take time. I just point this out to make sure that people know I'm aware of it.
1) M16: original USAF contract in Vietnam and in the U.S. slab side upper and lower, 1st pattern duckbill three prong flash hider, original buttstock with foldable rear sling swivel. Early models had counter-turning screws in stead of pivot pins to attach the upper and lower receiver.
1) XM16E1: 2nd pattern three prong flash hider, Chromed bolt, exposed mag release button (no ribbing) but there is a partial rib for the front pivot detent pin and spring, old M16 style buttstock and rear sling swivel, tear drop forward assist.
2) M16A1: Birdcage Flash hider, Phosphate bolt but chromed chamber, mag release button ribbing to protect against accidental mag dump and full ribbing to the front pivot detent pin and spring, A1 style buttstock with fixed rear sling swivel (with stowaway compartment in the buttplate)
3) M16A2: A2 style flash hider with no holes on the lower part, ring washer instead of lock washer, heavy barrel, round forearm, full ribbing on mag release button and front pivot detent pin and spring, front part of lower receiver is beefier and thicker as well as the rear part near the base of the tube ring. Updated and longer (by about 1") rear buttstock and thicker buttplate, slight finger ledge on the pistol grip about midway down. Adjustable rear sights with elevation control as well as side to side. A2 does NOT have a detachable carry handle.
Don't forget that the M16A2 has semi/3-round burst as opposed to semi/full auto in the M16 (though you rarely see this feature used on-screen as most directors feel the full auto looks better than a 3-round burst). Orca1 9904 04:15, 6 October 2011 (CDT)
No versions of the M16 has screws rather than push pins at the front of the receiver. The only rifles that have these are the Sporter 1 rifles (which is what all of the pictures on the main page are actually of). The M16s that pre-date the captive push pin (Models 601 and 602) have a large headed push pin that is held in place by a ball detent on the pin itself. Also, the "M16" category can be separated out into 3 different guns which the USAF used seqeuntially in turn. First is the original 601 which has green furniture, original "duckbill" flash hider and triangular charging handle (around 14,500 were made, 8,500 to USAF, 1,000 to the Army for evaluation and the rest to special forces, police, and a number of Asian countries). The 602 is the quintessential slab sided M16, and introduced the updated 3 pronged flash hider, black furniture, the current "T" shaped charging handle. The third "M16" is what is often called the USAF M16 and was the most produced variant, and was the Model 604. Early versions had the M16E1 type partial fence lower, whilst the later versions had the M16A1 full fence lower, and these weapons continued to be used by Air Force until 2001, when all M16s were updated to the A2 standard. --commando552 06:58, 6 October 2011 (CDT)
Cool! Thanks commando552 As I've said before, I pulled movie armory weapons. Very rarely do I get access to actual firearms museums, but then 99% of the full auto guns were probably sporter conversions, since it was much easier to convert a title I to a class III gun prior to 1986. I have a LONG laundry list of photos to update thanks to you guys! ;) But the information helps. Also only in recent months have i realized how many franken guns were built in the 1970s/80s and 90s on the M16 platform. MoviePropMaster2008 22:24, 21 October 2011 (CDT)
Anyone knows why XM177 never dropped the 'X' letter in it? If 'X' usually implies the prototype and testing stage, then why did XM177 have it with both upgrades and use in service, and the jamming M16s in Vietnam didn't? Or some other reasons? --Masterius 13:02, 23 October 2011 (CDT)
Ignoring the USAF rifles (which got official GAU designations) the US Army only purchased a few thousand XM177s and the kinks were never really ironed out, so it is fair to call it an XM program still. Rifle was still in development stages really when US Army cut the funding due to Vietnam war involvement being scaled back.. --commando552 13:27, 23 October 2011 (CDT)
Were the Colt Commandos used in Somalia much more refined versions of XM177 program? If yes, I wonder why they were not put back in official service... --Masterius 02:19, 24 October 2011 (CDT)
Do you have a pic of them, not sure what rifles you are talking about. If you are talking about the Model 733, that is not really related to the XM177s. US forces purchased a small number of Model 733s for Special Forces and was called the M16A2 commando, although Colt later offered it as the M4 Commando. Rangers and Delta in Somalia also used both Model 723s (A1 rear sight a straight barrel) and 727s (A2 rear sight with M4 profile barrel) and these weapons were known initially as M16A2 carbines, before morphing into the M4. Till the early 90s there were still some Model 653s (called the M16A1 carbine) and XM177s with the long moderators replaced with birdcages knocking around as well, so there were probably a lot of different guns knocking around Somalia. These guns were not refinements though, they were guns from the 60/70s that were still being used due to the fact that the US Army did not produce a standard issue carbine till the M4. I'm not even gonna mention the franken-guns that would have been used by the USAF special forces at the time. --commando552 09:08, 24 October 2011 (CDT)
And keep in mind that the Air Force is too concerned with F-22s and F-35s to actually replace the majority of their small arms, so a GUU-5 today can run the gambit from identical in every way to an M4, all the way to a vintage 1960s XM177-style carbine complete with slabside/slickside receiver components. To put it simply, AF carbines are built from a hodgepodge of refurbished spare parts that in a lot of cases are older than the men using them. The only units I know of that have actual M4s are PJ and STS squadrons. Case in point [6]. Spartan198 (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2012 (EDT)
Colt Carbine/Model 653/Model 727/Model 733
Firstly, forgive my ignorance in things regarding the variety of AR-15 models. In the model description it says that it was 'never adopted formally by the US Military, and thus never had an "M" or "XM" designation.' However, in the following section where it lists the movies in which we can find this rifle it is often found as the M653. Can someone more knowledgeable either clear up why there is this discrepancy? Thanks --Rebusdi 18:34, 23 October 2011 (CDT)
Editors (and video game developers) often confuse the 'Model', 'M' and 'MK' designations. M653 should be changed to Model 653. --Masterius 02:14, 24 October 2011 (CDT)
Correct. Model "___" is the official COLT designation and usually comes first. Only when the weapon is adopted as an official front line weapon does it get the "M" designation. And all these minutia of details in the weapons history STILL gives me a headache! ;) MoviePropMaster2008 03:01, 24 October 2011 (CDT)
So does that mean we need to clean up this section to take all the 'M's away?--Rebusdi 08:11, 24 October 2011 (CDT)
I've replaced the "M"s with Models --commando552 09:22, 24 October 2011 (CDT)
Colt Model 978
I took this from Wikipedia, so it might be wrong. A lot of video games like to portray the M4A1 with additional burst mode. I read that the Colt Model 978 (a.k.a. "M4 Carbine Enhanced") is an M4 that features a S-1-3-F trigger group. I wonder how popular this variant was/is and most importantly when was it finalized and released? (if it was ever) - bozitojugg3rn4ut 14:15, 25 October 2011 (CDT)
The four position fire selector weapons were adopted by nobody as far as I know, with the exception of Greece who bought the Model 778 (don't know how widespread this was, have just seen a few in some pics), which is basically a Model 727 with the four position selector. You can actually buy parts for a four position selectors, sears and disconnectors from Colt, so guns can be modified to this standard. However, I guarantee you that no guns in games actually have the correct four position selector, as it looks different to the standard one. Can't find any pics right now, but the four position selector is a flat plate with a ridge along the centre that ends in an odd knurled dome, sort of like a citrus juicer.
I have also heard of US Special Forces having the four posiiton M4A1s (Model 978), but may just be rumors, and if true there are very few of them and certainly not widespread. They could also be modifications to standard M4s. Below is a pic of the side of a Model 738 M4 Commando Enhanced (Model 733 with the four position selector) showing the selector switch design.
Which games portray the M4A1 with additional burst mode, for example? --Masterius 06:40, 26 October 2011 (CDT)
Ghost Recon features the normal A1 and the "M4 SOCOM" which has the bonus burst mode. Same in The Sum of All Fears game (both Tom Clancy games). Cannot think of any other games right now. (Maybe I was a little exaggerating when I wrote "a lot of" since in most games you can't even toggle the rof.) So, according to what commando552 wrote, it is possible that the M4A1 with S-1-3-F group in Ghost Recon was intentional, since you control a (fictional) U.S. special force. (And the correct trigger groups: We (at least I) don't take the selectors into account, since in most games you cannot even see them, or are set to safe while the gun goes all rock&roll.)- bozitojugg3rn4ut 07:55, 26 October 2011 (CDT)
Well, yeah, the universe of Tom Clancy is the one where the prototypes and ultra rare things come true, including weapons and vehicles, so the presence of AR-15-type firearm with four-position selector switch shouldn't come as surprise ;) --Masterius 08:48, 26 October 2011 (CDT)
Bozitojugg3rn4ut, the selector really should be taken into account, as apart from the receiver markings the selector switch is the only external difference between the regular Colt carbines and the Enhanced version with burst and auto. If it has the regular fire selector and lacks the markings on the receiver, then it is simply and M4 with the wrong fire control group. Is very hard to tell from the Ghost Recon screen shots as there aren't any of the relevant side, but you can just make out that there are only 3 positions marked on the right side of the receiver, making the physical model that of a regular M4/M4A1 rather than an Enhanced M4. --commando552 09:09, 26 October 2011 (CDT)
Interestingly, this discussion is the first result when one Googles "Colt Model 978". Spartan198 21:05, 19 December 2011 (CST)
Main Page
There are 2 issues:
1) Shouldn't it be called AR-15, since ArmaLite AR-15 is the weapon that started it all?
I agree, AR-15 makes much more sense to me. I would call the page "AR-15 Variants", gets rid of the problem that "M16" is only relevant 5 or 6 of the 30 or so guns on the page, and the fact that rifle is not necessarily the correct term for all of them. I'm not sure how the site mechanics work, but would changing the name of the page create a massive problem for the 1000+ pages that link here, or would the redirects sort it all out? --commando552 12:44, 30 October 2011 (CDT)
Need to contact admins and ask them about this. I support your version, as more appropriate one. --Masterius 13:17, 30 October 2011 (CDT)
Though you are technically correct, M16 is the most widely recognized nomenclature for the weapons that appear in films. Remember that we are not a gun encyclopedia, we are a weapons in MOVIE/TV/et al wiki. Sure, we utilized those rules of starting with the original weapon when it came to more obscure weapons (like grouping the R4s in with the Galils), but really famous weapons have their own pages, weapons that a firmly entrenched with their own identity in the mind of the movie going public. We also did not start a StG-44 page and then branch the AK-47s out from that even though the AKs obviously were a stepchild of the StG-44 Design theory. Very rarely are guns 'presented' as AR-15s in media. In fact many movie goers don't even recognize the term. MoviePropMaster2008 18:13, 30 October 2011 (CDT)
I don't remember many movies where the character says: "Here is my M16!" or where the weapon is listed in closing credits :\
The reason for AK-47 not being on the same page as StG-44 is having completely different design. AK-47 was inspired by StG project, nothing more. There are a lot of weapons that bear a resemblance to AK-47 or AR-15 but have different design and thus their own page. --Masterius 02:29, 31 October 2011 (CDT)
Now, THIS made me laugh xD --Masterius 13:34, 4 November 2011 (CDT)
What is the point of the Colt 9mm SMG?
Every time I look at it just seems so useless. I mean, why would anyone want what is essentially an M4 that does less damage with less range? Recoil would be lower I presume, but I cant see an M4 having a gigantic amount of recoil. I'm sure someone could help provide me with some insight but at the moment I'm finding it very hard pressed to find a purpose of this thing. Lurker McNasty 14:20, 14 December 2011 (CST)
I imagine it had more to do with some guys at Colt wanting to get in on the 9mm subgun market but not wanting to design an entire new platform to do it with. The 9mm round also gives you less penetration, which is good if, say, you're trying to shoot the guy you're aiming at only rather than him and the three things behind him. This is why the majority of people who actually use it are police or police-like units. Evil Tim 14:42, 14 December 2011 (CST)
The main advantage of it is that it is an SMG with the same ergonomics as an AR-15 platform, which makes training easier. --commando552 15:27, 14 December 2011 (CST)
9mm is much easier to suppress compared to 5.56. But Evil Tim's answer about Colt not wanting to design a whole new SMG is probably the right one.--Predator20 16:13, 14 December 2011 (CST)
M4 Scope optics
Can someone give me some info on what is the standard scope optic for the military, and what is the best scope optic to use on the M4? i was just curious--Gunner5
Which military? The M4 is used by a number of them in some capacity. Spartan198 20:53, 19 December 2011 (CST)
U.S. Military.--Gunner5
The most common, I would think, are the ACOG and Aimpoint RDS, but just about any optic can be used on it. As far as what's the best optic to use, "best" is a relative term and depends on the individual shooter and what he/she prefers. Spartan198 02:01, 20 December 2011 (CST)
Not to mention different optics are more effective in certain situations than others; most ACOGs typically use 4x magnification and are effective for engaging targets at a distance, while red dot sights don't use magnification and are more suited for close-range engagements. Orca1 9904 21:21, 12 March 2012 (CDT)
USE WITH S.A.S
Why does the S.A.S use the M16A2 as their standard rifle? In Bravo Two Zero (the book), Andy McNab calls the M16A2 a 4x4, and the SA80 a Rolls-Royce. Looking back, the S.A.S have a history of using foreign weapons. Why is this? Do Britain not make good enough weapons? Sure, the only thing we currently make and export are Accuraccy International's (which are the best sniper rifles in the world, and I don't care what anyone else says. It strikes me as strange, though, why the S.A.S use the AW50 and not the AS50 as their heavy-caliber sniper rifle), but why do the S.A.S have to use American weapons? Why not use German?
"...have to use American weapons?" You have some kind of grudge against American weapons or something? :P In any case, the events of Bravo Two Zero took place during the first Gulf War, so I really doubt they're still using M16A2s in this age of optics and rail systems. It's my understanding that their current "standard" long gun is the C8FTHB carbine, which is essentially an M4A1 with a 16" barrel of different profile to that of a standard M4. As to why, well, they use what they want to use, whether it be British, American, German, whatever. Much like their American counterparts in CAG and DEVGRU, they have the leeway and budget to get a little bit of everything because their mission calls for it. Spartan198 10:30, 7 January 2012 (CST)
The SAS adopted the M16 as a replacement for the 7.62 L1A1 SLR which was the standard British rifle at the time. The SLR was superior in terms of reliability, accuracy and range, but the M16 had a major weight advantage in terms of both the weapon and the ammunition, could mount a grenade launcher, and was capable of automatic fire (so was the SLR, but a match was required to be inserted into the action). One of the reasons they continued to use it after the introduction of the SA80 rifles was due to initial reliability problems, along with the fact that until relatively recently the SA80 culd not use an underbarrel grenade launcher (M16s were also used by other units, such as some Royal Marine units and the Pathfinders). Don't really know the exact reason why the SAS (along with Military Police and Royal Marine close protection along with a few others) use the C8SFW/CQB rather than the SA80 but would imagine it is partially due to the lower weight and the modularity of the SFW (bear in mind that the SA80 didn't have a railed forened until a few years ago and has only just gotten a MIL-STD-1913 on the top for different sights). Unlike the M16s adopted before, the C8 has actually been officially adopted by the MOD as the L119A1 (both the SFW and the CQB share the same designation though). --commando552 16:17, 7 January 2012 (CST)
L119A1 is the official designation for C8 SFW in British SF service. C8 CQB is just its variant. An analogy would be M4A1 (official service) and Colt Commando (unofficial service). --Masterius 13:50, 8 January 2012 (CST)
The Colt Commando moniker has never been attached to the M4, it's been primarily used to refer to previous A1-pattern carbines like the XM177 series. Spartan198 15:30, 13 March 2012 (CDT)
Colt currently markets the Model 933 as the M4 Commando, and several models have the "M4 Commando" rollmarks on the left side of the lower receiver as well. It is a bit messed up though also being stamped as the "M16A2 Commando" (making no sense as it is a flattop), or simply "M4LE" on law enforcement Commandos. The Commandos in particular demonstrate the practice of cobbling guns together from whatever bits are available. --commando552 19:44, 13 March 2012 (CDT)
Colt adopted the M4 designation as a marketing ploy, the 11.5" 933 isn't used by the military in any capacity that I know of and not likely to start since those that need shorter barrels already have access to even shorter 10.3" CQBR URGs and 10.5" Mark 18s, neither of which are M4s since they don't match the physical specs of an M4. Heck, I can pull up a pic of a flat-topped GUU-5/P that to the untrained (or uncaring) eye would be identified as an M4A1, but isn't because it uses a slab-sided pre-A1 lower receiver. A lot of M4A1s in use by SOCOM units also can't technically by Colt naming standards be considered M4s since SOCOM now has 12.5" URGs for use on M4 lowers. Spartan198 01:55, 29 March 2012 (CDT)
Delta Force used the weapon, when it was known as 'M16A2 Commando' (CAR-15 in article), in Somalia.[7] I'd also recommend to get the book "Weapons of Delta Force" by Fred Pushies.
I already have that book, of which the factual accuracy of it is dubious, and yes, I know they used the Model 727, as it's actually called. That website you linked to mistakenly refers to the M4 Commando as predating the M4, which at the time of the Battle of Mogadishu hadn't been formally adopted yet (maybe a few Deltas had them and were field testing, at best) and was still known as the XM4. How could there be a Commando version of the M4 before there was even an M4? Not to mention, they show a picture of a short-barreled ACC-M (Advanced Colt Carbine - Monolithic) on their M4 Commamndo page, instead of an actual so-called M4 Commando. M4 is a military designation that Colt adopted as a marketing ploy, just like they did with the Commando nickname when it was coined back in the '60s. Spartan198 (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
Force Recon also knows Model 733 as 'Colt Commando'.[8]
That website isn't actually linked to the Marine Corps, it's some kind of fan site or unofficial biography or something. At any rate, "Commando" is still a nickname, not an official designation. With the exception of the Air Force, none of the various smatterings of M16-based carbines following the XM177 received any official designation until Colt started developing the XM4 (which was previously nicknamed the "Abu Dhabi Carbine", BTW) in the '80s. Spartan198 (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2012 (EDT)
Colt do actually give their various rifles "names" for lack of a better word. They were used by Colt in marketing materials and catalogues and can, depending on the specific rifle, be found stamped on the lower receiver. For example the Model 733 was originally marketed as the "M16A2 Commando", and you can find it with either this stamped on the lower, or simply "Colt Commando". Colt did also start marketing 733s as "M4 Commandos" after the M4 was adopted, despite the fact it did not have a flat top rail. These names are not necessarily unique to a single rifle and can be used for multiple model numbers, for example the name "M16A2 Carbine" was used for the Model 723 and 727, as well as the 720 before it was given the XM4 designation.
In essence, more modern (meaning, without older parts) M4 CQBR and M4 Commando are just that. M4 Carbine with shorter barrel. --Masterius 02:52, 29 March 2012 (CDT)
Another reason the SAS don't use the SA80 is because you cannot use it in your left hand and they prefer to be able to use a weapon in both hands as it's better for shooting from behind cover. --cool-breeze 13:12, 12 February 2012 (CST)
"Why not use German?" Aside from the fact that if you say SAS most people with think of "Black Kit" with an MP5, there is still some rumours flying around about them using the 416 and 417. The Wierd It 04:30, 13 February 2012 (CST)
Probably thrown around by HK's PR department, they sold a ton of MP5s off the back of the SAS using them to break up the Iranian Embassy Siege. Evil Tim 07:20, 13 February 2012 (CST)
Using the HK416 might be BS, but British Special Forces do use the HK417. It was bought a few years ago as a DM rifle before the army got the L129A1. It was also more widely tested by the Royal Marines in the role, but was replaced when the L129A1 was adopted. Here is a photo of an SFSG team, the guy second from the left in the first row has a suppressed HK417. They guy behing may also have one, but can only make out the stock so could be another AR-15 pattern rifle. --commando552 07:51, 13 February 2012 (CST)
He's got a Minimi Para with a PIP stock like the guy second from the right in the front row; you can see the iron sight against his shirt. The Wierd It 11:50, 13 February 2012 (CST)
Page Title
While this page contains many weapons based on the AR-15, shouldn't it be called "AR-15 family of weapons" or something like than rather that just "M16 rifle series"? --RaNgeR 12:36, 15 February 2012 (CST)
Look 4 topics above this one. If it was up to me I would call it "AR-15 rifle series" or something like that, but MPM2008 made the point that although this would be technically correct the average person coming to site would be much more familiar with the term M16, which is fair enough. --commando552 12:53, 15 February 2012 (CST)
Sniper Rifles?
How are we defining "Sniper Rifles" for Category:Sniper Rifle. It seems to me that all the guns on this page are Assault Rifles. I know that you can certainly convert an M16 to a sniper rifle but all the images seem to be of Assault rifles. Just curious! --Zackmann08 19:47, 18 March 2012 (CDT)
The main rifle on here that I would class as a sniper rifle is the Mk 12 SPR but there are also the Vietnam-era M16 sniper variants, the Model 655 and 656. There are also some "target" AR-15s like the Colt Accurized Rifle and the Match Target Competitions that I would probably class as sniper rifles if I had to put them into a category. --commando552 20:21, 18 March 2012 (CDT)
Sadly, it seems that Colt has discontinued the Colt Accurized Rifle for the time being. I checked my old link on the SWAT 4 page and it no longer works, nor is the Colt Accurized Rifle anywhere to be found on their product page sections of their website (maybe it just couldn't compete with similar products from other companies?). I was hoping the Colt Accurized Rifle would have been included on this page--I guess that won't be the case now, for how can a firearm be included here on this wiki if it failed to make much of an impact (to the point that it was discontinued) and thus won't be in many pieces of audio-visual media? --Mazryonh 21:57, 18 March 2012 (CDT)
I missed the Mk 12 SPR. I 100% agree with you on that one, that is DEFINATELY a sniper. Thanks for clarifying! Any change we could could put a definition on the Category:Sniper Rifle page like the one that is on the Category:Assault Rifle page? --Zackmann08 20:28, 18 March 2012 (CDT)
The 655 and 656 were full-auto capable, so I wouldn't exactly lump them in as sniper rifles. Same goes for the Mark 12, if you want to get technical. The Mark 12 grew out of a program to create a SOPMOD upper receiver component that the shooter could switch out with his M4 upper when in need of increased range and accuracy. So in its original form, the SPR was still technically an assault rifle (and as such it's still frequently used in that manner by SOF who switch out uppers on full-auto lowers), it just had a high-magnification scope, and we all know that just sticking a scope on an AR doesn't make it a sniper rifle. It didn't lose its full auto capability until it was type-classified as an individual weapon. Mark 12s in regular grunts' hands would likely be dedicated sniper rifles, but those you see in use by SOF are more than likely just SPR uppers on M4 lowers. There's a similar distinction between Mark 18s (complete type-classified weapon with 10.5" uppers on refurbished M16A1 lowers) and "M4A1 CQBRs" (10.3" uppers on M4 lowers). Spartan198 20:55, 18 March 2012 (CDT)
Just because something has full automatic capability doesn't mean it is not a sniper rifle. It is unusual and arguably unnecessary, but as far as I know there is no official definition of what a sniper rifle does and does not have. In my opinion it is a sniper rifle if it is designed for and used in the sniping role. Hell, you can even call small caliber stuff like the Ruger 10/22 a sniper rifle as it has been used as one. For the purposes of this site though, I think the category should be used if the rifle appears to be a sniper rifle to the average user who might be trying to identify something. In other words, a catch all term for sniper, designated marksman, target and hunting rifles. --commando552 21:14, 18 March 2012 (CDT)
I was under the impression that a dedicated sniper rifle had to have (at a minimum) a scope, be chambered in a full-size rifle round (so as to allow for accurate distant shots with high stopping power, a key part of sniping), be ergonomically suited for use while prone (i.e., its magazine must not be so large as to create an obstruction when lying on the ground on your stomach, and preferably have a bipod) and allow for accurate semi-automatic/bolt-action fire (fully-automatic or burst-fire is possible but counter-productive for accurate long-range shots, and such capability is usually reserved for Designated Marksmen who must travel with a squad and still keep some close-quarters firepower if necessary). So something like the VSS Vintorez wouldn't count because its round is short-ranged (up to 400 meters only given its subsonic velocity, so it's more of an accurized "special purpose" assault rifle), while the SVD would, due to its scope, 7.62x54mmR caliber, small magazine size to ensure it doesn't get in the way when used while prone (I'm very confused as to why the Soviets never put a bipod on the SVD, however), and semiautomatic-only nature. --Mazryonh 21:57, 18 March 2012 (CDT)
As we only have the sniper rifle category here, I would class the VSS Vintorez as such, as it is designed as a suppressed sniper rifle. By virtue of the fact that it is suppressed it uses a lower power shorter range cartridge than a typical sniper rifle, but not all sniping is long range. If you were to use an integrally suppressed AWS with subsonic ammunition the range would be limited like on the Vintorez, but that doesn't mean it is no longer a sniper rifle. In particular, for police and some special forces uses long range is not as important in a sniper rifle as accuracy and other considerations. Like I said before, silenced Ruger 10/22s have been used by special forces for almost silent sniping. Another example would be the Russian SV-99, which is a silent sniper rifle based on a .22LR biathlon rifle. Weapons like these are specialized sniper rifles, but they are still sniper rifles none the less. I'm not sure whether trying to make a fixed definition for a sniper rifle is a good idea, as you will always find exceptions. Not all "sniper rifles" even use telescopic sights, an example being the Barrett M82A2 which uses a 1x red dot sight as it was actually designed for shooting from the shoulder as a low cost anti helicopter weapon. Another rifle that breaks your definition would be the BMS Snicam which is undeniably a sniper rifle, but uses a 5.56mm cartridge from 20/30 round STANAG magazine. Different sniper rifles have wildly different characteristics depending on the specific task they are designed for. The only thing I can say about what should be in the sniper rifle category is if it looks like one, put it in there. This isn't an encyclopaedia, the idea of the categories is to help people identify unknown guns, so if it looks like a sniper rifle that is the category they will be looking in. --commando552 07:13, 19 March 2012 (CDT)
"Ever since, part of the military’s manual of arms for loading the M16 and its variants includes a mandatory smacking of the charging handle even if it isn’t necessary."
Is it about racking the charging handle? --Masterius 01:51, 28 March 2012 (CDT)
That is a mistake, smacking the charging handle does nothing on an AR-15. As it had previously been talking about the introduction of the forward assist (the button on the right rear of the upper receiver), I assume it is meant to say "Ever since, part of the military’s manual of arms for loading the M16 and its variants includes a mandatory smacking of the forward assist even if it isn’t necessary." --commando552 05:01, 28 March 2012 (CDT)
Ah, thanks for the explanation. --Masterius 07:50, 28 March 2012 (CDT)
AKM front sight on an M16?
Was just doing a bunch more caps for the Bravo Two Zero page and came across this:
This is the SP1 that is carried by Baz (Ian Curtis) fitted with a CM203 launcher but it looks as if (to me at least) it is fitted with an AKM front sight. Has anyone ever seen anything like this before or know of after-market parts that look like this? This seems like an absolutely random modifications for an armourer to do to a rifle, only thing I can think of would be if the sight on the gun wa damaged during filming so they slapped this on. --commando552 08:40, 2 April 2012 (CDT)
The movie was filmed completely in South Africa. Could the SA armorers be using any Vektor rifles disguised as American guns? MoviePropMaster2008
I really need to get around to updating the page to show it, but the weapon is a straight SP1 apart from the front sight so it isn't a Vektor. You can actually see the existing M16 gas block, and this looks like the top part of the gas block/sight has been sawed off and an AKM sight welded on. As it switches between a regular SP1 and this one with the cobbled together sight, I'm guessing that the rifle was broken part way during shooting and an AKM sight was the only vaguely suitable spare part they could get their hands on. I've actually taken a bundh of caps for this film bu have forgotten about them till now, will try and add them later to show what I mean. --commando552 14:44, 24 June 2012 (CDT)
It doesn't appear to be a KAC M5 RAS because it lacks the cut-out in the upper half to accommodate the M203 barrel clamp. If you don't know what I mean, zoom in on the front sight area in this pic and notice how the side rails are shorter than the top and bottom [9]. I've only seen this kind of rail on airsoft M16s. Is the rail in MPM's image above an airsoft replica? Spartan198 22:17, 13 April 2012 (CDT)
I was having hard time trying to find that specific handguard... While it looks very similar to the KAC's M5, maybe IT IS an airsoft replica, though not 100% sure. --RaNgeR 10:27, 30 May 2012 (CDT)
Nope it is NOT an airsoft replica. Those rails are REAL and damned heavy as well. :D I think on this particular gun it had an aftermarket rail system. Not all guns on screen have KAC Rails. I will hunt down the rifle and take more detailed pics of the rails. MoviePropMaster2008 01:15, 24 June 2012 (CDT)
"M4 Commando"
Both Model 933 and Mk 18 Mod 0 sections mention that the M4 Commando is not an official designations. I don't really understand this, as that is how Colt calls it on their webpage. [10]- bozitojugg3rn4ut 11:07, 12 May 2012 (CDT)
About the Model 933, when they were first offered I'm not sure if they were marketed as "M4 Commandos" but they definitely are now. In fact, they even have "M4 Commando" stamped on the magazine well. The Mk 18 is a different kettle of fish, as that is not an "official" colt model and is just put on whatever lower receiver. --commando552 11:37, 12 May 2012 (CDT)
Question
Why isn't the M16A3 listed on here and just about every other site.Just wanted to know?Is that its an unofficial variant or is it just a M16A2 that fires full-auto?--DJsputnik 00:50, 24 June 2012 (CDT)
It's just an M16A2 with full-auto in place of burst. Almost all "M16A2s" in movies are essentially M16A3s since they're A2 uppers on older A1 or SP1 full-auto lowers. Spartan198 11:57, 24 June 2012 (CDT)
Let's not forget that it can be flat-top also. - bozitojugg3rn4ut 13:05, 24 June 2012 (CDT)
I'm noy sure if the full auto version of the A2 that people call the A3 was ever actually officially designated as the A3, but for clarity I tend to call it the Model 646 or M16A2E3 (which was its official name). I save the M16A3 name for the full auto version of the M16A4, the Model 901, whih is currently officially designated by the US as the M16A3. --commando552 13:26, 24 June 2012 (CDT)
Defense Industry Daily disagrees. [11]Spartan198 18:46, 24 June 2012 (CDT)
The rifle that the DID article is referring to is the later Model 901. They may refer to it as a full auto version of the A2, but they also talk about the order from FN in 2007 for new A3s and A4s, which were definitely both using the flat top receiver. The flat top A3 was developed in the 90s with the A4, so rifles built in 2007 would not be to the old spec. That article is either unclear and is referring to two different models, or it is a typo (or just wrong) about referring to the "A3" they are talking about as being a full auto A2. --commando552 19:08, 24 June 2012 (CDT)
Anyone recognise this variant?
I just came across this rifle on the Strike Back - Season 1 page where it is listed as an M4A1:
However, it isn't a Colt rifle as the flat top rail is higher than on a normal AR-15 pattern gun. Also, it has an A1 forward assist plunger, A1 lower receiver (although I imagine this is a replacement to allow full auto) and a non Colt stock (curved in front of the locking bolt as opposed to vertical, several companies like Tapco make their stocks like this). I've read somewhere on here (a Stargate page probably) that Olympic Arms flat top rifles have a higher scope rail compared to other AR-15s, is this one of them? I know bugger all about Olympic Arms rifles and can't seem to find many pictures of them, but all the ones I can find show them with a standard height rail, kind of like I can never find a picture of one with the "Stowaway" pistol grip that the Stargate pages also state that they have. --commando552 04:25, 11 July 2012 (CDT)
Doesn't look too different from a standard M4 carbine to me. The telescoping stock isn't much of an identifier as to the model of the weapon; the standard stock can be easily swapped out for third-party aftermarket stocks (in fact you'll note that there are images of the M4 with both four and six-position stocks on this site). As for the forward assist button, it can be swapped out just as easily as the stock. Orca1 9904 06:11, 11 July 2012 (CDT)
The forward assist and stock are secondary, they just add to the likelihood of it not being a Colt gun. Another thing that is easily replaceable but just adds to the whole weirdness of this gun in that fact that it has an A1 rather than A2 flash hider. The main thing is the scope rail. It is higher than on a standard AR-15 pattern gun made by Colt, or the majority of other manufacturers. The easy place to see this is at the rear above the charging handle, where the receiver above the charging handle slot is about twice the thickness. I've just noticed as well that the brass deflector looks odd, the top edge of it slopes upwards and goes higher up the weapon. This is definitely a live fire gun as they are used throughout the series firing blanks, but it is definitely not a Colt M4. Was hoping someone would be able to recognise the profile of the upper receiver, as that is the unique part which makes this gun unidentifiable. --commando552 08:03, 11 July 2012 (CDT)
I am the one who wrote that comment about Olympic Arms flattop receivers on the Stargate: SG1 page, and several other pages. If you want a better example of what the earliest OlyArms flattop rifles looked like, check out the pics of the K23B Stubby which is used by Gary Sinise in Reindeer Games. My understanding (and I asked about this on the OA message board) is that OlyArms' first flattop receivers were a bit taller (by about .25") than the current mil-spec standard seen on the M4/M16A4, and had a rail that was copied from the Colt ACR (which looks very different from the Picatinny rail). This style receiver was only produced for a short time before Oly started making their flattop ARs with the same type of receiver that Colt had introduced on the M4.
As for the M4 in Strike Back, I agree with you that the flattop receiver is clearly taller than that of a mil-spec M4, but unlike early OlyArms flattops, it appears to have the Picatinny rail. So unless Oly manufactured tall flattops that had Picatinny rails (and I have no idea if they did), that upper is probably from some other manufacturer. -MT2008 19:44, 11 July 2012 (CDT)
M4s with these uppers seem to be returning in Season 4. Spartan198 (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2013 (EDT)
Here's a pic of one from season 4 (I made a special effort to get good shots of the rail when capping it):Error creating thumbnail: File missingMy theory about these is that they are fixed carry handle uppers that have been modified (I made a topic about this possibility in the forum due to the show having a flat top sniper AR-15 that somehow had what otherwise appeared to be an SP1 upper). If you look closely you can see that the rail is a separate piece of metal that has been bolted on, and also has a black finish rather than the grey of the receiver. Also, at the front and back of the rail you can see the shape of the receiver where the carry handle previously joined onto the upper. Either these guns are made by a company that took carry handle forgings and just machined off the handle and bolted a sight on rather than doing a new upper, or they are built form an original complete A1E1/A2 style upper that has been modified. I'm more inclined to believe the latter due to the scattershot nature of the variants on display, with slight differences in the heights of the rail or how they attach, different forward assists, different brass deflector sizing and different lowers. I don't have a good shot of it, but one of the rifles also had the finish totally worn off at the front of the receiver, but the rail was fine suggesting that this was installed when the gun was already old. --commando552 (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2013 (EDT)
M16 and SP1 sections
As it is impossible to tell an original Model 602 M16 from a Model R6000 Sporter without seeing a detailed view of the front receiver pin (the M16 has a flat push pin whereas the SP1 has a screw headed pin) should they have separate sections? Furthermore from what I can tell the vast majority of the weapons listed in the M16 section are SP1s, as are all the images in that section. I would sugest merging the SP1 section into the M16 section and making a note of the fact that the vast majority of "M16s" in film/TV are actually SP1s. Also, I think the M16/M203 and M4/M203 sections should be merged into the main weapon sections as firstly (in the case of M16s) it doesn't distinguish by variant, and secondly most of the time an M203 is attached to a weapon people just list it under the notes section rather than putting it in these sections. Thoughts anyone? --commando552 07:43, 31 July 2012 (CDT)
50-round mags
Every time a video game includes a M16 or M4 with 50-round magazines it is listed as an incorrect capacity, why? According to some research, the M16 rifle series use STANAG magazines, which include the 50-round capacity, so why would a 50-round M16 be unrealistic? --Ultimate94ninja 03:03, 8 August 2012 (CDT) (I previously forgot to sign my post, so here it is)
I've never heard of a 50-round STANAG magazine, I thought they only came in 20 and 30 rounds. And please sign your posts. --Funkychinaman 14:14, 7 August 2012 (CDT)
Some companies do make quad stack 50 round magazine, Surefire for example. However, these magazine look different to a regular 30 rounder widening outside of the magazine well to double thickness. If the gun is modelled with a 30 round mag and has a capacity of 50 then it is incorrect, just as a gun modelled with a 20 round mag holding 30 rounds is incorrect. To the best of my knowledge no game has featured quad stack AR-15 magazines yet, so any game where the weapon holds 50 rounds is wrong. --commando552 14:31, 7 August 2012 (CDT)
Edit: My mistake, Surefire mags only come in 60 or 100 rounds, not 50. Think there are still 50 round ones out there, Magpul have files a patent for a 50 round version of the PMAG. Come to think of it, I really don't know why surefire didn't make the mags 50 rounders, as then the length would be about the same as a 30 rounder making it less obtrusive and more compatible with existing vests and pouches, but whatever. --commando552 18:13, 7 August 2012 (CDT)
I can't find anything on Google about 50-round STANAG mags. Maybe the OP could enlighten us? Spartan198 16:49, 7 August 2012 (CDT)
On the Wikipedia page STANAG magazine it says that there are 40, 50 and 90-round magazines (in addition of the usual 20, 30 and 100), which drew my attention on the 50-round mag --Ultimate94ninja 03:03, 8 August 2012 (CDT)
Wikipedia sucks as a source of information. STANAG Magazines are designed to fit into an M16 magazine well. STANAG magazines are supost to be 30 rounds. 5,10,20,40,50, 60,90,100 round magazines are not STANAG magazines although they will fit into a STANAG magazine well. There was a 50 round magazine made durring vietnam and it was proven unreliable and removed from service as fast as it was designed and built. Thus ever 50 round magazine in videogames is erronious. Standard magazine capacity for a M16 is a 30 round STANAG magazine.Rockwolf66 15:10, 14 August 2012 (CDT)
Yeah, that wiki is a terrible source of info, according to someone on this wiki. I'm sure I can produce someone on another wiki that claims this wiki is also a terrible source of info. Calling the kettle black there, don't you think, Rock? ;) Spartan198 (talk) 05:56, 25 October 2012 (EDT)
Also, I don't think you are actually totally right in saying that STANAG mags are 30 round only. First off, as STANAG 4179 was never ratified there is no actual standard in the first place, just a proposed standard that some countries have chosen to adhere to. Every time something says "STANAG compliant" it should technically say "draft STANAG compliant" when talking about magazine dimensions. Further more, the proposal was only a dimensional standard for the top of the magazine not for the capacity, so any size of magazine would be draft STANAG compliant. Using the widely used term "STANAG magazine" can be kind of confusing as it implies that there is one single magazine that was the STANAG magazine, rather than the actual case where it is just a standard that a magazine can meet. --commando552 (talk) 08:09, 25 October 2012 (EDT)
Is this the 50-round STANAG magazine that was proven unreliable during Vietnam? --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 07:22, 10 November 2012 (EST)
Can't see all of it, but it looks like it. I have a very clear, full-body picture of the 40-round mag also tested during Vietnam and this looks longer than that one. Spartan198 (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2012 (EST)
Very old discussion, I know :P but here's a 50-round mag for it. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2015 (EST)
Strange M16 upper reciever
I was reading the Irish Sun newspaper and I seen an article where the Mexican police captured a big time cartel lad. There was a photo of 2 policemen in SWAT uniforms hold the suspect for the cameras and they had some m16 looking guns on slings with a strange upper reciever: It looked like the forward assist was integrated into the brass deflector. It was the 4th September edition if someone wants to have a look at it. I was looking for it on the interweb and I could'nt find anything like it?? Anyone ever seen anything like this? EoghanG93 (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
is this the story you are talking about (higher res)? If so the brass deflectors and forward assists look normal to me (think they are Colt Model 727s). if this is a different story, the only thing that i can think of that has the two sort of combined is the Vltor MUR, which is used on the Noveske Rifleworks rifle series. --commando552 (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2012 (EDT)
Ah no that wasn't it lad. It was just like a regular brass deflector but with a button (like the forward assists button) on the back of the deflector. It could have been some custom job ?? EoghanG93 (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2012 (EDT)
If it was a .308 could have been a DPMS rifle, they combine the deflector and forward assist on some of their uppers such as this one. There might be other companies that do this but this is the one that springs to mind. --commando552 (talk) 05:50, 9 September 2012 (EDT)
Way late to the discussion. Those look like normal A2 uppers except the wear pattern on the guns is odd. Most of the gun is a nice, dark black, but the high points--including the "tip" of the deflector--are worn through the finish to the metal. It's an odd look probably because that wear pattern is only on the high points and probably from regular, everyday carry without much else wear and tear. So, casing, uncasing, and rubbing against uniforms instead of firing. Download the picture, put it in a photo editor and crank the brightness up to see what I mean. --Deathbunny (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2013 (EST)
CAR-A4 DEA Carbine
Since the only page it was used on was deleted and the pic of the weapon itself is placed under the Additional Variants section at the top of this page, maybe its section on the main page could be deleted? Spartan198 (talk) 01:38, 14 July 2013 (EDT)
Apocalypse Now : mounted on the PBR boat, shot up by tracer rounds.
Full Metal Jacket : the MGC M16 was visible being held by all soldiers who carried the M16. Only when they were firing on screen, did it switch to a live version of the weapon.
Hamburger Hill : used by background Airborne Soldiers during a medical Evac.
The Spy Who Loved Me : used by the British/Russian/US Navy Sailors during the gun battle on the Liparus.
Octopussy : used by the South American soldiers during the pre-credits sequence.
Commando : Used by bad guys who kidnap Matrix and hold their M16s on him.
Uncommon Valor : in any of the armory scenes or flashback scenes of soldiers not firing their M16s, the MGC M16 is evident. Also the CAR-15 replica is heavily used by the LRRP teams in the beginning of the film.
First Blood : the Army National Guardsmen are seen holding many MGC M16 rifles. Only when an actor fired, did the weapon change to a real weapon.
Rambo: First Blood Part II : seen in the weapons hold of the pirate boat used to smuggle Rambo up river.
Hulk : when the Hulk explodes out of the ground on Powell Street in San Francisco, many of the U.S. Army Soldiers were carrying MGC-16 replica rifles (in addition to real AR15-A2 rifles). One of the soldiers holding the fake rifle has a closeup in one of the 'split screen' shots of their reaction to the Hulk.
The Final Countdown : used by Marines on the deck of the Nimitz in scenes where there is no firing.
Barb Wire : outfitted with ill fitting 30 round magazines, A2 handguards and A1 birdcage flash hiders, held by Congressionals.
Dragon Wars: D-War : outfitted with ill fitting 30 round magazines, A2 handguards and A1 birdcage flash hiders, used by background U.S. Army troops defending Los Angeles.
Ghostbusters : some of the Army National Guard soldiers near the climax can be seen with these weapons fitted with A1-style flash hiders, supplimenting real M16A1's.
An L.A.P.D. SWAT officer in Bandits (fitted with A2-style handguards)
I think it's a 6 position collapsible stock, PMAG and EOTech holosight.
AR-15 Carbine Section
Well I don't remember my login on the form so I'll say it here.
I think the "AR-15 Carbine" section is redundant and should me merged with the Colt AR-15A3 Tactical Carbine section since the "AR-15 Carbine" image is just a duplicate of the AR-15A3 Tactical Carbine image and the Colt AR-15A2 and Colt AR-15A3 are the AR-15 Carbines. Thoughts? Mr. Wolf (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2014 (EDT)
Very late reply, but I agree with you that something should be done here. Though I think that the two entries in the "AR-15 Carbine" should be moved to an "unidentified AR-15 derivatives" section because their work pages did not provide a clear identification to their weapons. The duplicate images should be deleted, and the description of the section might be reworked into a page introduction or something. --Wuzh (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2020 (EDT)
It states 'without forward assist' but unless I need a new prescription, there appears to be one on this image, which essentially means its a duplicate Model 653 image. Any possibility of getting an actual slab-side Model 654 image, or at least a decent Photoshop job of a slab receiver on on 653 to rectify this? StanTheMan (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2014 (EDT)
I think the lower is just scratched in just the right place to look like the back end of a forward assist button. If you look at the image at full size, you can see the lip where the upper and lower receivers join. On the 653 image, you can't see this lip because it's obscured by the forward assist. Spartan198 (talk) 04:57, 15 June 2014 (EDT)
Bah, looking at it again closely (especially comparing the two images), seems like you're right. I hate that though, it really did look off. Still does actually. It wasn't just that piece at the rear though - There's a discoloration/demarcation behind the ejection port, which, on the 2D flat-on image, looks kinda like the angled rake for a forward assist - Most slab uppers look clearly and continuously smooth all the way back in most of all the other AR images, which is why I got thrown off -
Still looks off a bit, but thinking about it, the image isn't high-detail so that doesn't help. Could also just be a photoshop flub. Anyway.. guess this is nothing after all. Would be nice if the pic could be cleaned up a bit though, more like the 653 image, that might help. Just a thought. StanTheMan (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2014 (EDT)
I uploaded that image but i didn't make it, I got it is the old version of a different file but I can't remember which one. Originally I thought it was just discolouration on the upper making that mark (as it is not in quite the right place for the forward assist forging as I think it goes too far forward). On closer inspection though it looks like it is a transparent overlay of an A1 upper over a slickside one. I have tried to tweak it in photoshop to correct this and updated the image. --commando552 (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2014 (EDT)
No offense to the person that did it, but that 'shop job is an eyesore. How about replacing it with this one[12]? It's an M4 rather than an M4A1, but I've been on the lookout for a suitable one and this is all I've been able to find that wasn't an obvious airsoft. Spartan198 (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2014 (EDT)
I don't like that picture, as it's at a slight angle and also has a fully railed handguard - I think getting/keeping an image like the present one (which isn't that good, I grant you) would be preferable, as there are several pages I have seen that show it in that config (regular handguard, no handle). But there are some that no doubt have it that way, too.. Bah, I don't know (The Burst trigger group doesn't mean anything, that is the only difference (visual or otherwise) between the M4 and M4A1). Perhaps MPM can get a better pic in due course, or someone can at least get a better edit job going for the meantime. But it's not my call. StanTheMan (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2014 (EDT)
I actually made the picture in question with MSPaint, years ago. Just to show a friend what a 'flat top' was. Granted, looking at it now, it's terrible. I could probably give it another crack if anyone cares?--MikeyACH (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2015 (EST)
*weighing in on an old discussion* The image was even worse before, I remember years ago I (very slightly) improved it by adding parts of the version with an Aimpoint CompM2, but yeah it's gonna need more work. Another indication that the Aimpoint CompM2 image is photoshopped, and I'm pretty sure the SOPMOD image is too. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2017 (EST)
M4A1 without forward assist
Does such model exist? I browsed M16 Gallery and AR-15 identification page but I didn't find one. I'm currently documenting weapons of Conflict Global Storm, and the M4A1 in the game does not have forward assist, modelled on the weapon nor textured. Is it safe to assume it's just a low definition model and call it M4A1 anyway? --CnC Fin (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2015 (EST)
That is an M4/M4A1, it is just that the texture is of the left side of the gun. Note that on the upper receiver there is no ejection port, and on the lower there is no magazine release and the selector switch is visible. I do not know if they have simply gotten the textures reversed (in that on the left side of the gun there are all the right side features) but my guess is that more likely they only have a texture for one side of the gun and mirrored it. This is quite common on older games, particularly on the world model. --commando552 (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2015 (EST)
They were doing it at least as recently as Modern Warfare 2. Archer has flipped guns all the time as well. --Funkychinaman (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2015 (EST)
Actually, from the length of the barrel it could be a Colt Law Enforcement Carbine, but I think more likely it is just that they have messed with the proportions as the relative end of the M4 and M203 barrel is more like that of an M4 (although the barrel of the M203 looks like it has been stretched so it really isn't clear what length it is meant to be). --commando552 (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2015 (EST)
M4 trademark lawsuit
I know this is an old subject, but it's kind of irking me. It states at the end of the M4 description paragraph that a court ruled that the name "M4" refers to a type of firearm, but this is factually false. It refers to a specific firearm, just like "Prius" refers to a specific car and "Portland" refers to a specific city. So by this court's logic, I should be well within my right to build a pick-up truck and market it as an F-150 with Ford unable to do a thing about it. So if you ask me, Colt had a legitimate beef in that other manufacturers were marketing their clones as "M4 carbines" when Colt was producing the real M4 carbine. Spartan198 (talk) 06:19, 2 September 2015 (EDT)
Even Colt use the term "M4" as a type though rather than a specific weapon though, they have probably had about a dozen different guns that have been marked and marketed as an "M4" of one kind or another. Lets not forget, it isn't like Colt actually came up with the M4 designation. Their original weapon was the Colt Model 920 which the US designated as the M4. Just like the M16s, if they are made by a company other than Colt they will still be M4s so as far as I see it Colt don't have a monopoly on the term. --commando552 (talk) 13:25, 2 September 2015 (EDT)
That's what I was thinking. I don't see how Colt has a legal leg to stand on here. Did anyone ever appeal this? --Funkychinaman (talk) 13:42, 2 September 2015 (EDT)
I agree with Commando552 and Funkychinaman. M4 is a designation that was put on the rifle by the US Military, not Colt. Thus Colt doesn't 'own' the name and can't apply it to the civilian version of their product. That's like DODGE RAM trucks suing anyone who makes an outwardly similar version of the CUCV / M880 Utility truck and sells it as such. Dodge doesn't own those names, the US Army designated those names. :) MoviePropMaster2008 (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2016 (EDT)
When was the Colt Model 733 introduced?
It was nagging me that I couldn't find the date when the Colt Model 733 was made, I scoured the internet and I personally couldn't find anything mentioning its date of introduction. I was guessing in the late 70's or early 80's. Anyone here know? Mr. Wolf (talk) 02:48, 24 July 2016 (EDT)
I believe it was actually 1985. It was in the 1985 colt catalogue but cant find an appearance of it earlier than that, and I believe that the type of stock that it is fitted with was introduced in 1985 for Colt's new carbines, like the 733 along with the 723. --commando552 (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2016 (EDT)
Thank you, I really appreciate it. Mr. Wolf (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2016 (EDT)
This is the first model of the XM4. The A2 Upper sight was made until 1986. This Rare gun was tested on May 1985.--Treliazz777 (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2017 (EDT)
I'm not certain that this gun is absolutely the first model, as I seem to remember hearing that the very first XM4s used a Commando length 11.5" barrel (after all, the reason it is M4 is that it was the successor to the M3 SMG) but they were quickly changed to the 14.5" barrel so that they could take a bayonet. --commando552 (talk) 08:27, 12 October 2017 (EDT)
Like the GAU-5A/A, the first XM4 model has a slicksilde upper but it has a A1 Flash Hider.--Treliazz777 (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2017 (EDT)
I have not idea if that gun has a slickside upper or not as it is only an image of the left side and I have never seen a picture of one of the 11.5" prototypes, but I have done some looking into it and it appears that all of these rifles that didn't have an A2 upper were just very early tests and proofs of concept (basically throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks) so I imagine that they could have been built form whatever parts they had lying around so they could have anything. Not sure, but I think that Colt had even stopped making the slickside uppers by this point, as I think that the last SP1s were in 1985 and they were using up existing stock. It wasn't until June 1985 when a contract was signed with Colt to deliver XM4 prototype rifles that a design was actually cemented and it was given its actual designation:
"Design to utilize the newly adopted M855 Ball and M856 tracer cartridges. Also to be compatible with existing M193 Ball and M196 tracer ammunition as well as M200 blank cartridges. The carbine will use the current M16A2 upper receiver and three-round limited burst control. The carbine will use an improved handguard to enhance firing/handling under normal operation conditions. The carbine shall have a collapsible/sliding stock. Barrel should be 14 1/2 inches in length. Mean Rounds Between Stoppages (MRBS) will equal or exceed 600 rounds when using issue M855 ammunition. The carbine will be configured to accept MILES laser transmitter as well as the M203 grenade launcher."
I imagine that it was always their intent to use A2 receivers, as when the program was first launched they wanted maximum parts compatibility with the standard issue M16A2 (which was adopted by the USMC in 1983, a year before they started looking into a new carbine). --commando552 (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2017 (EDT)
Here's another one with a M203 GL with a grip, and you see that this gun has a slicksilde upper.--Treliazz777 (talk) 10:24, 4 February 2019 (EST)
M16 Toy Gun
I found this image in the IMFDB page for The Green Berets. I want to include this around the M16 subpages in case somebody might need to use it for ID, but I'm not comfortable with adding it to the categories at the top. --Wuzh (talk) 02:49, 8 December 2017 (EST)
This gun has a A1 Upper, a M4 Stock, a A1 full fence lower receiver, A1 pistol grip, A1 Flash Hider, a bayonet lug--Treliazz777 (talk) 15:27, 30 December 2017 (EST)
Well, it is a cheap springer airsoft gun is it isn't really anything. It looks related to the Wellfire M4A1 listed in the images section at the top of this page, except it has a carry handle rather than a flat top and has an ARMS #51 type SIR handguard. Is this relevant to a page? --commando552 (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2017 (EST)
I think is a Custom XM177, because the M4 don't have a A1 pistol grip. The gun's upper and lower receiver is the XM177E1's receiver. The M4 don't have a A1 Flash Hider, but rare XM177 do have A1 Flash Hider (Rare XM177). Even though the M4 has the SIR handgurad, it's possible for the XM177 has a SIR handgurad. I would say this gun is actually a XM177E1 with M4 Stock, and SIR handguard.--Treliazz777 (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2017 (EST)
Like I said, it isn't really anything specific as with cheap springer guns like this they tend to be cobbled together from whatever parts they have. There aim is to make extra variants so they can make more money while still using the moulds that they have. That is why all of these guns use A1 style receivers, like this "M16A2" and this "M4A1 RIS". The latter has a flat top, but it is still missing the brass deflector as the mould is based off of an A1 one. Also, note that all 3 of these guns use the same M4 profile barrel which has been chopped off at the front of the M203 step. Similarly, they all use A1 pistol grips to save on different parts. None of the cheap springers like this (even if they have different brand names they tend to be made in the same factories or use the same tooling) are very accurate replicas of particular guns, as that is not their goal. They want to crank out as many varieties as they can for as little cost as possible. Lastly, the flash hider is irrelevant to anything, as it is neither an A1 or A2 as it is symmetric like the A1 but this flash hider only has 4 ports rather than the correct 6. --commando552 (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2017 (EST)
Rare XM177s
A Rare handguard with a 57mm recoilless rifle shell during the Vietnam War.
XM177E1 with A1 Flash Hider used by the MACV-SOG during the Vietnam War.--Treliazz777 (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2018 (EST)
Your personal sandbox is probably a better place for this. I can help you set it up if need be. --Funkychinaman (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2018 (EST)
Could you stop uploading images of obscure weapons that don't appear in anything? We're not the internet firearms that exist database. Evil Tim (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2018 (EST)
Yeah, we just list the firearms that have appeared in media. You really need to stop randomly spamming things like this... jeez, what's going on with your obsession with the AR-15s? Not to mention that you still haven't learned how to format the images' listing. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2018 (EST)
My Bad, where should I post the rare Vietnam CAR-15s?--Treliazz777 (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2018 (EST)
I hear Twitter and Tumblr are both nice this time of year. Evil Tim (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2018 (EST)
Okay, and I also found a website called AR15.com. Now in this site, I'm only will post of weapons that had to do with the game now, I'm working on the weapon variants for Call of Duty WWII.--Treliazz777 (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2018 (EST)
The book, from which this photo is taken, thinks (kek) that it is a regular XM177 modified by the Australian corps. Why did they do it? Well, maybe the plastic did not work well in the local climate, or they just managed to break the forend and so as not to wait for a replacement, they just did it from what was at hand. --Slon95 (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2021 (EDT)
C7/C8 vs the M4
Why some countries adopted the C7 or the C8 (Like Denmark,Netherlands,UK SAS) instead of the M4? Is the Canadian variant better on what compared to a M4?--Dannyguns (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2018 (EDT)
When do we create a new article and when do we just add a new image into additional images?
So I was doing some work on the Shooter TV series, and they have two AR derived guns (Modern Outfitters MC6 and MC7) from Modern Outfitters that do not have pages on IMFDB yet. Because they are AR derivatives, I'm not sure if I should just add their gun image to the additional images section and call it a day, or should I go ahead and create a new page for them? OR, should I create a new section on the M16 page about them? Is there a distinction between the guns that do not have their own pages and AR derivatives like the LWRC SRT rifle series that do have their own page? Or is it just that we're lazy and don't want a new page for every random AR derivative? --Wuzh (talk) 02:26, 1 June 2018 (EDT)
I did the page splits for the War Sports LVOA and the TTI TR-1. I'm primarily motivated to split them instead of adding them to this page because AFAIK they don't really fit any category on the main page. They're not by Colt, they're not Commercial Copies of Colt M16s, they're not non-firing replicas, they don't use .22 LR, and they're not air guns. --Wuzh (talk) 04:00, 2 June 2018 (EDT)
Vintage M4 promo video
See here; this is a 1993 promotional video for the M4 carbine. At the time, A2 receivers were still standard, but towards the end of the video, they discuss the flattop receiver (which was brand-new at the time). -MT2008 (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2018 (EDT)
DDM4 as a "Clone"?
Continuing from my questions above, why is the DDM4 categorized as a clone? Seems more of a derivative to me and it should have its own page. --Wuzh (talk) 08:06, 18 June 2018 (EDT)
I'm really not sure what is the so-called "M4A1 Block II", and the page is lacking a description for it. Searching for it on Google directs me to the Wikipedia page of SOPMOD, which is apparently a list of customizations for USSOCOM. Each section of the page then describes a list of weapon accessories, apparently the components of the SOPMOD and the "Block". So is the M4A1 Block II just a list of customization parts that SOCOM operators can optionally have for their M4A1 and not an actual variant or configuration of the M4A1? --Wuzh (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2018 (EST)
It means: an M4 fitted with the major accessories of the SOPMOD Block II kit. For the purposes of IMFDB, I propose that any M4 with a Daniel Defense RIS II quad rail = M4 Block II. -MT2008 (talk) 21:57, 20 November 2018 (EST)
Incidentally, an M4 with all the Block II mods but retaining the KAC RIS is informally called Block 1.5. Spartan198 (talk) 16:00, 12 December 2018 (EST)
True, and that's why I think that the RIS II, not any of the Block II accessories, should be the distinguishing factor that leads us to label an M4 an "M4 Block II". Or, if it's a rifle with a very similar quad rail design, maybe an "M4 Block II look-a-like" if we're not sure about specific manufacturer of the receiver and/or rail.
I should also point out that I find it odd that we have an entry for the Mark 18 Mod 0, but the Mark 18 Mod 1 is grouped under that same section. I think they need to be separated (and obviously, the RIS II is the distinguishing feature between the Mod 0 and Mod 1). -MT2008 (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2018 (EST)
Question about the older M16's
I was trying to figure out what is the difference between the Colt 602 (XM16), the original M16, and the Colt 604 (USAF M16). I'm trying to figure out how is Call of Duty: Black Ops's M16 is the Colt 604, and not the Colt 602, and not the Original M16.--Treliazz777 (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2018 (EST)
The differences are stated here. Now regarding Black Ops, I just checked the right side of the third-person model (for the record, there's an image of it in the BO page), and it has a partial fence on the lower receiver (although the dust cover is covering most of it), which makes it a Model 604. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2018 (EST)
Suggestion: re-adding the M16A3
So, as you can see in some discussions above, the M16A3 section was removed from the page years ago, mainly due to the unlikeliness of seeing actual M16A3s in movies – the M16A2 was often used to impersonate it by being depicted as full-auto. This is the earlier M16A2E3/M16A3 (Colt Model 646) we're talking about, which as a non-removable carrying handle. However, things are different when it comes to video games (it's not like their M16s are converted with A1 lower receivers or something like in movies). The current M16A3 (Colt Model 901) has a flattop upper receiver, and is almost identical to the M16A4, with the exception that it is full-auto. Such a configuration is seen in Combat Arms (as you can see here, it has a Safe/Semi/Auto selector switch). Thus, my suggestion is that we add back the M16A3 to the page, but of course while only mentioning the videogame appearances where the weapon is confirmed to have a full-auto firing position. Opinions? --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 09:55, 11 January 2019 (EST) EDIT: IMO we could also do this for weapons currently IDed as "M16A4" but lacking any selector markings and clearly intended to be M16A3s (that is, named as such in-game and shown firing in full-auto) – such as in Battlefield Hardline.
I support this idea. --Wuzh (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2019 (EST)
I don't. "M16A2" as we use the designation on IMFDB refers to a type of rifle (that is, a full-size rifle with an "A2"-style receiver and 20" barrel). I also don't want to invite tons of newbies who start once again assuming any full-auto A2-style rifle that they see in movies/TV shows (which is what we're primarily here for, not video games) is an "M16A3". -MT2008 (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2019 (EST)
Regarding your last point, we could easily add a note so that they don't start referring full-auto M16s from movies to as M16A3s – in fact, we already have one in the M16A2 section – but while specifying the selector thing. Also, while I admit that movies are more important, video games are also notable enough (after all, we do have the M21 mainly for them, while this weapon is unlikely to appear in major motion pictures). Plus, I'm rather concerned about having to call some weapons "M16A4" even though they're clearly M16A3s; the Combat Arms page is a case in point, as it implies that it's an M16A4 (just shown behaving like an A3), which isn't the case. Bah, just my two cents; I'll leave this up to you and the other admins. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2019 (EST)
With all due respect, using designations that differ from standard usage is a bad idea for an encyclopedia. If an M16A3 category is undesired (and I can't see why it would be, this site is hardly swarmed with "tons of newbies"), then it should be made much more clear that the A3 is an A2 variant and describing full auto A2s as A3s is not inaccurate. --Tamarin88 (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2019 (EST)
Describing an M16A2 or M16A4 as an M16A3 when it is not actually so is inaccurate by the plainest definition of the word. As it's been made perfectly clear firing full auto alone doesn't make it proper to call them M16A3s. They're different models of gun, end of. We may as well call every converted SP1 a 'M16' by that logic. As always we ID what the gun actually is, not what it's supposed to represent. In the case of video games I'm of the mind to point out unless the weapon is actually named M16A3 (or the respective Colt model number) AND everything matches up characteristically it isn't enough because games are no less immune to misidentifying or misrepresenting fire modes and so forth on particular types or even models of firearms any more than films and TV shows are. Now if that's what we're talking about.. I can see re-adding it but only if it is an absolute positive ID, not 'clearly what it's intended to be' because again we don't go by what something's 'intended' to be. Bottom line if full auto functionality is the only difference and that alone isn't enough for films or TV shows, I don't see why the standard for games should be any different. In such an instance, a 'fires in full auto/possibly meant to represent M16A3-Colt Model xxx' notation within the existing sections seems plenty enough. StanTheMan (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2019 (EST)
Yeah, that's the main point, it's about the appearance of the "M16A3" name + full-auto fire + appropriate selector. CA is the only game I have in my mind right now where the M16 matches these specific characteristics. I might check later if there are other games with the same occurrence. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 04:12, 19 January 2019 (EST)
"As it's been made perfectly clear firing full auto alone doesn't make it proper to call them M16A3s". Then the article needs to be rewritten, as it currently states that M16A3s are full-auto M16A2s. --Tamarin88 (talk) 04:59, 19 January 2019 (EST)
Update to my last comment: in addition to CA, here's a few games that feature the actual M16A3 model (with Safe/Semi/Auto selector switch) – had to watch footage of them on YouTube, especially those that have low-quality screencaps. They include but are not limited to: War Inc. Battlezone (correctly full-auto), Infestation: Survivor Stories (correctly full-auto), Soldier of Fortune: Payback (can somehow switch between full-auto and burst), and Homefront (restricted to semi-auto). I might add that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and America's Army: Proving Grounds also have this model, but in these two it's called "M16A4" and functions like the latter. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2019 (EST)
If you look closely at the War Inc Battlezone and Infestation examples, you can see the receivers actually have "M4A1 Carbine" marked on them.
The one is Soldier of Fortune has no markings at all and the images on the Homefront page are too low quality to determine anything. AA: Proving Grounds is a bit of an anomaly here as I'm unsure how such a blatant goof made it to production in an AA title. And anyone citing Combat Arms needs to take the game's supposed "ACR" into question before before doing so. I'll do you a favor and pretend you didn't mention MW2 where the rifle doesn't even have a right side, though. Spartan198 (talk) 10:46, 27 January 2019 (EST)
Um... literally none of the points that you raised change the fact that the models are closer to M16A3 than A4, so I'm not sure why you chose to address them in this topic. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 12:28, 27 January 2019 (EST)
He's pointing out that despite your insistence to what the weapons are 'closer' to, the markings don't match with your argument (not remotely, in fact) - Which again leads back to my point that games flub up weapon details just like films and TV do. We've seen crudely modified markings, selectors, and other details in movies for HK94s and SP1s (among other guns), doesn't mean we ID'd them as MP5s/M16s even though that's what 'clearly what they were intended to pass for'. If games for whatever reason can't have both properly marked receivers and selectors, among other details - especially by this day and age - I just don't feel we should give them benefit of the doubt when we don't do that for any other media. Technical accuracy in an ID matters. With that, if anything we should be more scrutinizing of video game pages, rather than less. StanTheMan (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2019 (EST)
My main intention here was to point out which pieces of media have the model with the auto selector switch as I promised earlier, not to claim what it "intended to pass for". It's not about "my insistence", it's about pointing out actual evidence regarding the selector, for the simple reason that it's indeed a characteristic of the M16A3 and not the A4 (which means it's even wronger to ID them as A4s as opposed to A3s, unless there are actual "M16A4" markings on the receiver). Granted, the "M4A1" markings (which are only in two of the aforementioned games, not all of them) don't match with the M16A3, but they don't match with the M16A4 either, so I don't see why you're trying to shift the blame on me and claiming that specifically "my" argument was "not remotely" valid. As for the other points (presence of the "ACR" thing, lack of a right side in MW even though it's the case on many weapons in the game), they are totally irrelevant to this situation and, once again, don't make the weapon an A4 as opposed to an A3 – they seem more like excuses for not wanting to include the A3.
That said, if the mods still aren't interested in having an A3 section, I don't mind that, although I believe it was worth it to point out that most (if not all) of its characteristics did appear in some pieces of media. But then again, using the argument about the weapon modifications in movies raises the question of why we still have an M21 section as opposed to referring its media appearances to as scoped M14. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 12:05, 28 January 2019 (EST)
Eh re-reading my earlier it definitely looks more personally overbearing than I thought, and so I apologize for that, not my intention. That said, the burden is still on you since you're the one who brought this whole thing up, beyond that I'm not trying to 'shift blame' as much as again point out as Spartan did only having some but not all correct details of a particular gun does not an ID make, especially when other details are plainly contradictory. When several of these cases are like this, it's just a bit too questionable to allow to my mind. With that I'm not seeing what merits a whole 'nother section being added in this page and the potential problems that may bring with it. For the time being I still think putting these guns in the existing section(s) with a note will suffice - If you really want they can be perhaps called as A3s on the media page though the discrepancies should likewise be noted there. StanTheMan (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2019 (EST)
Eh, sounds good for now. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 14:21, 28 January 2019 (EST)
M16A2 vs M16A3
So carrying on from the discussion above, what precisely is the difference between an M16A2 and an M16A3? The page just says that A3s are full-auto A2s, and then seemingly contradicts identification rules by saying that full-auto A2s shouldn't be identified as A3s due to them being intended to pass as A2s (in all cases?). --Tamarin88 (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2019 (EST)
Well the only difference aside from markings and Colt model numbers is full auto capability as I understand. I'll concede perhaps that section could be reworded slightly but nonetheless that's how we do it and it's that way for a reason which has been elaborated on before. But to recap: There is no known instance where a actual marked A3 model is used in media - nor an appearance where the rifle could conceivably be meant to pass for an A3 - that's why that policy exists. Putting the video game bit aside, MPM noted this long ago because he knows for fact that those appearances in films or TV are A2-marked rifles (or the civilian equivalent) with A2 uppers and features but fitted with A1 auto lowers - Which again does not make them truly the same as an actual A3. I admit this is something of a peculiarity but that's how it is here. The M16 and AR-15 SP1 are so finitely distinguished for the same reason despite the fact that again aside from markings select fire is really the only difference between the vast majority of those two models. I'll further add that in the case of 'what it's supposed to be' that since the M16A3 is only used in a couple select units of the armed forces the note that 'they are intended to pass for A2s' is again all but guaranteed to apply as well. Again I grant it is a peculiar and arguably contradictory policy but it is there for a reason - It didn't just pop out of somebody's ass. StanTheMan (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2019 (EST)
Frankly, for clarity those (A2 uppers, A1 lowers) instances probably should be marked as something else than just M16A2s. --Tamarin88 (talk) 17:57, 27 January 2019 (EST)
I disagree, Tamarin88. That is why the page clarifies that the majority of movie/TV “M16A2” rifles are actually A1 lower/A2 upper “Franken guns”, but we still refer to them as “M16A2s” in the interest of brevity. -MT2008 (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2019 (EST)
"brevity" is not something that should be used in this instance, especially since it makes the argument against calling them A3s (A3s have full-auto A2 lowers) extremely confusing. --Tamarin88 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2019 (EST)
I must respectfully continue to disagree. Sometimes, we have to use a certain designation to refer to a type of firearm that meets a certain visual profile. Other examples for your consideration:
We use the term "Norinco Type 56" to refer to all Chinese-made 7.62x39mm AK-pattern rifles, even though the U.S. importers used a plethora of different designations - such as "AKS-762", "Type 56S", "AK-47S", etc. - which likely appear on the receivers of the actual firearms kept in Hollywood's rental armories.)
We use the term "Colt Model 715" to refer to any AR-15 pattern rifles which meet that visual profile (A2-style handguards, 20" A2-style barrel, with "A1E1" receiver). We do this even though most of the "Colt Model 715" appearances we have documented in movies/TV shows actually feature the similar Olympic Arms K4B copy.
Again, if you are interested in trying to add nuance to a page and explain that a particular M16A1 rifle is an A2 upper on an A1 lower, there's nothing stopping you from putting a note in the body of the entry, or maybe in the screenshot captions. (For an example of how the latter has been done, see the second screenshot on the M16A2 entry of our Con Air page.) What I find objectionable is the notion that we need to come up with new designations for page headers, or create a new M16A3 entry on this page, since the reality of movie guns (which is what we care about) is that there is not a single armorer who stocks genuine DoD-issue M16A3 rifles.
Another thing to consider: I don't know whether Colt ever used the designation "M16A3" in their catalog; as far as I know, this designation was almost exclusively used by the U.S. Navy (the only service which ever bought/issued the M16A3). It's been a while since I've looked at old Colt catalogs (I have several in my parents' attic), but I don't recall them ever using the "M16A3" designation for commercial sales. While the U.S. military's "M16A2" was only ever available as a burst-firing weapon, Colt's catalog sold full-auto versions of the rifle using the same "M16A2" designation. Then again, Colt's nomenclature frequently differed from the military's in other ways (e.g. when Colt first offered the M4 Carbine, the term "M4" referred to a fixed carry handle rifle, while "M4A1" referred to the flattop version; in the U.S. military, the only difference between the "M4" and "M4A1" was trigger pack). -MT2008 (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2019 (EST)
The thing that you have to remember with Colt rifles is that the "M" names are US forces designations, and when these are used by Colt they are kind of more general names and tend to refer to families rather than a specific weapon. For example, the Colt Model 778 is a carbine that has a fixed A2 carry handle and a four position selector lower but it is called an "M4 Carbine Enhanced" despite having nothing to do with the military M4 except the barrel profile, and there are the 777 and 779 that are the same but burst and auto only respectively that are just marked "M4 Carbine". It is not even that these are "early" guns, these were being made after the flat tops existed as partly Colt wanted to use up A2 uppers, but also because some customers (particularly less well developed countries) do not need to optics capability and preferred the simplicity of the fixed upper but Colt liked the "M4" name recognition and marketability. On to the A2/A3 distinction, I am for as a general rule just calling them A2s as the majority of the time that is what they are intended to be regardless of what lower is actually used. Similarly, when an M4 actually has an A1 receiver (pretty common as armourers can make new guns full auto by dropping them on older full auto lowers) we just call them M4s even though they pedantically aren't, sometimes noting what the lower is but most of the time not as it isn't really that important. If a gun in a game is genuinely supposed to be an A3 (not just an A2 with full auto because burst fire is less fun) then I have no problem with calling it an A3 on the game page, I just think that it can still go under the A2 section on the main M16 page as separating them is not really necessary (and I guarantee will lead to further arguments). Lastly, specifically for the M16A2E3 type M16A3s, if you are going by Colt's nomenclature there are actually M16A2s with full auto selectors that are separate from these US Navy guns. Colt has sold a lot of "M16A2" pattern guns to various countries on the commercial market and full auto is more popular, so they just made M16A2 with full auto selectors, for example the 701, 703 (not that weird piston one, the other one), 741 and 742. These guns are marked "M16A2" on the receiver and have the A2 profile but have a full auto selector, so even if you see an A2 profile lower firing in full auto that doesn't make it an A3. On that topic, you also have the weird thing that original A2s were actually built on A1 forgings so you can conversely have guns that have an "A1" style lower but are actually genuine A2s (example image of both cases). All in all, it is kind of shitshow and I see no reason to make it worse. --commando552 (talk) 12:57, 30 January 2019 (EST)
Colt 777 and Colt 778
I can find out what is the Colt 777, or Colt 778 M4s look like. I'm trying to find so Early M4 after the XM4 Carbine.--Treliazz777 (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2019 (EST)
Firstly, I do not believe that these are "early" M4s like the XM4, they have the features of what you might call an "early" gun but I think they post date the final design of the M4. As for what they look like, the 777, 778 and 789 are identical except for the fire selector with the first being burst, the second having the four position "enhanced" selector, and the third being full auto. They had M4 barrels and fixed A2 carry handle sights so they looked a lot like the 727. The only differences are firstly that being an earlier gun the 727 is stamped "M16A2" whereas the latter guns are stamped either "M4 CARBINE" or "M4 ENHANCED CARBINE" in the case of the 778, and also due to the fact that it post-dates the M4 development it has the wider M4 handguard with the double heat shield. There are a couple of pictures of the "enhanced" guns here. --commando552 (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2019 (EST)
When did SureFire introduce the M500 series handguard light?
M4A1 with Trijicon TA47 ACOG scope and Surefire M500AB weaponlight. This is one of the screen-used weapons seen in S.W.A.T. - 5.56x45mm.
This is just general curiosity on my part. The earliest-datable pictorial representation of it I can find is an M500A version mounted to an AR-15 carbine on the box art for SWAT 3: Close Quarters Battle, first released in 1999. Spartan198 (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2019 (EST)
Couldn't find any info by Googling, but the late-1990s is when I personally remember them first becoming available, even though the 628 had been available for the MP5 for quite some time before that. Also, while it's not mentioned on the page for the movie, I seem to recall that some of the M4s in Universal Soldier: The Return (the M4s not fitted with M203s) also were fitted with them - I think that's the first time I ever saw them in a movie. -MT2008 (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2019 (EST)
I'd have to rewatch Return to check for sure on that, since I haven't seen it in years (those DTV sequels with Matt Battaglia that came between the original and Return have traumatized me) and the only M4 screencap we have on its page shows one with a flashlight attached to a front sight post mount like this. The very first time I ever saw a Surefire handguard was either a picture of the loadout menu in a SWAT game shown in a gaming magazine or the cover art for Ghost Recon: Island Thunder (can't remember which one), which was in the early 2000s. Spartan198 (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2019 (EDT)
It's been years since I saw Universal Soldier: The Return myself (and considering it's such an awful movie, I have no desire to see it again), but my recollection is that the M4s in the movie which have M203s have the flashlights attached by clamp to the FSP, while other Army Rangers in the movie are seen with M4s that have the Surefire M500A, and no M203 at all. Those are the ones to look for if you watch the movie again. -MT2008 (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2019 (EDT)
I'll have to push myself to watch it again to be sure, but I'm pretty sure all the Rangers in that scene had M203s because I do remember Deveraux being first handed an M16 and him saying that "unloading one of these into them will just piss them off", after which he takes an M4/M203 and says something along the lines of "best to just blow them up and hope the pieces don't keep fighting." Just to point out, though, you can put a Surefire M500 handguard on an M4-type carbine with an M203 since all the hardware and functionality for the light is contained in the upper handguard unit. I've seen a pic of an M4/M203 with an M500AB on it in a book I have, though I can't seem to find it online. Being able to reach the on/off switch for the light with your finger on such a configuration is a different matter entirely, though. Spartan198 (talk) 09:16, 25 May 2019 (EDT)
Separating out the M4 Block II and Mark 18 Mod 1 / closing out the "Daniel Defense M4" page
We had this discussion earlier on the page, but I think it's time to revive it. So, I'll ask again: Should we give the M4 Block II and Mark 18 Mod 1 their own separate entries?
To begin, I acknowledge that we need to define what the "M4 Block II" and "Mark 18 Mod 1" are, since both variants are by-products of the SOPMOD Block II kit, which also gave the U.S. military accessories such as the EOTech 553 and ATPIAL. So, I propose the following: IMFDB defines the "M4 Block II" and "Mark 18 Mod 1" as any 14.5-inch or 10-inch AR (respectively) which features the Daniel Defense RIS II forearm in any variant (with either the front-sight post slot or low-profile gas block).
This should be a definition that is most easily comprehensible to most IMFDB users, since the RIS II was the primary difference between the SOPMOD Block II kit and the older Block I kit which featured KAC's rails. How we implement this new definition:
Create a new "M4/M4A1 Block II" section just beneath the current "M4/M4A1 Carbine" section which explains how we define an "M4/M4A1 Block II". The current picture of an M4 Block II that resides under the current section would be the lead picture in the new Block II section.
Separate the Mark 18 Mod 0 and Mark 18 Mod 1 from each other - and take the Mark 18 Mod 1 picture currently under the "Mark 18 Mod 0" section and make it into the lead picture for the section.
Consequently, we should also probably get rid of the Daniel Defense M4 page that exists now, and add most of those rifles into the new M4 Block II and Mark 18 Mod 1 sections. I recognize, of course, that some of DD's ARs do not correspond to my typeology, since DD made AR rifles which featured the RIS II forearm, but also various barrel lengths other than 14.5" and 10.3" (such as the MK12, which actually appeared in a TV series). I have no problem giving those variants separate entries on this same page.
We could also possibly re-title the current M4/M4A1 Carbine section to refer to the "M4/M4A1 Block I", even though I realize that there are tons of pages on IMFDB which still refer to the weapons as just "M4" or "M4A1" and we can't change them all (some of those pages even pre-date the widespread fielding of the M4 Block II with SOCOM).
What does everyone think? Is this a good idea, and is it practical? -MT2008 (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2019 (EST)
The Block II setups only started appearing in media relatively recently, so if separating is done, best to do it sooner rather than later because the amount of work will only increase (the reason I'm hesitant about the below suggestion of dissolving the M16/M4 w/M203 sections is due to the sheer number of pages that would need to be modified). I think keeping the Daniel Defense M4 page is a good idea because we do have cases of legitimate DD guns (or at least upper receivers) appearing in movies and games (Mile 22 and Ghost Recon Wildlands come to mind), but any ID of a DD gun should be based on something more defining, such as an armorer testimony or seeing the "DDM4" logo somewhere on it, than just having an RIS II forearm. Spartan198 (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2019 (EDT)
Good idea, I'll try to get started soon. Agree that we want to tackle this issue sooner, before M4 Block IIs start to appear more frequently in the media (IRL, it's only in the last few years that they were fully standardized within SOCOM).
Regarding the Daniel Defense page, I think what would make sense is to keep it, but also movie the DDM4A1 and DD Mark 18 entries (which are DD's equivalents to the M4 Block II and Mark 18 Mod 1, respectively) into the new entries that I am creating on this page. I'll add a re-direct at the top of the Daniel Defense page so that viewers know that those guns appear elsewhere. Though while I'm at it: I don't know why the Daniel Defense guns have their own page in the first place. -MT2008 (talk) 21:11, 23 May 2019 (EDT)
Having one set of rifles classified under headings on two different pages seems like it might be a bit confusing to me. Further, I think the DDM4 line being DD's "equivalent" to the military guns doesn't necessarily merit their inclusion in the Block II section since various other AR manufacturers have 14" and 10" guns that could meet that same hypothetical standard when applied to other headings (the Norinco CQ to the M4A1, for example), making it a jumbled mess with the only relating factor being that they're based on the AR-15 and have RIS II handguards. Also, not totally sure if this is entirely relevant here, but keep in mind that the RIS IIs originally designed for the M4 had cutouts for the front sight post, just like many of DD's commercial guns. The version currently part of the Block II M4 configuration was meant for the M16, but somebody during testing had the idea that they could put the longer rail on the M4 with a low profile gas block and use a flip-up front sight instead of the fixed FSP, giving the user a cleaner sight picture. Spartan198 (talk) 07:34, 24 May 2019 (EDT)
About why the Daniel Defense guns have their own page, well that’s on me. These DD guns were originally in the "Commercial Copies of the M16 Rifle series" section of the page, and I thought that this didn’t make much sense since they didn’t seem like clones at all (one of my posts above was questioning it). I then figured that like the LWRC SRT rifle series page, I would split out the page into its own individual thing. Yes, I know, rash decision and all. Not gonna do that again. I understand. Just trying to explain why they were in their own page in the first place. If you want them merged back to the M16 page I can help with that. --Wuzh (talk) 12:55, 24 May 2019 (EDT)
So, I haven't fixed the hyperlinks from the Daniel Defense guns on various movie/TV/video game pages which went to the Daniel Defense page, but I'll get to it. Otherwise, I've (mostly) separated out the M4 Block II and Mk 18 Mod 1 entries on this page - as you can see. (Work was delayed on the Mk 18 Mod 1 due to IMFDB server issues last night.)
I think that the basis for keeping the DD guns on this page, and not the Daniel Defense page, is that they are mil-spec equivalents and (as we've seen) are often used as stand-ins for the military guns (which use Colt/FN lowers, instead of being wholly manufactured by Daniel Defense). Being able to have the DD guns on this page allows me to compare the actual mil-spec guns to the DD clones so that I can point out visual differences for users - that's how we'll empower IMFDB's user base to make more accurate identifications. I have no problem with keeping a separate page for Daniel Defense's rifles that are not clones of military builds (such as the DDM4V1, which uses an Omega rail and 16" barrel - making it very different from the M4 Block II with the RIS II FSP, even though it has resemblance). Also, if we want to put other clones of the M4 Block II and Mk 18 Mod 1 under those entries, I have no problem with it - but I think you're going to find that it's moot because we have a unique circumstance (Independent Studio Services, the largest armory in Hollywood, stocks mostly DD guns and uses them to stand-in for the military rifles).
Spartan: Regarding the RIS II FSP: This is not the "original" version of the M4 RIS II. Both the standard RIS II and the RIS II FSP have been around since the inception of the SOPMOD Block II program. Actually, in the early years in which the RIS II began general issue in SOCOM (roughly 2010-2014), the standard version was more common, but in the last few years, there's been a trend (at least in USASOC) towards use of the RIS II FSP. See a really cool Reptile House entry on the RIS II FSP in the wild, here. Personally, I like the standard RIS II better - which is what I'm running on my own DDM4A1 - but I guess the Green Berets beg to differ. -MT2008 (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2019 (EDT)
I guess I should have worded that differently. I know both versions have been around since the inception, but the RIS II FSP was the one originally made with the M4 in mind while the "standard" RIS II was intended for the M16. At least, that's what SMGLee said on MP.net back when SOCOM was still testing the different RIS II contenders (the others were the KAC URX and a modified ARMS SIR, IIRC). SF only just recently got their RIS IIs now with USASOC's URG-I undergoing field trials? Man, poor guys. But if they prefer the RIS II FSP over the RIS II, more power to them. I suppose a fixed front sight is one less thing to lose and a lot less easy to break than a folding rail-mounted one, though. Spartan198 (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2019 (EDT)
Spartan: Gotcha, I misunderstood. What SMGLee said sounds plausible, but kinda unlikely to me, given that by 2005 (when the RIS II contenders were undergoing testing), nobody in SOCOM was using full-size M16s anymore. I'd have to see NSWC Crane's RIS II solicitation to see if it even mentioned that the rail had to be compatible with an M16-length rifle.
Personally, I don't like the RIS II FSP because the gas block/front sight post is right where my thumb naturally falls when C-clamping my rifle. I'd also be worried about burning my thumb on the FSP after extended shooting sessions (500+ rounds), without wearing gloves (actually, even with gloves, I'd be nervous). As for the URG-I (read: M4A1 Block III), I suspect that those are still at least a few years away from service (vice testing), but I do think it's pretty ridiculous that the RIS II took as long as it did to become fully standardized in SOCOM, when the commercial AR-15 market started trending towards modular rails not too long after the first RIS II full-rate production contract was issued. -MT2008 (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2019 (EDT)
The URG-I is a USASOC-specific program and not officially part of the SOPMOD Block progression line, so calling it "M4A1 Block III" is a tad bit inaccurate. Spartan198 (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2020 (EDT)
Dissolve the M16/M4/M4A1 with M203 sections?
I don't see any reason for these sections' existence. M203 is generally covered as an attachment in the Notes or Mods section, and also have a full page for themselves. Some of the parts in these sections are also already covered elsewhere on the page, like the one in Scarface (which is neither an M16 or fitted with an M203; instead it's a full auto converted AR-15 with a faux M203) These sections in their current states serve little purpose and can be easily merged with the rest of the page for consistency. Can these sections be dissolved, and their contents moved to the M203 page or elsewhere on the page? --Wuzh (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2019 (EDT)
Any opinions? --Wuzh (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2019 (EDT)
"Shaddup! People are trying to sleep here!" Lol, I kid. That said, I'm fairly indifferent but I agree the sections seem quite redundant though. If one's willing to do the work of making sure the respective AR/M16 entries are in the appropriate AR sections and the particular M203 variant entries are on that page's sections likewise, along with making sure the links are squared away, I suppose it'd be ok. But don't look to me as a final say on that or anything. As for the work.. uh, I'm busy. :P StanTheMan (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2019 (EDT)
I don't have any problem with that. I was hesitant at first since the way they are presented right now could prevent the M16/M4 sections from being too long, but then again, many of the movies/video games mentioned in the M203 sections are indeed covered in the M16/M4 sections, so yeah it does make sense to get rid of the M203 section and merge the rest of the media. I'd like to see the opinion of an admin though. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 10:01, 19 May 2019 (EDT)
Does any admins have any opinions? If nobody has any objections I'll get started on it soon. --Wuzh (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2019 (EDT)
It would actually make more sense for you to message one of them first (such as MT2008, given his noticeable involvement with this page), in case they didn't see this topic. --Ultimate94ninja (talk) 10:11, 22 May 2019 (EDT)
I agree, direct messaging might be more expedient, but as for MT2008 while he was a main contributor to this page he's also not on too often - I'd go with one of the more regular Admins like Ben41, FCM, commando552, and/or Evil Tim. There's a list showing all the admins including which ones are best for quick responses. StanTheMan (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2019 (EDT)
For what it's worth, I'm fine with getting rid of those entries on this page, and moving them to the M203 page. Those entries are, as far as I can recall, an artifact of the early days of IMFDB, when the M203 didn't have its own page. Of course, when documenting M16/M4/etc. entries on this page, continue to make footnotes that an M203 is attached, and maybe hyperlink to the appropriate M203 entry. -MT2008 (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2019 (EDT)
Right. I'll start merging the section with the M203 page. --Wuzh (talk) 13:15, 24 May 2019 (EDT)
M4 History & XM4 Carbine Facts
So the M4 Carbine all started in 1982, when the US Government ask Colt for a new M16 Carbine. In 1983, Colt want to improve the XM177E2 with some features with the M16A2. So they created the first model of the XM4 (Colt 720). The XM4 at first was suppose to be the variant of the CAR-15/Colt Commando series. At first, it was an CAR-15 with Slickside upper receiver (Came from the Colt AR-15 Sporter Carbine), an A2 lower receiver, an A2 pistol grip, an 14 inch barrel, a 2nd Generation Collapsible, and a A1 Flash Hider, Front sight block with bayonet lug. In 1986, Colt reworked on the weapon with big improvements. With a full A2 receiver, and improve 3rd Generation Collapsible, and a A2 Flash Hider. In 1987 Colt improve the new prototype handguard to protect the shooter's hand from heat. However the gun have a lot of problems with the bolt. In 1987, Colt focus on other weapons. Now, the GAU-5A was improve to become the GUU-5P, and the XM177 was improve to become the M4, but the Colt 653 (M16A1 Carbine) become the Colt 723. Colt was focusing on developing on the Colt 723 which was an improvement Colt 653 with the A2 parts. The weapon was used by Delta Force though out the 1980's. In 1988, Colt created the Colt 727, which is was an improvement version of the Colt 723. The Colt 727 was not part of the XM4 Program. The XM4 Carbine was ignore at that time. In fact, the Colt 727 was going to be the standard issue weapon at the time. In 1990, Bushmaster joins Colt to help out with the XM4 Program. In 1991, Colt finished the gun, and it was later become the M4. The M4 was a fix A2 upper receiver, until Colt add the flattop in 1993. It was first used in combat in the Invasion of Haiti. So any weapon in video game that has the Colt 727 with three round burst should be renamed to the Colt 720 or XM4 Carbine. So I hope that you have understand the history of this weapon. I been studying a these weapons. If there's one thing I have a hard time, is the history of the M4A1. Many people believe that the M4A1 was the Colt 727. Some people are saying that the weapon was the Colt 721, which is a fully auto Colt 720. Some people are saying that the Colt 727 came from the Colt 721. Some people are saying that the weapon was originally going to be called the M4E1 when it first appear. Some people are saying that the M4A1 is a Colt 727 with improve handguard. I really don't know. Let me know about the M4A1.--Treliazz (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2019 (EDT)
"Commercial Copies of the M16 Rifle series"
I'm somewhat confused by what this section is talking about. Is this section about derivatives of the AR-15 platform or actual commercial copies of the military weapons? Is Ferfrans SCW, with its Delayed Sear Activation System thingamajig, a clone of a military weapon? --Wuzh (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2019 (EDT)
Any answers? --Wuzh (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
Perhaps the section could be named a bit better; it essentially seems to be any AR derivative that isn't an original Colt/Diemaco, whether civilian- or military-oriented. It's a bit of an odd way to name the section, but it does make some sense. Pyr0m4n14c (talk) 10:06, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
What do we call it then? "Non-Colt AR-15 Derivatives"? We also have to deal with the intro paragraph of the section, which is not that relevant to things like the Ferfarns SCW. --Wuzh (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2019 (EDT)
I'm gonna argue that due to the widespread nature of the AR-15 platform, and the sheer number of derivatives of it, it is impossible to meaningfully distinguish a commercial clone of a military Colt-made AR-15 and an AR-15 derivative that is not based on any Colt model; this distinction may have once been meaningful during a time when there's less AR-15 derivative models out there, but by the present day the class of "commercial clone of a military Colt-made AR-15" is no longer so clear, and all of these models are just AR-15 derivatives. As such, I am going to argue that all of the individual guns in that section should be split off into their own pages (most likely sorted by company), and the section should then be cut. --Wuzh (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2020 (EDT)
Is anyone willing to offer any comments on my proposal? --Wuzh (talk) 04:50, 10 August 2021 (EDT)
M4LE and LE6921
In a rare bit of confusion I'm having on AR variants, are the M4LE carbine and LE6921 the same model or two different models with similar specs? Spartan198 (talk) 06:47, 29 December 2020 (EST)
Should the Colt ACR have a sub section on the M16 rifle series page or get its own separate page?
I'm willing to write an article for it, I'm just wondering is it different enough to get its own page or should be another sub section on the M16 rifle series page. --Living Corpse (talk) ??:??, 27 December 2021 (EST)
Does it appear in any media that is currently listed on IMFDB? I see that Colt ACR is mentioned as a base for sci-fi "Bolt ACR" in Cruelty Squad but I'm not sure it's enough to make an entry for this gun as the gun in the game resembles the real ACR only marginally. --Greg-Z (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2021 (EST)
P.S. Please don't forget to sign your posts by using the Signature button or simply ~~~~. --Greg-Z (talk) 10:21, 27 December 2021 (EST)
Sorry, I'm still new to the site. Yeah sadly I don't see it appearing in media again anytime soon in a more realistic depiction of the rifle. Shame, a lot of prototype guns are cool but unless your name is G11, HK CAWS or Steyr ACR to a lesser extent, you go mostly unknown. The H&R SPIW was lucky to get a video game appearance as a mostly realistic gun instead of a sci-fi weapon. --Living Corpse (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2021 (EST)
Very first prototype of the M4 Carbine (or Colt Commando) developed in 1959
I’m going to introduce to you the Colt ArmaLite AR-15 Tanker. The prototype of the Colt 607 (CAR-15 Submachine Gun).
This weapon was developed in late 1959, and it was an experimental weapon for close quarters. It was the very first AR-15 that used a telescopic stock, and it was also one of the first carbine AR-15s. Only 10 of these weapons were produced. They are other variants of the Colt ArmaLite AR-15 (Colt 601). There’s the Colt ArmaLite AR-15 SBR (which became the CAR-15 Carbine), Colt ArmaLite AR-15 Carbine (which became the CAR-15 Survival Rifle), Colt ArmaLite AR-15 LMG (which became the CAR-15 HBAR), and the Colt ArmaLite AR-15 with an experimental forward assist (which became the XM16E1 and resulted into the M16A1), although this weapon was developed in 1961. I have photos of all these weapons with the exception of the experimental forward assist.--Treliazz (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for being a killjoy, but that image looks like a Small Arms Illustrated photoshop. --Wuzh (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
AR15 Variants/Additional Variants
Why is there a separate "AR15 Variants" section above Additional Variants? They appear to both store Colt and non-Colt AR variants, so I think they should be combined. TheExplodingBarrel (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Super Duty/URG-I/Block III
Because the Block III is not an official variant of the M4A1, there's no reason to make an "M4/M4A1 Block III" section. Instead, the Geissele Super Duty page has been made for the URG-I/Super Duty.
Question About This Page With a Big Change!
I want to know is why is this page referring to as the “M16 rifle series” rather than the “AR-15”?--Treliazz (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
_1.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](http://www.ghostrecon.net/images_arms/xm29_1.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://www.bravocompanyusa.com/v/vspfiles/photos/BCM-URG-M4-14SOCOM-2.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/USAFSecurity.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/USMC_M16A4_Rifle.JPG){kind=link}
![[12]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/PEO_M4_Carbine_RAS.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](http://www.infobarrel.com/media/image/128212_max.jpg){kind=link}
