Part 2 relates to the M4 carbine currently in use by the United States Military and a few other nations.
Here are comments from guys and a gal that have used the M4 in combat:
"Our convoy was hit south of Bagdad, the M4 performed quite well at the ranges we were making contact at. Most of the insurgents were anywhere from 30 yards to 450 yards. For the longer ranges we counted on the Marines who were armed with the M14's while we covered them from the close range fire."
"The only thing I don't like about the carbine is the 3 shot burst limiter. If we'd been able to get the A1 version, I'd have been a lot happier. Still, the little gun is quite accurate and pleasant to shoot. It's quick and easy to use in close confines. The M203 on mine was great but the change in ergonomics was uncomfortable for a while."
"My dad had heard a lot of bad stuff about the M4. He decided I needed a better sidearm just in case the carbine failed to take out the bad guys. I don't know how he did it but he got me a Colt 1991 along with ammo and mags in country. I kept the pistol but I had to let him know that the M4 was working okay. The main thing about the gun is that the smaller round demands good shot placement to take out the enemy. It's not like hitting them with a Garand or an M14."
"Our unit had the M4's with the Knights suppressors. The can's didn't perform as well as we needed them to so we arranged to get Gemtech QD suppressors for the guns. It took some doing but the effort was well worth it. I think the 14.5 inch barrel is a little short for the 5.56mm round. We were very limited in how accurate the rifle was at anything over 500. It just didn't have the umph to make kills."
"When I joined the guard unit, I was given an M4. I noticed that the gun had been modified with the burst control cut out of it. The cyclic rate was very high and the gun had some extraction problems. It was quite accurate about 300 meters out but beyond that, the body armor worn by some of the Palistines would defeat the round. We had to let them get closer unless one of the snipers was present."
Here are comments from guys and a gal that have used the M4 in combat:
"Our convoy was hit south of Bagdad, the M4 performed quite well at the ranges we were making contact at. Most of the insurgents were anywhere from 30 yards to 450 yards. For the longer ranges we counted on the Marines who were armed with the M14's while we covered them from the close range fire."
"The only thing I don't like about the carbine is the 3 shot burst limiter. If we'd been able to get the A1 version, I'd have been a lot happier. Still, the little gun is quite accurate and pleasant to shoot. It's quick and easy to use in close confines. The M203 on mine was great but the change in ergonomics was uncomfortable for a while."
"My dad had heard a lot of bad stuff about the M4. He decided I needed a better sidearm just in case the carbine failed to take out the bad guys. I don't know how he did it but he got me a Colt 1991 along with ammo and mags in country. I kept the pistol but I had to let him know that the M4 was working okay. The main thing about the gun is that the smaller round demands good shot placement to take out the enemy. It's not like hitting them with a Garand or an M14."
"Our unit had the M4's with the Knights suppressors. The can's didn't perform as well as we needed them to so we arranged to get Gemtech QD suppressors for the guns. It took some doing but the effort was well worth it. I think the 14.5 inch barrel is a little short for the 5.56mm round. We were very limited in how accurate the rifle was at anything over 500. It just didn't have the umph to make kills."
"When I joined the guard unit, I was given an M4. I noticed that the gun had been modified with the burst control cut out of it. The cyclic rate was very high and the gun had some extraction problems. It was quite accurate about 300 meters out but beyond that, the body armor worn by some of the Palistines would defeat the round. We had to let them get closer unless one of the snipers was present."