30 Replies Latest reply: Jun 13, 2012 3:57 AM by VizmaL RSS

M16A4 is not that bad

Ive been seeing alot of people hate on the gun and I just want to say that its not that bad. Clealry it is outshined by almost every other assault rifle but its still not that bad.

I did an entire series based off doing well with the M16

the series ends with a 40+ kill tdm with the weapon

heres the first episode

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqJaBbLRjgM&list=PL28B00873663D6523&index=1&featu re=plpp_video

  • Re: M16A4 is not that bad
    DaRyuujin

    did you camp for that 40+ kills? if so it remains M16+you are garbage, if you didnt camp I'll check it out

  • Re: M16A4 is not that bad
    deucedouglas

    It's not hard to do well with any gun. That doesn't mean that the gun isn't still bad. I used it all the way to 2500 kills and can safely say that it is by far the worst Assault Rifle and overall an awful gun.

  • Re: M16A4 is not that bad
    adw1983

    Copy-paste of my answer to the previous thread:

    Why use M16 when you can use ACR?

    705 RPM versus 780 RPM with burst fire delay;

     

    3 shots fired in 0.155 seconds with the M16
    3 shots fired in 0.170 seconds with the ACR


    4 shots fired in 0.255 second with the ACR
    4 shots fired in 0.350 seconds with the M16 AT BEST
    4 shots fired in 0.400 seconds with the M16 (with a very good M16 user)

     

    5 shots fired in 0.340 seconds with the ACR
    5 shots fired in 0.437 seconds with the M16 AT BEST
    5 shots fired in 0.480 seconds with the M16 (with a very good M16 user)

     

    From here on, it is only downhill.

     


    M16 was beastily in CoD4 and MW2 because of it's accuracy, rate of fire and damage.
    Never forget that it killed in 2 hits, 3 at long range, with stopping power, firing each burst at 925 RPM.


    On short to medium range, it was a shotgun and assault rifle coupled in one.
    With it's 925 RPM firerate and M4 (CoD4 and MW2) and ACR (MW2) dealing LESS damage than the M16 (30 base damage compared to M16's 40 -- 42 versus 56 damage with stopping power), and the AK47 (CoD4 and MW2) and SCAR-H (MW2) firing at mid-600 RPM, the M16 actually COULD kill faster than all the weapons above even if you needed two bursts for the kill.
    (M16 fired 9 rounds faster than SCAR-H and AK47 could fire 9 rounds, more accurately, and it killed faster than M4 and ACR even when you missed 6 times with each of the different weapons)

     

    In Black Ops, maps were generally larger, and weapons less accurate -- allowing it to be useful simply because it had beastily accuracy wheras the automatic ARs did not.

    Apart from FAMAS and Galfield (Galil and Enfield had the same recoil and same number of hits to kill).

     

    In MW3, you have a sub-machinegun that is more accurate and that fires faster (MP7) and an assault rifle that is just as accurate and that kills as fast or faster (when missing with one single round or more) than the M16 (ACR).


    The M16 being nerfed from 925 RPM to 780 RPM was a GREAT nerf for the OP M16 from MW2 and CoD4.
    Problem is, without stopping-power or 50 base damage, the weapon is useless when the 700+ RPM weapons kill in the same number of hits.

     

    ACR is especially beastily, as it can one hit kill in hardcore whereas M16 can not.

    In addition, ACR rewards accuracy a lot better than the M16 on long range:

     

    Headshot, headshot, foot: M16 does NOT kill, while ACR kills
    Headshot, foot, foot: ACR kills but the M16 still does not.

     

    There is no reason what so ever to NOT use the Type 95 or ACR over the M16.
    Type 95 two-hit kills up to roughly 25 meters, and 3 hit kills up to 37 meters compared to M16's 37.5 three hit kill range.
    The fact that Type 95 needs five hits to kill on 45 meters or longer hardly affects your game, as no weapon bar snipers are a threath at this range and most maps don't even have 45 meter ranges where you can be caught in the open.

    M4 is also a canidate, so is G36C -- both having a harder time on long range than ACR.

    To further disgrace the M16, I can mention that rapid-fire makes Type 95 more accurate, and that the Type 95 isn't less accurate than the M16 to start with, and finally: The M16 with rapid-fire still fires slower than the Type 95 without rapid-fire, giving the Type 95 a completely free proficiency.

    Really.

     

    It should have been 50 base damage, 35 damage on long range -- at 780 RPM. Drop rapid-fire.

    THEN the CM901 should've been 50 damage, and so should the AK47.
    It would have felt EXACTLY like the previous MW games where everyone used stopping power anyways.

    THEN the silencer would reduce the damage of the high-damage automatic ARs one level, and reduced the range of the M16 and low-power ARs by 50% instead of reducing damage.

    SMGs like UMP, P90 and MP5 would be 50 damage (reduced damage with silencer while the other SMGs only get reduced range; UMP should be 650 RPM like it is in real life)

     

    Finally: For ALL 50 damage weapons: Add a 0.9 limb multiplier: Hitting the foot will not result in a two hit kill.

  • Re: M16A4 is not that bad

    Being the worst assault rifle in MW3 for me is that bad especially for a COD legend assault rifle. Sure, it is still a potent weapon and can win you games but the very meaning of being totally outclassed by every other assault rifles makes M16 irrelevant in the game.

     

    I used it to get the 1000 kills ensign, but gave up on the 2,500 kills title because my performance (k/d and w/l) was not as good as using any other assault rifle. Using the M16 on games where my team is losing midgame, I would switch to another assault rifle and this alone changes the outcome.

    • Re: M16A4 is not that bad

      No...Tbh I find the M16 one of the best guns in the game [if played right] but the problem is that its hard to adapt to.  I've beat VERY GOOD smg users before with it, but maybe its just me, i usually play SnD with it.  I don't know bout other GM's but Dom and SnD are the best for M16, as SnD is slow paced and Dom is good on it if your defending flags.

      • Re: M16A4 is not that bad

        Sure, there has been people who have gotten moabs with the roit sheild. Doesn't mean its one of the best weapons in the game. And there is no dening the fact that the m16 is outclassed by almost every other assualt rifle, most noticeable is the type 95. You may do good with it, be you would do even better using a type 95.

    • Re: M16A4 is not that bad

      No...Tbh I find the M16 one of the best guns in the game [if played right] but the problem is that its hard to adapt to.  I've beat VERY GOOD smg users before with it, but maybe its just me, i usually play SnD with it.  I don't know bout other GM's but Dom and SnD are the best for M16, as SnD is slow paced and Dom is good on it if your defending flags.

      • Re: M16A4 is not that bad
        zvers

        Personally, I think the rapid fire attachment on the M16 is broken. It doesn't seem to give you that 'night and day' feel when used compared to the T95. When you use rapid fire on that gun, instantly you can tell but the M16, not so much. The levels are too small for it's intended use and in levels like Black Box, just use a sniper rifle....my opinion only.

  • Re: M16A4 is not that bad
    that6uy420

    after having used it in all other games that the m16 was available in... I can say that it is ,hands down , the worst incarnation of the series.  I used it my first prestige and loved it...  used the type and the mk14 the following prestiges and went back to it...  not impressed at all.  in close range where a 1 burst should kill.. it does not.  long range it is fine but where it should be a 1 burst it fails miserably

  • Re: M16A4 is not that bad

    I hope they fix this... One of my favorite guns! :(

  • Re: M16A4 is not that bad
    MaxKirgan

    I can be extremely effective with the M16 but it's just a shame how bastardized the MW3 version is. WIthout any attachments the gun kicks way too much and the fire rate is way too slow. It's a .223 there should be next to no kick. I really wish the base fire rate was a lot faster, almost as fast as the rapid fire attachment. Hell, if that was the case, I would be fine without having a rapid fire attachment and I would run it with a silencer and ACOG. Basically what I'm saying is, I miss my MW2/Black Ops M16.

    • Re: M16A4 is not that bad
      that6uy420

      even with a fully auto m16(not made anymore in the military)  The weapon had next to no kick..  it should feel like a .22 and when sprayed should have a small amount of spread... not what it has in this game.. it has a wider spread than that of some of the smgs

  • Re: M16A4 is not that bad
    IHerpIMyIDerp

    I actually enjoy the M16 in Hardcore, but I have a hard time with it outside of that. As soon as I got it gold I retired it and moved on

  • Re: M16A4 is not that bad
    Br4dthebe4st

    M16 has over 2500 kills with it, RD RF and its amazing, you people just don't know how to use something differnt. It does well at close range sometimes, it may take a couple of bursts but its an amazing gun.

  • Re: M16A4 is not that bad

    Nice Gameplay, well done...

     

    Commentary? Bit needy, begging for likes makes you sound a bit like xJawz...

  • Re: M16A4 is not that bad
    vims1990

    The M16 is dependant on connection.

     

    I have matches where the first burst kills a players instantly and then I have those games where it takes 2-3 bursts to kill players.

  • Re: M16A4 is not that bad

    hey is this just for ps3 and xbox soon? or something let me kno