Outdated? No I don't think so. Mine has been updated to the point that it's nearly unrecognizable, but it's fundamentally still the same rifle. The upper and lower receivers, most of the internals, buffer/spring/tube, and barrel are original. The stock, grip, trigger, flashhider, handguard and gas block, and RDS are all different.
Original (Spike's M4LE upper, Rock River lower):
Now:
September 15, 2025, 12:15 PM
mrapteam666
I am not a big M4 fan. I miss my M16A2 and my FN M16A4 with an adjustable butt stock that Uncle Sam issued me.
I held onto that M16A4 as long as I could but when I returned from AFG, it was replaced. I was pissed.
The picture Para posted is my ideal M4. I like M4's or M16A2 or A4's that have a removeable carry handle and a fixed front sight. That way I can use an optic but if it craps out, I can use the irons.
I am about as basic as it gets.
Whether it is pistols, shotguns, or rifles.
I don't think the civilian M4 is outdated tech, but I think lever guns are just as useful now as they were 100 years ago. I feel the same way about an AK.
Right before I headed to NC, (fall of 2017), I went into the gun store to look for a Colt or FN basic model. I asked about one, and the employee said that it is outdated tech, and I should go with one of the new (at the time) "high speed" Daniel Defense models.
I shook my head and walked out.
September 15, 2025, 07:10 PM
patw
I have a couple M4/civvy carbines and as much as I have tried the "fancier" rifles/carbines, I always come back to the old reliable M4. It's lighter than others and works like a charm.
September 17, 2025, 07:55 PM
captain127
Agree with mrap team my issue rifle in Iraq was an A4 ( we didn’t have enough optics for everyone so I stuck to irons ) though against regulations did put a collapsing stock on mine.
For me the ideal 223 carbine would be the old thin barrel fixed handle sp1
September 21, 2025, 05:32 PM
jljones
I’ve been bouncing between my work gun and my dear old 6920. I’ve shot several optics on it and just strapped on an Aimpoint PRO.
It’s got an old school vibe going that I dig.
________________ People hate you. Train like it.
September 21, 2025, 07:25 PM
RogueJSK
Yeah, my remaining M4 sports an Aimpoint PRO and a drop-in Troy rail. State of the art, circa 2010ish.
September 22, 2025, 01:49 PM
usncorpsman
I feel just as well armed with this gun as my slim railed 16”.
September 23, 2025, 09:22 AM
KSGM
Is the most meaningful factor the addition of a silencer?
It seems to me that the control factor of the further-forward hand placement would be made more critical by the added weight of a can.
Also, the silencer's shadow in the projection of a visible (or IR) light is made worse by a shorter handguard. The signature produced by the light on the side of the silencer is also worsened by the M4 configuration.
In my experience, the actual "rail estate" of a carbine length drop in handguard is certainly adequate for a MFAL and white light, even by contemporary standards. So, it's more a matter of the grip enabled by the longer handguard, and the projection of the attached "enablers".
If it wasn't for my fondness of silencers, I would have zero problem with an M4 carbine. The front sight is a very minor annoyance I must acknowledge, but something like the Colt 6940 is arguably still quite M4(ish), and has a flip-up front sight.This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,
September 28, 2025, 06:59 PM
jljones
Meh.
Yeah, the shorter rail could have some draw backs. But, it’s a minor inconvenience.
I worked on a couple of stages of 5th groups ORT course of fire today. And I shoot the M4 competitively.
________________ People hate you. Train like it.
September 29, 2025, 05:30 AM
KSGM
Do you use a silencer when you use the M4? What is ORT?
Also, when it comes to silencer application, the carbine gas on a 14.5" barrel is not ideal, and the only tuning options on the M4 would be buffer/spring, and adjustable carrier. A modern 3D printed silencer mitigates this, but they are a fairly recent evolution.
So, if a silencer is a boon to one's application, then the M4 is likely not a good choice. Does that mean the rifle is "outdated tech"? Probably not.
Though silencers do seem heavily favored nowadays. By both LE/Mil and civilian shooters.
When one holds an M4 carbine, or similar rifle, they have those thoughts of "everything I need; nothing I don't". And it's true, in most cases. Silencer application maybe isn't one of those "most cases" though.
All this to say that the answer to the OP thread title is certainly "No".
In your job on a LE tactical team, do you value silencers? Would everyone on the team prefer that everyone have one? If the answer is "yes", would the M4 be as good a base rifle for the team as other, more contemporary options?
If the answer is "no", then I'd say that's evidence that the proliferation of silencers as a more fundamental piece of equipment has had an impact on the M4's relevancy, and perhaps one could say, as a result, that it is "outdated".
I am not presuming to know the answers to these questions. I don't think they're rhetorical, and I don't presume to know your answers.
In considering the situation further, I think it's logical to conclude that, if something doesn't work well within the scope of what are currently considered "up-to-date" TTPs, then it is arguably "outdated".This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,
September 30, 2025, 07:46 PM
JoshNC
quote:
Originally posted by KSGM: Do you use a silencer when you use the M4? What is ORT?
Also, when it comes to silencer application, the carbine gas on a 14.5" barrel is not ideal, and the only tuning options on the M4 would be buffer/spring, and adjustable carrier. A modern 3D printed silencer mitigates this, but they are a fairly recent evolution.
So, if a silencer is a boon to one's application, then the M4 is likely not a good choice. Does that mean the rifle is "outdated tech"? Probably not.
Though silencers do seem heavily favored nowadays. By both LE/Mil and civilian shooters.
When one holds an M4 carbine, or similar rifle, they have those thoughts of "everything I need; nothing I don't". And it's true, in most cases. Silencer application maybe isn't one of those "most cases" though.
All this to say that the answer to the OP thread title is certainly "No".
In your job on a LE tactical team, do you value silencers? Would everyone on the team prefer that everyone have one? If the answer is "yes", would the M4 be as good a base rifle for the team as other, more contemporary options?
If the answer is "no", then I'd say that's evidence that the proliferation of silencers as a more fundamental piece of equipment has had an impact on the M4's relevancy, and perhaps one could say, as a result, that it is "outdated".
I am not presuming to know the answers to these questions. I don't think they're rhetorical, and I don't presume to know your answers.
In considering the situation further, I think it's logical to conclude that, if something doesn't work well within the scope of what are currently considered "up-to-date" TTPs, then it is arguably "outdated".
The m4 really doesn’t need tuning other than an h2 or h3 buffer to run with a suppressor. Current flow through tech makes it even easier. Lots of M4 and M4a1 have been used effectively with KAC NT4 can by our military in the GWOT.
--------------------------------------------- "AND YEA THOUGH THE HINDUS SPEAK OF KARMA, I IMPLORE YOU...GIVE HER A BREAK, LORD". - Clark W. Griswald
September 30, 2025, 07:58 PM
KSGM
True, concerning the NT4.
I did acknowledge flow-through tech in my post.
So, if the silencer is of little or no consequence, we're solely looking at handguards. Why have longer handguards prevailed? Even before they were floated, VLTOR drop-ins that allowed for accessory and hand placement forward of the front sight were employed.This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,
October 01, 2025, 05:34 PM
jljones
Many reasons. From practicality to fashion.
You can’t be the latest and greatest big kid if you’re rocking a FSP gun. And I’m only partially kidding.
As optics became more reliable, the obsession with running sights up all the time waned. When it no longer became “necessary” in the big kid circles, there was really no reason for wasting the rail space. Also, as magnified optics started coming on the scene yhe FSP caused issued on some set ups.
And from a more practical reason, free float options with a FSP gun are limited even today. Daniel makes a neato 7 inch free float rail options but they aren’t perfect. I can actually move bullet strike by cranking a VFG against a concrete barricade at our range.
And then there’s rail space for added gadgets. There’s also the push for piston driven guns with low pro gas systems.
The in between option I enjoy is the DD or Centurion 12 inch rail for FSP guns. With this set up, I think a 13 inch free float rail on a low pro gas block offers little advantage.
Over the last couple of years, I’ve been teaching with FSP guns to prove a point.
________________ People hate you. Train like it.
October 11, 2025, 11:03 AM
JoshNC
quote:
Originally posted by KSGM: True, concerning the NT4.
I did acknowledge flow-through tech in my post.
So, if the silencer is of little or no consequence, we're solely looking at handguards. Why have longer handguards prevailed? Even before they were floated, VLTOR drop-ins that allowed for accessory and hand placement forward of the front sight were employed.
Adding a light and laser quickly clutters up a short rail and in the case of a 7” rail may necessitate a vfg. Contemporary shooting techniques where more handguard real estate is useful tend to not need a vfg. It’s a personal preference.
--------------------------------------------- "AND YEA THOUGH THE HINDUS SPEAK OF KARMA, I IMPLORE YOU...GIVE HER A BREAK, LORD". - Clark W. Griswald
October 11, 2025, 11:23 AM
RogueJSK
quote:
Originally posted by JoshNC: Contemporary shooting techniques where more handguard real estate is useful tend to not need a vfg.
I'm a fan of both.
I prefer longer handguards (at least 12-13" and preferably 15" on a 16" rifle) to get my support hand further out, but I also like having a short VFG to be used as a hand stop for added support/leverage, with my hand half on the VFG and half on the handguard and my thumb over top.
Similar to this:
November 06, 2025, 11:03 PM
Todd Huffman
I've got a couple of flat tops and a couple with add on carry handles, but I'd really like an A2 upper with a 14.5 pencil barrel, mid length gas system and a pinned and welded flash hider. Light, simple and fun.
Here's to the sunny slopes of long ago.
November 09, 2025, 04:19 PM
kimberkid
I’ve never really understood why people say any firearm is “outdated tech”. It may have fallen from favor with the “cool kids” or what’s being pushed by the marketing industry, but that doesn’t mean it’s outdated.
If you really want something you'll find a way ... ... if you don't you'll find an excuse.
I'm really not a "kid" anymore ... but I haven't grown up yet either
November 16, 2025, 11:49 PM
captain127
quote:
Originally posted by kimberkid: I’ve never really understood why people say any firearm is “outdated tech”. It may have fallen from favor with the “cool kids” or what’s being pushed by the marketing industry, but that doesn’t mean it’s outdated.
Couldn’t agree more. The basic concept of the bolt action rifle is 130+ years old now, but they still dominate in a lot of applications. Same with the AR. On the pistol side, a S&W K frame ( introduced 1899) or 1911 can still be solid dependable and completely effective option.
November 17, 2025, 05:19 PM
jljones
quote:
Originally posted by RogueJSK:
quote:
Originally posted by JoshNC: Contemporary shooting techniques where more handguard real estate is useful tend to not need a vfg.
I'm a fan of both.
The more things change, the more they remain the same. Practical shooting is a personal thing. On FSP guns with a A2 birdcage, I can place my support hand back closer to the delta ring and get similar performance to a 14.5 gun with a 13 inch rail. I’ve found that connection to the gun and what the support hand is doing is more important than where the hand is.
