M16 Iron Sights or M4 CCO?

[FieldMedic 7]

Good people of the wasteland! Which would you carry around?!

[Hawk24 94]

M4 CCO because of the easy to use red dot

M16 ironsights simply suck

[Jackftw 310]

M4 CCO because of the easy to use red dot

M16 ironsights simply suck

I actually find the M16 ironsights really easy and simple to use. It's usually very accurate aswell. But, I would still use the M4 CCO instead of the M16 any day.

[Benlandia 73]

M4 CCO because of the easy to use red dot

M16 ironsights simply suck

Your opinion amuses me. I would take the M16/203 combo over the M4.

[SGTFledge 43]

Depends on the other attachments.

And the paint job. The paint job seals the deal. I'm a sucker for an Camo M4 CCO. Probably why I get shot so many times up in NWA.

[Flicshot 12]

M4 CCO because of the easy to use red dot

M16 ironsights simply suck

ur insane

[Herr Robert 28]

I also think the M16 has horrible iron sights, and find the CCOs alot easier to handle. In addition to that, the M16 is not very good at either long or short range because of its weak caliber and lack of a full auto mode, while the M4A3 CCO is at least a great weapon for short range.

[FieldMedic 7]

It was just a stock M16 with Irons, no attachments and the M4 CCO was the basic black/gun metal, no cammy.

Incidently I stuck with the M4 CCO. I figured the only advantage the M16 would have over it would be longer range accuracy and perhaps a little added stopping power. The M4 had the red dot sight, full auto setting and was quieter.

Edited July 12, 2012 by FieldMedic

[Chicago Zed 2]

The M16 is a reliable all-purpose weapon that's easy to use (it also has a great burst fire mode). The M4 is a carbine, so it's slightly less accurate at range but is easier for close targets due to its compactness and red dot.

In terms of just combat I like the M16, but because the M4 has a flashlight it's more versatile at night.

Edited July 12, 2012 by Chicago Zed

[miragexl 33]

My nice CCO with camo :)

[TheGoldElite 0]

Tough call, cleat optics makes shooting a tad easier, but at range it doesnt hold up brilliantly. Personally I am carrying a M16iron with 203. The sights are clunky with the 203 ontop, but still just about usable. The 203 sight however is retarded, as it is either zeroed to 300m as the first tab, or broken. IMO 300m is a bit far to use a grenade launcher accurately, I use mine at 50m typically.

[Saltyness 0]

It all depends on the other attachments. They are both identical damage wise (contrary to what OP just said) and zombie-aggro-radius is the same for both. It's basically just personal preference. I had no trouble taking out two people at 300-350 metres range yesterday with my M4A3 CCO with just 4-5 shots each. The M16 would be the same except just a bit more accurate for another 50-100 metres. So it really just comes down to which sights you prefer and what other attachments they have, because they're practically the same gun in all other regards.

[svardskampe 45]

Would choose the M4 CCO over the M16 any day. While you can simply find an m16, it's harder for an m4. Most of the fights are withing the 200M range and thus go preferably to the M4. >200M and a sniper wins.

If you have the option, choose the M4, no doubt.