Source+10

>
 * Dougherty, Paul J., and Bradford K. Matthews. "Comparison of M-16A2 and M-4 Wounding Potential. ." //Military Medicine//172.8 (2007): 4. Web. 23 Aug. 2012. .
 * 1) The first combat use of the M-4 in Afghanistan in 2001 and 2002 raised concerns about the stopping power of the weapon compared to the M-16A2.
 * 2) “The wounding characteristics of the M-4 and the M-16A2 rifle were compared by using the 'would profile method.'”
 * 3) “Using the would profile method, shots were made into blocks of ordnance gelatin prepared to reproduce the wounding characteristics of soft tissue.”
 * 4) Would ballistics is the science that evaluates the pathophysiology and outcomes of wounds created by missiles.
 * 5) The would profile technique is used to demonstrate the amount of tissue disruption that may occur as a projectile passes through the tissue.
 * 6) The M16A2 had 3150 muzzle velocity compared to the M4's 2890.
 * 7) The M4 had a smaller muzzle velocity then the M16A2 because they M4 has a shorter barrel.
 * 8) The smaller muzzle velocity caused projectiles to fragment less upon entering a target (gelatin used to represent human tissue).
 * 9) The M16A2 produced a consistently higher muzzle velocity and a larger temporary cavity.
 * 10) The M4 carbine was adopted by the U.S. Military in 1994.
 * 11) The M16A2 demonstrated greater tissue disruption using the wound profile method, compared to the M4.
 * 12) The reason the M4 has less tissue disruption compared to the M16A2 is because of it's shorter barrel length.
 * 13) Compared to the M16A2, the M4 demonstrated a higher penetration depth.
 * 14) When the M-16A1 rifle was first fielded during the Vietnam War. anecdotal reports of erratic performance in wounding were noted in nonmedical articles.
 * 15) One of the reasons there was less tissue damage with the M16A2 is due to the bullet not breaking up upon entering the target.