M14 compared to M16

Status
Not open for further replies.
The video wasn't bad.

As for the "testing". All he wanted to do was demonstrate that the recoil is better and allows for much more accurate full auto fire. If you don't hit your target, it doesn't matter how big the round is that you are shooting.

They discussed many of the supposed drawbacks of the M16 and it's cartridge.

I think you guys are probably reading too much into it.
 
I don't need to see the video....

I have used both in real life. And was Army trained as a Small Arms Repairman on both the M14 and the M16A1.

My preference, if I am going hunting (men or anything else), I choose the M14 over the M16. In a defensive situation, the M16 has the edge in putting out rounds faster, but neither one comes close to a good dependable belt fed gun (like a Browning, or an FN, not like the M60).

Modern variants of the AR have inproved the accuracy a lot, and the dependability some (with the right ammo it never was as bad as the rep it got, but with the wrong ammo it sucked) too bad it only took them 40 some odd years to get most of the bugs out of the system!
 
44 AMP said:
I have used both in real life. And was Army trained as a Small Arms Repairman on both the M14 and the M16A1.

My preference, if I am going hunting (men or anything else), I choose the M14 over the M16. In a defensive situation, the M16 has the edge in putting out rounds faster, but neither one comes close to a good dependable belt fed gun (like a Browning, or an FN, not like the M60).

Modern variants of the AR have inproved the accuracy a lot, and the dependability some (with the right ammo it never was as bad as the rep it got, but with the wrong ammo it sucked) too bad it only took them 40 some odd years to get most of the bugs out of the system!
Click to expand...

Yep, the Germans had it all figured out when they made the machinegun the center of infantry tactics.
 
For a supposed professional, I didn't care for the way he rested the M-16 magazine on the ground as a support for the rifle when he was firing from a prone position........:mad: It was not made to be a bi-pod. Not only can he damage the mag, but I've actally seen them dislarge from the locking device from the recoil of the rifle, and not feed properly and stove bolting the next round......:(
 
I like both platforms, but given the choice between the two, I would choose the M14. I would take something like the AR10 or the G3 over either one though.

It looked like our shooter only put a couple of rounds from the M14 into his target. Doesn't it seem that he would get more hits with a 3 round controlled burst? The first shot should be a hit, even if recoil pulls the muzzle off target with for the next 2.
 
The Military only made one serious mistake...

With the design of the M14. And that was to put a full auto switch on it. By doing that, they tried to make it something it never should have been, which is why 90% of them had the switch removed and the "selector lock" installed, making it semi only. If they hadn't fooled with the full auto in the first place, it would have been hailed as a great rifle and a worthy replacement for the M1.

Instead many people just look at its problems as a select fire weapon, and its short service career (as a general issue rifle), which was cut short by politics and changes in what the service wanted, not due to any fault of the rifle's design.

I have used the M14, FAL, G3, HK 91, and M1A, and of the rifles I can legally own, I prefer the M1A. It has advantages for a civilian owner over the G3/HK rifles, especially if you reload.

I have never used one of the AR rifles in .308 (yet), and so withhold judgement, butr I have extensive experience with the AR15/M16A1, and some with the A2 and the semi M4s, and while they are better than they used to be, they are still poodle shooters.:rolleyes:
 
With the design of the M14. And that was to put a full auto switch on it. By doing that, they tried to make it something it never should have been, which is why 90% of them had the switch removed and the "selector lock" installed, making it semi only. If they hadn't fooled with the full auto in the first place, it would have been hailed as a great rifle and a worthy replacement for the M1.

Instead many people just look at its problems as a select fire weapon, and its short service career (as a general issue rifle), which was cut short by politics and changes in what the service wanted, not due to any fault of the rifle's design.
Click to expand...


Ditto that,

The first testing of the M-14 showed that the weapon on full auto was uncontrollable. The M-1A is what the M-14 should have been. Almost immediately after it was issued, troops were instructed to not use it on full auto and subsequently the selector switch was rendered inoperable. The rifle was simply too light to fire the 7.62 NATO on full auto aprx. 700 rnds per minute. This was the Army trying to have it all, a light weight weapon that fired a heavy round on full auto, the expectations were simply unreasonable. As a semi-auto weapon it performs outstandingly and it puts 20 rounds of 7.62 x 51 at your fingertip. The M-14 fires a 7.62x 51 which is essentially a Winchester .308 and is very effective at longer ranges. At 500 meters and further it is still capable of penetrating obstacles such as car doors and still make the kill. Its short service life was due entirely to the personal agendas of various people and completely unrelated to the weapons performance. This was painfully and often tragically obvious in the early days of its replacement when the M-16 was still having so many problems. In spite of all of that the M-14 has never been completely out of service. From the time of its inception it has always been in service in one capacity or another. Very often down through the years when ever the Army has wanted to “Reach out and touch someone” they have called up the M-14 as the weapon that is fundamentally up to the task. Even today if you look on discussion boards frequented by our service men you will see that the M-14 is well thought of and jealously desired by many of our service men. This is because in a desert environment it can reach a very long distance and still kill you dead when it gets there.

This is really the same old argument of one caliber / cartridge vs. another. Frankly I have trouble understanding why some people insist on clinging to the idea that the much smaller though significantly faster bullet is more lethal than the much heaver and almost as fast bullet.

Here are some interesting links where you can see what the difference is between these rounds. The first link shows the .223 at the bottom of the page and the second link shows the 7.62 x 51. I think the are some more direct comparisons on that site but I just didn’t have time to look for them.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot4.htm


http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot4_2.htm
 
It took 40 years for the M16 platform to reach it's current level of development and it's still a .22. I find it ironic that they are improving it by using heavier rounds with a slower muzzle velocity.

Imagine if the same effort had been used to improve the M14, instead.
 
Its short service life was due entirely to the personal agendas of various people and completely unrelated to the weapons performance.
Click to expand...

Myth. The M14 was canned because it was obsolete and a flawed concept from the start. I find it amusing that anyone who was not a fan of its mediocre performance has "personal agendas" but, apparently, the corrupt/incompetent bureaucrats who forced it and the 7.62x51 round on the US military and NATO were somehow aboveboard in their underhanded disservice to the American servicemen they were supposed to be providing the best equipment to.

Even today if you look on discussion boards frequented by our service men you will see that the M-14 is well thought of and jealously desired by many of our service men. This is because in a desert environment it can reach a very long distance and still kill you dead when it gets there
Click to expand...

Actually, if you look at boards like this one you'll find a bunch of servicemen (myself included) who think the M14 is 99% hype, and who will point out the reality that in the desert it simply has not done its job very well at all in the eyes of many end users. You'll also note that the reality is that both the Army and Marines are ditching it in favor of other platforms because its real world performance is nowhere near what fans on the internet claim.

But, I suppose that means we folks who aren't impressed also have "personal agendas" . . . :rolleyes:
 
The M14 was canned because it was obsolete and a flawed concept from the start.
Click to expand...

That's a Myth.

if you look at boards like this one you'll find a bunch of servicemen (myself included) who think the M14 is 99% hype, and who will point out the reality that in the desert it simply has not done its job very well at all in the eyes of many end users.
Click to expand...

There is a small vocal group, but their arguments are hype because the M14 platform continues to be viable.
 
Biggest difference to my view is the M-16 is easier to train newbies. Additionally, it is simple to trouble-shoot and maintain.

M-14 came and went away. Entire warehouses of M-14 rifle were destroyed during Clinton Administration. Now it appears to be back as a tactical weapon for certain occupational specilities within USA Armed Services.

I'm certain the M-16 holds the record for longest life as a standard issue rifle. Many upgrades since the Viet Nam era has brought a better weapon into the hands of American troops.

I'm also certain that Lobbyists seek to bribe those in Washington to scrap the M-16 in favor of a new rifle. Since our nation is well over $700 billion in debt, I think its just plain foolish to seek to replace the M-16 at this point in time.

Jack
 
Can we talk about something IMPORTANT, instead?

Like, "9mm or .45acp?":p

"What caliber to use for bear?":rolleyes:

or maybe:

"What one rifle should I get for (insert activity here)?";)

In defense of the M14, I find it interesting that the same people who consider the M1 Garand to be one of the finest weapons invented, and a key contributor to the allied victory in WWII, will denigrate the direct descendant of that great rifle for its increased capacity, shorter action and faster cycling time. The M14 is an improvement on the M1 and was designed to be a cross between the M1 and the Browning BAR light machine gun.

As such, it failed. As an SDM issue rifle, it is a great success.

Different tools, folks.
 
The Military only made one serious mistake...

With the design of the M14. And that was to put a full auto switch on it.
Click to expand...

The problem with this statement is that the military had wanted their main rifle to be select fire.

So, yes, the M14 was flawed for the US military purposes from the start.

The M-1A is what the M-14 should have been.
Click to expand...

The M14/M1A is what the M1 Garand should have been.
 
..the military had wanted their main rifle to be select fire.

..the M14 was flawed for the US military purposes from the start.

The M14/M1A is what the M1 Garand should have been.
Click to expand...

Um.. What?
 
They made a rifle that was ineffective at full auto, and they wanted a full auto weapon.

So, the M14 was worthless from the beginning. That is (one of the reasons) why the M16 was eventually adopted. It worked well as a select fire weapon.

Still confused?

As for the Garand/M14 comment. The military had explored going with a detachable magazine on the Garand (the only real advantage to the M14 over the Garand) originally, but ended up scrapping the idea.
 
With the design of the M14. And that was to put a full auto switch on it. By doing that, they tried to make it something it never should have been, which is why 90% of them had the switch removed and the "selector lock" installed, making it semi only. If they hadn't fooled with the full auto in the first place, it would have been hailed as a great rifle and a worthy replacement for the M1.
Click to expand...
I doubt it M14 would have ever been successful regardless of it's mode of fire. Yes, the full-auto capability hastened its demise but regardless the big bore battle rifle was on its way out in favor of the new "assault rifle" as the standard issue infantry weapon. What armies wanted was a light weight, pistol gripped, mid-powered, high capacity, select fire rifle. The Germans set the trend in WWII and Russia capitalized on it right away. The US and our allies lagged behind for years but ultimately we realized we had to make the switch.

The M14 offered very little advantage over the M1 Garand. About it's only improvement was the addition of a 20 round magazine and slightly shortened overall length. The Army really hoped that the M14 would be an answer to the AK47 and it wasn't. It was a failed design right out of the gate for its intended mission. But that's not to say the rifle is a bad design, because it's not. It's a very good design.

Today the M14 serves in a much better role in our armed forced. As a designated marksman rifle, it adds range and power to a squad. It also serves quite well in special units that need weapons with diverse capabilities depending on their mission.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top