M14 compared to M16

Status
Not open for further replies.
The problem with the M14 is it is hard to keep it running at that performance for long ...
Click to expand...

The problem with M14 bashers is that they don't want to accept the fact that this perceived issue is eliminated with the modernization program.
 
The problem with M14 bashers is that they don't want to accept the fact that this perceived issue is eliminated with the modernization program.
Click to expand...

That program really isn't going on though, it is more the talk of the internet and gun magazines. Big army and Marine Corps have already spoken, both the 7.62 semi-auto system and the accuratized riflemen weapon will be a AR bases system. No amount of fantasizing or pushing agendas on gun boards is going to change what is going on in the operational military.
 
It's childish to call those who see the M14 as being out dated "bashers" when many of us own and enjoy shooting our M1A's. Just because the rifle has been surpassed by time and technology and more modern systems are available doesn't mean our rifles are any less loved. I don't think the M1 Garand should still be in service but I still love mine and enjoy shooting it. Does that make me a "basher" too?

Seriously, let's behave like adults and avoid tossing around unfounded sophomoric slurs.
 
No one seems to consider this, those of us who have been in line units understand:

WEIGHT. I would much rather tote an M16 with 200 rounds in addition to everything else on one of the many many many 12+ mile humps I've done, than an M14!

ONE M-14 in a platoon might be a good idea for a little reach-out-and-touch someone ability for the platoon's top shooter, but not for everyone.
 
ONE M-14 in a platoon might be a good idea for a little reach-out-and-touch someone ability for the platoon's top shooter, but not for everyone.
Click to expand...

Yep, one or two modernized M14s in the mix is all that's needed.
 
Why, the ACOG rifles are doing the job well enough without introducing a class V and IX block into the system unnecessarily.
 
Well, well enough is what combat is about. Also well enough is good enough to kill, so what more do you need?
 
Get both. I've had access to both for 3 years, and, really wished I'd bought similar guns. Now, in Kali, the M1A is the only choice. I was unable to accurately shoot a full auto M14.
A REALLY good muzzlebrake might change that.

WEIGHT is a big difference. One of the short barreled M1A's always looked really good to me for when the SHTF type day.

I've always wondered if you could use a 115 grain bullet in the M1A, cutting the carry ammo weight a bunch. For a sub, the shorty M16 is very hard to beat.

Apples and oranges here. Wonder if you can bullpup an M1A action, cut the size down, and weight?

s
 
I am currently in Iraq now and have used bot rifles quite a bit, here is my opinion. The M14 is ok for rooftop work until you fire a magazine through it quickly and then it is junk. Once the barrel heats up it is hard to hit past 400 Meters. It is no good for carry on patrol because you need a rifle that will do it all. You send a guy to kick in a door with a M14 and chances are pretty good someone is getting hurt because he cant get it on target quick enough. I have hit with my M4 out to 740 meters(checked with a mellios laser range finder) and killed beeb with one shot. The M4 is also great for close quarters and out on the street, but the best thing about it is weight, i can hump my M4 with 15 30 round mags along with all my other gear all day long. I cant do that with a M-14 and i dont want a rifle that opens up a ton once it gets hot. As for knock down power, there is not a single shoulder fired cartridge in the world that has the power to knock a man off his feet when hit. I have seen beeb run after getting hit with the 50 BMG, i dont care what you use it is all about hitting center mass, and if you do the 5.56 does all the damage needed to kill your enemy.
 
A REALLY good muzzlebrake might change that.
Click to expand...

Two very effective muzzle devices are available from SEI. The USCG version and the new Direct Connect California Compensator


I have hit with my M4 out to 740 meters
Click to expand...

Nice shooting. The M4 is an excellent weapon - I have spoken to several that have made kill shots @ 600+ yards.
It sounds like your M14 needs to be refurbished, maybe you can trade it in for a freshly modernized M14.

Stay safe.
 
I like the 7.62x51 caliber and I like M1A's (but don't own one).

It's all about compromise and the adoption of the M-16 and 5.56x45 was weighted heavily towards full auto fire.

Things change.

The debate is good. 7.62x51 isn't coming back for every soldier and proponents of the 5.56x45 need to admit that maybe, just maybe, it isn't the perfect compromise. 6.5 Grendel? 6.8 SPC? 7x46? Who knows?

Unless we adopt a new caliber the 7.62x51 will stay in limited numbers because the 5.56 can't get the job done all the time.

WOW! A 740m kill with an M4! I'm not an "expert" here, but I'll tell you that the difference between an M4 and a M1A or bolt action 7.62x51 at 740 meters is dramatic! GREAT shooting is all I can say. It would be interesting to see the terminal ballistics at that distance, but seldom is the case in combat, and a kill is a kill regardless. Stay safe out there EngineerMG and thank you!
 
Last edited:
Anyone familiar with the AR-10? I have been curious about this rifle for some time. When I bought my M-14 / M1A I was also looking at the AR-10 but I saw some stuff that gave me concerns about the durability of the gun and so I finally ended up going with the M1A. I don’t really have any issues with the AR platform simply because I don’t really know enough about it. I do have issues with the 5.56 cartridge, thus my interest in the AR-10.

Other questions regarding these two platforms are things like what can be done to improve accuracy? What kind or accuracy issues are inherent in the two platforms.

For example, my M1A performs pretty well right out of the box but researching the subject tells me that any semi auto rifle is not going to have the potential for accuracy that a bolt gun does simply because you have all these parts flying around and with everything moving around, getting everything to return to the same place between shots is something of a challenge. Thus the question, which of these two platforms have greater issues with this kind of thing. Then the next question is what kind of after market and third party alternatives are available for the two platforms. Having the M1A I am pretty much up on what’s available out there for the M1A but not so much for the AR-10.

I really like my M1A but in the end my ultimate goal is a durable, reliable, accurate rifle that stands up to hard use and wear. By accurate I mean bare minimum 1 MOA. Also I’m thinking that for the price difference I could probably pretty nearly trade out even for my M1A. However I’m not even going to consider such a move unless I can find out more about the rifle from people who have used them and preferably in more extreme environments. In other words I’m interested in upgrading in terms of durability, reliability and accuracy not just having a more modern design. The two are not necessarily the same.
 
Ahhh youth, those were the days. Today I have trouble holding the crosshairs steady to within 3 – 4 inches at 100 yrds. Of course I could probably improve on that if I could spend more time (and $$$) at the range. But still that’s just 100 yards. I don’t even know how you can see the target at 740m. You make me feel old. :(

Good shooting, you guys are the best.;);)
 
my ultimate goal is a durable, reliable, accurate rifle that stands up to hard use and wear
Click to expand...

Your M14 type is exactly the rifle you need to meet your ultimate goal. It may need to be tweaked, but what doesn't.

The AR-10 can be very accurate out of the box. I have an AR-10A4 SPR with an SWS free float tube that should shoot MOA or better.
I have never fired it because I want to replace it with another M14 type rifle.

HTH ~
 
Well one of the things that gives me pause is that I still have these images in my mind of pictures from Vietnam of M16s that are held together with duct tape. Doesn’t go a long way to build confidence. Of course those pictures are from a long time ago, I don’t really know where the weapon stands today.
 
The AR-10 can be very accurate out of the box. I have an AR-10A4 SPR with an SWS free float tube that should shoot MOA or better.
I have never fired it because I want to replace it with another M14 type rifle.
Click to expand...

So you're nostalgic, that's great. There are lots of people who feel the same way about the M1 Garand, 1903 Springfield, SMLE, K98, etc. That doesn't mean these arms are still the right choice for a modern, well equipped, most powerful military in the world. We have the resources to deploy a cutting edge weapon system such as the SCAR and assuming it lives up to its promises (which SOCOM thinks it does) then that's the direction we should go.
 
EngineerMG,

I speak with our troops on a regular basis due to my line of work. They all pretty much share your same point of view, at least the majority of them (there are a few exceptions). The 5.56 is getting the job done, and shot placement trumps caliber.

Thanks for sharing your opinion, it is worth far more than that of several people with no real life fire-fighting experience.

There's no doubt the 5.56 is a compromise, every cartridge is a compromise of something.

Thanks for your service, stay safe!
 
It would be interesting to see the terminal ballistics at that distance, but seldom is the case in combat, and a kill is a kill regardless.
Click to expand...

Most of the alleged problems with 5.56 hits revolve around three major issues. The first being most people are not all that great of shots, when you throw in non-rifle range conditions, moving targets and unknown distances the chances of making extended range hits go down drastically. The second being that at extended ranges M855 has been shown to have accuracy issues. Several lots of ammo have already proven that at 400 meters they lose the accuracy potential to assure 100 percent of rounds will go into a E silhouette even with a center mass hold, forget about a reduced target exposure. The third being that most troops lack a frame of reference as to what rounds actually do to people. When the only thing they know is what they see in the movie, TV and what is told to them third hand, you get comments like "lack if knock down" capability. However after you see people hit with various rounds you quickly understand some guys can take anything to include almost being ripped in half and will continue to fight and no switch in caliber will do any better.

Number 1 and 2 can be seen in two ways, the Marine Corps chose the ACOG vice the CCO and had less complaints about extended range lethality. The ACOG does make it easier to hit at distance because of autoranging and magnification than it is with a 0x M68. And when issued 556 SDMs, both with and without Mk262 there is allot less complaints about lethality of 556 even well beyond fragmentation range of either projectile. It just goes to show that it doesn't matter if it is a .223 or .308 hole in the chest, a hole in the chest sucks and will take most out of the fight.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top