November 11, 2007, 11:33 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 28, 2006
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 727
|
M14 compared to M16
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4weIh3Mc6kU
This is a video comparing the two rifles. It's just one guys opinion and I really don't agree. His testing methods leave something to be desired.
__________________
With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog. |
November 12, 2007, 12:09 AM | #2 |
Member
Join Date: July 24, 2007
Posts: 43
|
dude, alot of there "facts" are not facts.
|
November 12, 2007, 01:31 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2006
Location: Western US
Posts: 1,961
|
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.
__________________
https://battlebornreview.com/ |
November 12, 2007, 06:22 PM | #4 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
|
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!
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
November 12, 2007, 06:35 PM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 5, 2006
Posts: 284
|
Quote:
|
|
November 12, 2007, 06:45 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 26, 2005
Posts: 2,860
|
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........ 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......
|
November 12, 2007, 08:32 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 28, 2006
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 727
|
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.
__________________
With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog. |
November 12, 2007, 08:42 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2005
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 3,336
|
Warning: Links to large pictures
Bolt that FA M14 into a TROY M14 MCS, install a Kali legal DC Comp and you will have very different results.
I'll take the M14
__________________
The History and Development of the M14 EBR |
November 13, 2007, 12:46 AM | #9 | |
Member
Join Date: July 24, 2007
Posts: 43
|
Quote:
|
|
November 13, 2007, 03:07 AM | #10 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
|
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.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
November 13, 2007, 10:02 AM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 1, 2006
Posts: 543
|
Quote:
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 |
|
November 13, 2007, 10:15 AM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 28, 2006
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 727
|
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.
__________________
With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog. |
November 13, 2007, 11:38 AM | #13 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: OCONUS 61°13′06″N 149°53′57″W
Posts: 2,282
|
Quote:
Quote:
But, I suppose that means we folks who aren't impressed also have "personal agendas" . . . |
||
November 13, 2007, 11:45 AM | #14 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2005
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 3,336
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
The History and Development of the M14 EBR |
||
November 13, 2007, 12:20 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 11, 2005
Location: Manatee County, Florida
Posts: 1,974
|
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
__________________
Fire up the grill! Deer hunting IS NOT catch and release. |
November 13, 2007, 12:32 PM | #16 |
Junior member
Join Date: September 28, 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 6,465
|
Can we talk about something IMPORTANT, instead?
Like, "9mm or .45acp?" "What caliber to use for bear?" 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. |
November 13, 2007, 01:01 PM | #17 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2006
Location: Western US
Posts: 1,961
|
Quote:
So, yes, the M14 was flawed for the US military purposes from the start. Quote:
__________________
https://battlebornreview.com/ |
||
November 13, 2007, 01:12 PM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2005
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 3,336
|
Quote:
__________________
The History and Development of the M14 EBR |
|
November 13, 2007, 01:27 PM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2006
Location: Western US
Posts: 1,961
|
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.
__________________
https://battlebornreview.com/ |
November 13, 2007, 02:02 PM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 4,212
|
Quote:
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. |
|
November 13, 2007, 02:22 PM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 4,212
|
Quote:
It will be interesting to see what they decide upon. |
|
November 13, 2007, 02:35 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 4,212
|
Quote:
The M14 was pressed into the role of designated marksman because it was already in the armories. It's by no means the ideal solution to the needs of our military. |
|
November 13, 2007, 02:39 PM | #23 | |
Junior member
Join Date: May 31, 2004
Location: The Toll Road State, U.S.A.
Posts: 12,451
|
Quote:
|
|
November 13, 2007, 02:43 PM | #24 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 14, 2004
Location: NW Montana
Posts: 1,875
|
Quote:
The M14 was adopted in the hopes that an entire family of weapons could be derived from a single platform. The power and high cyclic rate of the round combined with a weight about half of the BAR's combined to make this unreasonable so the project was scrapped in favor of a lighter rifle and ammunition capable of automatic fire. This automatic fire capability proved to be an unnecessary waste of ammunition, at least according to the top military brass and politicians making the decisions. So it was scrapped in favor of a burst fire mechanism. And nobody finds it ironic that the automatic fire capability that the M16 was adopted for in the first place wasn't kept in later models of the weapon, and is now absent, or that the M16 isn't capable of meeting the requirements the M14 was expected to meet to any substantially or appreciably higher degree than the M14, yet the M14, or rather its related politics, holds the M14 as a failure while the M16, and its related politics, establish it as a success? And nobody bothers to wonder what advancements could have been made to the evolution of the M14 if the military had bothered to invest as much in it as it did the M16? Even with the potential shown by the system with current chassis systems? No takers? The M14 was scrapped because certain politicians were pissed that it took Springfield Armory 14 years to improve on the M1 Garand, yet the platform they replaced it with took over 20 years to develop into a really noteworthy combat rifle. The government invested millions more into adapting the M16 to its needs, but wasn't willing to do the same with the M14. Over 40 years later, the M16 has matured into a decent rifle. With a fraction of the effort, some companies take the M14 and modernize it, yet the M14 is hype? HOLY DOUBLE STANDARD BATMAN Whatever Quote:
__________________
"...nothing says 'I WILL shoot every last one of you before you have time to reconsider your poor choices in life' like an AK." ~Dave R. |
||
November 13, 2007, 02:52 PM | #25 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 31, 2004
Location: The Toll Road State, U.S.A.
Posts: 12,451
|
It's not "hype", and there may or may not have been politics in ditching the M14. But regardless, let me ask you a question, MT:
If you or a well-trained soldier shoot an M4 or M16 in burst mode at a man-sized target at say, 150 yards, how many shots will hit it? The answer is probably two, and possibly three. If you shoot an M14 in burst mode (assuming they made this), at the same distance, how many rounds would hit the target? The answer is ONE. The military wants an *effective* 3-rd burst mode in their standard issue rifles, for better or worse, for whatever reason. There is NOTHING you can do to improve the M14, to make it hit multiple shots on the same target, save making it nearly as heavy as a BAR, and then it's no longer a standard infantry rifle. Sure a 300-lb cornfed bubba with hands of steel can hold the gun tight enough to keep it on target in burst mode, but not the average soldier. That is apparently unacceptable to the military. Right? End of story (until the .mil changes their doctrine on 3-round burst). |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|