The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: Semi-automatics

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old November 11, 2007, 11:33 PM   #1
Abndoc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2006
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 719
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.
Abndoc is offline  
Old November 12, 2007, 12:09 AM   #2
heckledpie
Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2007
Posts: 43
dude, alot of there "facts" are not facts.
heckledpie is offline  
Old November 12, 2007, 01:31 PM   #3
RockyMtnTactical
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2006
Location: Western US
Posts: 1,957
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.
RockyMtnTactical is offline  
Old November 12, 2007, 06:22 PM   #4
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,749
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.
44 AMP is online now  
Old November 12, 2007, 06:35 PM   #5
Army GI
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 5, 2006
Posts: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by 44 AMP
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!
Yep, the Germans had it all figured out when they made the machinegun the center of infantry tactics.
Army GI is offline  
Old November 12, 2007, 06:45 PM   #6
TPAW
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......
TPAW is offline  
Old November 12, 2007, 08:32 PM   #7
Abndoc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2006
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 719
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.
Abndoc is offline  
Old November 12, 2007, 08:42 PM   #8
SR420
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2005
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 2,865
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
__________________
facebook.com/M14EBR.US
SR420 is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 12:46 AM   #9
heckledpie
Member
 
Join Date: July 24, 2007
Posts: 43
Quote:
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
omg dude, those are amazing looking m14s!
heckledpie is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 03:07 AM   #10
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,749
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.
44 AMP is online now  
Old November 13, 2007, 10:02 AM   #11
ronc0011
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 1, 2006
Posts: 539
Quote:
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.

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
ronc0011 is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 10:15 AM   #12
Abndoc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2006
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 719
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.
Abndoc is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 11:38 AM   #13
HorseSoldier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: OCONUS 61°13′06″N 149°53′57″W
Posts: 2,282
Quote:
Its short service life was due entirely to the personal agendas of various people and completely unrelated to the weapons performance.
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.

Quote:
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
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" . . .
HorseSoldier is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 11:45 AM   #14
SR420
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2005
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 2,865
Quote:
The M14 was canned because it was obsolete and a flawed concept from the start.
That's a Myth.

Quote:
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.
There is a small vocal group, but their arguments are hype because the M14 platform continues to be viable.
__________________
facebook.com/M14EBR.US
SR420 is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 12:20 PM   #15
Jack O'Conner
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 11, 2005
Location: Lancaster County, Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,514
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.
Jack O'Conner is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 12:32 PM   #16
azredhawk44
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.
azredhawk44 is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 01:01 PM   #17
RockyMtnTactical
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2006
Location: Western US
Posts: 1,957
Quote:
The Military only made one serious mistake...

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

Quote:
The M-1A is what the M-14 should have been.
The M14/M1A is what the M1 Garand should have been.
RockyMtnTactical is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 01:12 PM   #18
SR420
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2005
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 2,865
Quote:
..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.
Um.. What?
__________________
facebook.com/M14EBR.US
SR420 is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 01:27 PM   #19
RockyMtnTactical
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2006
Location: Western US
Posts: 1,957
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.
RockyMtnTactical is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 02:02 PM   #20
Sturmgewehre
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 4,212
Quote:
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.
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.
__________________
Visit my YouTube channel for reviews, tests and more.
Ex Mea Sententia
Sturmgewehre is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 02:22 PM   #21
Sturmgewehre
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 4,212
Quote:
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.
This is true, the M14 does need to be replaced with a more modern and versatile weapon system. The M14 does an "ok" job as it's currently deployed but a more modern system would do a much better job.

It will be interesting to see what they decide upon.
__________________
Visit my YouTube channel for reviews, tests and more.
Ex Mea Sententia
Sturmgewehre is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 02:35 PM   #22
Sturmgewehre
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 4,212
Quote:
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.
Unfortunately the M14 doesn't lend itself to extreme accuracy. The rifle, by its very design, is kind of a poor platform for long range work. Scopes are something of an after thought, the gas system needs to be modified, a heavier match grade barrel added, the stock replaced and bedded. Even then, with heavy use, the rifle begins to rapidly loose accuracy and needs to be sent back to the armory for some TLC.

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.
__________________
Visit my YouTube channel for reviews, tests and more.
Ex Mea Sententia
Sturmgewehre is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 02:39 PM   #23
FirstFreedom
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 31, 2004
Location: The Toll Road State, U.S.A.
Posts: 12,451
Quote:
Imagine if the same effort had been used to improve the M14, instead.
OK, I imagined it. And it would still be obsolete from the get go, because it would STILL not be controllable in full auto, which is what the military wanted then and still wants now. Horsesoldier knows of what he speaks...
FirstFreedom is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 02:43 PM   #24
MTMilitiaman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2004
Location: NW Montana
Posts: 1,875
Quote:
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.
Only to have that capacity butchered.

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 ****** 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:
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.
Which is why the M21s in Vietnam had less down time for repairs than the M40s, and most of that was because the scope it was employed with was complex and prone to breakage.
__________________
"...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.
MTMilitiaman is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 02:52 PM   #25
FirstFreedom
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).
FirstFreedom is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.15232 seconds with 7 queries