M14 compared to M16 - Page 3

w_houle · November 13, 2007, 10:18 PM

Ok, I am going into this cold no google checking so bear with me.
First, if I remember correctly the major flaw with manufacturing the M-14 was that it was being manufactured on the same equipment used to manufacture the M-1 and that in itself somehow hindered the manufacture of the weapon.
"The M-16 holds the record for longest life as a standard issue rifle", umm I think that title actually goes to the Mosin Nagant rifle.

Baba Louie · November 13, 2007, 11:22 PM

In the end it's politics. There is no end all be all rifle that can wear two hats at the same time. There's always a trade off or two. But for the sake of logistics it's nice to have common rounds for the riflemen and SAW gunners.

Why was the M1 Garand built using the 30-06 and not the .276 that Mr. Garand based his design on? Politics.

Why did the US Army decide it had to follow the Wermacht's Stg44 concept (a 400 meter fire-fight design) yet use a slightly shortened round designed to match the venerable 30-06 Springfield in a lighter weapon, forsaking the T48 over the T44 and Gene Stoner's late to the party AR10? Politics.

What chambering did Dieudonne Saive originally intend for the FAL? 7.92x33, yet it too fell victim to... politics.

When Eugene Stoner designed the original AR rifle it was in the 7.62x51 format yet it ended up a scaled down version and was accepted due to LeMay and McNamara's political muscle.

To my way of thinking (and I've got no dog in the fight) this debate is apples to oranges for a couple of reasons. Caliber or cartridge design being one, intended use being another, operating system being the third, each a political animal or victim.

If Garand had been allowed to go with the .276, if it (the .276) had later been scaled down for the StG copy concept post war, maybe a tad bit closer to the 33mm in lieu of the 51mm size, if Saive and Stoner had used that round to develop their famous FAL/AR platform... we'd still find something fun for heated debate for hours on end.

A 7mm Kurz. Pretty close to a 6.8 Spc isn't it? 7mm Kurz/6.8 Spc. Interesting concept. Naaaah. Needs more punch downrange. The politics of logistics (and inertia), not to mention cost of new weapons R&D/procurement would never let it see the light of day.

What I want to know is this, Is direct (gas) impingement really better than piston impingement? If not, should the piston system be totally enclosed or have a portion of it as an exposed op rod? And what SHOULD the perfect select fire military weapon be (op system), what should it weigh and what catridge should it utilize? Clearly it's not the M14 or the M16, each having it's drawbacks and strengths, no one can agree on a consensus. Politics.

WNTFW · November 14, 2007, 12:01 AM

I'd like to have at least one every U.S. Mxx rifle ever issed.
M1 Garand & Carbine
M14 & M16
Nothing else goes with 1911's or US Flags quite the way they do.
I've shot, handled & spent time with all of them. I love them all. My only complaint is not owning them all & the M14's ars so danged expensive.

WNTFW

Abndoc · November 14, 2007, 02:22 AM

Baba Louie, you summed it up nicely. Politics.

TPAW · November 14, 2007, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Why was the M1 Garand built using the 30-06 and not the .276 that Mr. Garand based his design on? Politics.

Because the US Military had stock piles of the .06 left over from WW1 all over the world, and was still being produced years later. Some of it is still around today!........

Crosshair · November 14, 2007, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Some of it is still around today!........

Pre-WWII 30-06 ammo? All the stuff I am aware of is post WWII. They should have simply kept the bolt guns in reserve service and for training until the ammo ran out. Then just sell them to civilians.

It was a penny wise/pound foolish situation.

HorseSoldier · November 14, 2007, 01:29 PM

Quote:

"The M-16 holds the record for longest life as a standard issue rifle", umm I think that title actually goes to the Mosin Nagant rifle.

Think the OP meant American rifle. If not, I think the Brown Bess musket and some other long guns from the same era have the MN beat as a combat long gun

HorseSoldier · November 14, 2007, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Pre-WWII 30-06 ammo? All the stuff I am aware of is post WWII.

All four current rifle ammo DODICs for M2 30-06 are exclusively dedicated to support the CMP. With CMP out of USGI 30-06 ammo, I'd venture to guess whatever stockpiles of 30-06 we have in various ASPs around the country are getting pretty lean.

(Belted MG ammo, DODIC A218, is apparently still in the system, with only "excess" being given to CMP. I suspect that anything left in stock is pretty limited and for familiarization training for SF and other SOF forces who may occasionally run into a working M1919 MG in the 3rd World).

Limeyfellow · November 14, 2007, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Ok, I am going into this cold no google checking so bear with me.
First, if I remember correctly the major flaw with manufacturing the M-14 was that it was being manufactured on the same equipment used to manufacture the M-1 and that in itself somehow hindered the manufacture of the weapon.

That was one of the selling points to the M14 that it would be able to be made on the same equipment as the M1, however it turned out to be totally wrong and required a whole new bunch of machinary to make.

Quote:

I also believe the 14 bashers don't know anything about how accurate and reliable a modernized M14 can be.

Modern technology and good old American ingenuity properly applied to the 50 year old platform yields awesome results.

With the same reason of thinking any rifle that you spend weeks fine tuning could be capable of such performance. Throw enough money and you can do this with many rifles. The problem with the M14 is it is hard to keep it running at that performance for long and many of the troops issued the M14 are the regular old surplus out of stock. It is a stopgap method, due to being in stock rather than some super weapon. A match grade M1a is going to shoot better than your average M14 by far.

The BAR replacement as someone mentioned was going to be the M15. Pretty much an M14 with a heavy barrel to add some weight and a bipod, but it never saw any service.

MTMilitiaman · November 14, 2007, 04:15 PM

Quote:

With the same reason of thinking any rifle that you spend weeks fine tuning could be capable of such performance.

How 'bout 40 years...

Quote:

Throw enough money and you can do this with many rifles.

Such as in the case of the M16?

SR420 · November 14, 2007, 04:41 PM

Quote:

The problem with the M14 is it is hard to keep it running at that performance for long ...

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.

STLRN · November 14, 2007, 05:20 PM

Quote:

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.

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.

Sturmgewehre · November 14, 2007, 05:21 PM

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.

NOok · November 14, 2007, 05:32 PM

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.

SR420 · November 14, 2007, 05:46 PM

Quote:

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.

Yep, one or two modernized M14s in the mix is all that's needed.

STLRN · November 14, 2007, 06:21 PM

Why, the ACOG rifles are doing the job well enough without introducing a class V and IX block into the system unnecessarily.

SR420 · November 15, 2007, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Why

Because the M14 performs better than just "well enough".

RockyMtnTactical · November 15, 2007, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Because the M14 performs better than just "well enough".

Not really...

STLRN · November 15, 2007, 05:39 AM

Well, well enough is what combat is about. Also well enough is good enough to kill, so what more do you need?

Socrates · November 15, 2007, 11:08 AM

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

EngineerMG · November 15, 2007, 11:22 AM

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.

SR420 · November 15, 2007, 11:45 AM

Quote:

A REALLY good muzzlebrake might change that.

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

Quote:

I have hit with my M4 out to 740 meters

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.

SDDL-UP · November 15, 2007, 11:45 AM

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!

ronc0011 · November 15, 2007, 01:11 PM

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.

ronc0011 · November 15, 2007, 01:26 PM

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.

November 13, 2007, 10:18 PM	#51
w_houle Senior Member Join Date: March 29, 2007 Location: Junction City, KS Posts: 1,389	Ok, I am going into this cold no google checking so bear with me. First, if I remember correctly the major flaw with manufacturing the M-14 was that it was being manufactured on the same equipment used to manufacture the M-1 and that in itself somehow hindered the manufacture of the weapon. "The M-16 holds the record for longest life as a standard issue rifle", umm I think that title actually goes to the Mosin Nagant rifle. __________________ How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished?

November 13, 2007, 11:22 PM	#52
Baba Louie Senior Member Join Date: September 23, 2001 Posts: 1,437	In the end it's politics. There is no end all be all rifle that can wear two hats at the same time. There's always a trade off or two. But for the sake of logistics it's nice to have common rounds for the riflemen and SAW gunners. Why was the M1 Garand built using the 30-06 and not the .276 that Mr. Garand based his design on? Politics. Why did the US Army decide it had to follow the Wermacht's Stg44 concept (a 400 meter fire-fight design) yet use a slightly shortened round designed to match the venerable 30-06 Springfield in a lighter weapon, forsaking the T48 over the T44 and Gene Stoner's late to the party AR10? Politics. What chambering did Dieudonne Saive originally intend for the FAL? 7.92x33, yet it too fell victim to... politics. When Eugene Stoner designed the original AR rifle it was in the 7.62x51 format yet it ended up a scaled down version and was accepted due to LeMay and McNamara's political muscle. To my way of thinking (and I've got no dog in the fight) this debate is apples to oranges for a couple of reasons. Caliber or cartridge design being one, intended use being another, operating system being the third, each a political animal or victim. If Garand had been allowed to go with the .276, if it (the .276) had later been scaled down for the StG copy concept post war, maybe a tad bit closer to the 33mm in lieu of the 51mm size, if Saive and Stoner had used that round to develop their famous FAL/AR platform... we'd still find something fun for heated debate for hours on end. A 7mm Kurz. Pretty close to a 6.8 Spc isn't it? 7mm Kurz/6.8 Spc. Interesting concept. Naaaah. Needs more punch downrange. The politics of logistics (and inertia), not to mention cost of new weapons R&D/procurement would never let it see the light of day. What I want to know is this, Is direct (gas) impingement really better than piston impingement? If not, should the piston system be totally enclosed or have a portion of it as an exposed op rod? And what SHOULD the perfect select fire military weapon be (op system), what should it weigh and what catridge should it utilize? Clearly it's not the M14 or the M16, each having it's drawbacks and strengths, no one can agree on a consensus. Politics. __________________ Youth rebels, age conserves; between them, they advance. The Marines will cease to win battles the moment either camp achieves ascendancy. – Robert Leckie, Helmet for my Pillow

November 14, 2007, 02:22 AM	#54
Abndoc Senior Member Join Date: January 28, 2006 Location: Kalifornia Posts: 719	Baba Louie, you summed it up nicely. Politics. __________________ With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog.

November 14, 2007, 05:21 PM	#63
Sturmgewehre Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2006 Location: Indiana Posts: 4,210	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. __________________ Visit my YouTube channel for reviews, tests and more. Ex Mea Sententia

November 14, 2007, 06:21 PM	#66
STLRN Senior Member Join Date: October 29, 1999 Location: USA Posts: 1,163	Why, the ACOG rifles are doing the job well enough without introducing a class V and IX block into the system unnecessarily. __________________ God truly fights on the side with the best artillery

November 14, 2007, 12:01 AM	#53
WNTFW Member Join Date: August 10, 2006 Posts: 19	I'd like to have at least one every U.S. Mxx rifle ever issed. M1 Garand & Carbine M14 & M16 Nothing else goes with 1911's or US Flags quite the way they do. I've shot, handled & spent time with all of them. I love them all. My only complaint is not owning them all & the M14's ars so danged expensive. WNTFW

November 14, 2007, 05:32 PM	#64
NOok Member Join Date: July 16, 2007 Posts: 81	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.

November 15, 2007, 05:39 AM	#69
STLRN Senior Member Join Date: October 29, 1999 Location: USA Posts: 1,163	Well, well enough is what combat is about. Also well enough is good enough to kill, so what more do you need? __________________ God truly fights on the side with the best artillery

November 15, 2007, 11:08 AM	#70
Socrates Junior member Join Date: January 5, 2005 Location: East Bay NorCal, People's Republik of Kalifornia Posts: 5,866	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

November 15, 2007, 11:22 AM	#71
EngineerMG Junior Member Join Date: October 17, 2007 Location: The great state of Texas Posts: 6	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. __________________ No one prays for peace like a soldier, when peace fails: Gunner, COAX, Troops

November 15, 2007, 11:45 AM	#73
SDDL-UP Senior Member Join Date: September 19, 2007 Location: Idaho Posts: 194	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! __________________ Arm yourself, arm a friend! Last edited by SDDL-UP; November 15, 2007 at 02:26 PM.

November 15, 2007, 01:11 PM	#74
ronc0011 Senior Member Join Date: November 1, 2006 Posts: 539	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.

November 15, 2007, 01:26 PM	#75
ronc0011 Senior Member Join Date: November 1, 2006 Posts: 539	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.