M-14 vrs. M-16

Discussion in 'General Military Arms & History Forum' started by Ursus, Jan 5, 2007.

?

Wich do you prefer for combat?

  1. M-14

    107 vote(s)
    64.5%
  2. M-16

    59 vote(s)
    35.5%
  1. Ursus

    Ursus New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2006
    Messages:
    1,030
    Location:
    El Salvador, Central America.
    Wich would you prefer for battle? I'm specially interested in the opinions of people who actually used both in combat.
  2. Used both the M-14 and M-16 in training, but only the M-16 in combat. Despite the rather bad press the M-16 had during its early years, and all the jokes about "guns by Mattell," I always liked the weapon a great deal. Only those who have had to hump a rifle and ammo day after day, often through jungle and up and down hills, can reall appreciate its lightness and ease of handling. The key with the M-16 was simple: KEEP IT CLEAN! :D
  3. Jay

    Jay New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Messages:
    1,286
    Location:
    Indiana
    I used both in Viet Nam. I would have to say it depends on the environment. In the jungle, the M-16 would be my choice. In a bit more open terrain, the M-14 would have my vote.

    "right tool for the particular job"
  4. In VN I used only the M-16, but as you well know, Jay, most of the "Green" that Godforsaken hole was jungle or at least relatively dense cover. I did see a couple of times when the M-14 with its .30 caliber, heavier, more penetrating bullet would have been useful, but by and large, the 5.56 NATO worked well overall.
  5. berto64

    berto64 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2001
    Messages:
    7,505
    Location:
    Owyhee County, Idaho
    I'm with PistolShooter,

    M-16 and ammo was lighter to hump but the M-14 was more reliable and a heavier hitter and could penetrate cover better than the 22.

    I still like the M-14 better but in combat I'd settle for the M-16.
  6. AL MOUNT

    AL MOUNT Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    Messages:
    3,322
    Location:
    Cleaning my Thompson in The Foothills of the Ozark
    That pretty much tell it all in a nutshell.

    Nobody carried less that 500 rds. 5.56 or less that 5 canteens of water.
  7. Not if he had sense enough to pour pee out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel, Al. :D Humping in that country, at that time, tended to use up a lot of both, espcially if Charlie was in a mood to play. Of course, the poor ol' M-60 gunner did have a bit more weight to carry, but he could always find a few of us to help him with the ammo. Humping belted .30 cal is no fun, but when we had to yell out "Guns up," it was worth it! :cool:
  8. AL MOUNT

    AL MOUNT Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    Messages:
    3,322
    Location:
    Cleaning my Thompson in The Foothills of the Ozark


    Yep.....:eek: ....yer preachin to the choir.......:D


    Thats my gunner on the left, me on the right, I was team leader.

    Shot was taken right outside Hue.....just before Tet 68......

    [​IMG]
  9. Fortunately, I missed out on that Tet dustup, Al. I was in II Corps, most of the time, with the 1st Cav Div, 1969-70. I did get a chance to visit Charlie in "beautiful and balmy" Cambodia in May-June 1970 though. ;) :D
  10. berto64

    berto64 Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2001
    Messages:
    7,505
    Location:
    Owyhee County, Idaho
    Pistolenschutze,

    You were in II corp at the same time I was in IV corp.(the delta)
  11. Same church, different pew Berto, but yours was wetter though. :D ;)
  12. williamd

    williamd New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Messages:
    772
    Location:
    SoCal
    Big holes are better ... in the other guy! My VN time was 64-65 and I had a M-14 and a 1911. From one side of the river to the ohter (Danang) the M-14 could reach out and touch wiht decent accuracy. A couple of 50's were nice, too. We went downhill from those ... unless you believe in spray vs precision. ;) Ok, the AR-15 was just coming into it's own but I soured on it .... it's a varmint round!:D
  13. markt334

    markt334 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6
    Location:
    PA

    When they were both in service together the M14 had reliability points, after all it was a M1 with big magazine and the M16 was a new item with big bugs in it. As a auto rifle the M14 was uncontrolable, as a rifleman it was long and heavy, as a sniper you need lots of parts and a gunsmith with LOTS of experance to keep up with it. It was supposed to be a do all for a infantry squad, it could not do the job so the M16 was developed. Today the M16 family is the best battle rifle in use. I have made M16A4's for 3rd ID squad marksmen to take good shots to 600 yds. Best part, the rifle looks like everyone elses, Rags don't know who the shooter is! These rifles only get inspected once a year and they still shoot great. There are no reailability issues now, clean and lube for the terrain you are in and she just loves to shoot. As the do all squad rifle...auto- check, rifleman- check, sniper- check, grenadier- check, need optics? easy money! Need caliber change for special ops...Whats your pleasure! Short, as in long pistol or long, as in shorter than M14. I carried the M79 and a 1911A1...a rifle would have been nice, but a no go with the M14. Time and tech catch all things but compared at the height of their development the M16 beats the M14.
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2007
  14. Sackett

    Sackett Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2003
    Messages:
    284
    Location:
    SW Mississippi
    Well according to a friend of mine whose squad couldn't take out a VC sniper with their M16s. they had to slick in one of the old guys who still had a M14 to solve their problem.
  15. Tom Militano

    Tom Militano New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2007
    Messages:
    1,255
    Location:
    Jacksonville, AL
    M14 is my choice.
  16. WarSteed

    WarSteed New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    188
    Only had the pleasure of using an M16. I remember the last time i shot it too..it was for qualifiers. First time around they failed me, i bitched and moaned saying that it was the lane with faulty targets. The targets just wouldn't fall! So they bet me 20 dollars i'd still fail again and moved me to a different lane. Second time around i hit 31 out of 30 targets! One of the times my 100 yard target to the right popped up and i shot it and the round went through it, and the persons 150 yard target in the lane to the right of me. :D

    The range NCO gave me his own expert badge for that one.
  17. CCubed

    CCubed New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    62
    Location:
    Near Harrisburg, PA
    The M14 has good knock-down characteristics, but it's uncontrollable on full-auto. If I was in Iraq, right now, I'd want an M16. In Vietnam, it'd be a close call. It depends. If I can't see my enemy and the best I can do is spray and pray, then the M16's far superior. But, if I can see my enemy and he's charging me from a distance of about 50 meters, I'd probably want an M14. I still chose the M16, though. Most conflicts today require the capability to lay down as much lead as possible in as short a period of time possible with as much accuracy as possible. The M14 cannot do that, practically speaking.
  18. stash247

    stash247 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,811
    Location:
    Central Texas
    I trained, and qualified (Expert) with both rfles; the M-16, in it's early years, was a freaking joke!
    It was reliable,as long as it was clean, but one shot, and it is no longer so!
    Worse, we would go out, into adverse weather, water rising, mud, everywhere, and by the time of the first shot, it was no longer 'clean'.
    First tour, RVN, 1969-70, was with 1 SFG, Okinowa, TDY to RVN, and I had a lot of rope, so it took about two days in country to figger 'what worked', and get on the program: there were very few 'long distamce' encounters, in three tours, so I 'Opted out' for a reliable, easily maintained, SMG in 9mm, the 'Swedish K', with (I am here today, imitating typing, right?) obviously good results.
    My second and third tours found me armed the same, as I left a 'stash', every time I DEROS'ed, for my return.
    Granted, I was not in a typical 'Rank and File' unit, but rather close to an 'Independent Contractor', paid by the government, monthly; my 'Boss', gave me the 'room', In all things, as long as he got results, to do what I needed to do, to achieve them.
    This said the AKM was more, in range and power, than most ops in RVN required; playing in the jungle, in the dark, a medium to large cal pistol round did well
    My teams always had a 'designated hitter', with a Garand, or M-14, for distant 'problems', and I usually had a M-79 stuffed in the ruck, with a variety of ammo, for 'special occasions'!
    Fact is, this poll is weighted heavily, depending on a particular mission, and 'place in time'
    Today, the M-16 platform is likely as accurate, and more flexible, as to caliber, and performance, than any other on earth; it can be 'Tailor Built', for a given mission, converted to a new configuration, for the next, as required.
    In spite of 'coming aboard', as a problem child, sold to the government under 'bogus' reliability numbers, today it is a fine weapons system, most all the 'bugs', worked out.
    But, here's the (?) Bad News; STSHTF, tomorrow, my 'Bug Out' kit would be the Dog, Georgia, and an FAL!
    The Dog NEVER malfunctions; she will protect me, with her life, if necessary, and sees and hears stuff this old man cannot; She's not real big, outside, but absolutely HUGE, in heart! Imagine a 35 pound dog with no fear of a 2,000 pound bull, with the speed and skill to put the bull in whatever pen I point to, always remaining between the bull, and me, and you start to get the picture.
    The FAL is an Aussie, an early (1964) Rifle, that holds under 2" at 200ds, with decent ammo, of which I have numerous cases, stashed in several places.
    It's heavier than the M-14, a lot 'Stouter', in both weight and power, than the M-16, and, to date, 100% reliable, as most are.
    Had you offered this option, in the poll, results might have been remarkably different!
    And, had the poll been more specific, i.e., 'the best battle rifle for Aghanistan'( an obvious M-14 choice) or, 'the best battle rifle for urban warfare in Iraq', (pejudicing the poll towards the M-16/M-4 platform) results might have been a lot different!
    Picking such a personal (it's my a**, and that's pretty personal) choice, in arms, depends, I think, on the theater it is employed.
    But, given no more than the poll you posted, I'll suffer the weight, in favor of power, reliability, and accuracy!
  19. obxned

    obxned New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    1,342
    While the M-14 is far superior in accuracy and power, you just can't carry as much ammo as for the M-16. This is one case where quantity is better than quality.
  20. NY_GUNFIGHTER

    NY_GUNFIGHTER New Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2007
    Messages:
    31
    I am gonna cheat on this one: how's about a gas-piston M16 like the HK416? Sure it's a varmint round, but load it up with HPs or ballistic tips (as i know quite a few guys in the sandbox are) and you get pretty decent stopping power. With the gas-piston system you supposedly get AK reliability and AR precision, plus if you have the picatinny system, you can mount all sorts of 'goodies' on the rifle.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
General Military Arms & History Forum Army issued M-14's in Afghanistan Sep 15, 2010
General Military Arms & History Forum Basic Training M-1 vs M-16 Jan 14, 2012

Share This Page