M-14 vs M-16 a heated debate on which is a "better" rifle

[GarandOwner]

Hello all, a friend of mine and I got into a heated discusion as to which is a better rifle. The M-14/M1A or the M-16/AR-15. Having in my arsenal, an M1 Garand and its younger brother the M-14 I am more partial towards them. This started when he tried to tell me that the M-16 is more accurate than the M-14 and has better range. Doing a little reasearch finds that the M-14 has alot longer effective range. We are both averange shooters and go to the range about twice a week. Doing our own "Accuracy Tests" I continued to get better groups with my M-14 than he did with his AR-15. So I pose the question to you all to see your opinion, which is a "better" rifle. The M-14 or the M-16.

 

[Outlaw21V]

Having used both, I would go with the M14. I have made an 1100 meter shot with the M14. The M16 couldn't even come close. My 2 cents.

 

[jungle]

Better as a military rifle? The M-14 lasted a total of seven years as a first line issue rifle, the M-16 has lasted forty years and is still going strong. The Military made their choice a long time ago and it has proven an effective one.
I'm sure lots of experts will chime in about the overall superiority of the M-14, but that hasn't been the real world experience for over forty years. Granted, the M-14 is still used in a few specialized units, but it never achieved the worldwide use the M-16 and it's cartridge did for any significant time frame.

 

[DevLcL]

Whats a better mid to long range rifle? Probably the M14. Whats a better CQ long-gun? Probably the M16. They are completely different weapons which serve completely different roles.

I've got the M16, so now I'm just saving up for the M1A. I'll let you know which I like better when I get it. Honestly, however, something tells me I will like both equally for the role they play.

-Dev

P.S.

Better as a military rifle? The M-14 lasted a total of seven years as a first line issue rifle, the M-16 has lasted forty years and is still going strong. The Military made their choice a long time ago and it has proven an effective one.
I'm sure lots of experts will chime in about the overall superiority of the M-14, but that hasn't been the real world experience for over forty years.

As a matter of fact, there are thousands of M-14's being used today in the sandbox. Goodluck trying to buy a new M-14 from Springfield Armory.... there all being sent over seas as fast as they can make 'em. What Jungle said is outright wrong. There is a HUGE demand for these rifles from the boots on the ground.

 

[cslinger]

BETTER how?

The M1A/M14 fires a heavier round and has a greater effective range.
The M16/AR15 has been shown through competition to be more accurate.

In current combat isn't our current philosophy still one of fire and maneuver, or dumping a lot of lead to pin an enemy while another group flanks? If so the M16 makes more sense, more ammo can be carried etc.

If you are thinking about personal SHTF either will do you just fine, as would a lever action, 12 gauge or Remington 700 hunting rifle.

The M1A/M14 certain has more history/linage that make it cook and it looks very nice.

Personally I think the Russians had it right from the beginning. Arm the bulk of your force with the intermediate cartridge, mid range rifles with lots of ammo and give each group a designated marksman with a longer range/semi precision rifle that is still capable of being fired fast and reloaded quickly. Pretty much what we are doing now with the M1A/14.

Chris

 

[jungle]

Let's see, there are "thousands" of M-14s in the sandbox, and about 150,000 M-16s and I'm wrong. Okay.
Springfield Armory isn't supplying the US government with any M-14s, they come from government stocks held from previous production.

 

[beerslurpy]

My preferred rifle is the worst of both worlds. The AK is an inaccurate gun in a heavy caliber. But I still prefer it over both because I live in Florida, the jungle state, and because I judge the rifles differently.

There are different criteria that need to be considered for an individual SHTF rifle vs a "large body of soldiers" rifle. Many of the considerations that make the M16 such a big win for the military is that the gun is very logistics friendly. The ammo is half as heavy as 7.62x39 and a third as heavy as 7.62x51, so transporting a million rounds of it here and there requires a smaller aircraft and less fuel. The gun itself is extremely light and easy to carry. On a helicopter, every ounce counts. The barrels are easy to swap out and the guns themselves are modular and easy to repair/replace. On paper the gun is awesome.

An individual militiaman's main concerns are going to be reliability. We do not have large groups of buddies that can take our place on the line when our weapon fails. When our weapons fail, we get hacked by rioters or eaten by zombies. A few hours at the gunsmith's is going to seem like an eternity when you are under attack. Accuracy is important to the extent that we can put the crosshairs on an enemy and make him stop whatever he is doing. Being able to shoot a 1 MOA group is nice, but not absolutely necessary. 3-4 MOA is plenty of accuracy for 99 percent of the shooting anyone will be involved in. If you need more accuracy, break out the scoped bolt rifle.

That being said, I prefer the M14 class weapons over the M16 because the gas system is more reliable and the gun hits like a freight train.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

"Better" for what?

Stock/unmodified ARs tend to be more accurate than stock/unmodified M14s. ARs tend to be easier and cheaper to accurize than M14s. But most of the time, both rifles in their standard configuratiuon are more accurate than the men shooting them.

Some say the direct gas impingement system of the AR is theoretically less reliable than the gas-piston system of the M14. I disagree. And my own personal experience shows that ARs break down less often than M14s, but that's hardly representative of anything.

But the main difference between the M14 anr the AR-15 is the calibers they shoot. 308 is an honest-to-God rifle caliber. 223 in a much lighter, weaker carbine round.

500 yards is about the most you can get from a 223. Even then it doesn't hit much harder than a weak handgun round. 308 can reach out to nearly 1000 yards before running out of gas. That's why the M14 has a greater effective range. An AR chambered in .308 (AR-10, SR-25) would have the same effective range as the M14. Very few men have enough marksmanship skill to hit a target at 500 yards, let alone 1000 yards, so this is largely irrelevant.

Some folks say that .223 is better suited for hunting varmints than for fighting soldiers on a battlefield. Some folks say it doesn't matter, that hitting a man with a high powered rifle round will ruin his day regardless. I think there's some merit to both sides of this debate.




Bottom Line:
Both are good weapons. The skill of the shooter matters far more than which rifle he's using. Spend more time practicing, and less time worrying about whether your rifle is the bestest rifle ever.

 

[GarandOwner]

Wow I figured there would be alot of responses to this but I didnt think that fast I was just curious as to everyones opinion, By "Better" I mean a better overall rifle: reliability, accuracy, etc. I forgot to mention before that I mean each rifle in Mil-Spec configurations. Almost any rifle will be great once you pump some $$$ into it and tinker with it. I'm talkin about a true mil spec M-14 to a mil spec M-16. A brand new standard mil spec M1A from springfield armory can get around 1 MOA right out of the box, but an AR-15 from colt can only get around 2-3 MOA (Yes you can tweak it, but out of the box in mil spec congifurations the M-14 takes the cake) There is a reason they built the M21 sniper rifle off the M14 and not an M16. The .308 doesnt just go farther because it is bigger, it has far better ballistics than the .223 caliber. But as far as a combat situation: from what I hear from friends that have gone into the military, when the M-16 gets dirty it tends to jam alot, the M-14 on the other hand will function with dirt/sand in the reciever. Also a little side fact I remember reading somewhere that the M1 garand/ M14 reciever is the only reciever that functions flawlessly in subzero weather (Dont remember how old the article was though). No wonder the seals and Rangers had a scout model developed.

Oh and Jungle: The M-14 did not die when the M-16 came out, it is still issued along with the M-16, while the M-16 is the main battle rifle, it is not the only firearm issued in the military. Also the government has many many thousands of M-14's in storage in case we have to fight another long range war. Like the one in Iraq and Afganistan. That is why you see so many troops with the M-14 now because in a big flat desert, you want to be able to hit your target at longer ranges, before they get a chance to shoot you. The M-16 is big in NATO and UN allied countries because the US made the decision to use the 5.52 caliber as NATO's standard replacing the 7.62x51. Look at almost any other country that isnt one of NATO's allies, they generally prefer the AK-47 over the M-16

 

[iamkris]

Finally!!!

A topic that has never been debated...

C'mon...why couldn't we do a real topic that has never been touched. Like ".45 vs 9mm" or "Colt vs. S&W" or "1911 vs Glock"...

Yawn

 

[jerkface11]

Tune in next week for "Which is better .270win or .280rem"

 

[jungle]

Garandowner, You have made quite a few incorrect staements based on your individual experience.
1. In stock form the M-16 is more accurate, do a little research about the troubles the producers of the M-14 had in meeting accuracy requirements.

2. Reliability. Overall the M-16 has worked better for longer periods without parts replacement. Why no public outcry over giving the troops unreliable rifles?

3. Ballistics. Talk to any medic that has seen hits from both at normal ranges, he'll tell you it is usually impossible to tell the difference.

4. The M-14 has not been a standard issue item for first line infantry for forty years. There are a few here and there, but it is far from common and utilized in more specialist roles. The government has large remaining stocks, some have been scrapped/cut, some have been given away to other countries and some remain in storage. We don't fight long range wars with rifles and never will.

Shoot what you prefer, but stick to facts.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I've carried and used the M1 rifle, the M2 Carbine, the M16 rifle, and the M14 rifle in combat (the latter in the accurized, pre-M21 configuration.) Given a choice, I'd go with the M14 first, followed by the M1.

 

[boofus]

Two different animals with 2 different purposes. One is a full power battle rifle that can engage targets at extreme long range. The other is a select-fire assault rifle that can be customized for just about any job.

What's a better vehicle? A boat or an airplane?

 

[GarandOwner]

Jungle I didnt mean for this discussion to turn into a nit picking arguement, but I dont like being called wrong when I am not. If you know of anywhere on the internet that has a link that shows your information to be right, I would like to see. I have never heard or seen the M16 being more accurate than the M14 Aside from the complications of mosture with the wooden stocks of the Vietnam M14's. If this were so, then why did they make sniper rifles out of the M14 instead of using the "more accurate" M16's. Again if you know of where there is information pertaining to this I would like to see it. I can admit when Im wrong if it is backed by documented information. There WAS an outcry by the troops of vietnam when they began issuing the M16 because if its poor reliability. It jammed. They have fixed it for the most part, but it still jams easier when it gets dirty than most other Battle rifles. Personally I would rather have a gun that functioned when i needed it to, rather than one that just didnt need parts changed as much. Though I have never heard of the M16 being more durable aside from the wooden stock of the older M14's. (M14's now have composite stocks) I wasnt refering to the wounds inflicted when I was saying the .308 has better ballistics, I was refering to the stability/range of the .308 round over the .223. But as far as saying that the M14 has not been standard issue for 40 years is dead wrong. Every squad in the United States Marines has a Designated Marksman, and currently the M14 is the Designated Marksman Rifle. It has been ever since the days of Vietnam. Also the M21 sniper rifle is still used by the military along with the M40 as well as many police departments.

 

[jungle]

I'm sure you are right, don't let your lack of research get in the way. Expect a call from the Pentagon Monday so they can consult with you on future procurement policy.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Just to set the record straight, "the military" did not want the M16. The Air Force wanted a replacement for the M2 carbine, which was the standard weapon for security personnel. Some people in Special Forces also liked the M16 -- probably because it looked "cool."

The Army had tested and rejected the M16. Robert MacNamara, to show the military he was boss, ordered them to adopt it (he was prone to do things like that.) The troops didn't like it, and the Marines successfully resisted adopting it for quite a while.

The current versions of the M16, such as the M16A2 and A4, and the M4 are vastly different from the original M16A1s. In fact the last M16A1s purchased incorporated over 3,000 engineering changes from the original M16A1.

So comparing the M14 to the current generation of M16s is a bit misleading -- what would the M14 be like if it had the benefit of 40 years of constant change and improvement?

As to what the rifles are "for," technology impacts tactics. The M16A1 was a straight replacement for the M14, and not a very successful one. Tactics had to be modified to work around the rifle's shortcomings.

One more comment on "selective fire." The current M16A2 is not fully automatic. It has burst control -- which was a compromise between the Marines (who wanted semi-auto only) and some of the Army's civilian bureaucrats. My personal experience is that automatic fire -- including burst control -- is a mistake in hand-held weapons.

 

[Baba Louie]

We shootin paper targets or bad guys?

Take an M1 Garand, make it lighter, add FA capability and a 20 rd magazine, modify action to fit similar cartridge, add slender flash hider... What's wrong with this picture? Add 10 fully charged magazines to the mix...

Well, at least its lighter than a BAR (if we're lookin for a positive here).

Kinda wild & wooly on FA tho', ain't it? Sweet in semi...

Do the same thing with the AR platform. Add 10 fully charged magazines.

Well, the AR probably won't shoot through a 10 dia tree trunk (all the time).

Oh wait a minute... You say you want to add optics? Or change the upper into another caliber? (why would you want to do that Baba?)

If we're talking longevity as a qualifying issue, how many years was Paul Mauser's rifle in action vs. Mr. Garand's OR Mr. Stoner's?

Which of those two platforms best suits the average rifleman in todays shooting environment, be it range or deployed? Which one for experts?

We talking full size M14 or a new-fangled Scout Squad/Bush or SOCOM? (I know... they're not really M-14's) We talking M-16 ala 1967, '75 or '05? 5.56 or one o' them newfangled 6.5/6.8?

Which one's better? Am I in the middle of Kansas or downtown LA?

Since you and your buddy each shoot your own rifles, switch for an honest shoot or three and see how each of you feels about the other platform. Then let us know which one is best. Each has strong points, each has weak'uns. Both ain't shabby.

 

[depicts]

Those of us old enough to have gone through basic and advanced training with the M14 know one thing for sure...it's a lot heavier to carry than an M16. Remember running all day, every day, with that big beautiful rifle in your hands. We didn't lift weights in training, we stood on the parade ground and PT fields and lifted our M14 until we thought our arms would snap and our backs would break.

I also remember hitting man sized targets at 600 yards to qualify expert, and I'm no Alvin York, but the gun did it's part.

Then I humped it in Nam for awhile, same old heavy brick of a dependable rifle. Pretty soon it was replaced. I got a CAR15. It was like carrying a BB gun. Bandoleers of ammo looked like toys. But it did a heck of a job, as long as I kept it clean. I'm sure it cut my carrying load by 15 pounds or more, and jumping on and off choppers that made a big difference, not to mention they take up less room.

Which would I pick as the best? While I like the hitting power of the M14, my eyes don't see targets at 600 yards anymore, and the menuverability of the M16, it's lighter weight, lighter ammo to carry and very good hitting power tilts me toward it as my choice.

I'd feel pretty well armed with either.

 

[1 old 0311]

Used both in Vietnam. The 14 wins.

Kevin

 

[jungle]

Anyone who is interested in the M-16 and the development of the rifle and cartridge will find a wealth of information in this very long and well documented article by Daniel Watters.

www.thegunzone.com/556dw.html


The M-14, though loved by many is a footnote in history. All Major powers now use 5.56/5.45 rounds and weapon systems as primary issue. Either they are fools or they have learned a great deal over a very long period of research and development. Read the article and decide.

 

[30Cal]

A brand new standard mil spec M1A from springfield armory can get around 1 MOA right out of the box, but an AR-15 from colt can only get around 2-3 MOA (Yes you can tweak it, but out of the box in mil spec congifurations the M-14 takes the cake)

As much as I love the M14, this statement doesn't fly. SA Inc doesn't make a mil-spec rifle (mil-spec is QA and test requirements, and has nothing to do with a set of engineering drawings). My 15lb full-blown match M1A is a 1 minute gun--heavy barrel, bedded, unitized gas system, etc. The standard grade M1A rifle is typically good for 2-3 MoA. It's a lot tougher to shoot well than the AR, but I like the cartridge better. Even still, the AR with 80gr bullets will buck the wind better than an M1A shooting 175SMKs.

Ty

 

[Sergeant Sabre]

Used both in Vietnam. The 14 wins.

Kevin

Current a2 and a4 variants of the M-16 are a far cry from the a1 M-16s from Vietnam. I think many will agree that the original M-16 first issued was a poor decision.

It's nice for some of you to be able to shoot 1000+ yards with your M-14s. However, there are few instances when I was in Iraq and Afghanistan that I could even see 1000 yards, let alone shoot that far. Why would I want to? That's what Marine Air is for.

The M-16 shoots across the room, and out to 500 just fine. Makes a heck of a hole at close range, too.

It's lighter, so I can get to the objective faster and less exhasuted while carrying more water, ammunition, or other gear. Its light weight and superb ergonomics also allow me to hold the rifle in a firing position, covering a threat with less fatigue (meaning I'm more effective once it's "go time")

The round it shoots it lighter and smaller, so I can carry more and so can our 7-tons and helos in the supply chain. That means more ammo for everybody.

Less recoil means more rounds on target faster. Believe it or not, large volumes of accurate fire are a valid, important, and tried-and-true tactical concept.

It's easy to work on and very simple. There are very few parts to the rifle. Armorers can work on them and fix them very easily.

The pistol grip allows me to hold the rifle with one hand, keeping my hand in a firing position while keeping the rifle pointed down-range.

I havn't used the M-14, but from what anecdotes I gather, the things it has going for it are a .30 caliber round and the capability to effectively shoot farther than the M-16. There is a bigger picture to consider when evaluating a military rifle, however.

For these reasons, I like the M-16.

 

[TexasRifleman]

And again, as mentioned previously, better for what?

It's a silly question otherwise.....

 

[jungle]

Since we are speaking of former and current Military issue weapons, the question is which is the better Military rifle. There are always more specialized tools, but which of the two has been the better general issue service rifle?