30Cal
Member
One quick note: if you are one of the lucky guys that has a standard M1A that shoots 1MoA, I would recommend you unlatch the trigger guard when you're not shooting to keep the wood from compressing over time.
M-14 vs M-16 a heated debate on which is a "better" rifle
- Thread starter GarandOwner
- Start date
- Status
Ivy Mike
Member
M16 is light
M14 hits harder at longer range
Now, remind me why either one is considered better compared to Dr. Kalashnikov's design?
M14 hits harder at longer range
Now, remind me why either one is considered better compared to Dr. Kalashnikov's design?
30Cal
Member
Better sights, better range (and also in the case of the M14, far superior trigger). Ammo availability has become an issue recently as well.
Ty
Ty
MTMilitiaman
Member
The M14 might have a better range but if you include the limitations in effectiveness of the cartridges, the effective ranges of the AK compared to the M4 are pretty similar.
Won't argue that the sights on the AK suck though. That is why they are so easy to put a red dot on.
Won't argue that the sights on the AK suck though. That is why they are so easy to put a red dot on.
mustanger98
Member
***mustanger98 sits back in the back corner of the room thinking "am I glad I opted for my M1 Garand and stayed outta this arguement."***
When I was in Service I thought the M14 was the be all to end all of Service Rifles and didn't care much for the M16A1.
25 years later and I think the Military has made the M16A3 one of the finest Service rifles in production.
To remind an earlier poster what makes both these weapons better than an AK varient,,,,
Both the M14 and the M16 can make a precision shot at 600 meters using good ammunition.
No matter how good the ammunition you will not be able to call the exact placement of your shot, at that range, with an AK.
25 years later and I think the Military has made the M16A3 one of the finest Service rifles in production.
To remind an earlier poster what makes both these weapons better than an AK varient,,,,
Both the M14 and the M16 can make a precision shot at 600 meters using good ammunition.
No matter how good the ammunition you will not be able to call the exact placement of your shot, at that range, with an AK.
i think this argument is a little invalid. the m-14 and the m-16 are both great battle rifles, so why not use both? i think the us military shouldnt just pick one gun. they should equipp the soldiers accordingly to the environment they're going to. thats pretty hard to do while in iraq because you have lots of urban combat where the ar-15 reigns supreme and big open dessert where the m-14 is more effective.
Ivy Mike
Member
and most soldiers will never take an actual shot at 600 yards.
The AK is more than capable of reaching out and touching a torso at 300 yards...a much more reasonable range for a rifle destined for mass issue. The other benefits include reliability that the AR can only dream of as well as ease of maintenance. The rifle was built to stomach the worst ammo in the nastiest conditions and continue to fire. The AK does this with ease. Its taken 40 years to get the AR system close, and its still not as good.
Accuracy is nice, but the AK is combat accurate and the 7.62x39 caliber is proven. Even if it doesn't yaw and fragment into dozens of pieces, it will still make a 30 caliber hole. Get your AR too far away and...well...at least its accurate because you'll need to take another shot.
The AK beats the M14 in weight. The AK is probably more reliable, but with the M14 I doubt it was ever a real issue. The M14 certainly is more powerful and more accurate, which is why its still used today in updated forms.
Then again, the Dragunov serves in a designated marksman roll with very few compaints.
I've always thought that the AK was a superior weapon system to the AR platform. Its more reliable, more rugged and while a bit rough, it just works.
The AK is more than capable of reaching out and touching a torso at 300 yards...a much more reasonable range for a rifle destined for mass issue. The other benefits include reliability that the AR can only dream of as well as ease of maintenance. The rifle was built to stomach the worst ammo in the nastiest conditions and continue to fire. The AK does this with ease. Its taken 40 years to get the AR system close, and its still not as good.
Accuracy is nice, but the AK is combat accurate and the 7.62x39 caliber is proven. Even if it doesn't yaw and fragment into dozens of pieces, it will still make a 30 caliber hole. Get your AR too far away and...well...at least its accurate because you'll need to take another shot.
The AK beats the M14 in weight. The AK is probably more reliable, but with the M14 I doubt it was ever a real issue. The M14 certainly is more powerful and more accurate, which is why its still used today in updated forms.
Then again, the Dragunov serves in a designated marksman roll with very few compaints.
I've always thought that the AK was a superior weapon system to the AR platform. Its more reliable, more rugged and while a bit rough, it just works.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
If you have a standard M1A that shoots 1MOA out of the box, it is an aberration and not the norm. I've never seen an AR that wouldn't outshoot an M1A. For that matter the Cooper challenge (20 shots in 20 seconds at 1000 yards in 20") was met by Dave Lauck firing an AR. There is no question in my mind that the AR is inherently superior in accuracy when comparing stock rifles to stock rifles.
Now if you pull the M14 out of the wooden stock and slap it into the Mike Rock/Sage EBR aluminium chassis where you can get a much better bedding, I would be willing to be it can start to compete with a stock AR.
Reliability-wise both rifles have an edge in certain areas and both will run fine if they are properly maintained. Call it a draw.
Caliber wise, .308 will outperform .223 in terminal ballistics at any range. On the other hand, you can only carry 2/3 the ammo.
Like any other tools, both have their uses depending on what job you want to do.
Now if you pull the M14 out of the wooden stock and slap it into the Mike Rock/Sage EBR aluminium chassis where you can get a much better bedding, I would be willing to be it can start to compete with a stock AR.
Reliability-wise both rifles have an edge in certain areas and both will run fine if they are properly maintained. Call it a draw.
Caliber wise, .308 will outperform .223 in terminal ballistics at any range. On the other hand, you can only carry 2/3 the ammo.
Like any other tools, both have their uses depending on what job you want to do.
clean. i fail to see your logic. the Dragunov is just an ak with a longer barrel and a (i use this term lightly) target style stock
. the only reason i suggested the ak, was for jungle combat (where ambushes are common), they're small and yes, reliable but in combat the enemy will never just be standing there, they will lay down and take cover just like you. this will limit the ak's maximum effective range to 100 yards, and the ar will be good for me out to 400 yards.
if i had to pick a gun it would be an m-14. i can take the long shots and do a hellofalot more damage to things like engine blocks and cover. i dont mind not being able to carry more ammo, i'll just take more time with my shots.
i guess in modern combat people dont aim anymore, in this case a gun with light ammo and a high rate of fire wins.
. the only reason i suggested the ak, was for jungle combat (where ambushes are common), they're small and yes, reliable but in combat the enemy will never just be standing there, they will lay down and take cover just like you. this will limit the ak's maximum effective range to 100 yards, and the ar will be good for me out to 400 yards. if i had to pick a gun it would be an m-14. i can take the long shots and do a hellofalot more damage to things like engine blocks and cover. i dont mind not being able to carry more ammo, i'll just take more time with my shots.
i guess in modern combat people dont aim anymore, in this case a gun with light ammo and a high rate of fire wins.
mustanger98
Member
Unless their failure to aim causes their failure to hit. High volume of fire may increase their odds of hitting something, but it's not a given that any one of those sprayed bullets will hit. Not that it's nearly as certain a single round fired from semi-auto or crankbolt in combat will hit nearly as often as it will on a square range. Being in a hurry and adrenaline are just a given in combat whereas they're not so much on a range. On the other hand, "Murphy's Law of Combat" includes that it's better to be concerned with all the bullets addressed "to whom it may concern" than with "the one with your name on it". But, Murphy's Law also includes "try to look unimportant; they may be low on ammo".
I still like my Garand. I'm still planning on doing up a .308 re-barrel on one.
Limeyfellow
Member
As an assault rifle or front line battle rifle the M14 is a big failure. Its just uncontrollable for most people on full auto fire. Thats why it never last. They put in a big round and forced it on the whole of nato and that doomed what could have been a good rifle design, that was lighter and more compact and could go with say a 6.5-7mm round for controllable fire.
The M14 as a designated marksman weapon for mid to long range shooting and strategic fire is a better design. Its comparable to the role of the Druganov SVD in the Russian military for decades. This wasn't what the rifle was designed for but there was no real serious competition apart from M16s with matchgrade ammo in the armoury. There are better alternatives but you go with what you got.
The M16 for what its designed for works fairly well, once they ironed the kinks out and teach the soldiers to handle it correctly. After a while this was sorted and you had a proper assault rifle.
The two rifles are two different lines of thought. The battle rifle and the assault rifle and designed for different ranges and environment so it depends as much as your criteria as a weapon and your goals as to which is best.
The M14 as a designated marksman weapon for mid to long range shooting and strategic fire is a better design. Its comparable to the role of the Druganov SVD in the Russian military for decades. This wasn't what the rifle was designed for but there was no real serious competition apart from M16s with matchgrade ammo in the armoury. There are better alternatives but you go with what you got.
The M16 for what its designed for works fairly well, once they ironed the kinks out and teach the soldiers to handle it correctly. After a while this was sorted and you had a proper assault rifle.
The two rifles are two different lines of thought. The battle rifle and the assault rifle and designed for different ranges and environment so it depends as much as your criteria as a weapon and your goals as to which is best.
30Cal
Member
Most of them were select fire only, but I hear ya. It's a miracle the rifle ended up as good as it was considering it was intended to replace five completely different weapons. McNamera's wonderboys brought in the M16 based almost entirely on three major factors: cost, cost and cost. It was coming regardless of how the M14 performed in all of it's roles.
Ivy Mike
Member
The Dragunov is more of a full length rifle chambered for the 7.62x54R rifle cartridge. It isn't as accurate as the M14, but as stated above, you go with what you've got. Its a way to extend the reach of a squad.colt.45 said:
The AK fires a heavier round than the AR (assuming 7.62x39) and I'll take the heavier round to shoot through cover and still effectively wound. The AK is just as effective (although not as accurate) at 400 yards as the AR. Nobody has ever doubted the AK's ability to produce a high rate of fire and its better at shooting through cover.
beerslurpy
member
The AR has bragging rights accuracy, which is pretty worthless in a combat environment where the only criteria is to be able to hit your opponents body and make it hurt bad enough for him to stop fighting.
The AR has way too much accuracy for the amount of bullet it slings. It can reach out and touch someone with the equivalent of an airgun pellet at inconceivable distances. And you can see in your 50x scope when the iraqi insurgent goes "ow that f***ing hurt" in arabic. He might collapse 3 or 4 hours later from the wound, or he might find a bandaid and survive.
The AK has the inverse problem of way too much bullet for the ballistics it is capable of. The bullets are only marignally superior to handgun rounds and fall like a rock past 300 yards. If hit by them, you will die. But not before you are missed by many more of them.
The AR has way too much accuracy for the amount of bullet it slings. It can reach out and touch someone with the equivalent of an airgun pellet at inconceivable distances. And you can see in your 50x scope when the iraqi insurgent goes "ow that f***ing hurt" in arabic. He might collapse 3 or 4 hours later from the wound, or he might find a bandaid and survive.
The AK has the inverse problem of way too much bullet for the ballistics it is capable of. The bullets are only marignally superior to handgun rounds and fall like a rock past 300 yards. If hit by them, you will die. But not before you are missed by many more of them.
Ivy Mike
Member
I'd like to see the 7.62x39 get a bit of modernization.
I think with a more modern powder and some lighter bullets, the old 7.62x39 would get even better. This would extend the range and probably help balistics a bit.
Not that this matters for me...my AK pattern rifle is chambered in 5.45x39
I think with a more modern powder and some lighter bullets, the old 7.62x39 would get even better. This would extend the range and probably help balistics a bit.
Not that this matters for me...my AK pattern rifle is chambered in 5.45x39
Why would anyone complain about the M-14 not being suited for full auto fire when that feature disappeared the moment the M-16A2 was introduced? It's a non-issue. The three reasons why the M-16 was supposed to be such a great replacement for the M-14 was superior full auto capability (true), lightness of the weapon (originally true) and more ammo per pound (still true).
When the A2 was adopted, the weight difference became very less noticable-the rifles are within a pound or two of each other.
Full auto for all the soldiers turned out to be a waste of ammo-not the weapons fault, but the military was not prepared for the mountains of ammo and live fire instruction it would take to make Joe Tent Peg proficient in that mode of fire for the M-16. Don't know if that would have even been a viable option for the select fire M-14.
The downfall of the M-14 wasn't because of the weapon system. That was 100% political, and thanks to McNamara, the oldest continually operating arsenal in the USA was closed-never to return. For you kids not old enough to remember, that was the original Springfield Armory.
Big Mac's fury was directed at them for taking so long to produce what turned out to be a product improved M-1 Garand, which failed to take the place of all the Army's then current crop of small arms. Was it better than a Garand? I'd say so-but the main feature was the bottom loading 20 round magazine more than anything else, and that could have been done to the Garand, too. Anyone ever hear of a BM-59? No way was the 14 going to replace the BAR-two different weapons.
Hey, it took John C about 20 odd years to come up with the first one, so improvements aren't going to come overnight. As has been noted, if the M-14 had the product improvements the M-16 family of weapons has enjoyed for over 40 years, we might indeed have quite a battle rifle on our hands.
Really, don't get me started on Bob McNamara-the only thing he did that I liked, other than to resign, was to standardize footwear between the services. It really did not make sense for the Army to wear brown boots and the Navy to wear black.
The criteria for choosing an infantry rifle was actually changed to suit the 55 grain M193 rather than the cartridge being made to suit the current standard of that time.
Which is better to me? If its close up, I think the 16 is a bit easier to swing around in a house, but for a general battle rifle, I don't think the 16 makes the grade, primarily due to the cartridge, more so than the weapon itself. The 14 I think makes a much superior club to the 16, although I would prefer not to get smacked in the chops by the butt of either.
When the A2 was adopted, the weight difference became very less noticable-the rifles are within a pound or two of each other.
Full auto for all the soldiers turned out to be a waste of ammo-not the weapons fault, but the military was not prepared for the mountains of ammo and live fire instruction it would take to make Joe Tent Peg proficient in that mode of fire for the M-16. Don't know if that would have even been a viable option for the select fire M-14.
The downfall of the M-14 wasn't because of the weapon system. That was 100% political, and thanks to McNamara, the oldest continually operating arsenal in the USA was closed-never to return. For you kids not old enough to remember, that was the original Springfield Armory.
Big Mac's fury was directed at them for taking so long to produce what turned out to be a product improved M-1 Garand, which failed to take the place of all the Army's then current crop of small arms. Was it better than a Garand? I'd say so-but the main feature was the bottom loading 20 round magazine more than anything else, and that could have been done to the Garand, too. Anyone ever hear of a BM-59? No way was the 14 going to replace the BAR-two different weapons.
Hey, it took John C about 20 odd years to come up with the first one, so improvements aren't going to come overnight. As has been noted, if the M-14 had the product improvements the M-16 family of weapons has enjoyed for over 40 years, we might indeed have quite a battle rifle on our hands.
Really, don't get me started on Bob McNamara-the only thing he did that I liked, other than to resign, was to standardize footwear between the services. It really did not make sense for the Army to wear brown boots and the Navy to wear black.
The criteria for choosing an infantry rifle was actually changed to suit the 55 grain M193 rather than the cartridge being made to suit the current standard of that time.
Which is better to me? If its close up, I think the 16 is a bit easier to swing around in a house, but for a general battle rifle, I don't think the 16 makes the grade, primarily due to the cartridge, more so than the weapon itself. The 14 I think makes a much superior club to the 16, although I would prefer not to get smacked in the chops by the butt of either.
By gumption Delmar I think you solved the riddle.
If a soldier ever needs to go caveman and use his rifle like a club I do believe the AK, forged frame model, not the AKM stamped receiver rifle mind you, I truely believe the AK would come out on top as the superior weapon!
If a soldier ever needs to go caveman and use his rifle like a club I do believe the AK, forged frame model, not the AKM stamped receiver rifle mind you, I truely believe the AK would come out on top as the superior weapon!
even given the weight advantages of the M-16, I'd still vote for the M-14 (M1A)...But the full auto feature on the M-14 is about useless...But I prefer something with longer range and hitting power... The M-16 was a "spray and pray weapon" although maybe not so much anymore (do they do 3 shot bursts now?) while The M-14 was more a "rifleman's" weapon.
Basically they are so far apart in concept and utilization, that you really can't make many (any?) valid comparisons.
Basically they are so far apart in concept and utilization, that you really can't make many (any?) valid comparisons.
Sergeant Sabre
Member
colt.45 said:
dfaugh said:
And how many firefights have you two been in?
All of this precision-shooting that one can aspire to so well on the range goes right out the window when you have 7.62mm raining in at a rate of one-thousand rounds per minute.
Everyone please do some reading and try to understand the concepts of suppression and bases of fire.
I was surprised when I was shot at that I actually had very little idea where it was coming from. I couldn't see the enemy. I knew about where they were, however. Do you expect me to sit and wait until I can identify one enemy shooter, then line up on him and squeeze off one round, like on the range? Nonsense..
High Planes Drifter
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,204
They are tools. Tools have different purposes. I also fall into the group who beleive the Army and Marine corps should issue accurized M1A' s into squads as a designated marksman rifle. Keep the M16 where it is; its done a fine job over the years and is only getting better now that technology has caught up enough to make full use out of the AR's modularity.
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
I'll wager tht they haven't been in any battlefield gunfights. And so what? The odds of any civillian getting into a protracted gun battle are virtually nil.
The tactics that work for soldiers in the military won't work in a civillian self-defense situation like hurricane Katrina or the LA riots. We don't have 14 other squad members to help us achieve fire superiority. We don't have other fire teams to maneuver against the folks shooting at us while we've got 'em pinned down. We aren't allowed to own full-auto weapons. We don't have any tax payers to buy us mountains of ammunition, or any helicopters to deliver it to us when we need it.
All we have is the rifle slung over our back, a magazine or two of ammunition, and our marksmanship skills. We have to rely on our ability to make hits, because that's the only advantage we have.
Fire superiority and similar tactics have their place in the military, but they simply don't work for a single armed citizen. The armed citizen needs the best marksmanship ability he can possibly get. And he needs a rifle that doesn't make marksmanship any harder than it already is.
shootinstudent
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2005
- Messages
- 786
Compared to other rifles with iron sights, the AR15 is the easiest rifle to achieve hits with I've ever fired. It points and balances well, the sights line up easily, and it seems difficult to make the thing miss at reasonable ranges.
Maybe the 7.62 is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but in my mind there's no contest between the two in terms of which rifle is easier to shoot accurately.
M16 bashing really confuses me. The rifle works well, is easy to maintain, and is usually very accurate with a design that makes taking advantage of the accuracy easy. What more can you ask for?
If you need to kill elk or moose, I guess the 7.62 is your choice...but otherwise I'm not sure what the AR series rifles in 5.56 are lacking.
Maybe the 7.62 is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but in my mind there's no contest between the two in terms of which rifle is easier to shoot accurately.
M16 bashing really confuses me. The rifle works well, is easy to maintain, and is usually very accurate with a design that makes taking advantage of the accuracy easy. What more can you ask for?
If you need to kill elk or moose, I guess the 7.62 is your choice...but otherwise I'm not sure what the AR series rifles in 5.56 are lacking.
For my use, SHTF is all I care about beyond range work. I have an M1A, an Armalite, and a Vepr. My choice would all depend on what I was doing with the rifle. If I was holed up at home, the M1A might be my choice for power. Shooting at anything beyond 200 yards for me is just a way to make noise and draw fire. The Vepr might be better handling while driving. If I had to hump it and carry all my ammo, I think the AR might be the choice. It is the lightest overall package. Anyone who thinks the AR weight is similar to an M1A doesn't own them. I don't have a bunch of crap attached to my AR. The Vepr would be a close second walking. It's iron sights are pretty good, but it is heavier. I can't evaluate my AK74 clone until I find some ammo.
Honestly, if you are minding your own business in a SHTF situation, all you really need to do is shoot at or wound any would-be attackers. I doubt you are going to meet up with too many suicide troopers. If you are trying to act as an enforcer or warlord, then your situation is a little different I guess. Street gangs are about the only people I would be concerned about.
Military uses are another thing altogether and outside my experience.
Honestly, if you are minding your own business in a SHTF situation, all you really need to do is shoot at or wound any would-be attackers. I doubt you are going to meet up with too many suicide troopers. If you are trying to act as an enforcer or warlord, then your situation is a little different I guess. Street gangs are about the only people I would be concerned about.
Military uses are another thing altogether and outside my experience.
We shooters need to be more like golfers with their clubs, and take one of each kind until the bag is plumb full.
From the purely practical point of view, since you whipped him in a shooting match, the M-14 is the best in your world until someone beats you with an AR, and so on and so forth.
Again, just because something like the ARs/M-16s has been around for 40 years doesn't automatically prove it's good. Case in point: Ted Kennedy.
Of course, that doesn't mean they aren't good. I guess it depends what you are going to do with them. Go to war, deer hunt, kill coyotes, gun range commando, plink, tinker, admire them in the gun cabinet, I could change my mind with every use.
If I go to war, I don't want to fool around with either, I would want something more effective. I want to be a cannon cocker with a 105 mm howitzer, so at the end of a pallet of shells I would feel like I made a major contribution. (I would say 155 mm, but I am afraid I would have to lug the shells eventually.)
From the purely practical point of view, since you whipped him in a shooting match, the M-14 is the best in your world until someone beats you with an AR, and so on and so forth.
Again, just because something like the ARs/M-16s has been around for 40 years doesn't automatically prove it's good. Case in point: Ted Kennedy.
Of course, that doesn't mean they aren't good. I guess it depends what you are going to do with them. Go to war, deer hunt, kill coyotes, gun range commando, plink, tinker, admire them in the gun cabinet, I could change my mind with every use.
If I go to war, I don't want to fool around with either, I would want something more effective. I want to be a cannon cocker with a 105 mm howitzer, so at the end of a pallet of shells I would feel like I made a major contribution. (I would say 155 mm, but I am afraid I would have to lug the shells eventually.)
- Status
