Video comparing M14 to AK/M16 combat effectiveness

gbeecher said:

The XM16-E1 was introduced too quickly, directly into combat and the M14 was cancelled when it shouldn't have been. Both bad decisions by SecDef McNamara. He had some good ideas on paper at least, but they didn't translate to the real world. The M14 and M16A1 should have been used together in tandem. Mayble the M14 for automatic riflemen and squad marksmen and the M16 for general issue. Having one standard for a cartridge does improve logistics, but you pay the price in effectiveness and flexibility of weapons. Oh well, all water under the bridge...

Click to expand...

Those damned "Wiz Kids".

I was never a soldier and do not have any battle experience. But my understanding is that the U.S. armed forces philosophy is not to make infantrymen the deadliest factor in the battle equation. It is to provide soldiers with the means to lay effective suppressive fire, while artillery and airstrikes take out the majority of enemy combatants. Ever since WWI statistically artillery accounted for more casualties that infantry. If my memory serves me correctly the second largest contributor were crew served infantry weapons, aka machine guns. This distribution is about as true in modern wars with airstrikes in the mix. I read somewhere that it took 20000-30000 small arms rounds during Vietnam to cause one enemy casualty. To me this is a clear indicator that small arms were used in the suppressive role a lot. Hence the "varmint" 5.56 and "underpowered" 7.62x39. Also, I again cannot cite any sources but googling it will sure give you something, the best practice apparently is to produce casualties not deaths, because it ties up more of enemy's personnel to care for the wounded and lowers the morale of troops around the wounded. Like it or not, I highly doubt that most soldiers shoot accurately under battle stress anyway, so providing them with more chances (ammo) to cause casualties could be more effective. I personally think that allowing for expanding, softnose ammo in combat is a good way to increase lethality while retaining the other compromises. Geneva convention or not I do not see how a jagged fragment of a shell spinning at 8000 fps that took off your buddy's leg is more humane that a softpoint through the center of mass. As for the range, very few soldiers are able to and get to shoot beyond what the intermediate rounds were designed for. If I have offended any veterans or affiliated, I apologize in advance, these are just my opinions.

Infantry tactics most often call for laying down covering fields of fire while a squad moves. Name of the game is to take real estate just like in the NFL.Also Ambushes where a high volume of fire is commenced on an enemy patrol. Infantry tactics like these clearly favor the M16 AK type weapon. One shot one kill scenarios are far and few between for the 0311/11B,however the M16 can do that too as the 5.56 is very lethal. Remember the doctrine is that a wounded enemy takes far more resources of the enemy than a dead combatant.

USMC8541 said:

Infantry tactics most often call for laying down covering fields of fire while a squad moves. Name of the game is to take real estate just like in the NFL.Also Ambushes where a high volume of fire is commenced on an enemy patrol. Infantry tactics like these clearly favor the M16 AK type weapon. One shot one kill scenarios are far and few between for the 0311/11B,however the M16 can do that too as the 5.56 is very lethal. Remember the doctrine is that a wounded enemy takes far more resources of the enemy than a dead combatant.

Click to expand...

Dead combatants can't return to the fight.

The story of shooting to wound is an old wives tail that won't die. When the M16 was first tested in Vietnam the original reports was that it was very very deadly. At the close ranges that are frequent in jungle warfare the fragmenting M193 produces very gastly wounds.

The 5.56 can be a devastating round even out to respectable distances. I'm not trying to argue that it's a 7.62 NATO because its not, but its not a slouch. The problem we were facing before was that the M855 didn't perform consistently. Sometimes it acted normal, yawed early and fragmented if close enough. Other times it wouldn't yaw for 10 or so inches which is deep in the back of most people if shot from the front. When M855 works its very effective. Even if it doesn't fragment it will yaw and tear up your insides.

Newer rounds like the Mk318 and M262 are proving to be even better. The M855A1 is supposedly working well but I haven't heard much about it from my friends overseas as the guys shooting people regularly (SF guys) are using M262. My old squad leader has multiple kills from 250-400 meters using M262 out of a 10.5 inch Mk18.

I've come to love the AR-10 pattern rifle better than the M14/M1A.

Click to expand...

^^^ This. I'm liking my LR-308 very much right now only downside is weight. Not that I ever plan to be in battle with it. Sure is a fun and very accurate set up though!