M-14 vs M-16 a heated debate on which is a "better" rifle
- Thread starter GarandOwner
- Start date
- Status
Jacobus Rex
Member
The comparison of the M-14 and M-16 are really an apples and oranges situation. The M-16 is an assault rifle. The M-14 is a main battle rifle.
Given modern combat operations, the M-16 is a better selection for general issue. The M-14 is a better selection for specialized roles.
The fine points have been debated ad nauseam. So I won't bother.
The original M-16 had the misfortune of being introduced in the wrong circumstances without proper testing, training, modification, and research. The current M-16 is a proven weapons system.
However, to answer the question:
For the military: I believe the M-16 is the correct answer for general infantry issue.
For the target shooter: The AR platform is more accurate or a better choice for most applications.
For the general hunter: The 7.62x51/.308 Winchester is the obvious answer. Therefore, the M-14 is a clear winner.
For the varmint hunter: The .223 is the obvious answer. Therefore, the AR platform wins.
For the TEOTWAWKI/TSHTF/"survivalist" type: It doesn't matter. It is just a mental fantasy exercise. Pick what you like best or you think is coolest. If it ever does come down to it, any rifle is better than no rifle.
Given modern combat operations, the M-16 is a better selection for general issue. The M-14 is a better selection for specialized roles.
The fine points have been debated ad nauseam. So I won't bother.
The original M-16 had the misfortune of being introduced in the wrong circumstances without proper testing, training, modification, and research. The current M-16 is a proven weapons system.
However, to answer the question:
For the military: I believe the M-16 is the correct answer for general infantry issue.
For the target shooter: The AR platform is more accurate or a better choice for most applications.
For the general hunter: The 7.62x51/.308 Winchester is the obvious answer. Therefore, the M-14 is a clear winner.
For the varmint hunter: The .223 is the obvious answer. Therefore, the AR platform wins.
For the TEOTWAWKI/TSHTF/"survivalist" type: It doesn't matter. It is just a mental fantasy exercise. Pick what you like best or you think is coolest. If it ever does come down to it, any rifle is better than no rifle.
Devlcl, No offense, but your understanding of the military needs some help. Soldiers and Marines are not in a "run what you brung" contest. They use what they are issued and any fantasy of manning the trenches with a shiny new Springfield(tm) is a little wide of the truth.
There might be a few local capture weapons in use, if the CO of the unit allows it, but it is a punishable offense to tote your own weapons to the unit. There are good reasons for this, but the most dominant are training and support.
There might be a few local capture weapons in use, if the CO of the unit allows it, but it is a punishable offense to tote your own weapons to the unit. There are good reasons for this, but the most dominant are training and support.
Hey Mad Bodhi, did the guy in that link provide any particular reason why the AR sucks? Basically it read like a long rant on why he didn't like the design.
I tend to dislike stories where people talk about their rifle that "jammed" all the time. Kind of hard to evaluate that statement when you don't know the circumstances. If I put the wrong spring in a Garand and forget to grease it, mine can jam a lot also. Same with crappy mags on many different rifles.
I tend to dislike stories where people talk about their rifle that "jammed" all the time. Kind of hard to evaluate that statement when you don't know the circumstances. If I put the wrong spring in a Garand and forget to grease it, mine can jam a lot also. Same with crappy mags on many different rifles.
beerslurpy
member
Check out 6.5 grendel.
It starts with the AK cartridge, but:
-removes the taper to increase case capacity
-decreases bullet diameter
-lengthens the bullets to fill an AR15 mag
The end result is 120+ grain bullets with nearly 5.56 velocity but much higher ballistic coefficient. It is supposedly capable of 1000 yard shots but with assault rifle recoil and cartridge weight.
It uses an AK sized bolt but unfortunately AR sized mags. The downside to this is that switching over for any gun other than an AR isnt going to be easy. By swapping bolt (to 7.62x39) and barrel (something custom in 6.5 grendel) in a 5.56mm AK, you could have a 6.5 grendel AK.
Don't Tread On Me
Member
Wow, I must be a freak. My Colt has never jammed. I've shot hundreds of rounds of crap Wolf, which is dirty and lower quality, without cleaning and have never had a single issue of any kind whatsoever. For being such a POS rifle, mine's proven pretty decent. I guess I got lucky.... 
As mentioned already, the M16, M14, and AK are all tools and have different purposes. You don't try to hammer a nail in with a screwdriver do you?
My choice is the M14. I like the reliability, handling, and hitting power of the rifle. Is it better? Maybe or maybe not, but for me it's what I feel comfortable with.
The one statement I have to take issue with was Clean97's statement about AKs making torso shots at 300 yards. I've shot AKs and even own a Chinese one. The average AK is doing fine if it can group a little better than a dinner plate at 100 yards. Reliable hits at 300 yards isn't going to happen. Of course the Valmet and Galil AK based rifles are a little different story. The .223 Valmet I used to own could make a 300 meter torso shot more often than not, but with your average garden variety Chinese or Romanian AK it's not going to happen with any sort of consistency.
If anyone wants to prove a typical Com block 7.62X39 AK can hang with an M14, Garand, or even my 03A3 in terms of accuracy at 200 yards+ , I'd be glad to prove them wrong at any shooting range within an hour long drive of Long Beach, CA. Loser buys the beer.
Oh one last thing. All the folks that talk about what a miserable failure the M14 was as a service rifle because of its uncontrolability in full auto mode, always seem to forget to mention that the FAL and G3 were also failures for the same reason.
My choice is the M14. I like the reliability, handling, and hitting power of the rifle. Is it better? Maybe or maybe not, but for me it's what I feel comfortable with.
The one statement I have to take issue with was Clean97's statement about AKs making torso shots at 300 yards. I've shot AKs and even own a Chinese one. The average AK is doing fine if it can group a little better than a dinner plate at 100 yards. Reliable hits at 300 yards isn't going to happen. Of course the Valmet and Galil AK based rifles are a little different story. The .223 Valmet I used to own could make a 300 meter torso shot more often than not, but with your average garden variety Chinese or Romanian AK it's not going to happen with any sort of consistency.
If anyone wants to prove a typical Com block 7.62X39 AK can hang with an M14, Garand, or even my 03A3 in terms of accuracy at 200 yards+ , I'd be glad to prove them wrong at any shooting range within an hour long drive of Long Beach, CA. Loser buys the beer.
Oh one last thing. All the folks that talk about what a miserable failure the M14 was as a service rifle because of its uncontrolability in full auto mode, always seem to forget to mention that the FAL and G3 were also failures for the same reason.
mustanger98
Member
Another thing they fail to realize or recall is that most M-14's were semi-auto only. They decided which ones were to be used as squad automatics at Battalion level, IIRC, and the unit armorers were the ones to install the switches. This is to the best of my knowledge from what I've read.
Another thing... I've heard both ways about an M-14's controlability in FA. Some like it and others hate it. I haven't heard anything especially stellar accuracywise about the M-16 in FA either.
Tacticswise, if I knew I was up against somebody with an M-16, I think I'd engage with my M1, M-14, or crankbolt from outside their effective range if possible. I know somebody's gonna say it's impossible most of the time, but notice I did say "if possible". But how many of us who do not have combat infantry badges will engage under those kinds of conditions. In any case, it's hits that end a gunfight and not near misses. Reminds me of a cowboy poet I was listening to this evening talking about "pert' near" from both sides of the phrases meanings.
Don't Tread On Me
Member
BTW, the words "heated debate" in the thread title is misleading.
There is no debate, let alone a heated debate. The military settled the "debate" in the 1960's.
Now, there's people of insignificance arguing the issue (us gunowners on the net)..but it is largely irrelevant and about as productive as pouding one's head into a wall. :banghead: What we think on the matter really doesn't matter. It's a free country, use what you think is best - just like the military did.
There is no debate, let alone a heated debate. The military settled the "debate" in the 1960's.
Now, there's people of insignificance arguing the issue (us gunowners on the net)..but it is largely irrelevant and about as productive as pouding one's head into a wall. :banghead: What we think on the matter really doesn't matter. It's a free country, use what you think is best - just like the military did.
Sergeant Sabre: i have not been in any fire fights. but i do play woods paintball and use u.s. military style tatics .this doesnt even come close to real combat but i do realize the effectiveness of suppresive fire. its one of my favorite tricks, have three guys scare everyone with a crap load of fire then the fast guys flank em up the ass.
Headless Thompson Gunner
Member
I don't think this is a fair statement. The military chose which rifle to equip its soldiers with back in the 60's. That doesn't mean their choice is automatically the bestest most uber-ultimate rifle ever conceived by God or man. It just means that's the one they picked. It hardly stettles the debate about which design is best.
I'd say that the military's choice is pretty irrelevant for us. The military's priorities are radically different from the priorities any of us will have. What works for them may not work for us (or even for themselves - take the M9 for example).
And debating which rifle to use to protect myself and my loved ones is hardly insignificant or irrelevant to me.
mustanger98
Member
AMEN!
Ummm, I recall it being mentioned earlier in this thread, and my study of history coroborates this, that the military as a whole didn't want the M-16. The M-16 was foisted upon the military by Robert McNamara who had it in for the old Springfield Armory.
I agree with that. It don't settle the debate over the best design. That said, folks, this ain't religion. While I've not appreciated some guys telling me I was behind the times or whatever for preferring my M1 Garand and I'm biased against the M-16/AR-15 series, rifles are tools and not objects of worship. If we treat this like religion, we'll all just stay way too uptight with each other all the time. Whatever rifle you choose, enjoy it. Life's too short not to enjoy.
beerslurpy
member
Not all AKs are garden variety combloc crap. Some are expensive combloc crap.
You can get a "torso shot at 300" AK for less than even a poor quality AR.
The guys buying the 2-300 dollar AKs are usually just looking to throw lots of lead downrange for fun at 25-50 yards. .
You can get a "torso shot at 300" AK for less than even a poor quality AR.
The guys buying the 2-300 dollar AKs are usually just looking to throw lots of lead downrange for fun at 25-50 yards. .
Ivy Mike
Member
trbon8r, the average dinner plate isn't nearly as large as a man's torso. I still don't doubt that a skilled shooter could manage torso shots at 300 with an AK.
Nobody ever claimed that the AK was as accurate as an AR let alone an M14 or Garand at longer range. They are intended for different things.
The reason I brought up the AK in this pissing match is to provide some type of equal footing for the AR to operate on. The AK and AR are in the same class with the M14 in another (with other battle rifles) altogether.
I think we all know that the M14 and M16 work quite well with different tactics in mind. I wouldn't grab an AR platform for a long shot if its chambered for .223
I wouldn't grab an M14 for standard infantry as I'd prefer to carry more ammo with less of a weight penalty.
Then again, I'd rather take the AK with its larger round although it needs to be brought up to speed just like the AR was.
Nobody ever claimed that the AK was as accurate as an AR let alone an M14 or Garand at longer range. They are intended for different things.
The reason I brought up the AK in this pissing match is to provide some type of equal footing for the AR to operate on. The AK and AR are in the same class with the M14 in another (with other battle rifles) altogether.
I think we all know that the M14 and M16 work quite well with different tactics in mind. I wouldn't grab an AR platform for a long shot if its chambered for .223
I wouldn't grab an M14 for standard infantry as I'd prefer to carry more ammo with less of a weight penalty.
Then again, I'd rather take the AK with its larger round although it needs to be brought up to speed just like the AR was.
MTMilitiaman
Member
Ok but the taper was put there intentionally to increase reliability by making them easier to feed.
This is a good thing?
So I have to give up my AK for an AR for the above? Ick. No thank you.
My brother and I each have Rommies capable of 4 MOA or better at 100 yards. My Uncle's MAK can do a little better. I can easily shoot gallon water jugs at 150 yards. That is with Wolf ammo and Mojo ghost ring. With my PK-AS I have no doubt in my mind that regular hits at 300 yards would be relatively easy. Mine wasn't even sighted in and even accomidating 18 inches of windage and unknown elevation, it took me about 5 rounds to get on a peice of firewood at a lased 300 yards, and then 2 of my next 3 hit it. I corrected the windage later that afternoon. Without the elevation being dialed in my next 20 rounds went into a group at 100 yards about 2 MOA wide and strung vertically about 5 inches. Snap shooting a hanging steel pole we have (found it discarded along the railroad tracks; about 2 inches in diameter and 8 inches long) from the offhand position at 50 yards was simple. The weak point of the AK is the sights. They are plenty capable of making regular hits COM out to 300 yards if you are willing to spend $35 on Mojos and/or ~$200 for a quality Russian red dot such as the PK-AS or Kobra and practice with it. My PK-AS-V came with a manual stating that Russian soldiers have reported excellent results with the red dot on an AK-74 out to 450 meters. The primary difference there is merely the 5.45mm cartridge, which shoots flatter than the 7.62x39. Given the simple elevation dial, trajectory isn't much of a problem even for the 7.62x39 provided you are willing to learn it. I plan on having recorded zeros for 100, 200, 300, and possibly 400 yards for my WASR. Since the PK-AS was designed to allow ranging with the reticle, the weakest link of the Kalashnikov once the rear sight has been replaced is the operator. Unfortunately, people tend to regard Kalashnikovs as cheap plinkers or toys instead of a valid weapons system. This is unfortunate because it has a lot to offer anyone willing to take it seriously and commit to learning the platform.
Mtmilitiaman,
When I was speaking about the accuracy of the AK platform I was talking right out of the box. Adding a red dot, scope, or some kind of optic will of course increase accuracy. As you said the weak point with the AK is the sights. They just don't cut it for long range use. The open sights in conjunction with a short sight radius make long distance hits the exception rather than the rule.
Adding an optic might help make the AK score 300 yard hits and compensate to some degree for the inherent lack of accuracy in the common AK design. Then again adding a similar optic to an AR or any other platform would produce a similar increase in accuracy.
As I said though, there are a few exceptions to the "AK is inaccurate rule", Galils and Valmets with their aperture sights and much higher build quality being in a totally different world than most of the Com block weapons. I still kick myself for selling my Valmet.
When I was speaking about the accuracy of the AK platform I was talking right out of the box. Adding a red dot, scope, or some kind of optic will of course increase accuracy. As you said the weak point with the AK is the sights. They just don't cut it for long range use. The open sights in conjunction with a short sight radius make long distance hits the exception rather than the rule.
Adding an optic might help make the AK score 300 yard hits and compensate to some degree for the inherent lack of accuracy in the common AK design. Then again adding a similar optic to an AR or any other platform would produce a similar increase in accuracy.
As I said though, there are a few exceptions to the "AK is inaccurate rule", Galils and Valmets with their aperture sights and much higher build quality being in a totally different world than most of the Com block weapons. I still kick myself for selling my Valmet.
MTMilitiaman
Member
Like I said you can pay $35 and spend 10 minutes putting a Mojo ghost ring sight on an AK and greatly increase your sight picture. It still has a short sight radius, but it is an improvement and even with the cost of the sights, you still have a rifle that is much cheaper than an AR or an M14. You can get a very decent AK for $450, put a PK-AS on it for $215 shipped, and buy a case of ammo for less than most ARs are going for.
NineseveN
member
trbon8r said:
Actually, the FAL was a larger success than the M14 and the M16 put together worldwide. There's a reason why it's called the Free World's Right Arm. The FAL lost out to the M14 in the US, but there were some factors at work other than which was the better rifle that can be attributed to that.
Last edited:
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
Just for the record, the AK and the M4 carbine have almost exactly the same sight radius.
Sergeant Sabre
Member
I hope I didn't sound condescending, as that was not my intention.
So, in your above-stated situation, I'm sure you could appreciate the ability to carry twice the amount of ammunition with you, have twice the amount of ammunition in your supply line, and have twice the ammunition to practice with. (Whether you are taking carefully aimed shots or not).
Now THAT's funny!
davek
Member
I don't have an M-14, but I do have a 16" AR and a PTR-91 for comparison. Additionally, I have zero military experience...not even paintball. So now that we've got that qualified, I'd hazard to say that if I was trying to defend a fixed position, I'd rather use the G3 clone...but if I were being all mobile running and gunning....or just running while armed, I'd take the AR. I don't have the upper body strength to manhandle that PTR all day, and if I were in a serious moving around firefight, I feel very strongly that I'd get more hits with my AR than my PTR.
wgungho
Member
Like several guys in this thread, I carried an M-14 in combat. I was offered an M-16 once. Tried it and didn't like it. Of course, it was a non-chromed original with the first, primitive rounds. A true POS. The newer versions are better, but still don't do it for me. I own a DPMS .308 in 24", and it's as accurate as anything I've ever shot. My JLD G3 clone is in the mail! I live in a military area, and frequently talk to returning grunts. A few like their M-4s. Most would prefer a little more wallop in their weapons. The guys who have been in Afghanistan voice a strong vote for .308 weapons.
My M-14 went for a year and a half, and it never malfunctioned. It was effective at 5' and 700 meters. It had selective fire, but I never used the rock and roll option. It was heavy, the ammo was heavy. I carried twenty, 18 round magazines and a bandolier in the ruck. When you shot through triple canopy stuff, or heavy coastal brush, it penetrated and still put down the target. We rarely ever had the chance to clean our weapons in the bush. Try your AR rifles after three or four days crawling thru the sand or during monsoon rain-without a cleaning. AKs and M-14 worked-with all the grit or covered in mud.
And if you're not carrying a squad automatic weapon (OH, how I loved the Hog!!), then you don't really need an automatic weapon. One shot, one kill, that's something to strive for. Even in a firefight or ambush, the only rounds that really counted are the ones that hit their target. Suppressive fire is the job of the SAW. As a rifleman, you engage individual targets and put them down. I always found that easier with a .308!
My M-14 went for a year and a half, and it never malfunctioned. It was effective at 5' and 700 meters. It had selective fire, but I never used the rock and roll option. It was heavy, the ammo was heavy. I carried twenty, 18 round magazines and a bandolier in the ruck. When you shot through triple canopy stuff, or heavy coastal brush, it penetrated and still put down the target. We rarely ever had the chance to clean our weapons in the bush. Try your AR rifles after three or four days crawling thru the sand or during monsoon rain-without a cleaning. AKs and M-14 worked-with all the grit or covered in mud.
And if you're not carrying a squad automatic weapon (OH, how I loved the Hog!!), then you don't really need an automatic weapon. One shot, one kill, that's something to strive for. Even in a firefight or ambush, the only rounds that really counted are the ones that hit their target. Suppressive fire is the job of the SAW. As a rifleman, you engage individual targets and put them down. I always found that easier with a .308!
- Status
