M16 Vs M14

[Megawatt maker]

As someone who owns AR15s, AR-10s, M1As, Aks, M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, Mini 14, PSL 54, SKS...

There are features I like in each one. The AK based (sks, AK-47, PSL) rifles...I like the rugged, simple, and just plain reliable, design. Accuracy/range...not so much.

The M1A...this was a rifle I listed after in my youth..when I was broke. I had a Garand, loved it, wanted the next evolution of the design..the M1A. I believed at the time, it was the be all, end all, top of the line best there is.
I was WRONG.
I like the accuracy of it...when the conditions allow it (not wishing to debate...but they DO NOT hold zero...you zero it in the cold..then break it out in tye heat..you have to rezero..long subject, not the place), and it's almost as reliable as the AK series.
Its heavy, and not very comfortable with optics...as it wasn't designed for them.

The AR-10. This has become my top favorite. Accurate..UNDER AND IN ALL conditions..never changes or losses zero. Reasonable weight, easy to add optics...or whatever else.

AR-15s. Same as the AR-10, just with a shorter range, wimpy round. Still supreme over the M1A.

Mini 14...inaccurate toy. A wanna be battle rifle, can't quite cut it. Good for making noise and ticking off your liberal neighbors.

The M1 Garand. The granddaddy. Still top notch. Powerful, accurate, reliable, PROVEN IN COMBAT. heavy, but our Depression starved Granddads carried it all over the world fighting Japs and Nazis...you can carry it too. A masterpiece! Only flaw..if it is one, is no changeable magazine.

M1 carbine. Light handy, reliable, accurate to stone throwing range...but less deadly than throwing stones....

But back on point...
The M16..is just better than the M1A....in almost everything save really reaching out and touching them..but the AR bases 7.62 designed can do even that better now too.

M1A..I love ya..but your time has past.

 

[Robert]

If I want a real 7.62 battle rifle I'll grab my FAL.

 

[Megawatt maker]

If I want a real 7.62 battle rifle I'll grab my FAL.

On my want list...hard to find nice ones.

 

[theotherwaldo]

-When I was updating the drawings and parts lists for the Perry class frigates I noticed that the gun racks in the armories were set up for M14s, not M16s.
Of course, that was in the late 1970s.

 

[Roverguy]

As to heavy, I pity the fools who were issued G3s. While I enjoy my PTR91 and have used it successfully with IR/Light gathering scope to night hunt hogs, it is absurdly heavy. Would not want to carry it any distance.

All else aside, I am amazed at the speed with which the M16 was adopted. That it isn’t still “under study” today is amazing to me given my experiences of government bureaucracy.

 

[eastbank]

AFTER THE CHANGE IN POWDER AND FORWARD ASSIST, CHROME BORE AND THROWING THAT STUBID COMIC BOOK CLEANING MANUAL AWAY, I FOUND THE M-16 TO BE ALRIGHT. PLUS MANY DRAFTEES NEVER FIRED A GUN AND NEEDED TO BE TRAINED BETTER. THE HUNTERS DID MUCH BETTER AT TAKING CARE OF THEIR RIFLES.

 

[Electrod47]

1966 I was issued my M14, 1968 I was issued an M16. I said, please let me keep my M14. Never go FA with a M14, 3 rd burst was pretty handy.

 

[tark]

If I want a real 7.62 battle rifle I'll grab my FAL.

And then you'll drop it on rocky ground and bend or break that totally exposed rear sight... Just kidding... I know there are probably no recorded incidents of this happening. I have fired only one FAL in my life. I found it to be accurate, easy to field strip and a pleasure to shoot. It may have its flaws, but the M-14 certainly does as well. Same thing for the AR / M-16. I always hated the damn things...

Until I actually fired one for the first time.

Good sights, wonderful trigger, light, fast handling...what's not to like? ( the cartridge!) Then I discovered that the M-193 ball ammo had more penetration than I has assumed. That light bullet does NOT disintegrate upon hitting a dandelion seed floating in the air! It offers fair penetration in a lot of things which could be called "cover." I remember shooting a round into a couple of 2X4s. Zipped right through em' both. This was in 1968, while I was in Vietnam, happily humping my M-14 (which was issued to REMFs) In the 80s I had an H-BAR which was capable of dime sized groups at a hundred yards, with anything I fed it , including 55gr. M-193 ammo! And it never lost its zero when I pulled it apart.

I have never seen combat, so my opinions on what constitutes a good combat rifle...don't count for much. But if I had to go to war right now, I think I would grab an AR of some flavor.

 

[hq]

AND THROWING THAT STUBID COMIC BOOK CLEANING MANUAL AWAY

Ever read the Tigerfibel? I don't exactly dislike the M16 comic manual (it's for recruits who don't necessarily know anything about guns and maintenance) but it pales in comparison to what the germans did back in 1940's.

 

[Charlie98]

Never go FA with a M14

I rented an M14 at one of the machine gun ranges in Las Vegas a few years ago... they made me fire it off the bipod, and I could see why. Beautiful weapon, but it was a handful in full auto, even off the bipod. I also rented an M16A1... just like the one I carried in the Army. Truthfully... it was about as unruly in FA as the M14... but I was standing, not shooting off a 'pod. In hindsight, at the very few full-auto ranges I had in Basic, and even shooting supported or off a bipod, FA just makes a lot of noise... which can have it's merits at times, of course.


Given my druthers... I'd take an AR into the field 99% of the time. I like the M14/M1a... I have one... it is a rifleman's rifle, but unless you need the heavy hit of the 7.62mm, or you are shooting beyond 250-300M (with issue ammos...) the mature AR platform is a better choice, and that includes the AR-10 over the M14.

 

[lysanderxiii]

-When I was updating the drawings and parts lists for the Perry class frigates I noticed that the gun racks in the armories were set up for M14s, not M16s.
Of course, that was in the late 1970s.

The M16 could never throw a line . . . They still use M14 for that.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Ever read the Tigerfibel? I don't exactly dislike the M16 comic manual (it's for recruits who don't necessarily know anything about guns and maintenance) but it pales in comparison to what the germans did back in 1940's.

The Germans had a lot of those little comic book manuals.

In addition to the Tigerfibel and Pantherfibel, there is one of fighter aircraft gunnery - Horrido - Des Jagers Schiessfibel (for mature audiences only)

 

[theotherwaldo]

The M16 could never throw a line . . . They still use M14 for that.

View attachment 1129425

The ship that is about to receive a line is the Boone, shown after they pulled her Standard missile launcher and replaced it with a chunk of concrete.
The Boone was one of the last ships that I got to work on before I was switched to the Ship-Lift Project.
I heard that they sank the Boone last year as a target.

 

[Turkeytider]

Trained on both. Could never consistently hit a 300 target with the 16. 14 was a whole different story. I remember thinking, " With somebody who knew what they were doing, this would make a helluva sniper rifle ".

 

[entropy]

It did. The M21.

 

[citizenconn]

Is it possible to like the M14 AND the M16?

I want to like the M14 but I have numerous other .308 chambered rifles I would choose before it, including my large frame ARs. I was mostly issued M16A1 and A2s while in the Army and liked them very much, much better than the shorter M4s.

Well my Dad said he liked using the M-14 in Vietnam. But he also likes shooting my two M16A4s in FA. And he likes to shoot our AR-15s from 7.5-24" in various chamberings. Basically he likes to shoot most anything that goes BANG reliably.

 

[General Geoff]

Is it possible to like the M14 AND the M16?

Never got a crack at the select-fire versions but I like both of the modern semiauto production versions of each platform. The AR has IMO evolved into a better platform due to its modular design and widespread adoption by the shooting public over the past 40 years. The M14 marketplace has expanded some as of late, but still occupies a tiny fraction of what the AR market is today.

 

[Jerry M]

This is often repeated and it is untrue. The M-14 was adopted in 1957 and has been in continuous service ever since. Even when it was no longer the standard issue rifle, it still soldiered on with many special forces and other specialized applications. It still soldiers on today as the EBR.

In what quantities? Yes I realise that the M-14 is still in use, but not issued emasse. MD State Rifle and Pistol association's M-14 were recalled by CMP for use in Afghanistan. Just like the M-3 grease gun was still used by tank crews in Kuwait war, again not issued otherwise.
Didn't some Trap door Springfields turn up in National Guard Armories at the outbreak of WW II?

 

[12Bravo20]

Just like the M-3 grease gun was still used by tank crews in Kuwait war, again not issued otherwise.

The M3A1 SMG was standard issue for all tracked vehicles until late 1992- early 1993. They were not removed from service until the full adoption of the Beretta M9 and also the announcement of the M4 Carbine. One of the initial uses for the M4 was to replace the M3A1 fro combat vehicle crews. The M3A1 was part of the armament for combat vehicles just like the M2 was.

 

[SwampWolf]

An Army Intelligence individual told me how the Navy had been leaking information to known North Vietnamese informants, to sabotage Army secret missions.

Imo, that's a patently absurd claim in the extreme and a slanderous one at best. I don't believe any of it for a second but if there's any truth to this allegation, I'd love to see the evidence. "Mass" treason for certain if any shred of this scurrilous claim has any basis in truth. Army/Navy conflict, when it comes to winning or losing a "war", is waged only on the gridiron, not on the battle field. Not ever.

 

[dannyd]

-When I was updating the drawings and parts lists for the Perry class frigates I noticed that the gun racks in the armories were set up for M14s, not M16s.
Of course, that was in the late 1970s.

We definitely carried M14's on watch one of us on the pointy end and one us on the flat end; 8 hours a day (4 hours at a time). If we were lucky once every 3 days or if we were in a not so safe port every other day. FFG-39 and FFG-40.

Greatest thing about being a Frigate sailor there was nothing the Navy could threaten you with because you were as low as you could go.

 

[American Finn]

After reading all of this, I wonder how much history would have been altered if our armed forces had adopted the FN-FAL rather than the M-14. Certainly adopting a more suitable cartridge (perhaps a 6mm???) in the 1950's would have been beneficial.

And thank you to all of you Vietnam Veterans. My father served in Vietnam (1969 thru 1970) in Pleiku. He doesn't like to talk about being over there; he just mentions some things in passing. I know he was issued an M-14 for a time as I have a picture of him carrying one; he then was issued an M-16. He told me he liked both of them.

 

[dannyd]

The M16 could never throw a line . . . They still use M14 for that.

View attachment 1129425

There shooting at the old USS Boone after the Navy removed the MK 13 launcher. That was a hard luck boat, but you learned when they were shooting at you to hide because that plugger hurt.

 

[mljdeckard]

Yegads we love to carry on so,

I am about to retire from the National Guard, I have been in and out since 1991. I have owned (briefly) an M1A. I have spent a day on the range with snipers from 19th Group. They were showing off their M110s, and then told us they hate them and when they have the choice, they pull out their M-21s.

I bought the M1A to do the sniper thing about 20 years ago, and I quickly came to realize it was going to be more of a project than I wanted to play with. I don't miss it. I have since built an AR-10 in .243 and it is much better to shoot and accessorize. I like the M-14 for its place in history. I have no real desire to own one, except to fill a spot in a collection.

I can't imagine trying to equip and train today's army with any full-size battle rifle. Keep a few DMRs and snipers. I don't even think that switching out 5.56 for a new slightly bigger cartridge is worth the squeeze. Let very specialized units and positions directly purchase specialized weapons. I see no reason that the rank and file need anything other than an M-4.

 

[lysanderxiii]

After reading all of this, I wonder how much history would have been altered if our armed forces had adopted the FN-FAL rather than the M-14. Certainly adopting a more suitable cartridge (perhaps a 6mm???) in the 1950's would have been beneficial.

And thank you to all of you Vietnam Veterans. My father served in Vietnam (1969 thru 1970) in Pleiku. He doesn't like to talk about being over there; he just mentions some things in passing. I know he was issued an M-14 for a time as I have a picture of him carrying one; he then was issued an M-16. He told me he liked both of them.

People seem to think that the only thing the Army was going to be shooting at in the 1950 was soft, squishy people. Actually, the Army's major concern was being able to put a hole in the side of a Soviet BTR-152, which M2 A.P. would easily do. So, the requirement was for the Lightweight Rifle Cartridge Armor Piercing variant, T93, to be able to match Caliber .30 M2, A.P. performance.

That is what drove cartridge development through the middle of the 1950s.

Then the Soviets fielded the BTR-60 in 1959, with 7mm of well sloped armor, it was proof against anything less than 15mm, so rifle caliber A.P. faded out and M59 and M80 Ball became the standard combat ammunition. And, this also opened the door ammunition with less than Caliber .30 performance.