The Firearm thread: Engineering artistry of wood, polymer and steel.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

Big fan of the m-14.

Inferior to the m16 in every way. Vietnam, and politics messed up our standard service rifle.

M14 way more punch and range, hands down.

Eugene Stoner also made the m16, which compared to the m14, is a pile of crap.

He wanted to be the Kalashnikov of America, but instead stuck us with a decent rifle with a mediocre round.

Eh? Probably a typo.


On the subject of M-14's, can anyone identify the rifle's show in this video?


Also on the subject of M-14's, i'll also link this m14 / M1A lover's self pleasuring video:
http://www.history.com/shows/top-sho...ns-rundown-m1a

As to Armalite Rifle No 15, the story behind it is interesting. Albiet you'll find bias for or against depending on who you talk. If one has the time to kill, here's a 45 minute documentary on it by the history channel.


My personal take is the M-16 was rushed into service, came into service before it was ready and unnecessarily costing lives as a result. I believe both the M-14 and the M-16 series have their place, and fulfill slightly different roles. If i had to pick just one rifle though, I'd take the M-14 for its versatility, range, and punch - although, that comes at a cost of being able to carry less ammo.

[Stealhead]

I fully agree with Ducimus and completely disagree with Soopa typo not withstanding.

Stoner did not make the M16 Colt did. The M16 had problems because it was rushed into service and was billed as self cleaning wepon which was never a claim made by Stoner or Armalite.Colt purchased the rights because they had the production capacity they are the ones that failed to have the barrel and bolt chromed which greatly reduces rust.The army can also be blamed because they by mistake or lack of understanding(it is not known which for certain) changed the powder to a type that was much dirtier than what Colt recommended.


Both rifles do have their place and contrary to popular belief the M-14 was not a trouble free weapon.In its natural role that of a semi-automatic rifle it performed well the M21 also performed well bridging the gap between a standard rifle and pure sniping rifle at the time M40(bolt action).

It also had another role that of squad automatic weapon to replace the BAR the M14A1.In this role it was an abysmal failure it was simply uncontrollable on automatic fire so much so so that the Army and Marine Corps removed this model from service.

On top of this nearly all of the early production M-14s had the automatic sear removed.You can ID an A1 because they have a weird looking pistol grip behind the trigger and also have a bipod and a funky looking fore grip as well as a muzzle brake with drilled holes rather than the slots of a standard M-14.

The M-14 in my opinion did not succeed fully in its intended role because it was simply uncontrollable under fully automatic fire.This role was failed by every western post war rifle because the 7.62x51mm round is simply to heavy to be controllable in an 8~10 pound weapon under full auto conditions.From a production standpoint it also to some extent failed because it was costly to produce.The DOD could not afford to fully arm the military with the M-14 many reserve and national Guard units where stuck with M-1 Garands into the 1970s.Part of this was do to the M-14 not being easy to mass produce.

One of the factor that proves that the M16 series was in fact if properly treated a fine weapon is that many elite units in Vietnam who could choose the weapons they carried many of these guys choose to carry the M-16 or more commonly the XM177 sometimes called a Car-15.

I have asked my father this question many times as he was an LRRP in Vietnam and he preferred to carry the XM177 and he tried at different times
several firearms including the AK-47(90% of the time in Vietnam a Chinese Type 56) and even ANZAC FN FALS.He told me that the key was the typically range of combat and the weight of the weapon to him where the most important factors.And the XM was the lightest and most easy to quickly bring to bear it also had/has fewer steps(motions) in reloading something that your life might hang in the balance on.Weapon length is a huge factor as well at close range the longer you weapon is the slower your movement will be.

The other huge factor especially in Vietnam is weight the weather is brutal there and you really feel all that gear that you hump so more weight is always a negative when you have other options.

In modern combat the environment changes it can go from urban where a larger heavier rifle is a disadvantage to a more open one where you can use the benefit of a larger caliber.That is why you see the variation in weaponry most troops will carry an M-4 but you have some that are carrying a heavier DMR weapon it might be an M4/16 with a heavier barrel and also firing heavier grain rounds or it might be an M14EBR or one of the other modern variations of the M-14.The way I see it the M-14 in its modern forms gets to shine while in the past it was forced to be the jack of all trades a role that no firearm can truly fulfill.

Furthermore unless you have really put a lot of time on the range with both the M-16 and M-14 you really cant say which one is better for you.And the question of what is better for an armed force I have already answered.Not trying to knock you Soopa but for many people even big guys the M-14 just does not fit their needs.

Stepping off of the soap box now.


@Ducimus They look like M-14s to me was that some sort of trick question?

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

@Ducimus They look like M-14s to me was that some sort of trick question?

Yes it was.

As to M-14 vs M-16, in terms of an urban environment... technically i want neither. I think. Is the M4 technically considered it's own gun? Cause that's what i would want if i was thrown into an Urban environment. Short, light weight, and the round can go as far as it needs to. The situation is really dynamic. You can go from short range to medium range fairly quickly. So the M4 fits that nitch perfectly i think.

Now, the argument of M14 vs M16 is an old one amongst aficionado 's of either platforms. Kind of like "ford vs chevy". That said, there is a reason why M14's have reappeared from deep within the bowels of DOD armory's.

The 5.56 round was found insufficient, i believe primarily because of range, as they were only intended for 200-300 yard engagements if i remember correctly.

Now can the M14 be used in the same role as the M16 or M4? I think so, however it has it's drawbacks, with weight being the top detractor, size as mentioned being the second. (not so much if you look at the scout squad or Socom 16 M1A's) It certainly isn't a rifle for everyone, to use it effectively for extended periods of time, you really do need to be fit. My M1A, unloaded with an empty mag, and without a scope on it, is 11.2 pounds. Now add twenty 7.62 rounds and shoot it standing unsupported or even with a loop or hasty sling for about 50 rounds. Then the weight really starts to show.

All that said, in a SHTF scenario, here in the US, the M14 /M1A would be my go to rifle, for reasons i think i've already mentioned.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Yes it was.

The 5.56 round was found insufficient, i believe primarily because of range, as they were only intended for 200-300 yard engagements if I remember correctly.

I think the M14EBRs are really good.They started making those when troops saw the need and started taking old M-14s and mounting ACOGs and other scopes on them to act as a marksmen weapon.I have read a few places that they where having trouble with some of the old ones which is why they started the EBR program which partly rebuilds them.

The USMC lead the way back with their M-14DMR which is being replaced by another M-14 which is similar to the EBR but has a heavier and longer barrel.The Army guys where stuck with the older M-14s until well into 2003 until the EBRs became more readily available.

I would not be surprised some of those M-14s may have been sitting around for years they might have been a bit past their prime in some cases.

There is one draw back to having an obvious DMR it also attracts the enemy a solider with a longer rifle stands out.

Of course I understand that there are a few differing concepts out there when it comes to DMR type weapons.

One concept is simply a heavier barreled M-4/16 also firing a higher grain bullet to buffer the M-14.I read a fairly interesting book about a year ago where the author and former sniper spoke with mainly US army and USMC snipers as well as a few LE guys who also happened to be in the reserves.

One US Army Sargent his unit in 2008 tested the concept of using heavier grain 5.56mm for closer in kill(~400m) using I believe a military version of Black Hills 77 grain.They had outstanding results and in some cases they where using a standard M4 barrel other times they used a heavier barrel.

The sargent said that they when possible collected the bodies so that they could be medically examined.He said that one doctor had a conversation with him and complemented his skill with the M24(7.62x51mm) the sarge informed the doc that the round had been a 5.56mm 77 grain.That tells you something when a doctor gets fooled by the expected wound ballistics.Of course 5.56 even in a higher grain and out of a heavier barrel does have its range limits.Anyway this "experiment" was to evaluate the concept of using a DMR version of the M4/16 and issuing it to regular infantry.

It actually is a good idea from a military stand point you do not have to train the solider on a new rifle and in the heat of things the weapon of course fire standard 5.56 rounds just fine.It also places less demand on the production of M-14EBRs.

The Army also has the M110(basically an SR-25) but that is a more expensive bit of kit intended for snipers not DMs.

There has been some interest in also going with an "intermediate" cartridge as a DM round something in the 6mm range I know that the Lapua 6.5mm and the Barret 6.8mm are high are the suggested list.Of course that means producing millions of rounds of completely new ammunition and also procuring all new barrels as well as uppers for a percentage of M4/16s.

With all that said I think the combination of M-14s and beefed up M4/16 as DMRs is the best option.

Of course accuracy counts for something as well I know that a Marine killed in one shot a Taliban fighter that was making ready to fire an RPG at a US Amry MEDVAC and this some gunner had already taken down an MH-47 full of Seals a few days prior so he was no slouch.Anyway one fact is that we are talking about a Marine and they are all rifleman but he still made the shot with only an ACOG (3.5x or 4.0x) on a target that was 300+m away and also above him so a tougher shot and it was also a snap shot and he got the job done.I have read of this Marine in a book about the operation he was involved in and also on a National Geographic where they talked to some Marines in the same unit yet they did not mention his name a humble person I suppose.

Of course as you said with your own personal use that is a whole other can worms all together.I would say that the biggest factor there would be your location.

[Red October1984]

Feel like I've missed so much...

As far as the M-16 and M-14...

M16A4 with an ACOG and Mk 14 Mod 0 EBR.

Those are my choices. I'd probably still go with the EBR.

[Stealhead]

It would depend on the situation urban or an inclosed wooded/planted area like a "green zone" in Afghanistan I'd want an M-4 with a holographic site with the special sight enhancers that you can flip up for longer ranges (in combat your suppression capability is most important) and I'd want an M203 or ideally an M320 I have seen clips of guys really laying it down with an M320 and a few SAWs they help break contact very effectively.

In a more open area or if I am inside the wire an M-14 would be better because they usually attack from longer range and the M-14 would be in its element.

Of course all things considered any firearm is better than none if you find yourself facing unfriendly persons possessing them.

In an on your own situation any AR-15 based weapon gets a ding do to the extra TLC that it will need so really then something else would be better.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

In an on your own situation any AR-15 based weapon gets a ding do to the extra TLC that it will need so really then something else would be better.

The first thing that jumps into my mind is, piston vs direct impingement. It probably won't be a big surprise if i said I prefer a piston.

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

It would depend on the situation urban or an inclosed wooded/planted area like a "green zone" in Afghanistan I'd want an M-4 with a holographic site with the special sight enhancers that you can flip up for longer ranges (in combat your suppression capability is most important) and I'd want an M203 or ideally an M320 I have seen clips of guys really laying it down with an M320 and a few SAWs they help break contact very effectively.

In a more open area or if I am inside the wire an M-14 would be better because they usually attack from longer range and the M-14 would be in its element.

Of course all things considered any firearm is better than none if you find yourself facing unfriendly persons possessing them.

In an on your own situation any AR-15 based weapon gets a ding do to the extra TLC that it will need so really then something else would be better.

+1

It really depends on the situation you are in.