Go Back   CMP Forums > CMP Sales > M1A/M14
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 04-13-2017, 12:10 PM
nf1e nf1e is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 2,010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FX41 View Post
Well said.



It makes me cringe when folks say this. Zero proof, just personal opinion. I get it, everyone is attached to their particular service rifle. But neither the M14 nor the M16/M4 are designed to be casualty producing weapons. Both are very different. If I'm an SDM, yes, give me an M25, the .308 will obviously reach out further and continue to be lethal beyond what the 5.56 does. If I'm kicking doors in, and clearing block by block, M4 please.

More ammo always wins. One man with a 30 round mag of 5.56 can go shot for shot with one man who has a 20 round mag of .308, and still have 10 rounds to advance to, through, and beyond your cover and concealment. He who reloads less, can maneuver more, maneuver wins engagements not who has a wood and steel rifle.

The M14 is certainly not better than the M16, its different, and designed when we fought differently, when we (as an Army) didn't fully understand how warfare was fought. To call the M16 a poor imitation of a battle rifle is insulting to those that have carried it into battle for the last 50 years.
There was certainly no insult to anyone intended by my post.
Times change. 1 rnd of .308 will count for more than one round of 22 cal under most conditions provided the shooter can aim. Any shot in the air that misses a target is wasted ammo. I saw a lot of that in Viet Nam with the Army and their M-16s. The soldiers used to brag about how many mags they dumped that day while relating the days activities in the NCO club, not how many hits they had like the Marines.
At least with the M-14 one is capable of defending themselves against a PRT at range. Not so with an M-4.
Heck, I don't even make fun of the gents that wear the funny little French painters hats. I may chuckle a bit under my breath. You use what Uncle Sam tells you you are going to use.

Semper Fi
Art
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-13-2017, 01:52 PM
FX41 FX41 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Colorado
Posts: 295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nf1e View Post
There was certainly no insult to anyone intended by my post.
Times change. 1 rnd of .308 will count for more than one round of 22 cal under most conditions provided the shooter can aim. Any shot in the air that misses a target is wasted ammo. I saw a lot of that in Viet Nam with the Army and their M-16s. The soldiers used to brag about how many mags they dumped that day while relating the days activities in the NCO club, not how many hits they had like the Marines.
At least with the M-14 one is capable of defending themselves against a PRT at range. Not so with an M-4.
Heck, I don't even make fun of the gents that wear the funny little French painters hats. I may chuckle a bit under my breath. You use what Uncle Sam tells you you are going to use.

Semper Fi
Art
Ooohhhhhh, I didn't know this was an Army vs. Marine thing. My bad, I'll go sit back down. The bold statement is so utterly wrong in regards to modern (in the sense of last 200 years) warfare. "Any shot that misses a target is wasted ammo" is red coat line up and volley back and fourth talk.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-13-2017, 03:04 PM
nf1e nf1e is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 2,010
Default

Nuff said.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-13-2017, 03:05 PM
Steve9 Steve9 is online now
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 318
Default

Sedate duty, with expectation of hand-to-hand combat: M14.

Mobile duty, expectation of firing engagements: M16.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-13-2017, 04:35 PM
Gewehr43 Gewehr43 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 2,322
Default

nf1e:

"......M-14 is a battle rifle, M-16 a poor imitation there of......."

By definition the M14 is a Battle rifle and the M16 is an Assault rifle.

They weren't designed to imitate each other...............
__________________
Service Rifle.... RIP .... 1884-2015
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-13-2017, 07:54 PM
jwenum jwenum is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: N.E. Ohio
Posts: 100
Default

I have to go with Art, well placed heavier rds are always better. Maybe better brain washing I don't know,lol. But ability to carry more rounds would make me personally feel better. Marine/Army will go on forever!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-13-2017, 09:11 PM
OKC_Jim OKC_Jim is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: OKC, Oklahoma
Posts: 1,050
Default

Why does every thread about the M-14 turn in to an argument?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-14-2017, 12:03 AM
condor condor is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 166
Default

I still don't understand why the Army didn't just tell Stoner to let the Air Force to have their 223 plinkster and to instead issue AR-10s to the Army and Marine Corps.

An AR10 is plenty light.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-14-2017, 03:03 AM
bandhunter31 bandhunter31 is online now
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 266
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarge 13 View Post
I came up thru the M1 Garand , M14 & M 16. Qualified Expert with all of them.
I carried a CAR 15 (the carbine/SMG version of the 16) in RVN.
The Garand was OK, but didn't have the needed fire power for modern day war. The M14 was great in semi, just an over weight Garand, but in full auto it was a giant POS!!! Most could not control it on FA thus the origin of the term "Spray & Pray!"
The M16 - in my case CAR 15 - was great. Light, easy to use and the lighter weight made carrying lots of ammo not a problem. I carried 24 20 rd mags.
Yes, the ammo problem caused lots of grief early on, but once that problem got solved the 16 was a good rifle.
I tend to think that the reason many of those who dislike the 16 is that they were not properly trained on it and they were also not good shots.
Sarge
I don't see how training has anything to do with someone disliking a gun that they need to trust there life with and having the gun's barrel and Magazine springs rusting out.....I think the issue for many who served during the transition period from M-14 to M-16 was the politics involved and rush to replace a solid time tested killing instrument with a gun that was unproven and early on did experience a good deal of issues WHILE IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR!!!!.........and from all accounts of the time, it is reasonable to surmise that it caused the untimely death of SOME of our fighting men........


Quote:
Originally Posted by FX41 View Post
Well said.


It makes me cringe when folks say this. Zero proof, just personal opinion. I get it, everyone is attached to their particular service rifle. But neither the M14 nor the M16/M4 are designed to be casualty producing weapons. Both are very different. If I'm an SDM, yes, give me an M25, the .308 will obviously reach out further and continue to be lethal beyond what the 5.56 does. If I'm kicking doors in, and clearing block by block, M4 please.

More ammo always wins. One man with a 30 round mag of 5.56 can go shot for shot with one man who has a 20 round mag of .308, and still have 10 rounds to advance to, through, and beyond your cover and concealment. He who reloads less, can maneuver more, maneuver wins engagements not who has a wood and steel rifle.

The M14 is certainly not better than the M16, its different, and designed when we fought differently, when we (as an Army) didn't fully understand how warfare was fought. To call the M16 a poor imitation of a battle rifle is insulting to those that have carried it into battle for the last 50 years.
I certainly did not make my OP to start an argument about these two guns......I was simply sharing a story of a veteran and wanted a catchy title......but I own an AR and an Springfield M1A and they are very different guns, but to say more ammo always wins out is not a well thought out statement.......all things equal, 2 guys slugging it out at 500 yards, I think the .308 wins every day of the week over the 5.56........yes with less ammo......
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-14-2017, 07:49 AM
bruce bruce is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 964
Default

Have read the thread. Have spoken with men who used both rifles, one as recently as yesterday at the lunch time Bible study. Lots of the decisions making process is clouded by emotion/opinion, not unlike when the 1903 was being replaced by the M-1. Match shooters did not want the M-1. Practical reality in the field forced the matter. The M-14 was a product improvement of the M-1, but it was obsoleted by the changing reality of what was needed, just as the 1903/K-98 were obsoleted by the M-1 and STG-44.

So, what to do? What to do? Issue everyone a little short barrelled carbine and give them a wheel barrow to carry a .30 cal. w/ ammo, mags, etc.? As much as possible issue one caliber for everyone ... everyone have to do the best they can? For the most part that worked very well ... WWII/Korea. But ... 5.56/7.62 worked real well in Vietnam... ever since.

Reality is that this is a argument that goes back centuries. Folks argued over whether or not to use buck and ball or just ball.... to use muskets or rifles ... to use Minie balls ... to use muzzle loaders over breech loaders ... various sights... optics ... etc. This is just more of the argument that echos when bores went from .75 ... to .58 ... to .54 ... to .50 ... to .45 ... to .30 ... to 5.56mm. Same with pistols.

Which is better? When ranges are long, everyone wants a .30 cal. A .50 is even better. Makes sense. A machine gun and mortar make better sense. When the range is not long ... when it is only a couple of hundred yards ... when it is only a football field ... then the more rounds you can get down range ASAP the better. It is true that people get hit by occasional aimed rifle fire at long range. Mostly its not aimed rifle fire but machine guns. It is true that inside of 200 yds., those who can bring more fire power to bear will have the advantage.

Like it or not, the armed services are stuck with the politically correct reality that women will be in combat. That will drive decisions about equipment. Everyone will have to live with the consequences. Excuses will be made. Lives will be lost. Doubt women have any place in combat. Simply not up to it. Doubt bigger caliber rifles will make any difference one way or the other. When it comes right down to it, 5.56mm or similar round in a M-16 platform will be with us for a long long time... just like the B-52. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.
__________________
<><
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:42 AM.