M14 Vs M16

If you would have been in the Vietnam conflict which would have you used

  • an M-16 in 5.56

    Votes: 42 39.3%

  • an M-14 in .308

    Votes: 65 60.7%
  • Total voters
    107
Status
Not open for further replies.
You give less ammo to ill-trained troops and expect them to place their shots better? Average life expectancy of a soldier as he got out of the chopper in 1966 was about a months. Age of average soldier being sent to Vietnam was 19. I was that kind of war. They were scared ####less, and most of the time, they were in a jungle, which was like the backyard of all those Vietcong. It doesn't matter whether they were carrying M14 or M16. It wouldn't have improved their odds of hitting the target.
And are you serious about hiding behind trees as earnest advantage on Vietcong's part? Are you kidding me? Did they stay there until all those americans were gone? It was combat, not hide and seek. I don't think anyone would have stayed behind a tree for any extended period of time, when there are bullets flying and shells exploding everywhere.
 
The .223 cartridge and all subsequent military arms designed around that round aren't necessarily designed to kill. It is designed to maim and injure your target.
Click to expand...

Bull####. Do some research.
 
agilent_one said:
Bulls**t. Do some research.
Click to expand...

Actually, I am using research. :rolleyes:
The fmj .223 bullet "tumbles" inside a human. Usually breaking apart causing multiple pieces to pierce multiple organs. Yes, it can and does kill, but does far less damage than a larger caliber bullet.

I did say the .223 isn'tnecessarily designed to kill, didn't I? :p

Edit: (quoted from www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/MVT.htm and there are others)

The "obvious" advantages of the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO are not
obvious at all. The SS109 is a definite improvement over the
first generation M193 cartridge however, at best it will serve
only as an interim standard. As technological improvements in
optical sights extend the practical engagement distances for
rifle fire, and as improvements in body armor require greater and
greater power from the rifle cartridge, the SS109 and other
5.56mm caliber ammunition will have to give way to improve and
more powerful ammunition, such as the 7.62mm NATO. The 7.62 x
51mm NATO has not been improved or modified since its adoption by
NATO in 1953. This larger cartridge has a greater capacity for
growth and technological improvement and should be developed to
its potential now.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You are so way off. If anything the 7.62mm projectile is more designed for that purpose because it doesnt do as much damage as the 223. The 7.62mm tumbles and then exists the cavity without transfering much energy...it is leaving the cavity because it has excess energy enough to do so. The 223 instead loses energy due to fragmentation...the energy is being lost onto the body cavity in the form of damage. This is why the 223 does better than the 30 cal...transfer of energy vs overpenetration

Nobody goes into war with the sole intention of wounding their enemy and leaving them in a state to still return fire. The objective is to put the enemy into the ground.

What you are talking about is a myth.

The 55gr 5.56mm tumbles yes...breaks into multiple fragments yes...but it also gives an interstitial damage pattern that leaves a large amount of internal wounding...more than capable of killing on it's own.

Wolf Ammunition 223 55gr FMJ at 100 meters--notice that wound channel spreads out to almost 6 inches wide. That is a kill shot...not a wound
wolfgel.jpg


Recovered fragments from ballistic gelatin at 100 meters
m193frag.jpg
 
Last edited:
Way off?
From Patterns of Military Rifle Bullets by Dr. Martin L. Fackler:
<snip>...inconsistent effects have been noted in wounds caused by the M16 and other modern military bullets. Considering the variation in length of the possible tissue path through the human body, this "inconsistency" of effect is to be expected. Beware! This variation can be used to dupe the unsuspecting. A series of shots through a 14 or 15cm block of tissue simulant or the leg of a 25kg animal can give enough variation so that, by selective choice of exit wound photographs, one can "prove"any point one wishes (such as one bullet being less "humane" than another).<snip>
Click to expand...

Let's just agree to disagree. All calibers have their mission and place in any given situation. I feel like a devil's advocate here :evil: , as I prefer my AR over my .30! :eek:
 
Jungle warfare-close quarter battles

The absolute best weapon concerning jungle warfare would be a full auto 12 guage, engagements very short range, and low visibility, so if your gonna spray an area, 00 buck in full auto would dramastially augment enemy casualties, but lets not get off topic:)
Each tool has its own advantages, the ar-15 is light,and a couple inches shorter in its full length, having a 20 inch barrel instead of 22. In that time era there was a problem, they didn't work out all the kinks, and on top of that the ammo being used wasn't klean enough for the tight fitting pieces. The riflemen were not adequately trained for full auto capacity so we got stories about I emptied my magazine into him before he dropped. There is another problem ar-15's were going against ak's, at short range 7.62x39mm can pentrate much deeper that 5.56x45mm used in ar-15's. So the enemy moved in close, having all the advantages of jungles, and cities which are both close quarter combat enviroments. So the communists could hit their enemy with killing power through 8 inches wood (trees) leaving very little options in the jungle. Lets not leave on a bad note for the ar-15, it is much more precise, can create horrific wounds, and it is a controlable select fire weapon. For the infantry soldier is much lighter than a m-14.
As for the m-14, in the jungle it would have been lower maintenance with high penetration if you knew where the enemy was. Taking down advesaries behind barricades with ease almost on the scale of 1 shot 1 kill. In the cities it wouldn't have been so easy to use in house clearing operations, its just too long and has a high enough recoil to disable fast target aquisitions. In full auto mode it was uncontrolable due to the fact that there was no valve to control rate of fire found on a BAR Browning its predecesor.
In conclusion, in engagements if you wish to win a battle the rule has been send more rounds than the enemy can send back. If the enemy has to duck and cover you can advance. The ar-15 has that point, but in that era of insuffient training (Trial by fire), and lack of pentration behind obstacles( the one thing all soldiers seek), and the fact that the government didn't follow the designer's specs my choice lies with the m-14. Ideally, there should have been full-auto 12 guage with 00 buck, and controlable select fire 7.62x51mm short barelled m-14s which would have probably changed the course of the war!:shotgun:
 
They did have 12 guages in vietnam...Rem 870's and Winchester model 12's

But the ammunition is prohibitively heavy for such a serious engagement...which is why it hasnt caught on. And not all engagements were under 100 meters...or else snipers would never have had anything to shoot at
 
:bangHead:

Gents,

We constantly seem to bring out this discussion once every six months.....

Firstly - 5.56mm designed to wound. Utter crap and total untrue. There is no doctrine or criteria set out anyway for this for military ammuniton. It is intended to kill and is used as such.

Secondly - 5.56mm didn't work in Somalia cause it says so in Blackhawk Down. Again, utter crap. I can tell you from first hand experience in Somalia that the 5.56mm does the business just fine. Alot of these jokers were high as a kite as noted by others. Troops unfortunately expect people to instantly expire when hit....mostly due to the hollywood effect. It is important to note that people who were hit with 8mm and 30-06 in WWII actually became wounded....not instantly killed. Hits to the CNS/Vitals will cause instant incapacitation......other hits may not stop him instantly but he will die.

Soldiering is not just a rifle...it is a group of people equiped with an array of weapons. The 7.62 MG is employed in the Platoon and Company. Remember that most engagements, particularly in an urban setting take place at close ranges...usually rock throwing to 150m. Longer range engagements are routinely engaged with crew serves, vehicle weapons like the 25mm or Arty/Gunship/Close Air.

These types of discussion are often commented on by people who view military weapon selection based on a mano vs mano approach...when in fact it is more team effort with a suite of weapons giving a full range of capablity. Additionally gun magazines writers often present articles full of bias and incorrect facts. Stories of the M16 series failing in combat are one of their favourite. When introduced there were significant problems but todays M16 is not the same weapon. I have complete confidence in the rifle and so do most people who have carried them in harms way. I know KevinB will jump in and mirror my comments. I am not even going to comment on the shotgun post.....:puke:

So what would I have used....heck whatever I was issued! From personal experience...humping a heavy rifle and ammo all day long sucks particularly when it is a million degrees. Once the kinks were out of the M16....I think I would have prefered it...

Cheers

Jeff
 
Last edited:
Morpheus32 said:
:bangHead:

Gents,

We constantly seem to bring out this discussion once every six months.....

Firstly - 5.56mm designed to wound. Utter crap and total untrue. There is no doctrine or criteria set out anyway for this for military ammuniton. It is intended to kill and is used as such.

Secondly - 5.56mm didn't work in Somalia cause it says so in Blackhawk Down. Again, utter crap. I can tell you from first hand experience in Somalia that the 5.56mm does the business just fine. Alot of these jokers were high as a kite as noted by others. Troops unfortunately expect people to instantly expire when hit....mostly due to the hollywood effect. It is important to note that people who were hit with 8mm and 30-06 in WWII actually became wounded....not instantly killed. Hits to the CNS/Vitals will cause instant incapacitation......other hits may not stop him instantly but he will die.

Soldiering is not just a rifle...it is a group of people equiped with an array of weapons. The 7.62 MG is employed in the Platoon and Company. Remember that most engagements, particularly in an urban setting take place at close ranges...usually rock throwing to 150m. Longer range engagements are routinely engaged with crew serves, vehicle weapons like the 25mm or Arty/Gunship/Close Air.

These types of discussion are often commented on by people who view military weapon selection based on a mano vs mano approach...when in fact it is more team effort with a suite of weapons giving a full range of capablity. Additionally gun magazines writers often present articles full of bias and incorrect facts. Stories of the M16 series failing in combat are one of their favourite. When introduced there were significant problems but todays M16 is not the same weapon. I have complete confidence in the rifle and so do most people who have carried them in harms way. I know KevinB will jump in and mirror my comments. I am not even going to comment on the shotgun post.....:puke:

So what would I have used....heck whatever I was issued! From personal experience...humping a heavy rifle and ammo all day long sucks particularly when it is a million degrees. Once the kinks were out of the M16....I think I would have prefered it...

Cheers

Jeff
Click to expand...

What a great ####ing post. :rockOn:


I pull my hair out everytime someones says a round is designed to "wound" :bsFlag: - THERE IS NO SUCH THING even a 22lr is designed to KILL. :slap:
 
Takujualuk said:
Well. I have killed a ton of caribou with a 308 and my wife has taken some with her 223. I'd pick a 308 every time....way more killing power.
Click to expand...

Personally the JDAM has more killing power particularly when dropped in groups from the B52...but I digress....

Cheers

Jeff
 
peckerwood said:
They did have 12 guages in vietnam...Rem 870's and Winchester model 12's

But the ammunition is prohibitively heavy for such a serious engagement...which is why it hasnt caught on. And not all engagements were under 100 meters...or else snipers would never have had anything to shoot at
Click to expand...
the ithica 37 was also a favorite because of the lack of a disconnector at the time- just pump her and she fires-shotgun was usually carried by the point, mostly because of close encounters-
 
No1paperpuncher said:
nice picture ARMAMENT

right.... but this is a new post i dont like going in old posts

:)
Click to expand...

Right... and the rest of us don't like seeing the same pointless debate three times a month. As a courtesy, why don't you read what was posted in former threads before starting a new one?
 
+1000 to Morpheus 32

40053-MilitaryRifleWPcopy.jpg


40052-MilitaryAssaultRifleWPcopy.jpg



7.62x51 NATO is good for a bunch of things -- but not in a general issue rifle.

Please LOOK at the M80 ball tissue example...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom