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.
No1paperpuncher

No1paperpuncher

BANNED
BANNED
BANNED
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Location
Mostly at the Range
Now!

which one should the USA should have used in the Vietnam conflict?

the M-14 in .308
or
the M-16 in 5.56

personnaly i think they should have used the M-14

the M-16 was :puke: 5.56 is too light projectile and when fired in the bushes the bullet will deviate because of the leaves

and the .308 wouldnt move much

heres a video about the "ak vs m-16"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0

ak-47 is in 7.62x39 thus smaller then the .308
image the .308
 
The M-14 was widely used in the beginning of the conflict...

And there was nothing wrong with the M-16 either. :)

Tradesmen have many different tools in their toolbox for
many a different task.

There is no one magic firearm (except in video games)!!! :D

(That being said, I'll take the 500w plasma rifle please)
 
http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=142298

More importantly Reaper's post:

http://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=130476

Reaper said:
It's simple the M14 was a failure in it's intended role,it was not an assault rifle by any stretch of the imagination,nor was it any good as a Light automatic rifle (LAR). The trend at the time was to switch to lightweight assault rifles,hence the M14 having one of the shortest service life of any US Military weapon.
Is it junk?No but is it outdated you bet it is (was ?).
The M14 has proven to an adequate Marksman's rifle,as seen in Iraq but only after modifications such as getting rid of the senseless full auto capability and some precision work.
I sure as hell would not have to rely on one in today's battlefield,for that matter I wouldn't want an FNC1A1 either. I'll take my C7/M16/C8/M4 anyday over any battlerifle. The M16/M4 platform has been proven time and time again on many battlefields..the M14 never stood a chance.
Click to expand...
 
US DID use M-16, didn't they? I would prefer M-16 as well, light and accurate. M14 was heavy and awkward, its ammo waight double that of 5.56. You might think 5.56 is light, but Vietcong wasn't known to wear sofisticated bodyarmour, so no problem there. I just don't see the attraction of M14 in the role as assualt rifle, as some people likes to romaticize about it. They had young, conscript soldiers out of high school, or at the least college. M16 was clearly better choice for them.
 
they had alot of problems with the M-16 in that era no forward assist, ammo that didn't suit it and the rumor that it was a "self cleaning rifle didn't help much
I don't think it had a chrome line barrel either

the 5.56 always was under scrutiny as not being lethal enough

as far as accuracy its very accurate in execess of 500m (but would it be lethal?....i don't know)
the 16 is def lighter and you can carry more ammo.
the m14 ......i am not as expierianced with but i "read" somewhere that accuacy goes to poo after 400 ( i don't know if this is true though) also they
 
imagine_74714 said:
UThey had young, conscript soldiers out of high school, or at the least college. M16 was clearly better choice for them.
Click to expand...

I agree, but even that can be SNAFUd by a military. ;)

A good friends uncle served in Vietnam with the US Navy (Riverboats) when they made the switchover. He tells a pretty good story about it. He had gone through his basic and first tour with an M14 and was on his second tour at the time. When the crates of M16s showed up, everyone lined up , handed in the old rifle and were handed the new one. No one had any experience with one, even the guys handing them out. No training, just left up to them to figure it out. Needless to say, they weren't impressed with the M16, and he says all tried to scrounge M14s, unsuccessfully.

This was also during the 'self-cleaning rifle'/bad ammo, no chromed bores, period. I heard my first "You can tell it's a Mattel" from him. ;)

That was a long time ago now, and M16s have come a LONG way since.
 
Maybe but recently in the Somalie conflict US troops shot them somalies and they didnt drop dead they kept running at them they also had troubles with the SAW m249 (in canada its called a C9) with short barrel them ppl just didnt die, and trust me them somalies are real skiny
 
If this was vietnam with knowledge in retrospect...I would chose the m14 because this is BEFORE the kinks in the m16 platform had been ironed out.

Nothing against the ones used today, but there is enough horror stories going around about how much garbage the m16's were when they first came out.

And no, you dont get to go back with your cleaning kit. And no, you dont get to chose your ammo. If this question stands as stated...you would be give the rifle, no cleaning kit and no information about it. In that sense, the m14 wins hands down over first gen vietnam era m16.
 
M16...lighter and you can carry more ammo... recoil for concripted troops is an issue as well..
 
No1paperpuncher said:
Maybe but recently in the Somalie conflict US troops shot them somalies and they didnt drop dead they kept running at them they also had troubles with the SAW m249 (in canada its called a C9) with short barrel them ppl just didnt die, and trust me them somalies are real skiny
Click to expand...
Two things:
1. Most of the Somalis doing the fighting in that incident were high as a kite.
2. The US troops were given ammo designed to penetrate body armor. The rounds went right through the targets. If they had been given proper fragmenting ammunition, the story would've been different.

This was all pretty straight forward in Mark Bowden's reports.
 
what most of you don't realise that it wasn't the m-16 or it's service, but the AMMO- there was a lot of bad powder that had CALCIUM CARBONATE in it, and this would cause the m16 to go full auto , and then jam- it would also case the brass to have head separation, leaving the case in the chaber, welded to the walls- it was only the 223 ammo that had this powder- also there's documented proof that the CHAMBER was too tight, and knowlegeable armourers would take a drill with a mandrill and wrap crocus cloth around it and smooth out the chambers -those with that mod seldom jammed
the ammo back then was also good only to about 400 yards, with the 1/12 twist barrel- todays ammo, while heavier( 55 vs 62 and better) has signifigantly longer legs( 800 and more)
 
No1paperpuncher said:
Maybe but recently in the Somalie conflict US troops shot them somalies and they didnt drop dead they kept running at them they also had troubles with the SAW m249 (in canada its called a C9) with short barrel them ppl just didnt die, and trust me them somalies are real skiny
Click to expand...

Not to be an ass but, throw in a period or a capital letter every once and a while. Please? Also, could so stop saying 'them Somalies' and 'them people' makes you sounds like Clydus.

As for the question, I'd use an M-16 as that would be what I'd be issued and as a grunt I could do little about it
 
Who's Mark Bowden?

Maybe but still.

About the carrying more ammo thing...Think of it this way...you have less ammo. PLACE YOUR SHOTS BETTER! instead of shooting like a idiot in full auto and wasting all your mags.

.308 can go through a small tree. right? (not sure, so correct me if im wrong.) but 5.56 wont. One thing the Vietnameese had in advantage. Gi. could hide behind a tree yet the little dude with his ak-47 still got him...

the M-16 might have been more lighter but after some time the weight of the m-14 just gets normal. anyways. get some muscles on lol. oh forgot to mension up there...they could have developped better carrying systems and used better ones that already existed such as the chest ring.
 
Last edited:
And just the same...when the AK cartridge would fly through a tree, it would also do the same thing on body mass...fly right through doing minimal damage and transfering little energy.

The 5.56 carries the same amount of energy and when it hits it tumbles then fragments into multipl pieces transferring all of it's energy to the target.

7.62x39 carries 1200 ft/lbs of energy --- 50% transfer of energy
5.56x45 carries 1200 ft/lbs of energy --- 90% transfer of energy

5.56 is more accurate...lighter...faster...trumps AK
 
I think you're all missing the point.
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.
The military long ago realized that an injured soldier takes out 2-3 soldiers (1 medic, the wounded soldier and the comrade that carried and/or cared for the wounded soldier). It also effects morale (a screaming soldier sounds worse than a dead one, not to mention everyone around can hear him).
This is why modern land mines blow off your leg and not your head, same reason.
Terrorists, on the other hand are religiously and/or ethnically motivated. A wounded terrorist won't necessarily effect morale, more likely will kill himself via explosive or other means to further inflict damage against his target.
This is (one reason) the US military is examining alternate rounds like the 6.8SPC. More stopping power.

Whew!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom