Compare M14 With M16

VALVEGAMER20 Says:

Sep 7, 2010 - M14 should be semi auto only

krapfeaster Says:

Sep 6, 2010 - burst firing the m14 vs single shot m16 and its easier to keep on target? what an amazing observation.

vennieman1989 Says:

Sep 6, 2010 - This is a pathetic attempt at testing the efficacy of the m14. The m14 can fire auto but should not for accuracies sake. Also, that helmet is a WW2 helmet, let alone our helmets used by US soldier's couldnt even stop a 7.62 round. m14 is a better man stopper, is more accurate, and more ergonomic than the m16 any day of the week

rahfields Says:

Sep 5, 2010 - @rahfields To be honest with you, I personally believe that if the military hadn't stupidly destroyed the thousands upon thousands of M14's that were in stock when they switched to the M16's (a VERY stupid move economically, also...they just threw away millions of dollars they used to purchase the virtually still-brand new rifles), then a lot of those rifles would have been refitted for combat duty for most warfare conditions that weren't urban.

rahfields Says:

Sep 5, 2010 - @JoeCrazyEyes Joe, the reason the M4's and M16's are still dominant is because they are what the military has right now. Many of our troops seek something harder hitting, and the M14 (since the ground troops see it in action) has been requested by many units. The M4's are great for the urban setting where you're going door-to-door, but our boys are having to keep their heads down in open areas because their .22's don't have the range/power of the enemy's .30 cal bolt-action rifles.

tbilisicentral Says:

Sep 5, 2010 - and for the record, skinny iraqi and afghani insurgents need about 2-3 rounds to be put down. the round, traveling through slender body type deosnt have enough time to start inflicting the ballistic shock and it passes through clean. the Colt "expert" will always say whats good for sales. ask the grunts in the field on how do they feel about it. and why do they store AKs inside the vehicles.

tbilisicentral Says:

Sep 5, 2010 - @thatgo916 true that, and it goes for all rifles. u want accurate full auto - get a tripod mounted GPM

eljefe010 Says:

Sep 4, 2010 - @rahfields I agree with you. It doesn't matter if you can carry more ammo with the m16/m4 if you have to shoot the enemy 2-3 times to ensure a kill

esh325 Says:

Sep 4, 2010 - @JoeCrazyEyes They field the M14 for designated marksman use.

JoeCrazyEyes Says:

Sep 4, 2010 - @esh325 They aren't. The main weapon for our guys on the frontlines are M4's and M16's, thats standard right there.

Aetherius74 Says:

Sep 4, 2010 - the marines didnt have a prob with the m14... only the army did.

esh325 Says:

Sep 4, 2010 - @JoeCrazyEyes Accuracy was not one of the reason why they replaced the M14. Weight,firepower, and lower recoil was why. If the M16 was a totally superior rifle, then they wouldn't be fielding the M14 like they are in Iraq and Afghanistan.

JoeCrazyEyes Says:

Sep 3, 2010 - @rahfields LOl The M14 didn't surpass the M16. The M16 excelled on what the M14 didnt ahve. Stopping power was something the m14 never had. Range yes but the M16 had better accuracy.

nov284 Says:

Sep 2, 2010 - @esh325 True, however no other rifle in the world is as maintenance intensive as the M16 to start with, and not chroming the bore/chamber only exacerbated an existing problem. Even though they wound up fixing that issue, the rifle continues to use a demonstrably flawed action that overheats too quickly (you tell me you're only gonna shoot once ever four seconds when someone's shooting back at you) and is intolerant to sand, grit and carbon (that it introduces to itself with every shot).

esh325 Says:

Sep 2, 2010 - @nov284 If you think about it, there have been a lot rifles throughout history that have been perfectly reliable with no chrome lining. The M16 would also choke on ball powder ammo which was no problem with the M1 Garand,AK-47, and M14.

esh325 Says:

Sep 2, 2010 - @andyhuangit They tried to replace the M16 with the XM8, but it didn't go through. It's not easy switching rifles. The army themselves are attempting to upgrade M4 and improve its reliability.

nov284 Says:

Sep 2, 2010 - @andyhuangit ...a lot of people killed. Then the issues of slam firing. All of those got fixed, but not untill people died discovering problems with the p.o.s. But we still have a rifle that overheats faster than it should (that could be fixed with a simple, cheap mod), that can't stand any sort of grit in the receiver because of the poor design of the bolt carrier group. Not to mention the fact that the issued magazines are still shit. This rifle honestly has nothing to recomend it at all.

nov284 Says:

Sep 2, 2010 - @andyhuangit ....their rank on their collar because they'll never be promoted again." Hell, colt thought that the forward assist was a waste of time and money (even though I end up using it religiously). Then McNamara, blissfully ignorant of how maintenance intensive this rifle is, just like all the sheep that bleat about keeping them clean, decided, with no testing, that there was no need to chrome the chambers or the bores. Fortunately that got fixed, along with the timing issue that got...

nov284 Says:

Sep 2, 2010 - @andyhuangit The gas system is symptomatic of the stupidity involved. They wanted to shave a few ounces off the rifle, so they installed a system that contaminates the bolt with carbon, and heats up the entire receiver. McNamara ordered a review of the AR-15, got a negative result, shitcanned the guy, ordered a new test, and did this 4x untill someone wanted to keep their job bad enough to lie. The officers in the field were told, "anyone that criticizes this rifle may as well tattoo......

andyhuangit Says:

Sep 2, 2010 - If they had a problem with the gas system they would have scraped in 2 years. The millitary isn't that stupid enough when they look at equipment. Any corrupt moron would have been dealt with since the end of the cold war. The gas system must have fired at least 500 rounds before seeing any carbon build up plus their not firing it on full auto.

nov284 Says:

Sep 2, 2010 - @andyhuangit At first, they stuck by it to save the careers of the corrupt morons that supported it. Then, after a generation or so, people forgot what a reliable rifle was and thought that an M16 must be one. And never forget the mantra "if you keep it clean it will shoot." Don't mention the fact that the gas system causes the rifle to heat up at an absurd rate, or pay any attention to people who notice that the M16 is the only firearm they've ever handled that had to be clean to shoot....

nov284 Says:

Sep 2, 2010 - @ad855 actually, I think the DMR is an A1 lower (apparently the 3 round burst gives 3 different trigger pulls, depending on where the cam is set) with a match grade A4 upper with a scope, and special ammunition. I'm thinking of the Mk14EBR (enhanced battle rifle)

ad855 Says:

Sep 1, 2010 - M14 DMR Right??

andyhuangit Says:

Sep 1, 2010 - How? If it was that terrible they would it been swaped out 40 years from now.

nov284 Says:

Sep 1, 2010 - One last parting shot, to all the people who claim the 5.56 cartridge is effective, I say, get caught hunting deer in tennessee with one, and see how long it takes to get your rifle back. If I can't hunt deer with it because it doesn't kill reliably/quickly enough, I don't want to hunt people with it. Period.