Replies

The M14 was NEVER that great. It wasn't even in full service that long.
Heavy, lousy ergonomics for a combat rifle, and the FA feature was worthless. Magazine changes are slow and clumsy and the M16 is proving itself capable of better accuracy at actual combat ranges (300m and less). The m16/M4 is proving itself to be more versatile than the M14 could ever be.

It's only saving feature was the more potent 7.62, which would be negated in a 5.56mm carbine variant.

The opposite side of the coin is something like the Knights or Armalite 7.62mm based on the AR platform, which has a lot of fans.

I sold my M1A after 6 months, as it never lived up to more than a long-range target shooting semi-auto.

That's my story and I'm sticking with it.

The problem with the first M16's was that MacNamera pushed it through to be a cross service standard. Which was good to standardize between the branches. The sad thing was that it was supposed to have the parts chromed. MacNamera said no to the time and cost. The non-chromed M16 jammed due to rust in a tropical setting. Plus there is the argument between the wrong powder being used first.

The M16 has higher velocity than the M14 it has accuracy. The first had tumbling ammo. The bullet spun and tore thru the target. That little 5.56 (.223) did more damage to the body than the 7.76 M14 round. It fired faster. But it was also put into service too fast. SEAL's loved the little 5.56 "Stoner" MG. They have now gone to a 3-round burst auto, which means taking away the massive firepower capability.

As for the accuracy, 400 meters and a hit on a pop-up target is pretty good. As most combat is close.

The AK47 lasts in bad environs because when you talk to Kalishnikov the way it was built was with "wide tolerances" so when you get sand and dirt in it it will still shoot. I never had a misfire with the M16, nor with the Model 1911. The .9 mils had jams and misfires, had a 14 that would jam.

Against enemy troops the M16 is a great weapon or used to be. The M16A2 was it. The new one forces 3 round fire control thru design rather than training. Bigger is not always better. Training is number one. The US Military NEVER lost a major engagment in Viet Nam. But more rounds/per kill were fired in Viet Nam than any other time.

Look back to WWII. The M1 would take a lot. But the Rangers, Airborne, and most every line troop would spend down time cleaning weapons. Keep the M16, 14 etc... clean and it works no matter the bore size. Teach the soldiers to aim at targets not just in the general direction of "in front" and that is effective. The M1 Carbine with 30 caliber was non-effective. Read words from guys who used them the bullet was big but the power was not there. The Thompson was 45 cal and had stopping power but was not really accurate.

Of course we can argue longer about the best cup of coffee. Both are a matter of taste, And as with coffee, it does not matter how great it is if you can't hit the cup.