[LSUfan]

The M-14 was underrated and never got the opportunity to evolve, like the M16 did. Had the M-14 gone through the design evolution that the M16 experienced, who knows what would have transpired. The M-14, incidentally, did away with the M-1 Garand “ping” due to its detachable box magazine.

Something else that never gets mentioned: The Israeli Defense Forces replaced their domestically manufactured Galil, which has the Kalashnivov action, with the M-16. AK fans claim the decision was purely economic, but I remember reading that the IDF put the two rifles through head to head tests and found the M-16 to be more desirable. They had no problem with its reliability evidently.

Incidentally, my admiration for the M-16 does not extend to the M-4 Carbine, which, from all accounts, has reliability problems stemming from its short barrel, which causes the gas system problems. I think the M-4 is a mistake.

[gandalftb]

The other problem was that it was so recognizable to the enemy and they knew only NCOs carried them. My Dad was one of 12 surviving sergeants out of 24 in his company on Saipan, carried a Thompson only, loved it. The M-4 was very light, portable, good for close in fighting, round was a little weak. Short barrel is very easy to swing, the Marines are allowing carbine variants and flat top receivers now for the M-16. Folding stocks are being considered also.

The M-14 in my opinion is the most accurate semi-automatic ever made. Used to have one, too heavy for deer hunting, geez, getting old. Carry an AR-15 now. Funny we shipped 8,000 M-16s to the Israelis for distribution to the Palestinian Defense Force, first thing they asked for and threw away their AKs.