Posted on 02/09/2021 3:30:05 AM PST by marktwain
Before I graduated from high school, I overheard the older brother of a close friend talking about shooting a bear. The bear had been discovered in a den, during the Wisconsin deer season. As I recall, in 1968, such a harvest would have been legal.
The older brother was a Vietnam veteran. He approached the den with another vet. The brother suggested the other vet poke into the den to see if the bear were still there.
The other veteran said no, he would not do it. The brother said, well, in Vietnam, you went into holes to get Charlie.
Whereupon, the other veteran said: yes, but I had a different rifle then. (speaking of the M16).
He considered the M16 a superior gun for close-range bear defense than the common 30-30, whether Winchester 94 or Marlin 336.
At the time, I thought it strange someone would prefer a .223 semi-automatic rifle to a 30-30 or larger caliber rifle.
50 years and considerable time investigating actual defensive shootings of bears later, my opinion has become less certain.
Of the defensive bear shootings I have found, four of them were with rifles reasonably characterized as semi-automatic civilian versions of popular military rifles.
All four defensive shootings were successful. Modern sporting rifles most commonly are AR15 or AK47 style semi-automatic rifles. They are the most popular rifles in today’s America. It is certain more bears will be shot with them in the future. Here are the four incidents:
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Deer/bear hunting in 1968, then this would likely be the fall. By two Viet Vets? Then they were in Vietnam in mid 1968 at the latest.
According to a quick search, the M16 did not replace the M14 until 1969. I was there in Jan 69, carried the M14 and many units were being issued the M16 at the time. I specifically recall boarding a Caribou heading for the boonies seated by a butter bar and we had a discussion. He had just gotten his M16 and was not impressed.
Maybe some units were issued the M16 in 68, but very few. The author of this article could be confused.
My Dad served 3 tours in Vietnam and said the same thing. He wasn’t terribly impressed with the M14 either.
In my opinion, the M14 is still a better weapons. Just a lot heavier.
Range is not an issue with either of them. A lot more ammo is usually burned in a M16 vs a M14.
“In my opinion, the M14 is still a better weapons. Just a lot heavier.”
Agreed. I could shoot expert with the M14 with my eyes closed. I had a hard time transitioning over to the M16, I could not hit a barn if I were inside it.
I still favor traditional long rifles. But considering what’s going on today, anything that throws lead is OK with me.
I was in Vietnam central highlands 65 ~ 66. Was issued an M-14 with selector switch initially. However, was issued a M-16 towards the end of my tour. But, I also kept my M-14. I had access to lots of different weapons so I sometimes carried a Thompson just for the hell of it.
I digress, sorry. Anyway, it is possible they carried an M-16 in Nam in 1968. What I found odd was the idea that you went in a tunnel or cave network after an NVA or Viet Cong with an M-16. I know a former Marine tunnel rat. He had the bad luck to just barely meet the USMC height standards. He said the preferred weapon was an M1911. He said an M-16 would of been difficult to use in confined spaces. Side note, he became an EMT, joined the Navy Reserve in 2002, went to Iraq in 2004 did combat patrols as a Navy Corpsman with the Marines. Sounds like in this case, there was either a bit of hyperbole on the part of the Vets or the author.
Marine Corps boot camp Jan 1975....I am not THAT old.
I reload, have my rifle reloading pretty well in place. Until recently did not see the need for handgun reloading. Don't shoot much of it. Well, now I am scraping around to fix that issue and am in the market for a new handgun. Am looking for a Blackhawk 357 mag 6.5" barrel. (wife has a 357)
Have not been able to find the small pistol primers. Other than that, I have what I need now. It took some hunting, I'm cheap and don't overspend using scalper sources. (I don't on an AR or an AK type weapon.)
Couple of days ago I was able to buy a couple of hundred rounds of Hornady 30 caliber 150gr Interlock bullets. I did not hesitate when I saw it. Supply did not last long. They had limit of 2 BX. They still have the 180gr (common 30-06 deer load) in stock, but don't think I need that.
I cast bullets for my 30-30 and the handguns, makes cheap loads.
“We were the first series to not train with both the M14 and M-16.”
I went to Parris Island in January 1974, and they told us we were only the second series to go through with the M-16. Never saw the M-14 until later at Quantico
Tools of the trade. Good to have a selection.
I reload, have my rifle reloading pretty well in place. Until recently did not see the need for handgun reloading. Don't shoot much of it. Well, now I am scraping around to fix that issue and am in the market for a new handgun. Am looking for a Blackhawk 357 mag 6.5" barrel. (wife has a 357)
Have not been able to find the small pistol primers. Other than that, I have what I need now. It took some hunting, I'm cheap and don't overspend using scalper sources. (I don't on an AR or an AK type weapon.)
Couple of days ago I was able to buy a couple of hundred rounds of Hornady 30 caliber 150gr Interlock bullets. I did not hesitate when I saw it. Supply did not last long. They had limit of 2 BX. They still have the 180gr (common 30-06 deer load) in stock, but don't think I need that.
I cast bullets for my 30-30 and the handguns, makes cheap loads.
I was in Vietnam from 1969 to 1971. I had an M14 initially and it always worked fine. In mid 1970 they changed it for an M16 and that piece of junk jammed on me in 3 firefights.
Could the author have been having a beer with John “Deer Hunter” Kerry? If so, I think I know who ended up paying for the beer.
Getting into reloading for something right now is a bit difficult or could be expensive.
I reload for over 50 different cartridges straight wall pistol calibers like the 357 are some of the easiest to reload for.
The 5.56/308 M16/M14 debate will live on long after we die.
I have shot many heads of deer sized game with both.
Bullet placement is king.
That said for sport hunting purposes I prefer to carry calibers bigger than 223/5.56.
For self-defense purposes when I had one with me every day I preferred a 223/5.56 rifle. I had the option to carry what I wanted.
Size and weight does matter the 308/7.62x51 platforms are enough heavier and bigger to make them less handy.
Sitting in a fixed position where I wouldn’t have to hump a 308/7.62x51 sized rifle and ammo around.
It would be a very viable option.
Don’t try to change it. You said 1075.
Both had identical effective range, although the M14 had a greater Max Range.
The M16 had greater muzzle velocity. But early variants due to the twists of 1:14 were a little unstable. The so called tumble does occur on impact, but the round does not continue to tumble inside the body. The turning over effect of a .223 or 5.56 round on impact was not something new to the M-16. In the Seventies Marines I knew who used both in Vietnam claimed the M-16 round could be deflected by a tree twig. I have read that may have been true of early 1:14 models and mismatched ammo.
The two biggest complaints about the M14 were weight and through and through hits on a small enemy that did not utilize body armor. It did not knock down the target. Not sure how fair those assessments are. It did weight a little less then 3 pounds more than an M16. Supposedly, you carried the same amount of weight because you carried more ammo for an M16. It took a few tweaks before the M16 functioned as an effective combat weapon. They were still tweaking ammo and twist during the Iraq war. With time, changes in ammo and polymers it may have been possible to reduce the weight of the M14 and develop a round that created more hydrostatic shock at close range. I think had the M14 been kept around and tweaked the way the M16 was, it would have been a better weapon. There was a lot of Army politics going on favoring the M16. It was always my impression the the Corps liked their M14s. They reluctantly gave them up in the Seventies. I know my DIs preferred the M14 over the Mattel model rifles.
😂I guess that would make me really Old Corps
Besides the catastrophic jamming, it didn't kill reliably and I saw many VC take a hit and keep going. He may have died later but the immediate effect was to doubt the weapon. It also had crappy sights and the safety would jam on "safe" and it took beating it with a Kabar butt to move it to "fire".
My guess as to why the ARs and AKs are effective in these bear confrontations is that they fire several rounds very rapidly, overwhelming the bear. You'll note that none of these kills was with a single round.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.