Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 4/17/2002 2:46:56 PM EDT
I saw this on Battlerifles.com and decided to ask this question here.If you could only have one of the two rifles M14-M1A or M16-AR15 which rifle would you pick?
Link Posted: 4/17/2002 2:51:48 PM EDT
Tough choice of the two...

As much as I love my M4rgry and AR15 I think I'd go with an M1A1 Scout.
Link Posted: 4/17/2002 3:08:02 PM EDT
M-16A2
HUNTER FROM ARGENTINA
OUT.

CHECK THE HANDGUN FORUMS
Link Posted: 4/17/2002 3:13:19 PM EDT
35 years later, M-14s are still the one. Need a poll on this one, huh?
Link Posted: 4/17/2002 3:24:03 PM EDT
For me it is the M14/M1A.
Link Posted: 4/17/2002 3:40:09 PM EDT
M14 there is something warm and fuzzy about a .308 rifle but if I had too pack around a gun all day and probably wasn't going too get in trouble give me a m-16.
Link Posted: 4/17/2002 3:46:24 PM EDT
M16-AR15A2: The government knew what they were doing and made the right choice when they replaced the M14----and that waw 30+ years ago!
Link Posted: 4/17/2002 4:21:44 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/17/2002 4:24:02 PM EDT by Bostonterrier97]
M1A (M14). The Government made a big mistake with the M16 (like they did with the Chauchat Machine Gun during WWI - instead of adopting the Maxim or Vickers or Lewis machine guns)

They also made a big mistake with the M60 instead of just using the MG42 chambered in 7.62 NATO.

About the ONLY thing they did right was adopting the Garand as the Service Rifle during WWII.

They passed up the Lee "Enfield" (or Metford) and Mauser design in favor of the Krag Jorgenson in 1890.

Most of the decisions made on adopting a service rifle by the US government were due to politics and had nothing to do with the actual rifle's performance.

If we are talking about .223 rifles ONLY then the Sig550 whips the AR design hands down.

Is the 7.62 NATO or 5.56 NATO the BEST service round ? No. The 6.5x55 mm Swedish round is BETTER.

The 260 Remington or 6.5-08 is a better round as well.

Link Posted: 4/17/2002 5:08:53 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/17/2002 5:25:08 PM EDT
If I had to choose one in semi auto configuration it would be the M-14 hands down. I've said it before and I'll say it again, "all things being equal there is no substitute for a big hole".
Link Posted: 4/17/2002 5:26:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/17/2002 5:31:15 PM EDT by ThunderStick]
M16A2 more ammo, lighter weight, more options. Although I love my M14-A1.

BTW, a .308 inch hole isn't much bigger than a .223 inch hole (.085" -- 8.5 hundredths). A .50 inch hole is another story.

Link Posted: 4/17/2002 5:33:48 PM EDT
My friend who went to Nam had the choice, and he chose M14. He came back in one piece, so I'm going with his choice.

His favorite was the chopper-mounted Minigun. Can I pick that?
Link Posted: 4/17/2002 5:41:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/17/2002 5:42:26 PM EDT by Redmanfms]
M1A

Will shoot dry (no lube). Can get very dirty and still work. Has a closed gas system that doesn't shoot crap into the action. Field-stripping doesn't yield easily lost tiny parts and pins. Chambered for a cartridge that has better long-range performance and accuracy, and better penetration. Best iron sights ever. Neat looking.
Link Posted: 4/17/2002 5:59:13 PM EDT
Thank Armilite for the AR-10!

I have both AR and M1A.I love BOTH of them.
AR-10 was first.IMHO

When utilizing the thought of smaller,lighter
means more;5.56mm Wins.BECAUSE DEAD IS DEAD!
The wound damage becomes a moot point because more bullets means potentially more casualties/kia's.IF you insist on 7.62mm(.308)GET AN AR-10.lol If I can't have an AR-10,then
AR-15 will be the primary weapon of choice 'cause THAT'S what is the most abundant
ammo and spare parts AND options too.The AR-10
Is the only other choice for me.The choice is
a TOUGH one to make though!AR-15?..M1A?
hmmmmm?
Link Posted: 4/17/2002 6:01:18 PM EDT
M-14/M1A- If I have to pull the bolt back and count on a round getting chambered, I can count on it, always.

The bullet is already pretty much aligned at the throat of the chamber before it leaves the mag, just like an AK, a common sense design feature that eliminates alot of potential jamming problems.

An AR has a bit more of a journey, with quite a few flat surfaces, and cavities for a bullet to get stuck in or jammed against if not occurring in a precise amount of time. Add in a weird spring, mag lips, or crud, and that precise time dissappears quickly.

My Bushmaster is a bit more of a pull on a slot machine whenever I pull back the charging handle, though it works 99.7% of the time.
Link Posted: 4/17/2002 6:04:22 PM EDT
M16A2. The ergonomics of this rifle are a vast leap over the M1A/M14. I can live with the lower powered cartridge.
Link Posted: 4/17/2002 6:19:24 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ThunderStick:
M16A2 more ammo, lighter weight, more options. Although I love my M14-A1.

BTW, a .308 inch hole isn't much bigger than a .223 inch hole (.085" -- 8.5 hundredths). A .50 inch hole is another story.




Actually Mr. Not Quite Know It All, a 5.56mm aka .223 round measures .224. A 7.62mm aka .308 measures .308 that's a difference of .084 not .085. The difference between a 7.62mm and a .50 BMG is .192 a little less than twice the difference between the 5.56mm and 7.62mm. But what your saying is a .308 is bigger than a .223
Link Posted: 4/17/2002 6:31:47 PM EDT
.224 and .308 are diameter lengths.

If you want to talk about the area of the bullet cross-section, the .308 cross section is 189% of the .223 cross section.
Link Posted: 4/17/2002 6:38:34 PM EDT
M16 Hands down. I have seen to many M14s blow up (into pieces). The M16 handles blow ups better. plus more rds. ease of carry. Not knocking the .308 just the M14
Link Posted: 4/17/2002 6:41:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/17/2002 6:51:04 PM EDT by Sukebe]

Originally Posted By Blaze-Of-Glory:
.224 and .308 are diameter lengths.

If you want to talk about the area of the bullet cross-section, the .308 cross section is 189% of the .223 cross section.



I was just trying to point out how full of Sh*t some folks can be sometimes. In essence what we're saying is a .308 is bigger than a .223. Which illustrates my original point which was "all things being equal there is no substitute for a big hole".
Link Posted: 4/17/2002 6:42:24 PM EDT

M16 ..... with M203!
Link Posted: 4/17/2002 7:30:56 PM EDT


Link Posted: 4/17/2002 7:36:34 PM EDT
M1A, although I currently have two of both rifles.

Like the larger calibre and longer effective range.
Link Posted: 4/17/2002 7:53:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Redmanfms:
M1A

Chambered for a cartridge that has better long-range performance and accuracy, and better penetration. Best iron sights ever. Neat looking.



I beg to differ. In the anal-retentive world of benchrest, an AR has shot an official screamer (5 shots less than .25 inches at 200 yards). I haven't had my A2 sights self adjust on me, but my M1 and M1A have lost elevation during extended firing.

SRM
Link Posted: 4/17/2002 8:29:28 PM EDT
For an AR15 board, there are a lot of people who prefer something else.

I prefer the AR15 for everyday use. If I want to reach out and touch someone or need a big hole, I will use my M1 Garand.

I admit I have a bias against the M14/M1A because it replaced the M1. Purely emotional, I know. Just the way I feel.
Link Posted: 4/17/2002 8:40:44 PM EDT
Neither... I'd reach for the FAL
Link Posted: 4/17/2002 8:41:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
For an AR15 board, there are a lot of people who prefer something else.


Really, what the hell is this, m14.com?

I wonder how much all of this 223 v 308 hole stuff matters in the real world. Even if someone just punched a little hole in me, I would be seriously rethinking my priorities. IMHO, the chief advantages of 308 is wind resistance at long range and superior penetration of cover. In regards to the wind, most people can not shoot far enough where that matters. In regards to penetration, I question how valuable that is to a rifleman (as opposed to a machinegunner), because it is problematic to shoot what you can not see.
Link Posted: 4/17/2002 9:15:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Sukebe:

Originally Posted By Blaze-Of-Glory:
.224 and .308 are diameter lengths.

If you want to talk about the area of the bullet cross-section, the .308 cross section is 189% of the .223 cross section.



I was just trying to point out how full of Sh*t some folks can be sometimes. In essence what we're saying is a .308 is bigger than a .223. Which illustrates my original point which was "all things being equal there is no substitute for a big hole".



Hey zipperhead,

Ever had to help out guys hit with either round? I'll say this, "If its under 200yds and has To Whom It May Concern on it.........well, I hope it's .308". Do you have any gd clue as to how each ball round behaves under 200yds with @ 20" barrels? I bring up 200yds because it is relevant for numerous reasons.

Of the ones that survived, the .308 wounded seem to fair better.

Dave S

Where the hell are the Forensic(da-da-damn, really is a great F word) Doc members when some are no longer full of it because they defecated all over the post. When you bring math to the table have it on the right page like B-O-G(though he still chose the wrong caliber, if we are still using ball ammo). BTW, I humped the M40A1 and I'm hot for the .308 round. But, dammit to hell, you 7.62 lovers are nuts if you think the 5.56 makes a more kinder, gentler, civilized wound than the 7.62 under most contact conditions. Friggin' nuts!
Link Posted: 4/17/2002 9:39:36 PM EDT
Well, if ya really want to make an impression......



Link Posted: 4/17/2002 9:52:01 PM EDT
M-14 are too damn big,32" are better than 48"

A2 carbine
Link Posted: 4/17/2002 9:55:48 PM EDT
This post is asking an unqualified answer to a simple question. I will take the M-14 because it is the weapon with the longer effective range simply because you can engage targets effectively before they can engage you.

Link Posted: 4/17/2002 9:56:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/17/2002 9:57:59 PM EDT by SGB]
So far we have 1112 for M-14
...............11 for M-16
................6 BS
................1 FAL{not on he menu}
Link Posted: 4/17/2002 9:59:25 PM EDT
Minigun. If not chopper-mounted, then like the one in Predator.
Link Posted: 4/17/2002 10:09:20 PM EDT

Link Posted: 4/18/2002 12:55:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/18/2002 1:31:59 AM EDT by tdkak]
Hmmm,I will say the M16 has made it place in this the New World of Urban Operations.However I think that the M14 is starting to make a comeback.The Marines new Designated Marksman Rifle more or less the company level Sniper rifle,is a M14 with match barrel,suppressor and sniper scope.
I like the M14 style rifles better it may not fill all the niches but it can do a pretty good job tryin.
As for the M16,its the dumbing down rifle,they dont teach Marksmanship in the Army like they used too.The Navy and Air Force dont teach true Marksmanship either.
Marines and Special Forces are the only real riflemen in the service today,they all fire the Known Distance Course.Now this does not mean all Marines and special forces are great shots but they have a much higher standard than the ARMY or the other services have.
The idea behind the M16 rather any of you want to admit it or not is to train men as cheaply as possible,give them hi capacity mags and large volumes of ammunition to make up for their defects in training.
The M14 was the last of the riflemans rifles.
But i dont care what it is i dont want to be shot with anything,ive been shot with a pellet and it hurt like hell.
Link Posted: 4/18/2002 1:34:23 AM EDT
FAL 16" barrel
Link Posted: 4/18/2002 2:28:56 AM EDT
I cannot realistically own an M-16. Just don't have the cash. The same way I cannot own an M14.

That leaves me with the semi-auto versions of those rifles... The AR-15 and the M1A.

If it were full auto... the M16, easier to control and I can carry more ammo. In the semi-auto versions... I'd go with the larger caliber. In a rifle where only one aimed shot counts at a time, I'd go with the largest controllable round I could handle in a battle rifle. For me that'd be the .308. As far as .308's, the FAL is "dogcrap" compared to the Springfield Armory M1A. That is only an opinion... but it's my opinion, therefore it's the only opinion I care about .

Summary...

M16 vs M14...... M16

AR-15 vs M1A ...... M1A

Semi vs full auto makes a LOT of difference in this poll.
Link Posted: 4/18/2002 3:14:43 AM EDT
I respect the M1A greatly, but would definitely take the 16. The increased ammo capacity alone is a great asset, and anyone that has problems with M16 / AR15 reliability with today's versions of the weapon just don't have a damn clue as to how to maintain the thing.

The 16 is lethal out to 300 yards and beyond, and it is proven fact that almost all military infantry engagements occur at less than 200 yards, with the vast majority actully being at less than 150 yards. Within the realistic kill zone you will kill with the 16 and have more chances because of more ammo, than you will with the 14. BTW, as the frag tests indicate, I would rather be hit by a .308 anyday over a .223, it's a nasty little bitch. Not that I really want to experience either of course.

Light weight, more ammo, equal or greater lethality, and plenty of realistic range. 16 wins hands down in my opinion. If the SHTF you guys with 14's go ahead and sit back at 600 or 700 yards trying to hit a goddamn thing with it while the rest of us go out and do some real fighting.
Link Posted: 4/18/2002 4:35:18 AM EDT
Take a well-trained Fire Team, armed with M14s, and pit them against a well-trained Fire Team, armed with M4s (with Aimpoints, as they're often issued these days).

Who'd do well from 10m-50m?

Who'd do well from 50m-100m?

Who'd do well from 100m-200m?

Who'd do well from 200m-300m?

Who'd do well from 300m-500m?

At what range will most combat occur?
In what enviroment? (hint: URBAN)

Use your common sense, not your sentimental attachment to an old favorite.
Link Posted: 4/18/2002 4:38:42 AM EDT
I've owned both. The M1-A didn't do anything I can't do just as well with a Remington 700 at the ranges where the ballistic advantage of the .308 becomes important. I got rid of the M1-A, still have and use AR's.
Link Posted: 4/18/2002 5:03:57 AM EDT
Let me get this straight. The M-14 was built in fewer numbers than any other US military rifle of the 20th century. It served as standard in the US inventory for a shorter period of time than anything else. No one else in the world adapted it, except for a hand full of countries that we either gave them to or couldn't get anything else (ie Taiwan). Yet it is somehow the greatest weapon ever produced. A legendary target rifle that few people use anymore.

Nope. M-16 all the way.
Link Posted: 4/18/2002 5:21:21 AM EDT

Now isn't this much more fun than Israeli debates?

I do like the AR10 as a nice balance of the power and the ergonomics.
Link Posted: 4/18/2002 5:32:28 AM EDT
You guys are forgetting that a civilian can use any kind of bullet he wants.

That makes the m16 much more lethal(v-max, powerpoint)

A Sierra 168 BTHP will make the M14 even more effective.

I'd grab my M1A and give my Ar-15 to the neighbors.
Link Posted: 4/18/2002 8:10:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DaveS:

Originally Posted By Sukebe:

Originally Posted By Blaze-Of-Glory:
.224 and .308 are diameter lengths.

If you want to talk about the area of the bullet cross-section, the .308 cross section is 189% of the .223 cross section.



I was just trying to point out how full of Sh*t some folks can be sometimes. In essence what we're saying is a .308 is bigger than a .223. Which illustrates my original point which was "all things being equal there is no substitute for a big hole".



Hey zipperhead,

Ever had to help out guys hit with either round? I'll say this, "If its under 200yds and has To Whom It May Concern on it.........well, I hope it's .308". Do you have any gd clue as to how each ball round behaves under 200yds with @ 20" barrels? I bring up 200yds because it is relevant for numerous reasons.

Of the ones that survived, the .308 wounded seem to fair better.

Dave S

Where the hell are the Forensic(da-da-damn, really is a great F word) Doc members when some are no longer full of it because they defecated all over the post. When you bring math to the table have it on the right page like B-O-G(though he still chose the wrong caliber, if we are still using ball ammo). BTW, I humped the M40A1 and I'm hot for the .308 round. But, dammit to hell, you 7.62 lovers are nuts if you think the 5.56 makes a more kinder, gentler, civilized wound than the 7.62 under most contact conditions. Friggin' nuts!



Yes the 5.56mm makes a nasty wound channel with the right bullet from a barrel with the right rate of twist. That is, if there is nothing in the way to deflect it. I'll use someone else's sig line, can't remember whose it was. "what is cover for a 5.56mm is merely concealment for a 7.62mm" or words to that effect.
Link Posted: 4/18/2002 8:23:37 AM EDT
M16A2. Sorry you guys, but for ALL AROUND use I feel you cannot beat it.

And if the situation required something 7.62, I would take my FAL.
Link Posted: 4/18/2002 9:55:02 AM EDT
Depends upon the general situation.

Given the restriction to either an AR or a M1A:

If it is a SHTF situation, the AR is real attractive since I can stockpile and carry a lot of ammo. The magazines are also a lot less expensive than M14 20 rounders so I can afford to stock in more of those as well.

The wound ballistics of the 5.56mm round and range I'd have to give up are problematic, but then I live in New England, the longest ranges we would typically have to deal with around here are pretty short except along highway and powerline cuts. In the woods, typical visible range between the hills and the trees is under 200 meters.

Also considering the local terrain, it would be a heck of a lot easier to carry an AR than an M1A. I also like the stability of the AR platform as compared to the basic M1A wood stock (which moves with the weather).

As far as the extreme range capability of the .308 is concerned, in a SHTF scenario, if the target/enemy is far enough away that the .308 yields a decisive advantage, chances are, if I go stealthy, they will pass me and mine by. If I start cranking rounds off at them at 600-800 yards, I've just invited an Arse-Whooping on myself. I'd rather not do that.

Conditions being different I might choose differently.

If we open the discussion up to more general terms, I'd choose an AR-10 for it's greater inherent shootability. Chrome lined chamber and barrel for durability. Caliber: .243 Win (but only if I can have the chrome linings). The .243 extends my range and lethality out a ways, is still lighter than the .308 and has lower recoil. If I cannot have chrome, then .308 wins. The better ergonomic layour and recoil control design of the AR-10 reduces some of the biggest issues with the .308 combat rifle. Something like RRA's LE carry handle (with the flat top rail forward of the A2 sight) provides the best of both worlds.

But that's just dreamin'

Stuck with the AR or M1A choice, I guess I'd go with the increased ammo and shootability of the AR (though my M1A is a frighteningly good Prone gun).
Link Posted: 4/18/2002 10:20:09 AM EDT
m16 becouse at the range were most combat happens the 5.56 does a damn good job
Link Posted: 4/18/2002 11:27:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/18/2002 1:59:43 PM EDT by ThunderStick]
Sukebe,

Your quote said "no substitute for a big hole" not bigger hole. My reading comprehension is excellent. Read what I wrote not what you imagine I wrote. My opinion is that .308 is not a "big hole", get it?

As to big holes, 9mm .38 .45ACP make a nice sized holes, but does it incapacitate more than .223 or .308? My opinion is that size may or may not matter. It depends, got it? So a quote about "no substitute for a big hole" is not informative or relevant.

BTW, I have never claimed to know it all about anything. I am merely expressing my opinion on the topic. There is no need to stoop to insults because you disagree. I am not attacking your manhood. Did you invent .308 cal.? Why the hell are you so sensitive and defensive about .308? You like it? Well great! Tell us why it is so great, and leave me out of your posts.

Bigger Hole Logic:
.38 special is better than .308 because it makes a bigger hole. Answer: Maybe. .38 special would be better at close range in an urban environment because it can be carried concealed. .38 special is not superior because it makes a bigger hole. But, it MAY be better in certain situations. You can't conceal an M-14.

Hole size is relative. The MOST important thing is what happens AFTER the entrance wound hole is created. Actual scientific testing indicates that .223 has superior fragmentation/injury creation properties, so your slightly "bigger hole" is meaningless (note to Sukebe, this is my opinion).

Please refrain from your insults and denigrations (i.e. "full of sh*t" "know it all"). Try to answer with relevant opinions in a calm dignified manner.
Link Posted: 4/18/2002 1:52:19 PM EDT
Gents I would choose the M16/AR15.

I have and love both rifles but the bottom line is that Mags are easier to find, parts are numerous and available, simple design, fits me well and I have been trained to use it. This is an accurate rifle with good range.

I know Marines who do not care for the M16. So what? Everyone has an opinion.

I have the opportunity to have both, so I do. I suggest you do the same.



max
Link Posted: 4/18/2002 2:01:53 PM EDT

What Ameshawki said.
Link Posted: 4/18/2002 6:13:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ThunderStick:
Sukebe,

Your quote said "no substitute for a big hole" not bigger hole. My reading comprehension is excellent. Read what I wrote not what you imagine I wrote. My opinion is that .308 is not a "big hole", get it?

As to big holes, 9mm .38 .45ACP make a nice sized holes, but does it incapacitate more than .223 or .308? My opinion is that size may or may not matter. It depends, got it? So a quote about "no substitute for a big hole" is not informative or relevant.

BTW, I have never claimed to know it all about anything. I am merely expressing my opinion on the topic. There is no need to stoop to insults because you disagree. I am not attacking your manhood. Did you invent .308 cal.? Why the hell are you so sensitive and defensive about .308? You like it? Well great! Tell us why it is so great, and leave me out of your posts.

Bigger Hole Logic:
.38 special is better than .308 because it makes a bigger hole. Answer: Maybe. .38 special would be better at close range in an urban environment because it can be carried concealed. .38 special is not superior because it makes a bigger hole. But, it MAY be better in certain situations. You can't conceal an M-14.

Hole size is relative. The MOST important thing is what happens AFTER the entrance wound hole is created. Actual scientific testing indicates that .223 has superior fragmentation/injury creation properties, so your slightly "bigger hole" is meaningless (note to Sukebe, this is my opinion).

Please refrain from your insults and denigrations (i.e. "full of sh*t" "know it all"). Try to answer with relevant opinions in a calm dignified manner.




Who's being sensitive and defensive? Looks like I've made a new cyber friend.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top