Quoted:
It is if you consider using ammo that won't fit the magazine and must be single-loaded.
How does the AR compare to the M-14 in competitions that require using mil-spec issue ammo - even "match" military ammo? At ranges 600 yards and beyond?
Not to denigrate SSG Hatcher, he did an outstanding job. But he used a "service rifle" in name only.
View Quote
This has been pointed out already, but the M14 "service rifles" used in those competitions are also worlds away from the M14's issued to troops in the early sixties. Also, most M14's and M1A's used in 1000 yard competitions also are single loaded with ammunition that WONT fit in the magazine.
Among service people (not professional service sponsored competitors) armed with straight service rifles and straight service ammunition, you will see higher marksmanship scores among service people (assuming similar training) armed with the M16A2 than you will with the M14.
That doesn't mean that in pure service trim one rifle or the other is more mechanically accurate, only that in practice, wqhen the government switched to the M16, marksmanship performance improved.
Why? Because the M16 is easier to shoot. It is more ergonomically designed, it's weight is lower, it's recoil is lower and it controls that recoil better. None of this says anything about how hard it hits down range, but it seems to indicate that for the designed purpose of the rifles, the M16 is more efficient.
Remember, the designed purpose of an infantry rifle is not to engage targets at 600 meters or more. Time and time again it has been proven that infantry don't tend to engage targets further than 150-200 meters away, leaving those targets to mortars, artillery, grenadiers and machinegunners.
Here's another fact of life.
Take two squads of infantry. Arm one squad with the usual complement of infantry weapons (M16 rifles, SAW's, M60 or 240, M203s and radios) Arm the other with the same kit except replace the M16's with M14's. Assume that each squad has equal access to artillery, mortars, close air support, etc. Neither has prepared defenses, they are both maneuvering through the terrain/patrolling at the time of contact.
I guarantee you that the outcome will not hinge on riflery, but on tactical maneuver and effective use of fire support. And that's what counts in the real world. Military effectiveness as part of the total combat system. Sometimes a weapon that is superior in some respects to another weapon, is overlooked or rejected not on it's individual merits, but on how it fits in with the total system.
Service Rifle competition is not the real world.