I was just wondering how many of you also own and shoot an M1A/M14 , and what are your thoughts on this fine weapon?

I have an M1A.  I can't speak for others but mine is very reliable.  It feeds commercial/surplus ammo very well without a hitch.  I like it.

well I personally love my ar15 and my M1A. they are great target rifles. all though the ar15 i would not use deer hunting i love the way my M1A performs in the snow and cold of michigan's winter. I love the M1A's rugedness and reliability. which is why I have made it my choice for a deer rifle for 2 years now. all around I love this rifle for the qualities my AR15 does not have.

I have a Poly Tech M-14S with a mix of Chinese and U.S.G.I. parts. It's a standard grade, no bells or whistles. It shoots 1.5 to 2 MOA and is rugged and reliable. I shoot it more often than any other SUR that I own. One of the few instances where the son (M-14) is better than the father(M-1).

My first assault rifle was an M1A.

Been broke buying company for it ever since.

I like shooting my AR-15 and AR10 better but that M1A has a special place in my cabinet.

Quoted: My first assault rifle was an M1A. .

Can you really call a M1A an 'assault rifle?'

The M1A is part of my Big Three - the M1, the M1A, and the AR15.

The order I put those three will depend upon the intended use.

But YES - you SHOULD own an M1A. Mine is done in a match setup, but a stocker is fine also.

For your first .308, it is a great choice. Well supported, and ruler of DCM matches for decades.

I like the M1A over the FAL, the AK, and that weenie mousegun for **** ******: the AR15.

The M1A is a REAL mans Rifle. It shoots bullets that can slam through all kinds of ****. Buck the wind in a blizzard. Whereas the pissant bullets from the AR get blown to hell as soon as a little breeze picks up.

Quoted: I like the M1A over the FAL, the AK, and that weenie mousegun for***** *******: the AR15. The M1A is a REAL mans Rifle. It shoots bullets that can slam through all kinds of sh*t. Buck the wind in a blizzard. Whereas the pissant bullets from the AR get blown to hell as soon as a little breeze picks up.

Are your comments based on experience

ColtShorty

GOA KABA COA JPFO SAF NRA

"I won't be wronged,  I won't be insulted
and I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do
these things to other people and I require
the same from them."

Like garandman says, you gotta have all three. I shoot the mousegun best but still shoot my M14 Style rifle in matches because I enjoy it more.  We have been holding garand matches after the regular matches and that has really been an enjoyable shoot.  I'm still a L-O-N-G way from top dog, but it's interesting how much closer I get when the space guns are put up and we all shoot stock garands.

I've got the Garand and the M1A still - both fine rifles and I don't feel too bad armed with one. I'd rather have an AR but with things such as they are here in the people's republic of California we do with what we can. I just don't understand the sheep here in this state.

Quoted: I like the M1A over the FAL, the AK, and that weenie mousegun for ***** *******: the AR15. The M1A is a REAL mans Rifle. It shoots bullets that can slam through all kinds of sh*t. Buck the wind in a blizzard. Whereas the pissant bullets from the AR get blown to hell as soon as a little breeze picks up.

I agree! But I still love my "***** ******* gun"
GG

The M1A was my first military style rifle,it holds a special place with me.However,it has taken a far back seat to my newly discovered love....THE AR-10.

Bostonterrier --

Which war did you carry both the M14 and M16 so you could make a direct comparison under field conditions?  How did you carry 22 M14 magazines?

-- Chuck

M-14 neeeds more maintanance, BS. more vulnerable to elements, another crock of s**t. They have only changed because they have gone with the rest of their peers. You can take a M14 and baseball wack someone in the face and the weapon will be in one peice. Another Cracker jack box moderator. You can lie and dream all you want but the M14 is a more robust battle rifle, and the AR is a mouse assault rifle, to different species of weaponry, so dont compare them.
GG

I believe there is a difference in opinon here!!

I've got a Springfield NM M1A and a couple of AR's. They are all fine weapons. Each type has its advantages. I wouldn't give up any of them. I also think its pointless to argue which type is better. My .02

Originally Posted By Gun Guru: M-14 neeeds more maintanance, BS. more vulnerable to elements, another crock of s**t. They have only changed because they have gone with the rest of their peers. You can take a M14 and baseball wack someone in the face and the weapon will be in one peice. Another Cracker jack box moderator. You can lie and dream all you want but the M14 is a more robust battle rifle, and the AR is a mouse assault rifle, to different species of weaponry, so dont compare them. well said, couldn't have said it better my self. GG

The M14 only requires more maint. for competition, you you typed "issue weapons" As I said in my first post " I love my AR-15" but in some other words. As far as gumsmiths and shooters, agreeing with anything would be a miracle in itself, they never agree except that firearms are cool. I know this is AR-15 .com, maybe I shouldnt back any gun other than an AR-15 even if the other gun has some better properties. The crackerjack remark has something to do with people being moderators and thinking they are automatic wizards of the AR and other makes. What do you do to be a mod., change coke to pepsi or what?  Poreso, tenga buen dia.
GG

You phoughkk with Tipp and most of us will kick your ass.I will only drive 300 miles,where are you?
cpermd

Quoted: The vast majority of records that were held by M14/M1A's have been broken, or tied by the M16/AR15. In the last 8 years, both the USMC, and the USAMU have changed from the M14 to the M16 for competition, even out to 1000 yds.

This sounds like it has more to do with the M16 being an inherently more accurate rifle than the M14 (which it is) than the 5.56x45 being better at bucking the wind than the 7.62x51 (which it most definitely isn't.) Hitting a paper target at 1000 yards only requires that the bullet make it there - there's no requirement for the bullet to kill a person, like there is with sniper rifles.

The M14 requires more maintenance, and is more  vulnerable to ammo, weather, and cleaning.

More maintenance? You have to be talking about NM and SM versions with bedded stocks, because other than cleaning I perform ZERO maintenance on my M1A. My AR requires quite a bit more time and effort to clean for approximately the same level of reliability.

How exactly is an M1A more vulnerable to weather than an AR15? Do you mean shifting points of impacts due the the wood swelling or shrinking? Use a GI fiberglass stock. Take a look at what our own SpecOps choose for extreme cold or desert climates - it's not the M16.

Ammo problems? Look on any forum on this site and you'll see someone telling about how this ammo, or that ammo, didn't work at all in their AR - "don't use Wolf!" "don't use Malaysian!" - but you'll NEVER hear anyone say that the only thing that works in their M1A is new factory or top-quality surplus stuff. The M1A even eats up CAVIM that the FAL shooters avoid like the plague. I've picked up 20+ year old 7.62x51 from the ground at OPs on Ft Bragg back in the late 80s, pried the links off, tumbled the rounds for a bit to get most of the crud off, and fired them through my M1A without any problems whatsoever - rough cases with green patches and all. I've used Norinco junk where the primers would pierce, pop out, or set back on every round fired, but it didn't stop the gun. I'd say the AR is MUCH more ammo-sensitive than the M1A.

If we are speaking of "issue" type weapons, the M16 has a much longer service life, and is less expensive.

But neither of these were mentioned by the person you quoted and have no bearing at all on his question. If one of each was bought today and had 1000 rounds fired through it per week, I doubt one would last appreciably longer than the other before needing to be rebuilt or junked.

I still love my M14s, but in todays competition, you will be behind the power curve if you show up with one.

Sure can't argue with that. The AR15 is a better competition rifle because it takes less work to make it accurate, and will maintain that accuracy almost indefinitely.

If you can't read the wind, then don't shoot.

I don't think the shooter's wind-reading ability is what's up for debate here. A light bullet is going to be moved more than a heavy bullet subject to the same wind, which means the possible error will be bigger for the lighter bullet. Nothing more, nothing less. I know I'd rather try to estimate a 30" hold-off than a 60" hold-off.

Quoted: Bostonterrier -- Which war did you carry both the M14 and M16 so you could make a direct comparison under field conditions?  How did you carry 22 M14 magazines? -- Chuck

Perhaps what you're referring to was in his post before it got edited, but right now he makes no mention of either gun being better in the field. He merely said (rightly) that the 7.62x51 penetrates more and bucks the wind better.

Personally, 9 loaded M14 mags and 3 bandoleers are about all I can handle for the long haul and still carry the rest of the gear I need (I've done it for a week before.) I suppose that does mean I could handle 15-18 loaded mags for the same weight, though, if I had enough room on my belt for all those pouches. I personally don't feel under-gunned with "only" 360 rounds of 7.62x51 - you might not be able to carry as much of it, but you also can't fire it as fast so it kinda evens out in the end. Besides, you gotta figure that every grunt in a squad was carrying 200 rounds of 7.62x51 for the M60, in addition to his own basic load, up till 5 years ago or so.

Chuck--

I do not personally own a M1A (yet), but my old man used both the M14 and the M16 in Vietnam. He does state that he liked the
14 and thought it was very accurate and rugged, but he preferred the M16 because he found it to be more accurate and controllable during burst fire. He does also add that the first M16s issued "had problems" and by the time his unit was issued them, the bugs were worked out of it and it was very good rifle (at least his was).

As for competition shooting, I've done quite a bit of reading on the subject while preparing to head out to Perry (hoped to make it this year, but things did not work out). It seems the ARs real advantage is that it is relatively easy and inexpensive to setup for service rifle and requires little maintenence to keep shooting well. It also seems to be a bit more accurate. Most people are also quick to add that this does not mean you cannot compete with a M1A and win. The AR just has a bit of an advantage.

For general shooting, you really cannot go wrong with either.

I see this thread has "degenerated" from which is the better weapon to which is the better match rifle .  Ummmm, the M16A2 wins on both counts.

Don't let anyone try to fool you though, firepower is what wins gun fights, not long range aimed single shots.  In the jungle, in the desert, in trenches, and in Watts.

-- Chuck

I love my M1A.  If I could only have one battle rifle this would be it.  Sorry AR15.com guys...I had to say it.  My AR comes 2nd only to my M1A.

Quoted: Don't let anyone try to fool you though, firepower is what wins gun fights, not long range aimed single shots.  In the jungle, in the desert, in trenches, and in Watts. -- Chuck

Firepower doesn't win fights, HITS do. The 7.62 is more likely to hit the target because it can penetrate more cover and concealment and it isn't affected by wind on the way to the target as much as the 5.56. After all, your target isn't just going to stand there and let you shoot at him - he's going to drop down behind something that you'll have to shoot through if you want to hit him.

As far as the weapons themselves, I can remember my M16A2 getting so clogged with sand after an hour or 2 on the move that the bolt would barely move. I was cleaning it as often as I could - usually 5-6 times a day - but you can't just stop the whole formation every half hour or so for weapons cleaning. We ended up just using cans of CRC silicone spray (that our launcher crews had for cleaning limit switches in their launchers) and blowing as much sand out as we could, and hoping that the armor and mech infantry a klick ahead of us didn't let anything sneak by. Would my M16 have jammed for certain? I don't know. I do know that I had to work the bolt back and forth while spraying silicone spray into the locking lug area before it would come completely free. I've had my M1A as dirty as I've ever seen an M16 and the only differences I noticed were the "sandpaper on sandpaper" sound (felt vibrations, really) coming from the moving parts, and the trigger pull getting heavier due to grit in the trigger. If I can find an AR15 owner willing to subject his rifle to being fired when extremely dirty, without benefit of cleaning (to simulate suddenly having to fight without having had time to clean your weapon) then I'll do the same thing with my M1A. I'm already 99.9% certain the results will be the same as the Mini-14/CAR15 torture test a friend and I did years go, however.

HN --

Bullet strikes are what counts.  Mostly, don't underestimate supression.  Bullet strikes in combat, however, resemble random events despite aiming.  Aiming isn't useless, it just makes hits more likely, not certain.  The more bullets downrange, the more hits; the more bullets downrange the less likely the other guys will be shooting back while you maneuver.  That's firepower.  Volume of fire, call it what you want.  It's what wins fights everywhere.  Heck, it wins paintball fights .

Aimed fire remains an elusive goal, but the soldier needs to protect himself as well.  Aiming point is center of mass, but bullets strike anywhere or miss entirely despite nice tight groups on the range.

Faster velocity bullets minimize trajectory height and minimize range error.  They don't require the soldier to extimate range before shooting, their trajectories are flat enough to eliminate range error from the event.  No "hold over" to make the shooter have to think about the shot. 5.56mm Ball is several hundred fps faster than 7.62mm NATO and the higher sight position creates a battlesight that's several times more likely to strike the target.  This has been documented since the Army's Hall Study in the early 1950s.

Light recoiling weapons are easier to bring back on target or move to the next target.

So with the M16A2 or other 5.56mm rifle we have a higher probablity of hits from individual cartridges and a bullet with several times the wounding potential.  On a bullet for bullet basis the M16A2 has a much higher probability of hit and probability of kill [a large wound] than the M14.  Now add in the ability of a soldier to carry a much larger amount of this more effective ammo and the effectiveness gets multiplied again.  

An M14 rifle plus 9 loaded magazines (1 in the rifle and 8 in 4 each pouches) weighs 24 pounds and is a double basic load.  24 pounds for 180 rounds of ammo.  M16A2 rifle, for that same 24 pound load can carry 436 rounds of better penetrating M855 Ball with a higher probability of hit/kill.

Beyond normal combat ranges 7.62mm NATO has advantages over 5.56mm NATO, but that's rarely a concern and is the realm of machineguns.  

Saudi sand as churned up by armored vehicles is tough to keep out of everything.  

-- Chuck

Quoted: If you can't read the wind, then don't shoot.

I have SO MUCH to learn

The M14 / M1A is a wonderfull rifle.

NH2112; I missed your discussion about the Mini-14/CAR 15 test.  How about a short summary?  I'd much rather learn from your test than try it!

Originally Posted By Gun Guru: M-14 neeeds more maintanance, BS. more vulnerable to elements, another crock of s**t. They have only changed because they have gone with the rest of their peers. You can take a M14 and baseball wack someone in the face and the weapon will be in one peice. Another Cracker jack box moderator. You can lie and dream all you want but the M14 is a more robust battle rifle, and the AR is a mouse assault rifle, to different species of weaponry, so dont compare them. GG

HA HA HA HA...

Cracker jack box moderator.

Talk about dost speak from ignorance.

Quoted: Quoted: My first assault rifle was an M1A. . Can you really call a M1A an 'assault rifle?' The M1A is part of my Big Three - the M1, the M1A, and the AR15. The order I put those three will depend upon the intended use. But YES - you SHOULD own an M1A. Mine is done in a match setup, but a stocker is fine also.

It has a flash suppressor and a bayonet lug and accepts a high capacity magazine.  They weren't called assault rifles then however.

Quoted: Bostonterrier -- Which war did you carry both the M14 and M16 so you could make a direct comparison under field conditions?  How did you carry 22 M14 magazines? -- Chuck

Where in my original post did I ever state the number of M14 Magazines that I carried ?

Quoted: Quoted: I like the M1A over the FAL, the AK, and that weenie mousegun for **** ******: the AR15. The M1A is a REAL mans Rifle. It shoots bullets that can slam through all kinds of ****. Buck the wind in a blizzard. Whereas the pissant bullets from the AR get blown to hell as soon as a little breeze picks up. AH, I do love a challenge... Thou dost speak from ignorance....So allow me to give a small education. The vast majority of records that were held by M14/M1A's have been broken, or tied by the M16/AR15. In the last 8 years, both the USMC, and the USAMU have changed from the M14 to the M16 for competition, even out to 1000 yds. The M14 requires more maintenance, and is more  vulnerable to ammo, weather, and cleaning. If we are speaking of "issue" type weapons, the M16 has a much longer service life, and is less expensive. I still love my M14s, but in todays competition, you will be behind the power curve if you show up with one. If you can't read the wind, then don't shoot. Questions?

Permit me to display my "ignorance"...
(1.) As you may have surmissed there is a difference between Match Rifles (used for punching holes in paper) and Combat Rifles. The requirements for each are DIFFERENT.
I really couldn't care less how ACCURATE an 18 pound AR15 is on the 200,300 and 600 yard line at an High Power Competition.
Such a rifle is too heavy for use in combat, has tolerances to fine for reliability under severe field conditions, and the small .22 cal bullet is inferior to a 30 cal bullet when it comes to sectional density and resistance to wind drift. If the 22 caliber bullet offered superior ballistics (flight as well as terminal) over a 30 caliber bullet than the Military would have used the 5.56 NATO as a sniping round out to 1000 meters.

A 30 cal 168 grain AP bullet will have better penetration and less wind drift than M855 ammo.

As a TARGET Rifle..the M14 requires more maintenance than the AR15..as a COMBAT rifle it does NOT. In fact it requires LESS maintenance than the M16 in order to operate reliabley.

As for the Length of time that the M16 was used as a Service Rifle over the M14. This really is not so much a question of one rifle being better than another as it is a question of POLITICS.

IF the Military's procurement process was devoid of politics than the Trapdoor Springfield would NOT have had a service life of 23 years (1873 - 1896). In fact it NEVER would have been adopted.

As for your "if you can't read the wind than don't shoot"...well whoopi do. ....seriously..that does NOT excuse the fact that a 62 grain FMJ 22 cal round has a greater degree of Wind Drift at Intermediate - Long Ranges than a 168 grain 30 cal round.

None the less. I just prefer to shoot my M1A over anything else.

Is this a compare AR-15 vs. M14 thread?
Really, they are such different rifles for different purposes.

I think it was Chuck who brought up a good point about VOF (volume of fire) which the M16 has over the M14 in that the 16 is controllable in auto over the 14. But, I've also got to admit that if a rifle squad was equiped with 14s, .30 cal will keep heads down!

Generally, Chuck's point is made because GPMG (machine guns) are what makes the most kills. Everyone else who is not the MG crew is really just backing-up their gunners, assisting or manuevering. The 16 is a light, manueverable small rifle with a lot of ammunition on tap.

The 14 will probably kill with its first hit in the kill zone. It's a heavy hitter. It will punch through barriers surprisingly so, it's a very strong round. I wouldn't want to get hit with 5.56 mind you, as I know it would tear me up! But even though .30 cal is a clean hitting round, it will find you through a tree, behind a sandbag (maybe some exaggeration), behind scrub, vehicles, other people... I would want a 14 for a slow combat environment (distance), or at least a few guys in the squad equipped with one, or better yet, another 60.

Personal up close, urban warfare fighting (in buildings) I think the advantages of the 16 far out weigh the heavy, unwieldy 14. But from my experience if the environment was going to get ugly (dirt, grime, snow, sand) I think I'd opt for the 14. Even at the range- both rifles clean (less than 100 rounds) the 16 has had more FTF problems for me, than the 14. As well the 14 is in my opinion A LOT more rugged than the 16.

Who do I like to shoot at the range? the 14. I don't shoot match or sandbag marksmanship, I just shoot the standard positions; standing, sitting, prone. The kick makes it fun.

Is the M14 outdated for today's battlefield? Maybe, and I'd want an M16 in my hands or the fellow next to me... but, word on the wire is that the gummit is gearing up some M14s for use in Afghanistan. Makes ya wonder.

Quoted: Even at the range- both rifles clean (less than 100 rounds) the 16 has had more FTF problems for me, than the 14.

Really? I put over 600rounds of mil surplus into my AR15 one day at the range, and had no problems whatsoever. I don't know what you are doing, but you are clearly doing it wrong.

Since when has the standard issue 7.62 round been a 168gr. AP?

Liberty. No. I'm not doing it wrong, neither were the owners of the rifles as far as I could tell (US Govt. & various friends) The M16, AR-15 is just generally more finicky than the M14 design. It's not a hard idea to swallow. The M14 is a M1 Garand with a det. magazine chambered in .308, you're not gona tell me those guns suck are you?

In no way am I bagging on ARs. I love the gun. But when somebody comes along and says something like yeah, I've sh*t down my barrel, froze it in ice and then fired 10,000 unfailed rounds through it, you've got to wonder.

If you really want to reach out and touch something the 03-A3 Springfield in 30.06 is the rifle to own. There are a bunch that were arsenal refinished and later, sold off by the Govt. Many are sitting in gun cabinets aging like fine wine. If you can find some senior who can no longer shoot and has to sell off his collection or a estate sale that has one for sale, do whatever you can to get one. Mine shoots better than my Garand or my M-14.  

Quoted: Is this a compare AR-15 vs. M14 thread? Really, they are such different rifles for different purposes. I think it was Chuck who brought up a good point about VOF (volume of fire) which the M16 has over the M14 in that the 16 is controllable in auto over the 14. But, I've also got to admit that if a rifle squad was equiped with 14s, .30 cal will keep heads down! Generally, Chuck's point is made because GPMG (machine guns) are what makes the most kills. Everyone else who is not the MG crew is really just backing-up their gunners, assisting or manuevering. The 16 is a light, manueverable small rifle with a lot of ammunition on tap. The 14 will probably kill with its first hit in the kill zone. It's a heavy hitter. It will punch through barriers surprisingly so, it's a very strong round. I wouldn't want to get hit with 5.56 mind you, as I know it would tear me up! But even though .30 cal is a clean hitting round, it will find you through a tree, behind a sandbag (maybe some exaggeration), behind scrub, vehicles, other people... I would want a 14 for a slow combat environment (distance), or at least a few guys in the squad equipped with one, or better yet, another 60. Personal up close, urban warfare fighting (in buildings) I think the advantages of the 16 far out weigh the heavy, unwieldy 14. But from my experience if the environment was going to get ugly (dirt, grime, snow, sand) I think I'd opt for the 14. Even at the range- both rifles clean (less than 100 rounds) the 16 has had more FTF problems for me, than the 14. As well the 14 is in my opinion A LOT more rugged than the 16. Who do I like to shoot at the range? the 14. I don't shoot match or sandbag marksmanship, I just shoot the standard positions; standing, sitting, prone. The kick makes it fun. Is the M14 outdated for today's battlefield? Maybe, and I'd want an M16 in my hands or the fellow next to me... but, word on the wire is that the gummit is gearing up some M14s for use in Afghanistan. Makes ya wonder.

Said perfectly.
GG

Quoted: NH2112; I missed your discussion about the Mini-14/CAR 15 test.  How about a short summary?  I'd much rather learn from your test than try it!

Back in 88, I guess, I was stationed at Ft Bragg and had recently bought a used Mini-14. My best friend had a CAR15 and after we both did more than our fair share of ribbing on each others' rifles, we agreed to torture-test them to find out whose was the most reliable. The rules were simple: No cleaning or lubing of any kind until a malfunction took place. Running a patch down the bore any time you wanted to was OK, though. We started off with an accuracy test, rapid-fired 1/2 dozen 30-rounders, and immediately checked accuracy again. He did beat me here, but then again I had an Armson OEG sight with 4-minute dot, and he had iron sights. After that the dirt came into play - we'd toss sand into each others' rifles while shooting, roll in the dirt and sand, get them wet, muddy, etc, all without cleaning or lubing the rifles or mags. The CAR15 lasted about 200 rounds once dirt was introduced, and rarely went more than 200 rounds without a jam after that. I stopped firing my Mini-14 after about 1500 rounds because it hadn't jammed yet and I was getting bored watching my friend clean his CAR15 all the time. I don't think he ever got the scratched and gouges out of his upper receiver, where the steel bolt carrier ground sand grains into the soft aluminum. He also had to take the forward assist apart to get all the grit out of it. My pin-on Choate M14-style flash hider got blown half off because something apparently got wedged in the prongs and the bullet hit it, and apparently deflected downwards into the bottom prong. I didn't notice it till later when I was cleaning my rifle.

Now, lots of people have told me that the test didn't prove anything because nobody's going to let their rifle get that dirty. I say that in combat you don't know when your rifle will get that dirty, and you probably won't have time to fieldstrip and clean it when it does. Any rifle can fire 500-1000 rounds without a jam under range conditions, but IMO that's no more of a valid test of a combat rifle's reliability than backing out of your snowy driveway is a test of your 4x4's reliability. You have to test both of them under the worst possible conditions that you can foresee.

That's my opinion!

Let me add to NH2112's torture-testing post.

Back before evil rifles were so expensive, a friend of mine and I tortured an HK91, a Galil, an AR15 and a Mini 14.  The HK91 and Galil survived the "sand tests."  Meaning you could pour sand (Northern Nevada's best stuff) into the actions of either of them and they would wstill work, with a blast of sand spewing out on the first shot.  Neither the Mini nor the AR did, both choked early on.

God we were idiots to do that stuff, but hey, 17 years later I still think about it.  Sure wouldn't do that now with rifles that have become more expensive than some of the cars I have driven.

Oh yeah, I have an M1A and three ARs.  Every time I shoot any of them, I think, "I really like this rifle."  I'd take any one of them in a SHTF situation.

Chuck,

I haven't had time lately to do the research that I hope will disprove some of what you say, or at least level the playing field as it were. But, I do have some thoughts.

Quoted:  The more bullets downrange, the more hits; the more bullets downrange the less likely the other guys will be shooting back while you maneuver.

This has me wondering why we expended something on the order of 50,000(?) rounds for every kill during the Vietnam war, even though we were using a rifle that could put more rounds downrange and therefore should have resulted in a higher kill ratio than we saw in WW2, where we averaged 5K(?) rounds per kill. Certainly training had something to do with it, but I'm not sure that the average grunt in WW2 was that much better a marksman than the average Nam grunt was.

5.56mm Ball is several hundred fps faster than 7.62mm NATO and the higher sight position creates a battlesight that's several times more likely to strike the target.

The last ballistics chart I looked at showed that there really wasn't that much difference between the trajectories of 5.56x45 and 7.62x51 at different ranges (we may have different ideas on what a big difference is, though!) Both of them when zeroed for 250m @ 25m will allow for hits out to at least 375m without changing the point of aim, IIRC.

So with the M16A2 or other 5.56mm rifle we have a higher probablity of hits from individual cartridges and a bullet with several times the wounding potential.On a bullet for bullet basis the M16A2 has a much higher probability of hit and probability of kill [a large wound] than the M14.

Maybe in 10% ordnance gelatin at 4C, but real-world experience on living people has shown that both the 7.62x51 and 5.56x45 are going to do some serious damage on a center mass hit. A hit to the extremities is where the 5.56x45 is more effective, IMO. Still, is the 5.56x45 really that much more effective because it blows an arm or leg almost completely off, and the 7.62x51 only blows it partway off? Neither man is going to be shooting back at you, and that's your immediate concern.

     

An M14 rifle plus 9 loaded magazines (1 in the rifle and 8 in 4 each pouches) weighs 24 pounds and is a double basic load.

22 M16 mags is a triple basic load, yet you seemed to think that's what BostonTerrier97 should carry. At least, you asked him the last time he carried that many. My main question is: Is the infantryman THAT much more effective with the M16 than he was with the 1903, M1, or M14? Are they winning battles more easily and more quickly now because they're hitting more of the enemy per round fired? I guess what I'm looking for is something along the lines of "the M16 rifle has a record of X shots fired and Y casualty-producing hits achieved, and the M14 [or whatever] has A shots fired and B casualty-producing hits achieved." I would be money that on a round-for-round basis the M1 Garand was a LOT more effective than the M16, in similar combat conditions (i.e., Pacific theater in WW2 and jungle fighting in Viet Nam.)

I can't help but thinking that all the studies comparing "battle rifles" to the SCHV concept turned out the way they did because the US army WANTED them to turn out that way.

Hey, thanks for the positive plug G.G.!

Is this an accounting discussion or a discussion of the relative effectiveness of the M14 vs the M16?

For the record 22 magazines was the basic load in RVN in my infantry battalion.  One in the magazine and 3 each 7 pouch bandoleers.  And a can of 7.62mm for the M60 MGs (except the poor RTOs).  To achieve fire superiority you have to shoot lots of ammo.  This saves soldier's lives as they can maneuver without fired on.

Non-combats think "spray and pray" is a pejorative, it ain't.

You just can't carry enough ammo to make the M14 effective.

I have a "M14" and shoot it several times a month at targets which don't shoot back .  When shooting at 9"x9" plates I can usually do as well with the M14 as the "M16."  But the walk from the ready line to the firing line isn't all that far.  I've qualified (Expert) with the M14 at least 6 times.  But I'd not take her to war if the M16 was avaiable 'cuz she's a less effective man killer than the M16 at combat ranges.  Sniping requires special, not general duty weapons.

-- Chuck