Fucking THANK YOU!  Someone finally said it.

They'd have my acceptance though, and it didn't take them 40 or 50 years to get squared away despite having the massive developmental resources of the U.S. military and civilian market behind them.

And it is, it's just that it was realistically 20 years too late. The world had moved on to better things and warfare by the time of it's adoption had already proven that lightweight rifle and with more ammo per combat load was better than a neutered 30cal hunting cartridge in a refined version of a rifle designed nearly 3 decades prior.

It's a legit one gun rifle. I've alwayse really liked them, more than the other nato offerings. I don't have one but would like one.

All that said the M16 is a better all around platform and as a 20" AR owner it's also a legit one gun rifle. Not as capable for big game or against cover but great against medium game with better recoil control and mag capacity.

Either would be in my top 10 shtf gun list.

7.62 battle rifles wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the M14's fucked up development program. The FAL and the CETME were both supposed to have been chambered in an intermediate cartridge during their early development; they grew into 7.62 battle rifles to fit US demands. In an alternate world where we didn't fuck up rifle development post WWII, we could have been started fielding assault rifles during the Korean War, long before Vietnam. If we entered Vietnam with a smaller, lighter FAL chambered in an intermediate cartridge then we might still be using a FAL variant today.

The big old battle rifles are cool, but they were outdated before they were introduced. Most people who have spent time training to run, jump, and shoot with rifles want nothing to do with them, and people who study war/combat on even a casual basis generally understand it, too. Guns like the M14 and BM-59 are a huge step backwards from the M16A1.

The HK33 has some better arguments, but it still falls short. It's 2" inches shorter overall than the M16A1 (good), but the barrel is a whole 5" shorter thanks to how bulky the action is (bad), and it's about 2 pounds heavier. The trigger sucks, it doesn't have a LRBHO, and reloads are a lot slower and more cumbersome. Cool guns, and I want one of the new PTR hybrids, but they got left behind for a reason.

Then there's the AK. This subject has been beat to death, it also doesn't have a LRBHO, but the sights are crap, the safety is crap, and disengaging the safety opens a huge hole in the side of the action where dirt and debris can and does enter and cause stoppages. This problem can be and has been easily demonstrated. The reliability stories of AKs in adverse condition are mythical BS. The way the AK is designed, the receiver itself is a wear item that WILL fail with use. A large number of them in service are built poorly, and magazine fit is generally inconsistent. Optics mounting still sucks to this day. The M16/M4 family surpassed the AK family with the A1 and hasn't looked back.

That brings us to the AUG and the other bullpups. Part of the reason why M16 adoption was stifled for a while is the bad reputation it gained in the first 3 years, but another and perhaps bigger reason was that much of the world decided bullpups were the way forward. AUG, FAMAS, SA80, etc were the future. There's a lot that can be said about this, but even in the US gun market where we can choose different guns for different things, and our gun laws incentivize civilians to buy bullpups instead of SBRs, bullpups are still controversial. Some organizations that adopted bullpups have pivoted back to conventional rifle layouts. What I will say about the AUG in particular, though, is that it's reliable, it's accurate, it's aged well, and most importantly, it had optics in standard use a long time before the M16/M4. If you're going to pick the AUG over the AR in that era, that's the biggest reason to do so.

I can agree with that hypothesis.

One of the reasons we went to 9mm….Euros still hadn’t forgiven us for the rifle controversies.

The worst one is ambidextrous.

am-bi-dex-trous

NOT am-bi-dex-tri-ous

Absolutely it’s way better than the brown bess.

The main reason for choosing one of its contemporaries over the AR back in the day was reliability and overall ruggedness, where almost everything else tended to be better in those regards unless you were talking about some special unit that could handpick and tune rifles.

I've spoken to many experienced soldiers who served during the Cold War over the years, and most of them didn't have much good to say about the AR. One gentlemen who saw a lot of action in Central and South American said "I'd take an AK, hell even an SKS, hands down over one". Yikes.

The AR had a mixed reputation back then for a reason, and it wasn't just because of the early Vietnam examples.

If it had been as good from the A1 onwards as it is now, it would have absolutely dominated the 5.56/.223 market pretty much right from the get-go and we may not have even seen a lot of other designs in the caliber once the patent expired.

You've put your reticule right on the target with that one.

It’s been my observation that with a few notable exceptions the more combat experience someone has the more they prefer 5.56 and the M16. Pat Rogers would say, that is a clue.

The early M16 was fine, the issue was the ammo issued for them. Vietnam gave them a bad rep, and NATO was going to continue to us 7.62 until 5.56 became NATO standard. Com Block would com block. American civilians were naturally going to be slow to accept AR15s, because of how they looked and the small round they fired, and that was amplified by the Vietnam reputation.

The M14 was even worse when they brought it back into service with the junk EBR chassis.

It's weird how many special operations guys from various countries used M16 variants when their own military issued something different.

Would its reputation have changed if it had been used in Europe/Africa/Middle East instead of Vietnam?

A hot roll out straight into combat is always going to run into issues. The green berets had been using the rifle in theater for a decent amount of time with little issue. It was more of a flawed rollout more than it was a flawed weapon. This also wasn’t helped by the way they rotated soldiers into theater not as units but as individuals. So privates did IET with the M-14 and the got to country and handed a rifle with little training and familiarity.

Yeah I think he said he shot two guys 14 times then threw a grenade.

Weird people still say the m16 in Vietnam had issues putting down commies. Seems to me after hearing several stories it’s pretty effective. Sure some people may take a few hits. I’ve heard more than 3 stories of people being hit by a burst of 556 at close range and it exploding heads and putting holes through someone’s torso enough to see daylight.

One was a soldier in the battle of the Ia Drang who put it on full auto put it to the head of an NVA machine gun we held the trigger until it was empty and the gunners head exploded.

Another was a NVA crawling at Dick Thompson of SOG at 3 feet who attempted to shoot him with an AK and somehow Thompson brought the car 15 to bear on the enemy’s face hitting him with a burst of 4 rounds on auto, again exploding the head.

Again, there was another story of a SOG member hiding from NVA on the other side of a log. He said as the NVA stepped over the log he put the muzzle his chest on full auto and fired the mag empty. Before he fell he could see daylight through the hole.

Sure, longer shots may not drop someone instantly but it is an effective round, undisputedly

Most of us are the end products of the public education system, in which many of us didn't apply ourselves. Incorrect spelling, punctuation and sentence structure is to be expected, even applauded, given our rough start in life.

The M14 was the best service rifle of the 1930s.

I began shooting DCM/NRA high power rifle tournaments in 1984. Many Vietnam vets were in attendance. Around 1993 or 1994 the AR-15 became the dominant rifle, and I watched great competitors leave the process in disgust. They hated the AR-15 so much from their personal experience, their accumulated prejudice and their love of the M14, they walked away from competition.

Some said, "I'm not shooting a varmint rifle in competition". Others said, "That rifle killed more G.I.'s than the Communists did". I personally purchased a M1 Garand NM for my first competition rifle. I bought a M1-A and sent it to Glen Nelson in Columbus, GA and he built it into a State Championship level rifle. I tied for first place before the shoot-off in 1989, the guy I tied went on to win the NTI at Camp Perry two weeks later.

A professionally built M14 based rifle is a treasure to behold. It will instill confidence, hold zero and otherwise make the owner proud.  The only reason AR-15's rule NRA/CMP competition today is the recoil factor. A match conditioned AR-15 will easily clean every stage at 200/300 yards if the shooter is capable of driving it. It will do it with ease and time to spare. M14 recoil is something to be mastered and 60 or 70 seconds with a mag swap for ten (10) rounds fired is unforgiving in the M1/M14 rifles.

Better quality bullets have also made the AR-15 every bit the equal of a M14 based rifle at 600 as far as accuracy is concerned.

IME, it is easier to shoot great groups at 600 with an M14 style rifle, using iron sights, simply because of the extended sight radius. With the new rules allowing 4.5X powered scopes, now there isn't any contest. 80+ grain bullets loaded individually and a 4.5X scope, throws the M14 system under the bus.

Yeah this right here nails it. When you can choose any weapon without regard to cost or limits it’s interesting that so many overwhelmingly choose the ar15 design. Strange I tell you. When people get sentimental about the m14 m1A and designs like the ar10 exist I just don’t understand. Can’t fix stupid, or emotional decision making. “I heard Vietnam blah blah….” The proof too is that just about nobody uses m14s if they have a choice. It makes you wonder. I know if I was in combat I’d prefer a less accurate rifle that is heavier, carries less rounds and has a slower follow up shot. That sounds like a winning combination.


The stupidity for a combat rifle in this context is about like taking a p51, increasing the 50 cals to a cannon and loading the shit out of it with extra fuel in the jet age then arguing it’s superior to any jet… while being fundamentally outclassed and outdated in every metric that matters.

As a collector or hobby gun it’s fine. Some people like delicate temperamental things that need a lot of adjustment and skill to make work

While I don't really have a dog in this fight, I'd expect mag dumps of .22lr to be effective at point blank range.

I think people take issue with needing full auto.

A burst of 556 is absolutely effective
<<< SAWgunner

The only thing I dont like about the M14 is the weight, face it, its a heavy pig.

I do remember a lot of hate for the poor M-16 back in the 70’s & 80’s. A lot of guys from that generation didn’t like the plastic gun or the “puny” cartridge. Seems like most had come around by the 90’s. My dad and a few of his buddy’s that served in Vietnam still haven’t come around.

“Poodle shooter”

I don't see why we'd stick with a hunting rifle profile weapon as a main service rifle even if we adopted 5.56 for it.

Wait, I take that back. We'd probably have stuck with a 5.56 M14 because of the every Rifleman, a Marksman mentality.

I’ll take a Mk48 and do just fine with that cartridge. If it feeds M80A1 even better.

Usually takes nothing to make it combat accurate but it can do pretty well target accuracy wise with just ammo it likes a match spring guide rod and shimming the gas system.

Yep, and retain barrier penetration at range too.  7.62x51 also loses little velocity in shorter barrel packages than most military cartridges as well.

.243 has a tendency to burn through barrels a little prematurely.

The M110 hasn’t really fared that well either.  They’ve been trying to ditch it for a few years now.

As I recall in the late 80s every combat unit that could choose their weapon, (i.e. HSLD) chose some variant of M-16.

The 19.25" barrel "paratrooper" model feels considerably shorter and less front heavy despite the modest difference in length, that's probably the way I'd go if I had to have an M14.




Those guys are bound to receive a lot more in the way of armorer support than a line grunt can expect.

Why would any tier one group desire a rifle that requires "a lot more in the way of armorer support"?

That's the most hilarious nonsense i've read all day, thanks for the giggles!

The special guys are going to get more logistical support regardless of what they use.

But yes, even today, you have to be more proactive when it comes to parts replacement on the AR than with most other assault rifles, that's just a tradeoff of the design.

As someone who has killed people with the M21 and the M-16A1, M16A2, and the M4A1…..we must agree to disagree.


18Z50….. may know something about carrying rifles in woods.

@Wobblin-Goblin


What happened to Different? Don’t tell me he passed away too!

Nope. He posted in this thread afterwards.

Good to see that!

The Trapdoor was worse.

Is it really a hunting rifle profile? Up until then it looked like every other fighting rifle we've ever fielded.

Yeah, they'd probably throttle it back a little like the 30-03.

What sort of barrel life does the new sig round have out of curiosity.