Good advice, mapleleaf. No, I mean it. I will quickly ignore you now.

But anyway, I prefer the M-16. Just a personal preference.

My M16-A1 was an awesome weapon when I was in the Corps.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTmyCUnMllg

In my opinion, the M14 is vastly superior to the M16.

1.) The M14 chambers 7.62 x 51 mm NATO, a full-powered rifle round. The M16 chambers 5.56 x 45 mm NATO, a smaller, lighter imtermediate round. Therefore, the M14 has much greater range and power.

2.) The M14 has an extremely reliable mechanism, a feature not shared with the M16. Therefore, the M14 is more reliable than the M16.

3.) The M14 has a longer barrel than the M16. Therefore, the M14 is more accurate and has greater range than the M16.

4.) Both the M14 and M16 are selective fire with full automatic capability.

Rebuttals for common pro-M16 arguments:

1.) "You can carry twice the amount of ammunition with an M16."

Maybe so, but you're going to need three times the amount of ammunition to kill someone.

2.) "If the M16 is inferior to the M14, then why did the US Military adopt it?"

The decision was political. ArmaLite and the military tested the weapon in near-labratory sterile conditions. ArmaLite had lobbyists all over the place, and we were under political pressure from the rest of NATO to adopt to the 5.56 x 45 round.

3.) "5.56 x 45 has enough power to get the job done."

Not true. Soldiers have reported enemy combatants continuing to fight after being shot more than once by M16s. No one gets up after getting hit by an M14.

4.) "The M16 is reliable enough for frontline duty, if regular cleaning takes place."

Every gun is reliable enough for frontline duty if regular cleaning takes place. But the truth is, regular cleaning is not going to take place on a battlefield. Our soldiers need a weapon that can be shot and shot and shot without needing to be cleaned.

5.) "The M14 is semi-automatic, and the M16 is fully automatic."

Not true. Both weapons are selective-fire fully-automatic capable.

Does the M14 have the three shot burst of the M16A2? I liked the three shot burst for rapid fire with accuracy. After three shots, even the best marksman is drifting despite the minimal kick of the M16.

The M14 does not have three shot burst. It has semi-automatic and full-automatic, with a seperate safety. But, you don't really need three shot burst with a weapon of the M14's power. If you really need extra power, it's not tough to double tap the trigger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6uDRq92OxM

M14 clip from the Military Channel. And, yes, the M16 scored number two on the countdown (to the M14's number 10 spot)

Does anyone else hark back for the good old days when rifles had names like "Enfield", "Baker" and "Springfield", instead of sounding like the congested strips of tarmac that make up the British motorway system?

Has anybody heard of the new Israeli Tavor? What do you think of it?

I believe the Israelis are now replacing M16s with Tavor.

@ Baskineli --

Link, please?

@ Octavious --

I am an American, and I will admit that the Springfield is inferior to the Enfield. If I were a soldier in World War One, and I had to pick a bolt-action rifle, I would go with an Enfield. And I would want to learn how to do a mad minute. 30 aimed rounds in 60 seconds with a bolt action? That's incredible.

@TMW:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMI_Tavor_TAR-21

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/small_arms/tavor/Tavor.html

@ Baskineli --

Never mind. It looks like a pretty advanced, practical bullpup assault rifle, but whenever I see "5.56 x 45 mm NATO", I stop drooling over the gun. That's what this thread is really about. 5.56, in my opinion, is too weak to use as a standard round for a main battle rifle. 5.56 makes for an excellent carbine round, but is not sufficient to issue to any frontline infantry.

@TMW

Did you serve in the army?

He claims he was in the Air Force, but near as we can tell, he's actually 15-17.

Jack_Klein et. al claims that I am 15-17, but near as I can tell, I was in the Air Force. Noncombat. No big deal. Just put in my years and got out.

I am a gun enthusiast. I own a civilian M14 (M1A) and a Walther P99.

I just wonder how many times he shot at people using ANY rifle... Because M16 DOES kill, and it is a very effective weapon.

The rifle should be picked for specific missions. If you are doing urban fighting, you don't need a great range, but mobility, and for close ranges I would go for M16 and not M14.

I mean, what do you prefer? A screwdriver or a hammer? Well, it depends on what do you want to do with it, right?

So stop this stupid argument. Tell me what is your mission, and I will tell you what gun do you need. Until then... Bah. Got it ?

In an urban situation? I would take an M14 with a carbine-length barrel. Anywhere else? M14.

I'm not saying the M16 is a BB gun. (It is compared to the M14). Sure, it's very effective against flesh. But against body armor? You might as well have a BB gun. Now that most major armies issue some type of body armor (flak jacket, soft kevlar, whatever) it's only a matter of time before insurgents and terrorists get their hands on body armor.

Reliability is another factor. Even though it's not Vietnam and our troops know how to clean their weapons, I'd still take a reliable weapon over an unreliable weapon. It's not a good thing if your weapon jams in the middle of a firefight. Even if you've got buddies to cover you. That alone puts the M14 ahead in my book.

I'll admit that there are situations where the M16 is the better choice. For example, rear echelon assholes (like me) engineers, and paratroopers don't really need a 12-pound, full-powered battle rifle. I'd take the 10-pound carbine, for the weight if anything.

But the frontline grunts need a powerful, reliable battle rifle. The M16 is not a powerful, reliable battle rifle. The M14 is.

You've probably never been to a battle, and cannot appreciate the usefulness of a light weapon that does not burden you down. Infantry carries a lot of weight on their shoulders. This is why the Tavor, for example, or other bullpup rifles, are so good at combat - their weight is near the shoulder, meaning it is easier to maneuver, aim, and shot.

Not everybody has to carry a MAG on them.

If you want to argue M14 over M16, your only valid arguement should be reliability.

The Australian Army used to use the M16 but switched to the Steyr Aug as its standard weapon. Question for the gun enthusiasts, how does it compare with the M16 and M14?

@ Baskineli -- And power. And bullet penetration. And range. I'll gladly carry the extra two/three pounds for all those advantages.

@ spyman -- The Steyr AUG is essentially a bullpup assault rifle firing 5.56. Actually, I think it was the first bullpup rifle to see sucessful production and widespread use. I would take a Steyr AUG over an M16, mostly because the Steyr has more features, like a bullpup design, ambidextrious controls and ejection ports, and quick-change barrel capability. However, the Steyr and indeed all assault rifles are inferior to battle rifles in most infantry, frontline situations.

@TMW I agree with some of your points. The M-14 does fair better at long range fire fights, thats why they are still used as sniper rifles. BUT most fire fights occur at short, and medium range where the longer rifle barrel can get in the way. The longer barrel in close quarters close makes it more difficult to round corners while hugging the walls, bringing your rifle to bare, and the number one complaint about the M-14 in Nam was it's length caused it to snag in the brush. Close range also negates impact force due to the higher velocity of the M-16 at well over 3,000 fps. As for stopping power, any assult rifle will stop you with a body shot. The getting up again stories are a mix of truth and fiction. People high on drugs or adrenaln can do extraordinary things even after recieving massive injuries, including from larger cal. rounds. During training as an medic in the Army I've seen studies of damage caused by different rounds and the 5.56x45 damage in some ways is more horrific than a larger cal. rounds. This is in part due to the high velocity creating shock waves and fragmentation in the tissue and transfering kinetic energy faster. You combined this with it's tendency to tumble because of it's greater length to diameter ratio, causeing it to travel in the victums body in unpredictable ways ripping tissue as it goes. This makes the M-16 round every bit as deadly any other.

You also left out the fact that the M-14 makes for a better hand to hand combat weapon. The extra wt and walnut stock makes a great club, and it's length makes for better weapon for sticking people with.

The 3 round burst limit was put on the M-16 to prevent waste of ammo from pray and spray firing, and scared men from squizzing off a entire clip at one time.

"ArmaLite and the military tested the weapon in near-labratory sterile conditions." This is one of the biggest myths about the M-16. It was extensively tested in the field by Army Rangers in Vietnam in the early 60s while training the S. Viet. and reports were good. The difference? Chrome plating of the firing chambers in the test weapons not done during production, thanks to McNamara. Also the later models have fixed alot of the earlier maintaince difficulties.

There's a reason that the miltary pulled the M14 from service in Vietnam and never made a move to bring it back. It's an inferior standard-issue weapon. It may be better for marksmanship and certain niche duties but as an all-around infantry weapon it is not near as good as the M16.

I could do a point-by-point on this but the only person who seems to disagree with me is TMW so I doubt my arguments would achieve anything.

Go for it, LJ.

@ warsprite -- Yeah, but 5.56 is ineffective against body armor.

I don't know too much about guns, but I think these are the important questions:

Is the M16 jamming problems still relevant? I was under the impression that the new designs virtually eliminated the problem and it now jams no more than any other gun in its class.

The sheer size of the M14 seems as though it would be too unwieldy in standard combat to be useful. Especially in the type of urban fighting, it just seems to big. Again, I have no experience, so I'd be interested in what people think.

I do know that the speed of the round is more important than the size of the round. The M16 muzzle velocity (if wikipedia is to believed) is about 100m/s faster than the M14. Is that really not enough to make up for the smaller round?

M14 has double the energy due to its higher weight.

However, what TMW ignores here (due to his non-combatant background) is the other parameters that are extremely important to any infantry, like weight, ease of use, mobility etc.

If I were to choose a weapon for its penetrating power and range, I would go for some sort of cannon...

In short, you cannot compare two weapons without saying what kind of mission you are going to do. M14 would probably be better at sniping, but I would not use it for urban/jungle warfare.

@ Baskineli - +1. That's exactly why the army phased out the M14 during Vietnam.

@TMW Yeah but the 7.62 is no better. Type III Conditioned armor protects against 9.6 g (148 gr) 7.62x51mm NATO M80 ball bullets at a velocity of 847 m/s ± 9.1 m/s (2780 ft/s ± 30 ft/s). It also provides protection against the threats mentioned in [Types I, IIA, II, and IIIA]. The 5.56 can and does defeat the lower rated armor as well as the 7.72 does. Dragon Scale body armor Type III has even defeated the 7.62 steel core ammo. At the rate of develpment in body armor the only question is how much kenetic energy is transfered to the person as blunt force, and the armors rating. Anybody even in armor hit by either round is going to hurt. The higher velocity of the 5.56 makes up for the lower mass. Energy = Mass x Velocity Squared.