Sgt. Nick Fury wrote:

The objective is to kill the enemy right? not just to wound them?

Well, acctually, sometimes a wounded enemy is better. 1 wound enemy means 2 other having to carry him back.....

1 wound enemy means 2 other having to carry him back.....

Which gives you time to wack some more,right

Like Rndr, I too have had the opportunity to carry both the M16 and M14 into combat. I even did both in Vietnam. I have carried the M16-A1 and the M16-E1 in the jungle. For the environment, I'd take the M16 over the M14. As Rndr said

And btw, that "except the weight of the ammo" (don't forget rifle, it's heavier) is not something to simply brush over. Infantrymen get very moody when they have to hump heavy things up big tall rocks in the snow. And I can assure you, you feel every OUNCE of weight after awhile.

. This also applies to the steamy rotten energy sucking jungle. Considering the lack of visibility of the enemy, a long range heavy weapon was not always the optimal choice. The sheer rate of fire advantage of the M16 was good to have. Once the M16-E1 was improved (flash suppressor ring, chrome lined receiver, etc.) and we learned how to maintain them (keep them clean), it became a very reliable weapon. The 5.56 mm ammo has the characteristic of often fragmenting when it hits flesh. This is more likely to cause incapacitating injuries than death by hydrostatic shock. Also any increased drift over the heavier round of the M14 can be easily compensated for (a little marksmanship training).
The early ammo was said to have been changed to increase velocity. It did leave more residue. The early weapons were designed for the cleaner burning rounds. As a result, later M16s were produced with chrome lined receiver areas which didn't foul as readily. The flash suppressor ring was added to prevent the rifle from snagging on brush and wire. So, yes before the improvements and training were implemented, the M16 gained a bad rep. but subsequently, it became a very reliable weapon.
Today's M16 is much better than anything we had then.
Just my humble opinion.

Ok I been schooled!.....


But jungle, Mountain peaks etc aside......Would the m-14 not still be better in a very open area like Iraq both in range, and reliability in the desert? (of course I mean Iraq outisde of the urban envrionment). Also the extra weight of the m-14 can that also not be a slight benefit in hand to hand combat?

I just wonder what would have happened had they stayed with a battle rifle in the m-14 era, and made advancements along the lines of the AK series, of which I have to say I prefer also when it comes to the..shooting range. I just always prefered the feel, the accuracy, and teh ruggedness of a true battle rifle.

That said if the m14 is so out of date....why won't they release them in the CMP!!!!!!!! I still rather have one then a M16 for myself.

advancements along the lines of the AK series, of which I have to say I prefer also when it comes to the..shooting range

Huh? If you are praising the AK for range, your not talking about ithe AK i know...

Huh? If you are praising the AK for range, your not talking about ithe AK I know...

ROGER , the AK series were designed for roughly aimed fires, not precision or long range fires (even the Russian Army and Mikhail Kalishnikov will tell you that). If you want/need precision or long-range small arms fire in the Russian Army, you need a Dragonov Sniper Rifle (AK action retooled for 7.62mm x 54R) or a machine gun.

The SVD isn't used as a sniper rifle in the Russian military. They use it as we use the M-14s, as a DMR.

The SVD isn't used as a sniper rifle in the Russian military. They use it as we use the M-14s, as a DMR.

dose DMR mean Designated Marksman Rifle?

Originally Posted by sherman105

dose DMR mean Designated Marksman Rifle?

That it does.

Thanks....