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
Quote:
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.