# Next Best Calibet Part II-M14 Not Much For Fighting, M16 Is Better



## AquaHull (Jun 10, 2012)

The M14, Not Much For Fighting ( A Case Against The M14 Legend ) | LooseRounds.com


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

I don't believe I have ever fired an M-14, but I was qualified with and issued this rifle:
M21 Sniper Weapon System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I could get you out to around 800 meters - back then.


----------



## AquaHull (Jun 10, 2012)

I just posted the link since I just KNEW it would spark discussion


----------



## keith9365 (Apr 23, 2014)

Just a modified 1930's technology M1 Garand. It works well in its niche. Good to have for long range fighting. Wouldnt want it for urban CQB.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

AquaHull said:


> I just posted the link since I just KNEW it would spark discussion


As someone who is old enough to have been trained on, issued, and used both the M14 and the M16A1 let me start by making just one observation - I presently own a Springfield Armory M1A Standard Model, and have absolutely no desire whatsoever to own an Armalite rifle of any caliber or manufacture.
In fact, my intermediate cartridge fighting rifle is a Romanian AKM in 7.62X39. A much better close combat choice than an AR.
"Oh, but the M14 is TOO HEAVY!" Bull crap - do more PT.
"Oh, but it's too hard to add optics to the M14!" Don't need optics with an M14 - when my eyes were 19 years old I could hit a target the size of a man's torso at 500 meters with the standard issue iron sights.
"Oh, but an M14 on full auto is uncontrollable!" True, but Spray-N-Pray should only be an option in the first seconds after you have walked into the ambush.

And now, I will step away from the keyboard before I have a stroke.


----------



## AquaHull (Jun 10, 2012)

It not only worked, it raised blood pressure also.


----------



## Hemi45 (May 5, 2014)

rice paddy daddy said:


> "Oh, but the M14 is TOO HEAVY!" Bull crap - do more PT.


This line literally made me laugh out loud - thanks for making my day!


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

AquaHull said:


> It not only worked, it raised blood pressure also.


You, sir, are a jerk.

I can respect that! :grin:


----------



## NavySEAL (Oct 16, 2014)

The M14 was a favored weapon by SEALs in Vietnam continuing up through the Sand Box wars........blowing dirt did not bother them..........and as RPD sort of said "in good hands it will reach out and touch someone a long ways off".


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

That must be the gun in the TV PSA where the SEALS come up out the ocean in SCUBA gear and start shooting bad guys...then their footprints get washed away on the beach. Makes me want to join up! Thanks for your Service Sir!


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

If you have a lot of room and they are a long way off M14 rules other wise AR IMO


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

The Garand is a far more effective battle rifle than the AR platform. It uses a larger, heavier bullet at nearly the same velocity. It was used in "walking patrols" as much as in 'battle line' fire. 
The fact that it is longer is only a detriment if you plan on 'clearing' rooms or houses where a shotgun is more appropriate anyway. The M1A doesn't wear as fast, is not prone to contaminants and is a gas operated action so it does not foul as easily or as often. It will easily reach out accurately at twice the distance and is more likely to diable a combatant imediately than the 223 or 5.56 round.

As far as I am concerned there is no comparison between the two platforms. The AR will come out behind in 99% of all cases.


----------



## dwight55 (Nov 9, 2012)

The owner of the original post would probably get a lot more mileage out of his dissertation if it were in 4 inch or so squares, . . . on a cardboard roll, . . . of very soft and absorbent paper type material, . . . and come in packages of 4 rolls.

Other than that, . . . my only comment is like RPD, . . . I've had both, . . . and when the chips go down, . . . it'll not be the Mickey Mattel that I grab. 

What is cover for the 5.56 is in most cases only concealment for the 7.62, . . . proved many, many times over, . . . 

And my blood pressure didn't go up, . . . I know the rifles in my house, . . . don't have to wonder what some college boy thought about something he has never seen, felt, or shot.

May God bless,
Dwight


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

I think they're both great rifles. I chose ar15 because I could afford to train and stock up on 556 much more than 308. That seems to be changing though. I love all the M1As I've shot and handled. It's next on my list.


----------



## keith9365 (Apr 23, 2014)

My rifle is a FAL (L1A1) pattern so I dont really have a dog in this fight. I earned Navy E medals on the M14,1911, M16A2, M4 and M92. M4's and M14's each have their niche.


----------



## GTGallop (Nov 11, 2012)

As I understand it...
M-14 is an EXCELLENT weapon on a wall with a little elevation and warding off an enemy at distance 700 to 900 yards and beyond.
It is also EXCELLENT in heavy cover as the round stays truer to target and isn't as deflected by leaves and twigs.

The M16 is better at urban warefare, desert warefare and open areas out to 300 to 500 yards.

There is no "which one is best." It is "pick the right one for the right conditions." In other words, the mission determines the load-out.


----------



## Arklatex (May 24, 2014)

^^^^ correct. There is no magic rifle ^^^^


----------



## NotTooProudToHide (Nov 3, 2013)

To each his own. I personally went with an AR platform because it fit my budget better, there's a billion of the things laying around, and ammo is more affordable (current situation aside). 

I really can't imagine a self defense shot over 200-300 yards and where I live that's about as far as I would be shooting anyways.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

I have shot an M14 that was old enough to have had all the Parkerizing cleaned off it by many soldiers before me. This particular day I was firing for qualification in conditions that were rain and mud. In fact, there was so much mud on the rifle (after firing prone) that the rear sight appature clogged with the substance and I could no longer see thru it. I had to look around it. Every time I fired, mud blew in my face from the receiver and action.
Yet the rifle never missed a beat.
I know for a fact that my later issued M16 would have quit cold. Not a good thing to have to field strip and clean your rifle in the middle of a fight. 
Combat is not always a sunny, 70 degree day at the range.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

PaulS said:


> The Garand is a far more effective battle rifle than the AR platform. It uses a larger, heavier bullet at nearly the same velocity. It was used in "walking patrols" as much as in 'battle line' fire.
> The fact that it is longer is only a detriment if you plan on 'clearing' rooms or houses where a shotgun is more appropriate anyway. The M1A doesn't wear as fast, is not prone to contaminants and is a gas operated action so it does not foul as easily or as often. It will easily reach out accurately at twice the distance and is more likely to diable a combatant imediately than the 223 or 5.56 round.
> 
> As far as I am concerned there is no comparison between the two platforms. The AR will come out behind in 99% of all cases.


 The Grand is a fine old weapon , to big to heavy and holds to few rounds. The 1903 ,Grand and M14 were from a different mind set and time. While there are uses for longer range weapons for the most part the issue rifle is not the tool for that job today. The romance with the old weapons fuels a love affair that does not work in modern combat.
The AR platform will be around for some time in one form or another


----------

