Do you think that the M-14 rifle would have been a better weapon than the M-16 if all M-14's had a selector .?

Question

If the M-14 s were equiped with a selector switch, would not that have been a more reliable weapon than the M-16?

P.S. Do you think that the current version of the M-16 (the M4) should be replaced with another rifle? (The contract is running out)

Answer 1

The M-14 (which I carried on and off in Afghanistan for love of it with the 82nd ABN and now own one privately) did have an auto function in Vietnam, but the weapon became uncontrollably and was prone to overheat. Since you couldn't change out barrels it wasn't a good idea. I would still carry one and just fire aim, accurated shots (like our Designated Marksmen did).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle

The M-16A2/A4 is too long for HUMVEE or other vehicle use, but the M4 is okay for everything. You just need to clean them. I couldn't imagne doing a water landing like D-Day with all the wires and stuff lol.But we waterproofed everything anyway. I had no problem with them in Iraq. Yes, if we could go with a close-bolt system like H&K and be like the Spec Op guys fine, but Colt has pull and the bidding war is gonna be h**l.

Answer 2

they are its most likely going to be replaced by the motofied m-16 that can fire a high calabier round or it will be replaced by the g-36

Answer 3

maybe, but i doubt it. soldiers could carry twice as many 5.56 NATO rounds as .308s. the M14 is also kinda heavy and not suited for cqc, also it has more recoil and is heavier M16's are also cheaper to produce and are easily upgradeable. the current M16's should be replaced by a full sized HK416 in 6.8 SPC (if it existed in that caliber and i think they should make one like that)

Answer 4

M14's are big heavy and bulky.  I don't know how reliable they are because i haven't used one in combat, all i had was the M16A4(which is the current version of the M16, the M4 is a carbine).   anyway the M16 should be replaced by a more accurate version of the AK 47.  

Answer 5

The m-16 was selected not for its automatic firing ability, but its smaller caliber.  The m-16 allows the user to carry hundreds of more rounds of ammunition than the m-14 does.  

Personally, the m-16 has its uses, but the rifle has seen service for almost fifty years, there are new rifles in development that will replace it.  The .223 caliber is not well suited for urban warfare, and the design of the rifle is not as good as some of the new weapons that have been developed that beats the m-16 in both range and versatility.  

Answer 6

the m4 is a good rifle, the m16 needs to be replaced with m4's or something else the m16 is out dated

Answer 7

You have never fired an M-14 on full auto have you? It is a hoss, and even in the E2 config. it's only barely manageable on full auto. Not to mention that the ammo is twice as heavy as 5.56mm ammo. I would like to see the M-16/M-4 family replaced with something that has a gas piston mechanism (HK416, SCAR, Sig 556, Armalite AR-180) just for reliability, however, if you keep an M-16 properly cleaned, it won't give you a l**k of trouble. Remember when the Army supply guys got shot up and captured in Al Nasiryha in 2003? Many of their weapons malfunctioned. The Marines that went in to clean up after did not have the same problems. Combat troops know that keeping your weapon clean only comes second to staying hydrated.

Answer 8

The 16 is 3lbs lighter, does not rot in a jungle, in garrison is easier to clean and as already stated you can carry more ammo.

There was a question in here abuot guy's grabbing AK's when they find them. Seems the smaller round (5.56) goes right thru a target if your to close. The 7.62 puts the target down.

I was a REMF while active so we did not play much with weapons. Prior to shooting the .45 we were given a class by one of the pilots. I asked "why the .45 instead of a 9mm or .38". His response was short and right to a similar point. "If you shoot a guy in the hand with the .38 or 9mm it puts a hole in his hand. Shoot him with the .45 and it will tear his f ing arm off at the elbow"!

Don't know what is coming next but while looking at articles then I found one stating the Russian are using a 5.56 now too. Maybe they figure it easier to scrounge ammo that way versus stopping power.

From what I read the problem is at close range only, not sure how close. Maybe someone with more knowledge can will see your question.

Answer 9

The M-14 although a better rifle, it is heavier and the ammo is bigger and heavy. Granted you could shot the left t******e off a fly at 500 meters, after a week out in the field you would have prefered to fight the enemy with a wooden spoon then lug that thing.

M-16 great up close and better for jungle warfare. It was wasteful with ammo. You couldn't dig your M-16 into the ground barrel end first to hang your helmit on the stock, butt or whatever they call it. I can't remember. It was over 40 years ago.

I still liked the M-14 though.