.45, or Browning Hi-Power?

Why? It had a capacity not much greater than the M1911A1 (8 rounds), whilst chambering the weaker round of the GP35 (9mm P). The worst of both worlds.

 

Hoosier, you seriously prefer the aging M14 over the new M16A2? Everyone knows the M14 is inferior to the M16. But, I won't take the M16, nor the M14. I'll take something even better-the M4 Carbine. All the firepower of the M16 squeezed into an even more compact little package, complete with a genuine collapsable stock. And it probably has less recoil too, which is good for me.

 

Even the blokes in Iraq who are chosing the M-14 over the M-16?

 

Would you care to provide some evidence for this assertion?

 

I'll try to find it later but Ricky put a post on from a US Marine who stated what Simon has said, The M14 (in my opinion) is superior to the M16A2 because of power, reliability but there is also the Mini 14 so if soldiers complain about the size the the M14 get the Mini 14 The M4 carbine has the same or possibly more kick than the M16A2 because it uses the same ammunition and is ligter so there is not the same amount of weight to keep the recoil to a minimum

 

Blaster:
Going back to the Vietnam-era, the M-16 was an ideal weapon for the native South Vietnamese trooper as they were of smaller stature than the average American grunt.
With that being said, the 5.56 round just doesn't have the punch of the 7.62 round fired by the M-14/M1A. While the average American GI in Vietnam was equipped with the M-16, keep in mind that most engagements were of short-range, and troopers tended to spray the bushes with full-auto duriing a fire-fight. Most were not aiming at anything... just putting rounds down-range.
An elite trooper, such as a Marine "LURP" or Navy "SEAL" had more leeway in what he was allowed to carry, and most preferred something heavier... and tended to favor the M-14. (I've also been told they never turned in a captured AK-47... sometimes preferring to carry them on missions where they operated deep in enemy territory.)
I've read stories of soldiers issued M-16s who proceeded to smash their rifles against a tree until they broke them in half... then walked down to the armorer to get a replacement weapon... in the form of an M-14.
The only criticism I've read against the M-14 is that on full-auto, the barrel would climb and accuracy would suffer. The M-14/M1A is a "Riflemans' Rifle" and for good reason.

Tim

 

The downside to the first M16 models is the 3 round burst, no full-auto capability unlike the M14, (didn't they make a heavier M14 LMG so that most troops didnt have to turn their's to full-auto?)

 

IIRC, the M16A1 has a fully automatic function. The reason to switch to the M16A2 came about when it was found that soldiers in Vietnam wasted a considerable amount of ammunition with the full-auto setting, so a 3-round burst setting was installed instead.

But I too agree, the M14 is a very fine weapon, and far more capable than its Russian/Chinese equivalent, the SKS/Type 56.

 

I beleive the marince corps uses the M21 which is an semi auto rifle based on the M14. I am not sure about this I think it was the Marine Corps.

 

Thanks for all the replies and info - it sounds like first-round hitting-power is so important that more often than not it is preferred over a much higher magazine capacity; which made me wonder:
Can a .45 knock down someone wearing a bullet-proof vest? (I realize it won't penetrate, but apparently it would have a LOT more effect than a 9mm)
Could anyone enlighten me on this one?
Thanks!

 

How in the galaxy can the M14 have more power than the M16A2? The M16's newer than the M14, which means it should be improved, too. The only rifle that should stand the slightest chance of passing the M16 in power is the AK47. Right or wrong?

 

Wrong. M14 uses 7.62x51mm ammunition, thats full calibre rifle ammunition. My father uses that ammunition when he's hunting moose.
M16 uses 5.56x56mm ammunition which someone could say is varmint ammunition.
7.62x51 bullet weight over double that what 5.56x45 bullet but latter has a bit better MV. Therefore M14 with 7.62x51 has about twice as much muzzle energy than M16.

 

Newer does not always mean "better" or "more powerful", just different.

For a gun, stopping power depends on the energy of the bullets, which is a function of mass and velocity. The M16 has a higher MV than the M14 (c. 950 vs 850 m/s) but a much lighter bullet, hence less stopping power overall.

IIRC the M16 was designed on the principle that troops wanted to put as many rounds as possible in the general direction of the enemy rather than more deliberate, longer ranged, aimed fire. Light rounds meant more ammo could be carried.

Tom

 

Well, if newer isn't better, than why to people even bother wasting money making new guns? Why isn't the M14 the principle rifle of the US infantry today? It's powerful, it's reliable, it's good. Better than the M16, anyway. What's the point of having a lot of bullets if none of them can do much? And 3-shot bursts. What do they do, apart from wasting ammo?

 

Bad analogy! I happen to own a Mini-14, and it's a good little carbine. However, I must point out that it fires the 5.56 round, (as well as the .223 ), so it's not right to compare it to the M14. While it does look like someone threw an M14 in the dryer, the bore shrank as well as the rest of the gun!

Generally speaking, it's going to feel like getting hit with a baseball bat. Depending on range, age of the vest, stance of the 'shootee,' and a number of other variables, you have a better chance of knocking someone on their butt with the .45 than the 9mm, but I wouldn't count on it. That's why we have what's known as a "failure to stop" drill. Two rounds center mass - subject fails to stop (indicating body armor, drug enhancement, etc.) - one round to the head.

That is correct. Granted, they are cleaned up, and worked on to make them smooth, and as consistent as possible. They also have good 'glass' on them. But essentially, it's just a finely tuned M14.

 

The assault rifle is designed with a different intent than a battle rifle.

I'm sure Tony will correct any mistakes I make, but the Assault rifle is designed and intended with greater cability at short range in mind. They're generally shorter than a battle rifle, making carriage in AIFVs and helicopters easier and more practical especially if the section need to rapidly bomb-burst out of the vehicle for any reason.

Selective fire is of greater benefit in urban or jungle combat, a single powerful shot that misses is much less useful than a less powerful three round burst that hits with one or two rounds. This is one reason for the popularity of SMGs in WWII Urban fighting.

Battle rifles retain their accuracy over range much better than assault rifles, effective range for most Battle rifles is up to about 500 metres (Individual fire), for Assault Rifles, about 250-300 metres (Individual fire), but as most combats occur at the 250-300 metre mark the advantage of the Battle Rifle is somewhat illusory.

Essentially Assault rifles combine to a degree the best features of SMGs and Battle Rifles, the effective selective fire and magazine capacity of an SMG with much better range. As a general issue Personal Weapon for a typical Infantry section, they are arguably a better choice.

For specific cases, such as the need to take out a suicide bomber, a Battle Rifle is better.

As with many things it's about choosing the right tool for the right job, but in any case, newer doesn't always mean better, and with regard to weapons newer doesn't necessarily mean more powerful either.

 

My bad, didn't look it up properly (or my eyesight is failing me) thanks for the correction Tom

 

If I recall my facts correctly... didn't the Russians also modify the AK-47, rechambering it for the 5.45mm round in response to the 5.56mm M-16 and calling it the AK-74?
While I understand the rationale for choosing a lighter, smaller 5.56mm NATO round in todays' military, it pays to keep flexibility in the armory and provide your soldiers with the best possible tool to accomplish the mission.
For example...
Fighting in the mountains of Afganistan, the merits of the 7.62mm is without equal. the distances are longer and the full-sized rifle is an asset... to a rifleman. I've also seen footage of .50cal. BMG sniper-rifles in action in Afganistan... and their abilty to reach-out and dismember someone must be seen to be believed.
Street-fighting and urban combat in Iraq... is yet another scenario, and the M-16A2 is possibly a better fit for that mission-profile.
Of course if I was knocking-down doors and going house-to-house, I'd be tempted to opt for a short-barrelled shotgun with double #00 buck and an 8-shot magazine extension. The Benelli M1-Super 90 or Mossberg Model 500 comes to mind...
You match the most appropriate weapon with the mission...

Tim

 

As it has been already said it has it is lighter and I assume that soldiers also prefer multi fire than just single fire.

What is the difference?, I thought it was the same round.

No I think it was a different gun all togethor. I dont think it was the same round I think it was 5.45X39 instead of 5.56X45. It was a replacement for the AK-47 which was not recieved as well around the world as the AK-47 but just as good a rifle.

 

The Ak-74 is mostly a further modification of the AKM, being rechambered for the 5.45mm round, and an improvement in the weapon's ergonomics. I don't believe the AK-74 was a response to the M16 (The AK-47/AKM can hold their own!) but the idea of using a smaller caliber bullet was picked up from the US M16. This allowed more bullets to be carried and a higher muzzle velocity of course. It is interesting to note that the Russians also rechambered their light machine gun, the RPK, to fire the 5.45x39 round.

Since we're on the topic of Cold War rifles, has anyone fired the Stoner 63, or know of someone who has used it in combat? Appearantly the weapon was a nightmare when it came to maintenance (even worse than the M16). It is a fine looking weapon, however, and was one of the first modular weapons. With just a few simple changes, the Stoner could be modified into one of sixteen different sub-assembilies, including LMG, carbine, and GPMG.

Blaster wrote:

The 2-3 round burst is a way to decrease ammunition wastage, but still give the average soldier respectable firepower. As Simon mentioned earlier, three rounds fired in quick succession by one trigger pull increases the chance of one of those rounds actually hitting the target, especially when compared to long, fully automatic bursts. Some weapons, such as the AN-94 and HK G11, fire 2 and 3 round bursts (respectively) at a much higher ROF than they can when shooting fully automatic (ex: G11 ROF w/full auto is about 550-600rpm, G11 ROF w/3-round burst is closer to 2,000rpm). This allows a much greater grouping of shoots because the recoil of burst fire is not felt until the bullets are already out of the barrel and on their way to the target.