M14/M1A vs M16/AR15 (pistols, rifle, 308, cheap)

[NVplumber]

OK. The M14 was deemed to be to heavy and not enough ammo could be carried to take on the AK in jungle combat. Thus the M16 was born. Now the M14 has been more than revived as combat has moved into more open terrain and the 7.62x51 in a modern M1A out classes the AK hands down. Power, accuracy and though the ammo capacity is lower it more than makes up for that in power delivered on target. The M16 is doing its job, but I still have to wonder at the thinking behind just shelving the M14 rather than adapting it. That it's taken till now for it to evolve is ...hard to imagine. The M16 has been quite successful after some teething issues but the M14 has sure made a comeback.

What rifles were actually left in inventory flew off the racks when hostilities in the ME went hot and they are still highly prized when they get to the troops over there. Personally, as much as I like my AR my M1A that I sadly had to sell is sorely missed. Keeping the AR in favor was a seriously considered compromise, and came down to price of ammunition to keep shooting. In the militaries position I'm not so sure I'd take the AR over the M14. Not as a primary battle rifle anyway. The M14 just flat rocks the house. In its modern variations even more so.

So who really wins it here? Personally I'm going with the M1A/M14 especially given conditions currently in play. I kept my AR over my M1A because of cost factors that the military isn't near as concerned over. Overall performance would be my primary factor were I king of what our co.bat personnel have in their hands. Any other thoughts?

[M3 Mitch]

Back in the late 50's or early 60's, RAND did a study that favored going to the 5.56 over the 7.62. I have read parts of that study, it's interesting but it is big.

I think it's a "horses for courses" issue. If ranges run long, enemies run big, tough, hopped up on drugs, and/or body armor - the 7.62 works better in these conditions. If enemies are close, small, not terribly tough, the advantage goes to the 5.56 because for a given weight, one can carry more rounds.

One thing I really prefer about the Garand and M-14/M1-A is that the firing pin is locked back in the bolt if the bolt does not turn and lock in, preventing you from finding out the hard way why neither round has been offered in a straight blow-back rifle like a .351 Winchester. If you assemble the poodle shooter bolt wrong, it won't rotate and lock up, this is not something that would be intuitively obvious to a typical grunt. But the piece will still fire - once anyway.

[spillerNburr]

I bought a Springfield armory twenty years ago. They are great guns hands down. But they are heavy and the 308 is a bulky round to carry. All I can say is if you have either an AR or M1A or both your fine.

[NY_refugee87]

My friends who returned from both Afghanistan and Iraq would prefer the 7.62 as the 5.56 didn't have stopping power shot placement was key. Withdraw from the Hague convention and load varmint and other types of rounds we are privy to here and load them to 5.56 specs... it would be much more effective.

As for which pattern is better...

Tough call. I am not biased towards any guns. Except pistols. You'll never convince me that a sub 4 inch barrel (belly blaster) is worth anything more than a paper weight or Christmas tree ornament.

But I will say this... the Mini 14 I had since 18 was tough as nails. I have no clue how many thousands of rounds I had fired through it. It went on my back when I'd go up in the trails on a quad or dirtbike, it took a beating. Was in the elements rain snow sun never had any issues with it. Clean it lube it and feed it repeat. Until it did eventually fail to cycle, but it took YEARS for that to happen...

It had nicks and dings in the stock.
I would go with the M1 pattern rifle... because I'm sure the butt of a 6 position stock to an enemies forehead would only upset them.

I'm skeptical over the AR/M4/M16 for a few reasons.
1. Aluminum receivers. Soft. Bang around I'm not so sure the carry handle rear sight will hold a zero.
2. Front sight post pinned to the barrel. Smack it and it tweaks you have an inaccurate gun and a gas leak.
3. The bolt and carrier.
As a mechanic I see gas rings as piston rings, the carrier as the bore. With no crank case oil to hit the rings and bore... how long will it last before you lose compression and ring tension?
4. Plastic stocks and foregrips. I guess they've been proven since vietnam...
I can only picture any of My ARs smacking a tree branch and busting the foregrip/stock. Go with the modern rail systems like quad rail key mod and mlock...

I can make soda cans dance at 100 yards with either mini 14 or AR... both are accurate.

My M1A National match is surgically precise. But it's long. Would I go clearing rooms all tacticool like? Hell no. I'd just shoot the walls... yep rooms clear.

Don't get me wrong I love both the AR and M1.
The AR is the hotrod of the gun world. Possibilities are endless.
With an adjustable gas block, there's no need to go swapping buffers and springs.
And you can also regulate how much gas you actually need. Instead of being over gassed. 2 pins and you can go from a 20 inch target set up, to a short barrelled receiver for close up work.
With 1 lower you can have literally as many different uppers as possible.
With the creation of 300 black you can still utilize 5.56 mags. Still run the same bolt and carrier just a barrel change and headspace check and you're good to go...

The M1 not so much.

[spillerNburr]

Originally Posted by NY_refugee87

My friends who returned from both Afghanistan and Iraq would prefer the 7.62 as the 5.56 didn't have stopping power shot placement was key. Withdraw from the Hague convention and load varmint and other types of rounds we are privy to here and load them to 5.56 specs... it would be much more effective.

As for which pattern is better...

Tough call. I am not biased towards any guns. Except pistols. You'll never convince me that a sub 4 inch barrel (belly blaster) is worth anything more than a paper weight or Christmas tree ornament.

But I will say this... the Mini 14 I had since 18 was tough as nails. I have no clue how many thousands of rounds I had fired through it. It went on my back when I'd go up in the trails on a quad or dirtbike, it took a beating. Was in the elements rain snow sun never had any issues with it. Clean it lube it and feed it repeat. Until it did eventually fail to cycle, but it took YEARS for that to happen...

It had nicks and dings in the stock.
I would go with the M1 pattern rifle... because I'm sure the butt of a 6 position stock to an enemies forehead would only upset them.

I'm skeptical over the AR/M4/M16 for a few reasons.
1. Aluminum receivers. Soft. Bang around I'm not so sure the carry handle rear sight will hold a zero.
2. Front sight post pinned to the barrel. Smack it and it tweaks you have an inaccurate gun and a gas leak.
3. The bolt and carrier.
As a mechanic I see gas rings as piston rings, the carrier as the bore. With no crank case oil to hit the rings and bore... how long will it last before you lose compression and ring tension?
4. Plastic stocks and foregrips. I guess they've been proven since vietnam...
I can only picture any of My ARs smacking a tree branch and busting the foregrip/stock. Go with the modern rail systems like quad rail key mod and mlock...

I can make soda cans dance at 100 yards with either mini 14 or AR... both are accurate.

My M1A National match is surgically precise. But it's long. Would I go clearing rooms all tacticool like? Hell no. I'd just shoot the walls... yep rooms clear.

Don't get me wrong I love both the AR and M1.
The AR is the hotrod of the gun world. Possibilities are endless.
With an adjustable gas block, there's no need to go swapping buffers and springs.
And you can also regulate how much gas you actually need. Instead of being over gassed. 2 pins and you can go from a 20 inch target set up, to a short barrelled receiver for close up work.
With 1 lower you can have literally as many different uppers as possible.
With the creation of 300 black you can still utilize 5.56 mags. Still run the same bolt and carrier just a barrel change and headspace check and you're good to go...

The M1 not so much.

I had 3 Mini 14s and all were junk. Inaccurate. I called Ruger and was told its not us its you. I had other experienced shooters try it with the same results. Then years later Ruger came out and said it was us, the dies were so used and worn that the guns we pot out were not accurate. LOL I sold mine and never looked back. ARs are a much better platform. If I want an M1A and I did buy one don't go for the decaf coffee.

[Dd714]

Simply enough, the militaries of the world realized that you can't shoot what you cannot see...and you don't need a weapon or a round that reached 1,000 yards when combat occurs mostly in the 200 yard range. And yes also the laws of logistics means that lighter weapons and smaller rounds enable movement to the front faster and cheaper. As every tactician knows - logistics wins a battle every time. Also there was some difficulty in controlling the weapon in automatic fire.

M14's if I understand now are used in sniper roles in the US military, but the M16/M4 still rules because...you can't shoot what you cannot see.

[ericsvibe]

I want to revive this older thread. I was listening to coverage from the shot show. A rep from a barrel manufacturer made a comment that they are providing conversion kits for AR10's to the Army for use in their research into the replacement for the 5.56/7.65. He said that his company(I didn't catch the name) feels that the 6.5 Creedmoor would be the eventual winner, because Soldiers and Marines are already trained on the AR platform, so it would minimize the cost of the switch. He also stated that the Army has already made a decision that the 6.5 Creedmoor would replace the 7.65 in all sniper applications where the 7.65 is currently being used. He did say that the Army does eventually want to find an upgraded rifle in the future, but the caliber would remain 6.5 Creedmoor. I know this was his opinion, but I wanted to know what everyone thinks.


The results of the new intermediate caliber competition haven't been made public. I know that many people have felt that the 5.56 was underpowered, and now due to the wars in the Middle East, the Army is finally looking for something better. I know the debate has been hot in heavy in recent years on which caliber is better in the AR10 platform. Recently gun manufacturers have offerings in .243, .7mm-08, 6.5 Creedmoor, and .260 which are commercially available off the shelf.


It would be funny if the AR platform continued to be the standard rifle for another decade with whatever caliber they eventually choose. I don't know if any of the other competitors on the market right now can beat the AR platform. I have read stories that the supposedly upgraded H&K version of the AR has not been any better.

[NVplumber]

Originally Posted by ericsvibe

I want to revive this older thread. I was listening to coverage from the shot show. A rep from a barrel manufacturer made a comment that they are providing conversion kits for AR10's to the Army for use in their research into the replacement for the 5.56/7.65. He said that his company(I didn't catch the name) feels that the 6.5 Creedmoor would be the eventual winner, because Soldiers and Marines are already trained on the AR platform, so it would minimize the cost of the switch. He also stated that the Army has already made a decision that the 6.5 Creedmoor would replace the 7.65 in all sniper applications where the 7.65 is currently being used. He did say that the Army does eventually want to find an upgraded rifle in the future, but the caliber would remain 6.5 Creedmoor. I know this was his opinion, but I wanted to know what everyone thinks.


The results of the new intermediate caliber competition haven't been made public. I know that many people have felt that the 5.56 was underpowered, and now due to the wars in the Middle East, the Army is finally looking for something better. I know the debate has been hot in heavy in recent years on which caliber is better in the AR10 platform. Recently gun manufacturers have offerings in .243, .7mm-08, 6.5 Creedmoor, and .260 which are commercially available off the shelf.


It would be funny if the AR platform continued to be the standard rifle for another decade with whatever caliber they eventually choose. I don't know if any of the other competitors on the market right now can beat the AR platform. I have read stories that the supposedly upgraded H&K version of the AR has not been any better.

As much as the M1A/Garand has endeared itself to me I am working pretty exclusively with the AR platform now. It took a while for me to get here as I grew up with the M1 style rifles and my Dad was vehement in his disdain for the AR having had his first(and last) experiences with it with the first run M16s in Viet Nam.


Those initial problems have been long corrected, yet still when I started into ARs my Dad wrinkled his nose in disgust. I've had a couple Mini 14s, and was disappointed in the accuracy they delivered finding that the AR far outperformed them. I'm currently working on a 243/308 AR build for longer range work. Since the 308 and 243 share magazines and all that's required to change over is a barrel swap (easily done with an AR) there isn't much on the N American continent I couldn't hunt with it and I can also move up into long range service rifle competition from being limited to intermediate using my 5.56/223.


The AR is fast replacing the M1 platform in all areas now, and one of my big selling points on that is cost. Springfield is quite proud of the M1A and it's tough to get ones hands on a Garand for a decent price even is a condition that needs an arsenal re work. Though my heart will always lie with the M1 rifles my budget dictates I compromise.


I rarely have used my 30 round mags in my AR, preferring the 10s and even 5's being as I use it as a rifle is supposed to be used. To group rounds on the target where I aim them. Something the AR is more than capable of doing. 300 yard shots on coyotes are no problem specially with my 20 inch scoped upper but the carbine length 16 inch does quite well too. I tend to stay around the 200 yard stick with the 16 though.


The 6.5 round is showing a lot of promise as a replacement for the 5.56 and I recently read an article in Field and Stream where the author built a rifle in 6.5 and took it on a MT elk and mule deer hunt. With outstanding results.