Would you rather take the M14 or the M16A2 / Colt M4 into battle...this seperates people who understand guns from those that dont. Go.
>>27843886
i take my ar
>>27843886
That's not an A2, and neither are the A2 and M4 on the same level.
>M4
>A2
>M14
>A1
>>27843895
Archaeologists will someday find this and struggle to decipher the meaning of the hundreds of coatings on it, finally deciding it was the sacrificial totem of a fickle and changeable warrior tribe
>>27843886
The m14 is a pile of shit.
>>27843886
M14 baseline is a bench queen.
>>27843886
An m14.
>>27843886
As much as I love the M14, give me the AR pattern to go to war with. It's lighter and I can carry more ammunition.
>>27843960
fuck that, i'm getting cremated with my ar in my hands.
Depends on the theater of war.
I'd take the m14. But i'd probably get rekt in any urban setting <300yd.
>>27843886
M4. M14s were/are jam-o-matics. As nice as they look and as bad as I want one, there's a reason it was hardly ever used in combat.
>>27844008
Will you be alive at the time? If so, make sure to record a video for /k/
>>27844124
if i can i will but i'll most likely be dead.
>>27843886
can i take both?
Almost always m4 unless it's some crazy ww1 1000yd trench warfare nonsense.
>>27843886
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9cMuv73xIU
Even Ian thinks the AR15 is the best weapon.
the M16. I fucking adore 7.62 NATO but I don't want to carry a combat load of it everywhere, having to run and jump with it.
>>27843886
>Would you rather take the M14 or the M16A2 / Colt M4 into battle...this seperates people who understand guns from those that dont. Go.
>this seperates people who understand guns from those that dont. Go.
No it fucking doesn't, it's just a spewing of opinions.
Honestly, shit posts like this only exist to stir up arguments rather than come to concise conclusions.
How about throwing some variables into the mix? Where and who am I fighting? Am I carrying a lot of gear already? How far will I have to travel? Will I be fighting in the woods, urban areas or at distances over 500 meters?
Inevitably you will probably gain a 4:1 margin for the M4/M16 without this info. But if I put a scenario like:
>You are an insurgent, you only carry ammo and your gun
>Fighting will be done not far from your base
>most likely will engage at 300 meters or more
then you might see an even split for the M14 and M16/M4.
>>27844013
>Depends on the theater of war.
No it doesn't. M16/M4 is objectively better for all conditions.
>>27844721
>M16/M4 is objectively better for all conditions.
>objectively
Google that word
>>27843886
There is only one correct answer, you are correct.
And that would be whatever the fuck the rest of your unit is armed with.
>>27843886
Why the hell is the hand guard upside down? It could just be me but it looks like it is
>>27844721
>parroting things you heard it on forgotten weapons
>>27845004
They only go on one way, I think it just looks weird because of the angle of the photo
FAL
>>27845016
Oh fuck off bench queen. The m14 is ass.
And to be honest, until you do field tests yourself that prove otherwise you have no right to talk.
>>27844772
that helmet is doge
M4 cuz I'd hope I'm in a tank.
>>27844772
>>27845118
>once seen
>>27843886
METTC is the only correct answer.
>>27845036
>>>27845016
>Oh fuck off bench queen. The m14 is ass.
>
>And to be honest, until you do field tests yourself that prove otherwise you have no right to talk.
Better at +200 yards. Coming from someone whose shot both at ranges up too 500 yards.
>>27845448
Show us.
I've used the m1a at multiple ranges and I've never been impressed.
For genuine milspec m14s, I haven't gotten much of a chance, but to be perfectly honest, if I can't get a custom built m1a to perform then some dumb boot's gun isn't gonna hold up either.
ITT: People who don't shoot base combat scenarios on memes.
>>27843886
M16 is obvious choice, but that m14 is so sexy.
>>27845469
>own m14
>take shooting
>shit is cash
>take it innawoods
>too heavy, too big
>next time take 16 inch sks
I like the m14 but it's a heavy pos compared to modern rifles.
M16A4.
The M14 was heavy, wood furniture, and unusable full auto fire.
>>27843886
I Heard the Colt jams to often, but still because it looks sexy
AK > FAL = AR-15 > HK91 >>> M1A
i would take the m14 clip and jam it into the m16 clip holder so it shoots biger rounds so it is automatic like m16 but big long powerful gun like m14.
M16. I have no expeience with an M14.
>>27844052
>reason
yeah, the caliber
>>27843994
>It's lighter and I can carry more ammunition.
>>27845666
I am actually impressed that there is not one of intelligence in this thread.
>>27846274
I have both and anyone saying m14 is trolling or ignorant. sure like the one guy said about trench warfare or maybe a static long range standoff building top scenario or shooting through barriers general, it's good at that stuff. It makes an effective club and spear as well. However; The rounds are heavy as fuck, the gun is heavy as fuck and the recoil is heavy as fuck. The mags are a pain to change as they don't drop free and you have to rock and lock em in place. The built in stripper clip guide is next to useless and If you are gonna scope it and use it as a DMR it's gonna cost you thousands of dollars to do it right between a good mount and an optic that will last more than one mag as the recoil impulse will destroy almost any scope you put on it in short order, also you will need a cheek riser. you would do better with an AR10 in every way aside from the sexiness.
I love my M14, it looks awesome and it has the shoulder thing that goes up. I have the GI web sling, bayonet and scabbard all Vietnam issue so it is all period correct. When you fire it with the bayo attached there is about zero muzzle rise and the sound and sight of it all draws in everyone at the range, it is an impressive machine. As a functional battle rifle of modern warfare it's trash. You get ANY dirt/mud in the works and that shit is locked down. ALL the important moving parts are totally exposed to crap at all times.
There are good reasons it was the shortest lived battle rifle ever issued by the US military and it's not just politics.
If the M14 were a car it would be the Delorean; looks cool and over time has gained a cult following but really it's terrible for what it's meant to do.
>>27846382
>recoil impulse will destroy almost any scope you put on it
>HURR DA M14 IS SHIIIIT
No
No it isn't
Way to buy into shitty memes you faggots. but the M16/M4 is a better infantry rifle
>>27846382
>Garand Action
>Not amazing
What the fuck is wrong with you idiots? Circle jerk the Garand for days, but the M14 is somehow COMPLETE UTTER GARBAGE RAHRAHRAH ?
The saying "the M14 is the best battle rifle of WWII" is pretty spot on but seriously the M14 isn't a terrible rifle.
>>27844634
>Trenches being 1000 yards apart?
What the actual fuck?
>>27844721
>objectively better
>a 5.56x45 rifle is better than 7.62x51 rifle
>objectively better for all conditions
Take a moment to think about what you said.
>>27847011
>Not shooting the support trench 3 trenches behind the trench you're looking at
>>27843886
https://www.full30.com/video/6618755f336970e55e6c50c1fe894ff8
https://www.full30.com/video/9eef6b3a4eb6c8846a4c8dc4b8968bc4
These two videos are all you need know about AR15 vs M14.
M14's are over-hyped range toys and anybody with any sense would pick an AR15.
>>27843886
scar h
>>27843886
It's going to sound very fuddish, but the M14.
A couple weeks ago I saw an M1A supermatch fall from a 5 foot drop and not get a single scratch but the AR-10 below it in a similar price range was dinged up from where the M1A glanced it.
Functionally I know the AR-10's more accurate, I know it's more reliable, but the M1 family of rifles isn't dead yet. And I fucking love a .308.
let the hate flow through you.
>>27847431
fuck, I meant AR-15's.
>>27847431
>A couple weeks ago I saw
Just now I saw a useless anecdote, what a coincidence!
>>27847448
Allow me to give you an itemized list of reasons, since day/k/are must be up.
With the polymer stock I can't feel a difference between my A2 and my M1A.
The .308 is a more versatile round from game to long range target engagement.
It is a reliable and proven system, while having the benefit of a detachable magazine eliminating M1 thumb and giving a higher overall capacity.
Like I said, I know the AR will maintain it's accuracy longer without the need for a new stock/bedding, I understand how an enclosed action is better for reliability, and I know that the AR family of rifles is by far much more adaptable to almost any situation.
But I would still take the M1A over an AR any day of the week.
>I prefer m14
>>27847598
>working class trailer
>red blood family for sure
His dad must feel like a failure
>>27847598
why is it fucking impossible to find a swordfag who doesn't look like a failure at socializing and life in general?
like, I know the gun scene is riddled with walking, talking cringefests, but I can still find decent looking people who shoot guns as a hobby easily enough.
>>27843886
I'd take the m4.
>lighter
>better for urban ops
>manageable recoil with higher volumes of fire
>carry more ammo
>still accurate at mid to long ranges
>The army trained me how to own/operate.
It's also pretty reliable as long as you keep it clean and when it does malfunction it's easy to fix quickly.
Am I doing overwatch?
Patrols?
Direct Action?
Tell me what the fuck i'm doing first.
>>27847585
>It is a reliable and proven system
https://www.full30.com/video/6618755f336970e55e6c50c1fe894ff8
It only served like what, 5 years as the standard service rifle?
>With the polymer stock I can't feel a difference between my A2 and my M1A
You talking in weight? Because you're a fucking idiot and it's not based on how you feel, it's based on actual weight.
>The .308 is a more versatile round from game to long range target engagement
Versatile? Not really, you could argue more range and barrier penetration, I can argue fragmentation, lighter recoil for faster follow up shops, weighs less, can carry more, etc etc.
>and I know that the AR family of rifles is by far much more adaptable to almost any situation.
>But I would still take the M1A over an AR any day of the week.
Hey, you're the retard, not me.
>>27847650
Ironically it seems like the least cringe worthy ones are the dudes who actually dress up in the proper soft garb and wear their swords as they're actually meant to be worn.
Mad respect to practitioners that you know, actually practice.
>>27847585
Right here with you man. The M14 reliability meme is total Bullshit.
>>27848412
Meme? The military tried for decades to make them not shit and failed.
http://looserounds.com/2015/01/30/the-m14-not-much-for-fighting-a-case-against-the-m14-legend/
They are range toys and fine for taking a deer if you don't have a better rifle. There is nothing wrong with that as lots of guns are little more than range toys. But suggesting that anybody who knew their shit would willingly go into a firefight with one when given the option for say, an M16 or AK47 beggars belief.
Would rather have this. Pic related.
AR-10, best of both worlds.
>>27843886
Might want to post a pic of an A2.
>triangular handguards
>bullet button sight adjustment
>no forward assist
>20 round mag
Are you still in Saigon, OP?
M14
>>27844721
You don't say.
>>27845559
>wood furniture
>as if the stock cannot be changed
>as if small specialized units have not been using restocked M-14s
>>27849382
M16, lighter, carrying handle, full retard
>>27846274
>666x666
Jej
>>27849045
that article has been disproved time and time again. The M14 handgaurd does nothing on the accuracy of the gun, its just clipped on the barrel.
>>27849897
Kay then explain the shit tier dust protection?
>>27849897
B-but Ian said...
>>27849045
you know what? my norinco m35 (pretty much a chinese knockoff m1a) has been reliable for hunting for about 7 years. I also shoot it twice a month out in the desert just to keep myself fresh. I get a grouping of 1.2 inches at 100 and the only thing its got is a medium weight barrel. I constantly touch the hand guard and I have never had the zero change in all of those years. I think that maybe that article took some liberties, hmmmm. I dont know, maybe your should ask everyone else who's shot an m14/m1a/m35/m14s regularly in the US and Canada. Seems like It would be an awfully big oversight if everyone for the past 40+ years since the weapons been around has had to re zero every time they've touched the firearm, wouldnt it?
>>27847650
there's a lot of them
they're just less vocal/prominent and usually don't boast about owning swords
>>27847673
are you trying to call door kicking DA and exclude patrols and overwatch?
>>27849227
this guy gets it. US Service Rifle should have been box magazine Garand (maybe 276), then AR10 (def 280) then maybe a SCHV but still AR15
>>27849418
>carrying handle
the one that no one ever used, and that was before flat tops?
>>27843886
M16A2
>>27849976
>you know what? my norinco m35 (pretty much a chinese knockoff m1a) has been reliable for hunting for about 7 years.
Useless anecdote, disregarded.
>>27843886
Whatever I was issued.
>>27850068
are you saying that IRL what the armorer issues you of a function of MTOE, not personal preference?
>>27843886
When i was a weakling i would choose the m4.
Since im ripped now ill m14.
All this proves is how /fit/ you are
m14 if your not a unmotivated weak ass faggot
Guy lived down the street from me when I was a kid. Colonel in the US Army. He said you could take the m14, throw it in a swamp, dig it out a month later and it will shoot just fine. However if you cleaned it and left it on your bunk for an hour... it would jam at the range.
![US_sniper_during_a_firefight_in_Northern_Trek_Nawa,_Afghanistan[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/3TY8bTB.jpg "US_sniper_during_a_firefight_in_Northern_Trek_Nawa,_Afghanistan[1].jpg")
>>27844721
Man, what a faggot this guy is.
>>27843886
>What kind of enemy am I fighting? Mechanized? Body armor? Gorillas? How do they conduct movement?
>What kind of terrain am I fighting in?
>What ranges can I expect to get into firefights?
>How often will I be resupplied?
>Do I get optics?
>Am I in a unit?
>What is my unit carrying?
>What is my role within the unit?
>What is the enemy using?
>Can I get an EBR instead?
>Will I constantly be getting in and out of a vehicle?
>will I be fighting from a vehicle?
>Will I be room clearing?
Give me an M14 if the battle is in my homeland of Southern Minnesota.
>>27849411
>>27849382
>>27849344
>>27850782
DO YOU WANT ME TO FIND PICTURES OF OPERATORS USING M4s??
BECAUSE I CAN IF YOU REALLY FUCKING WANT ME TO!!!
JUST SAYING
>>27850782
>implying he wanted to be issued that rifle.
The M14's only real problem was that it was obsolete when it came out. John Garand wanted to designed the M1 in 1930 using BAR mags and with a short gas system, so effectively the M14 was a 30-year-old design when the Army finally put it into service. It didn't take any of the lessons learned during WW2 that guns like the FAL or G3 did, or modern Californian space magic like the AR-10. Couple that with the US trying to ram the 7.62 cartridge down NATO throat and no wonder it didn't end well.
I love how /k/ turned against the M14 the instant Ian's video was posted yet they still salivate over the Garand which has the same action. The Garand has more faults than the M14 yet no one shits on it because it wasn't outdated when it was new. Now in 2015 they're both outdated as fuck and have the same reliability issues so making historical arguments is pretty pointless.
I do think it's fair to shit on the M14 as a sub-MOA target gun, though. It was never designed for that.
>>27844008
Why not reproduce? Pass your rifle down to protect your family.
>>27845559
Ya'll niggas realize the M14 had an optional fiberglass stock starting the '60s, right?
>>27850885
>I love how /k/ turned against the M14 the instant Ian's video was posted yet they still salivate over the Garand which has the same action.
Shitposters aside, I'm pretty sure the only reason anyone gets an M1 is historical value, and maybe, MAYBE depending on where you get it from, a decently priced semiautomatic hunting rifle.
For the prices involved in getting an M1A, it's really not all worth it these days.
>>27843886
In Ranger School I learned that most ordinance/small arms questions were rhetorical. So my answer was always; "Depends on the Situation and the Terrain, Sir".
>>27850885
>I love how /k/ turned against the M14 the instant Ian's video was posted yet they still salivate over the Garand which has the same action. The Garand has more faults than the M14 yet no one shits on it because it wasn't outdated when it was new. Now in 2015 they're both outdated as fuck and have the same reliability issues so making historical arguments is pretty pointless.
How do you mis the point of things this hard?
>>27850939
that M1A also has zero authentic components and most of it was made in huehuebrbr. you're paying top-dollar for a MIM copy of a rifle that's not even made stateside.
>>27847598
Not 2 seconds after taking this picture, he promptly dropped his $80 not-ana and severely mangled 3 toes on his unprotected left foot
The amputation procedure and ambulance ride cost his parents about $1200 and he has now decided his dream is to be a professional commission artist on deviantart
His first paycheck was for $15 from an anonymous client requesting a picture of Rachel Ray eating a diaper just used by Donald duck
His mother acts as his secretary, taking commissions and delivering them to him while he practices with his new rattan bokken, inscribed with the phrase "anonymous is legion"
tl;Dr I'm in a terrible mood and hate this person
>>27850943
METT-TC DEPENDENT SIR
>>27844721
I believe the word you are looking for is "subjectively"
>>27844772
His helmet looks like a cat with a Bane-mask
>>27850870
>the US army dug M14s out of storage for Afghanistan just because they felt like it.
>>27851042
hi never served
>>27843886
What kinda battle? What ranges? What terrain?
Tell me first.
>>27850858
I can smell the heavy odour of your saltiness
>>27849897
Disproved how and where?
So far we have multiple sources to support "M14 is shit" but exactly 0 to support that its worth a dam.
>photos of M14 DMR rifles in THE SANDBOX
All replaced or being replaced by AR10's.
I get that its a troll thread but come on guys.
I have a M305(canadian M14). I have all the to do mods done as in shims, unitizing, op rod spring etc. The trigger has been worked on, its been bedded and it has nm sights.
I cannot imagine taking this thing into battle as my only all around gun. I love my M14 but even with all that work my Tikka T3 out shoots it all day and my SKS is way more practical to run around and plink with.
I've run probably 2k rounds through it give or take and while I'm not an expert I can hit what I want with irons. With a scope its basically luck unless I use ammo like sierra match grade which gives consistent 1 moa groupings for me.
Point is in a longer range roll I would prefer an actual rifle made for precision and in a urban environment a shorter and lighter rifle is easily a lot more useful.
>>27850870
>>27851042
>>27851602
I worked the arms room in Iraq and Fort Hood. We received about a dozen scoped M14s (not EBR, M21 or M25) and shotguns when we arrived in Iraq, and transferred them to the unit that replaced us. We stored an SR25 for another unit, along with a Browning Hi-Power, but never fired either. The guys who got the M14 were NCOs who asked, all of whom were hunters and fantastic shots. Shotguns went to machine gunners on HMMWV. Officers had M9. Other weapons were all the common shit you would expect: M2HB, M240B, M249, a lot of M16A2, some M4. Very few red dots at the time. I only remember the CO having an issued Aimpoint, and my buddy had a personally owned knock off brand red dot.
>>27849227
My fellow of African descent.
I rage knowing that the army sabotaged every other rifle so it could get it's baby the M14. It could have been FALs or AR10s in 1957 but no. get pushed back and ultimately abandoned because of a vendetta against stoner
>>27851602
And the worse part is we could have had M14 DMR in 1957
>>27843886
M1 Garand actually outperformed the M14 in army tests.
>>27852551
shit AR10 DMR*
And again in 1977 when Rock Island arsenal made one.
And again in 1985 when Picatinny Arsenal made one, pic related
>>27844721
ok what about long range engagements? 7.62x51 is superior in every way
>>27852579
The M16 with 20 in barrel is plenty accurate.
>>27852585
Barrel has little to nothing to do with accuracy, 7.62x51 is better for long range due to the fact it fires a longer range lol.
>>27852585
not at 600+ yards its not,
>>27852607
I fucked that up, meant barrel length.
>>27845758
This is actually a pretty good reason. I have no experience with an M14, but my AR I know in and out.
>>27852610
There is no environment where you would have to shoot beyond 600 yards. Nearly all combat happens within 300 meters.
>>27852668
>What is Sniping for 100$ Alex
>>27852683
>Sniping
Okay mall ninja
>>27852688
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Hathcock
>U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Jim Gilliland - Previously held the record for the longest recorded confirmed kill with a 7.62×51mm NATO rifle at 1,250 m (1,367 yd) with a M24, while engaging an Iraqi insurgent sniper in Ramadi, Iraq on 27 September 2005
someones salty af
>>27852703
>with a M24
Annnnd?
![1128714798[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/YBn3YPK.jpg "1128714798[1].jpg")
>>27852668
>>27852795
You were saying "There is no environment where you would have to shoot beyond 600 yards. Nearly all combat happens within 300 meters."
and i proved that there are frequent engagements of ranges beyond 600 yards
>>27852126
This proves what exactly?
I personally known hunters who were good shots and generally knew what they were doing in regards to hunting and hunting guns but outside of that narrow interest believed the dumbest shit imaginable about guns and shooting.
How many of those NCO's asked for those M14's based on a honest, critical evaluation of the rifle's merit vs received "wisdom?"
>>27852838
Because 1 guy had to do it 1 time? Get real, bro.
>>27852838
>You were saying
Not him though. I'm just keeping you on track, keep it M14, which isn't an M21, and has very little "sniping" application.
>>27852888
>>27852891
This still does not prove your previous statement of >>27844721 even a stock m14 would still be preferable over an M16a2 at long range engagements which still do happen. Would i take an M16a2 over an m14 for combat? sure i would but saying it fits "every role" is naive.
>>27852891
an m21 is based on an the m14 with a bedded stock an better ammunition,
>>27852966
>This still does not prove your previous statement of >>27844721
I never made that statement, I am not him, I'm just keeping you from moving the goalposts. This is M14 vs M16, morons need not apply.
>>27852966
>an m21 is based on an the m14 with a bedded stock an better ammunition,
Which is not an M14, sorry. Jump those mental hurdles how you need, your fallacy won't make it.
>>27852795
>>27852966
Also this was not as much a comparison of the weapon as the cartridge as, .308 is ballistically superior too 5.56 in long range engagements and in a DMR role.
>>27852985
I'm not jumping any hurdles, an m14 is better at longer ranges than an m16a2 that is fact.
>>27852579
except that AMU scores went up in every measurable fashion when they moved to 5.56
>>27852585
>>27852632
implying barrel length determines accuracy
>>27852607
I never liked the pimping of 308 as a particularly long range round. Some loads outshoot some 5.56 at distance, but it's really not that impressive on a spectrum of "how punch small holes in things from far away"
>>27845758
>>27852657
same, tho I can fumble fuck my way around M1/M14/Mini 14. still would be drastically less useful than with M16 -- same reason I don't use AK
>>27853004
>m14 is better at longer ranges than an m16a2 that is fact.
>>27843994
This.
Actual battles aren't about shooting people directly and getting the most DPS, they're about laying down a base of fire and fire superiority. Less recoil with the 5.56 and lower weight means you can shoot and carry more rounds. The enemy doesn't know/care if an incoming round is a 5.56 or a 7.62, the crack of the bullet and the dust being kicked up around them is enough to keep their heads down. Plus the M14's reliability is greatly exaggerated. Look up any M14 vs. AR torture test and you may be surprised.
If you're a CoD kiddie, pick the M14. If you're looking to win a gunfight, pick the AR.
>>27852878 damn, bro, that stung. And I suspected someone would slam me for saying that, in spite of it being an honest description of the situation at hand. There are plenty of dumb hunters and plenty of dumb NCOs but these guys could all shoot their asses off, and all happened to hunt.
>How many of those NCO's asked for those M14's based on a honest, critical evaluation of the rifle's merit
I doubt much discernment beyond wanting to shoot bigger bullets at shit far away.
>vs received "wisdom?"
by the same token I don't think they wanted them on the basis of old wive's tales either
>>27853004
>that is fact
no, that is an assertion fallacy
>>27853021
>Less recoil with the 5.56
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm pretty recoil immune with handguns, but I should 5.56 drastically better than any other rifle caliber. I'd rather hit with 556 than miss with 762
>>27853021
>M14's reliability is greatly exaggerated
as is the M16's lack of reliability. Only M16 problems I have ever had were magazine related, and even those were rare
>>27853066
My point is that there is no situation where you're gonna be taking enough long range shots for it to matter.
>>27853060
put the same optic on an m14 and m16a2 and try to hit a man sized target at 1000 yards.
you will have more hits and more lbs of energy at that distance than .223
>>27850012
>no one used carrying handle
Because we were ordered not to carry it by the handle shithead
>>27853066
high time the military switched to .243
>>27853093
like I said, tell that to AMU, also energy topkuk
>>27853099
or because it's an uncomfortable method to pack around a weapon and only there because of the original AR15 charging handle that they shitcanned over 9000 years ago
>>27853085
>You will never have to engage an enemy at long distances
Hey i'm on your side, as i stated if i were going into combat tomorrow i would take the m16a2 because its accurate enough out to 300-400 metres and thats all you really need. However if i was a marksman and saw a combatant and told to engage at 1000 yds i would take the m14, simply because it is ballistically superior at that range.
So yes the m16 is superior in "almost" every situation but not "every" situation. Do you guys start to understand what i am typing?
>>27853113
where are these AMU scores you are so proud of? what does that have to do with ballistics?
>>27853126
/k/ starring in "Match the Equipment to the Mission, Not the Other Way Around: The Post"
>>27853170
Would you not want the proper equipment for a specific mission? would you cut a steak with a plastic knife?
>>27853126
>However if i was a marksman and saw a combatant and told to engage at 1000 yds i would take the m14, simply because it is ballistically superior at that range.
Given how hellacious it is keeping an M14 accurate I wouldn't count on either of those rifles to reach out to 1000 yards.
>>27853144
>implying ballistics on a chart beat out people being able to put rounds on target
tho I too am waiting with bated breath for other anon to cite a source
>>27853197
Very true indeed, but my moneys on .308 providing better results. If i could chose any weapon for that kind of range it would be .338 lapua
>>27846974
>No it isn't
The original M14 pattern is a piece of shit for combat conditions, which is why the US military deemed it not fit for service.
Rusts rapidly
Heavy
Poor stock design
Too high caliber for its intended purpose
Can't be modified without difficulty
Etc.
That said, if it had've had a chance to be upgraded the way that the m16 was, it might have been able to some of its bigger flaws. Though, in the end 7.62 nato is arguably overkill for standard infantry, so it's never going to be well suited for combat.
>>27843886
i wouldn't much rather take my M1A into battle than an AR. 308 is just the accuracy and death dealing i need.
>>27853222
Personally I don't see the different between a miss with a 308 and a miss with a 5.56. They'll both provide the same results.
Back to the OP, I'd choose an M16A2 over an M14. It's the better rifle for patrolling the Berlin wall or knocking over some South American democracy that's looking a little red. The M4 is from a different era, it's a little silly to compare it to the other two.
>>27853241
>Rusts rapidly
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, it's because of a shitty finish and not a shitty design?
>>27843886
My grandpa was a Vietnam vet. He said the M14 was heavy and jammed a lot, and you could only carry about 20 rounds. The M16, however, was lightweight and you could clear jams easier and you could carry a shit ton of ammo.
>>27853272
implying 308 is an inherently accurate round is like saying 7.62x39 is inherently inaccurate
>>27853293
>M4 is from a different era, it's a little silly to compare it to the other two
If you can say that M4 is a different era than M16A2 then I can say that M14 is also a different era from M16A2
>>27853316
>could only carry about 20 rounds
Was your grandpa a fucking skeleton?
>>27853310
>Do you think that maybe, just maybe, it's because of a shitty finish and not a shitty design?
If you're an infantry man, the finish is part of the design desu senpai.
>M16a2
Pros
Lighter
More reliable
More modular
can carry more ammunition
can have higher capacity magazines
less recoil
Cons
Less "stopping power" than competitor
Less effective range
Controllable in FA
>M14
Pros
High stopping power
Longer effective range
Cons
Heavier
Carry less ammo
Smaller magazines
Higher recoil
Less reliable
More recoil
Uncontrollable in FA
Carry less ammo
>>27853316
>20
tell me you meant 200. lie if you have to
>>27853324
He was a big guy; flamethrower operator. 20 rounds is just what he told me.
>>27853323
>If you can say that M4 is a different era than M16A2 then I can say that M14 is also a different era from M16A2
I lump them both in the Cold War era. Since one more or less replaced the other there's overlap between the M14/M16A2 and M16A2/M4. It's fair to compare them in those groups, but the M14/M4 comparison is retarded.
>>27853326
taking someone srsly who uses desu and spelles infantryman as 2 words
>>27853364
>Controllable in FA
how is that a con, ignoring that A2 was burst
>>27853364
woops Controllable in FA should be in pros
>>27853364
>Less "stopping power" than competitor
lol, so retarded.
>>27853365
He must have said 200, now that I think about it. 20 rounds is one magazine.
>>27853376
I'm not saying there were no flammenwerfers in Vietnam, but paired with the 20 rounds claim, you are stretching my credulity. Especially since 48 rounds ws the standard load out for M1 Rifle
>>27853377
out of respect to double dubs, I'm going to be polite. the M16A1 replaced the M14 not the M16A2. The M16A4 caught on more than the M4 for a few years before the M4 became shit hot, so your claim that M4 replaced M16A2 is also incorrect
>>27853410
>out of respect to double dubs, I'm going to be polite. the M16A1 replaced the M14 not the M16A2. The M16A4 caught on more than the M4 for a few years before the M4 became shit hot, so your claim that M4 replaced M16A2 is also incorrect
I'm not going for maximum autism here, guy. Just rough groups based on intended usage and the dominate conflict of the day.
>>27853293
The difference being you would have to equate for much more drop with the .223 compared to the .308. Also im no expert but would .223 carry enough energy at 1000 yards to kill a human? from my brief researching it looks like it takes about 80 ft lbs of force to kill a human.
>>27853410
>>27853398
>>27853376
>>27853365
He's talking about the magazine size, you spergs.
>>27853323
well, i guess you're right. if i'm not firing 168 gr FMJ BTHP, then i guess i wouldn't know, but i'm i'm going into combat, that's what i'm taking with me.
>>27853381
>taking someone srsly who uses desu and spelles infantryman as 2 words
Back to reddit, newfriend.
>>27853387
In a combat scenario ideally you would fill the target with many holes making whatever caliber used irrelavant but if you only had one shot that hits, you would be more likely to kill with .308 than .223. There is a reason nobody hunts big game with .223
>inb4 1000 pictures of dead big game with an AR, you only have 1 shot and shot placement would play a key role.
>>27853432
The m16 also had 20 round mags, so....
>>27853423
>called out on being a dumbass
>respond with autism accusation
>doesn't realize I am actually autistic
>>27853432
he retracted his statement, and in so doing implied NOT referencing magazine capacity
having carried both M14 and M4, I prefer the M14
>>27853429
I don't think you're appreciating how unrealistic it is to be hitting anyone in the first place at 1000 yards. At that range you're suppressing an area, badly. Killing someone isn't going to be accomplished by you and your infantry rifle at that range.
>acceptance accuracy for M14 was 5.5" at 100 yards and was waivered continually as it could not meet that.
>acceptance accuracy for M16 series is 4.5" at 100 yards.
>>27853436
>FMJ
>BTHP
pick only one
>>27853442
what does reddit have to do with this? it's a stupid insult in the first place and does nothing to cover up that you acted up and got jacked up
>>27853450
>you would be more likely to kill with .308 than .223
implying M80 ball hurts more than M193, M855 or M855A1
>>27853470
>>acceptance accuracy for M14 was 5.5" at 100 yards and was waivered continually as it could not meet that.
if true, does that explain why the Army's standard for grouping on a zero target is 5.76 inches per hundred yards?
>>27853480
It is a larger round,moving faster and carrying more energy so it might not feel like it but your internals sure would
>>27853493
>It is a larger round,moving faster and carrying more energy
>moving faster
lol. You have no idea what getting hit by 5.56 does when it's upwards of 2700 fps do you?
>>27853453
Didn't they issue 30 rounders late war?
>>27853457
>doesn't realize I am actually autistic
Oh, shit. Maybe if I distract him with a picture of a train he wont start taking everything I say in a conversational tone as some sort of argument starter. Is this good? This is what you people like, right?
>>27853470
Oh it is unrealistic, I'm just proving a point to that anon >>27844721 , is M16a2 superior most of the time? yes, But to say it is superior in "every" possible scenario is ludicrous. Even if it just comes down to how the cartridges perform.
>>27853491
No idea, I don't have a direct line to the Army acceptance board 50 years ago. I just pulled it off the internet like everyone else.
>>27853532
>Oh, shit. Maybe if I distract him with a picture of a train he wont start taking everything I say in a conversational tone as some sort of argument starter. Is this good? This is what you people like, right?
IMPLYING I DONT PREFER BLATANTLY OBJECTIVELY LITERALLY SUPERIOR EUROTRAINS GET BTFO AMERICUK
>>27853520
im guessing much less than 7.62x51mm at 2700 fps?
>>27853450
>In a combat scenario ideally you would fill the target with many holes making whatever caliber used irrelavant but if you only had one shot that hits
Hunting and combat are nothing alike. 5.56 is superior for combat because in combat you don't have one shot on a target standing motionless in the open, you have 100 shots in the general direction of your target while the other squad maneuvers to a flanking position or calls in fire support.
>Muh sniping
Combat is not COD, bud.
>>27853480
>what does reddit have to do with this?
You got BTFO and your only response was to complain about epic memes like it means something. Reddit gold right there to be honest, familam.
Either way, as I said, the finish is part of the design for a infantry weapon, so unless you have a relevant point to make, fuck off.
>>27853579
>Snipers are a meme
>Snipers don't exist
>Noone ever engages stationary targets at long ranges
>>27853579
>You got BTFO
that's where you got confused. I'm not the guy you were originally responding to, and you didn't even blow him the fuck out. You're still a faggot for using desu, and using reddit as an insult. If you wanted to insult me you'd highlight how I'm too retarded to use reddit because of its shit user interface.
But since you want me to pick up the finish guy's torch: PMCS
>>27853532
>Didn't they issue 30 rounders late war?
The STANAG was developed in the 80s, so unless there was a precursor to that, then no.
>>27853532
Are you trying to attract milsurpdude?
>>27853579
Look a mythical creature!
>>27853573
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRbAfdoU9vY
And that's why you need to actually learn some things before forming an incorrect statement.
>The damage caused by the 5.56 mm bullet was originally believed to be caused by "tumbling" due to the slow 1 in 14-inch (360 mm) rifling twist rate.[48] However, any pointed lead core bullet will "tumble" after penetration in flesh, because the center of gravity is towards the rear of the bullet. The large wounds observed by soldiers in Vietnam were actually caused by bullet fragmentation, which was created by a combination of the bullet's velocity and construction.[50] These wounds were so devastating, that the photographs remained classified into the 1980s.[51]
You now know the back and forth between M14 and M16 was officially ended when MACV SOG figured out that 5.56 really fucks peoples shit at high velocity.
Now, in the video is M855, same principle but different round, the effects were more pronounced in M193
>>27843886
Neither. I am more familiar with AK than either M16A2 or M14 so I would rather have that.
>>27853636
And?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGYF8DTLcj4
>>27853596
>Snipers don't exist
>Being THIS fucking stupid.
I hate to break it to you, but you're not going to be a sniper jimmy.
Also, actual snipers aren't going to be using a standard m14 unless they absolutely have to.
It's not COD.
>>27853619
look at any number of late Vietnam shots to see dudes with 30 round M16 pre stanag
>>27853619
There were some issued for the "submachine guns" like the XM177 and I thought I read somewhere that they were issued for M16s around 1971, but I'll admit that's just me parroting a half memory of something some guy said on the internet.
>>27853624
Maybe...
I'm actually a conductor and my captcha was images of trains. I think it's inevitable at this point.
>>27853652
please tell me you are not using muh Kinetic Energy Transfer as your defense of M80 ball
>>27853654
Never claimed to be one, just claimed that .308 is better at range than .223. im tired of repeating myself im this anon>>27853126
>>27853652
>not knowing how to read ballistics gel
Holyshitm8, that's really bad.
You realize it fragments right at the exit, as in causes no actual damage due to fragmentation? Silly boys n shit.
>>27853663
That must be the reason why people use .223 to hunt moose, bear. They have the same stopping power right?
>>27853688
no you fucking idiot. I actually use a 357 lever gun, but the deer in my area are tiny pussies. If I were in Florida, I'd hunt with .223 Barnes TSX shamelessly.
Nice strawman, but it does nothing to indicate you have any fucking clue about terminal ballistics
>>27853688
Nigga you can't be this dumb right? Humans don't have as much tissue to penetrate as a moose, and once that round overpenetrates the human it's worthless.
>>27853696
>Deer
>Anything close to Bear or moose
Yea nah kindly fuck off
>>27853688
>Hunting moose=/=combat with humans, fuddis maximus.
>>27853703
no, I was making a point about a critter that is oft toted as being too much for .223 and agreeing with it. Jesus Christ, you're not even a fudd
tell me you're the ruse man
>>27849382
EBRs are boat anchors.
The .308 camp is right, guys. Some things are too far away or too strong for 5.56. I wish we had an answer for that, but there are no such things as machine guns, rockets, missiles, artillery, mortars, naval gunfire or CAS.
>>27853676
And like everyone has being trying to tell you, muh stoppan powa is not a relevant attribute unless happen to have an extremely specific and rare combat roll. More so, a 60s era m14 is more or less the worst possible general issue rifle you could try to snipe with.
>>27853741
I hate to agree, but sometimes you just need to take a shot at someone's head at 1000 yards with iron sights and you just need the extra range of that 308.
>>27849382
>>27849411
>If we throw out virtually every part of the rifle except the receiver, it can be used in a marksman role!!!
>>27853753
>take a shot at someone's head at 1000 yards with iron sights
Just like one of my japanese animes, right?
>>27853753
I hear you, brother! Our best option is rack grade rifles and ball ammunition that shoots 3 or 4 MOA
>>27853768
The M14 is an inherently accurate receiver unlike slavshit or FN FAL
>>27853779
I disagree, an M16a2 with irons would be much more accurate at 1000 yards, Also the difference in "power' doesn't matter at those distances.
>>27853772 neither 5.56 nor 7.62, I am back from a world where such words are meaningless
>>27853790
Well if we're REALLY trying to hit the bad guy as opposed to just scaring him, then only the AKM's iron sights can provide the knee weakening accuracy we're looking for.
>>27853817
While it's true that the precisely machined notch and post sight found on the AKM offers exceptional practical accuracy at extreme range I believe you'll find that the bead sight on most muskets to be the most precise sighting platform for long range non permissive tango removing applications. It eliminates the second plane of most sighting systems allowing much greater accuracy.
>>27853872
STFU faggot, the reason muskets shoot so well at a distance is the lack of rifling, which prevents spin drift
>>27853872
>>27853924
BTFO
T
F
O
>>27853741
6.5 grendel or creedmore.
>>27853935
>not using 7.92x33 Kurz
its like you don't enjoy on site procurement
>>27843886
M14 is a real battle rifle. AR is a small cal. High velocity pice of shit.
>>27853715
5.56 is more than enough deer provided you actually shoot the deer in a place that's fatal for it, with a good round selection (Say one of those 69gr+ Sold copper expanding rounds made for hunting stuff) and not shooting that poor animal in the gut/leg because your drunk, a shitty shot to being with and you are using 55gr wolf.
The reason minimum caliber restrictions exist is to keep the lowest common denominator (that drunk, shitty hunter guy) from maiming animals that will die days later from infection or starvation due to being crippled.
>>27855359
>implying 243 is adequate for the lowest common denominator of hunter
