Nothing wrong with the m 16 or the 5.56 Have any of you seen what the 5.56 does to humans when it tumbles and fragments??? Lets just say that saying its a wounding round is a myth.
Had the M14 been modernized and upgraded over the years rather than replaced by the venerable M16 system, it would have proved to be one the best systems in the world surpassing even the AK. The Garand action was used in the Pacific campaigns and the liberation of Europe with great success. Just ask any old war veteran out there. its one of the most reliable and simple actions ever to be invented,and it would never fail to do its job on the battlefield.
@olkilldevil20 The M14 has been upgraded and modernized, and is still being used today as a marksman rifle. Contrary to popular belief, the M1 Garand actually did poorly in sand and mud as they noted in army trials from an article published in time magazine in the 40's. It was certainly a reliable rifle, but not the most reliable or simple out there.
Not sure if this was posted on this thread - But as I understand the US military opted for cheaper propellent in the 5.56 cal. then what the M-16 was designed for, thus creating more dirt in the firearm and more down time cleaning. In the field the SKS/AK firearm would fire 100's of rounds while "dirty".
Just a Question: As for the muzzle rise of the M-14 wouldn't a proper muzzle break correct that issue?
@davesnak The big reason that the army went with the cheaper propellant was that the new and improved powder called for by Stoner couldn't easily be produced. Batch for batch it was much more expensive, and only every other or every third batch was actually performing as advertised.
As for the M14, generally speaking, that weapon on fully auto would be a supression weapon. You really wanna leave fully auto to the guys who count remaining rounds by the belt, not by the mag :-)
Funny during WW2 the average was 25000 rounds per kill during Vietnam a war fought with the M16 it took 270000 rounds per kill 10 times the rounds waisted. Not good unless you are the company selling the bullets.
@Wags675 hmm, funny how most of WW2 was not fought in jungles where u can only see 5 feet in front of you. also WW2 was a conventional war, vietnam was a gorella war.
@Wags675 Funny I thought they also fought in the jungles in the Pacific against the Japanese which was gorella fighting if I remember right, not just against the Nazi's in Europe but I could be wrong.
The M14 was one of the best rifles made in the world, the M16 was made to spray and pray an entire are with automatic fire. The M14 was made for one-shot-one-kill not full auto. The M14 has the same kinetic energy at 800 yards as the M16 at 100 yards.
Yes the M14 can e fire in burst, but not in 500 yards, and Jesus Christ were people that dumb back in the day? A fiberglass stock can solve the problem twice effectively. The wood stock is the root of recoil! It was too heavy, it get moist-out in the field of 'Nam, and wood stock is rather useless for a modern rifle demand! Goddamn it why can't they just think of that?
@1stMarineCapt McNamara wanted to destroy the springlfield armory, and Kennedy owned a lot of stock in Colt. It didn't, and doesnt, matter that they inflicted a woefully inadequate rifle on our military.
@nov284 I like McNamara's boots, but I'd certainly love to boot his asses by his own boots. About the M16 rifle, I just can't clear myself of why they wouldn't spend some more extras thousands just to put a piston kit into the rifles. I mean, are those lives out the front that cheap to these fucktards?
@1stMarineCapt In a word? In a word? Yes. Our lives really are that cheap. Personally, I feel as though the DI system which, unlike certain other elements of this weapon, actually offer a plus side, gets more flack than it deserves. IMHO the heart of this rifle's problems is in a poorly designed BCG. (Couldn't post vid. Search M16 reliability. Should be 2nd one). Also, poorly designed magazines, generally flimsy construction, and off timing are halmarks of this series of rifle.
@nov284 Why, the Corp never treat any life that way - from the front foot infantry Marine, to the Supply Logistics to any Marine, that's why we still keep the M16A4 rifles. Not just in a word, but the US Army isn't any different to any army worldwide. Look at the troops, they are disappointed, they're tired, they are outage, because the Army want something that works the eyes but not the mechanisms. As to the M16, we need something that works in every bitter environment, so, yah a piston works.
@1stMarineCapt A lot of servicemen lost their jobs to enable this rifle to be issued, and there was still vehement resistance. After a congressional investigation in which this rifle's problems were whitewashed and attributed to lazy soldiers and marines it was passed down that "anyone who complains about this rifle may as well tattoo their rank on their chest, because they'll never be promoted again."
Putting a piston in may make it better...but that still doesn't make it good.
@DaytonaRoadster As long as this rifle keeps getting Americans killed, I'll keep fighting, and as long as people believe that this is a "proven" system, I'll be fighting to educate them.
@nov284 its was given a 98% satisfaction rate by US troops in the last 3 conflicts, ya im going to go with there opinion, over some un-informed D-Bag on youtube
@DaytonaRoadster Given the fact that absolutely everyone who has fired this rifle has suffered a stoppage, and that the ~2% that were dissatisfied identified themselves as having had their rifle fail at a critical moment (read: almost killed by a stoppage) I'd consider it significant, especially in light of the fact that every stoppage is blamed on the user, no matter the actual cause. I'm surprised as many people admit to regularly having problems as actually do.
@nov284 all machines fail, my AKs have jam'd too. While that does happen, its all about training to overcome it, judging by the fact they made it back to be pissed off, i'd say they like it well enough, not to mention that 2% didnt complain of jams, they complained they wanted it lighter.
@DaytonaRoadster I agree about the training. But when you're reflexively starting your immediate action drills every time you squeeze the trigger, whether or not the rifle actually fired, "absurd" has officially been reached. Idle curiousity, how many didn't make it back to be pissed?
Pretty amazing how they love every other weapon issued better than the standard, isn't it? And how...happy...were the special forces guys when they were forced to give up their carbines for M4s?
My father in law fought in Vietnam and lost both legs stepping on a land mine. He absolutely refused an M16 due to the constant jams and bad reputation for that. He was issued an M14 and that continues to be his favorite all time weapon. It has been years since he held one so when he held my M1A he was shocked at the weight lol
@rodcomia m14 is still used as semi auto mid-long range sniper and battle rifle and has more power, range and reliability than m16. m16 is more of a machine gun than semi auto weapon
We left with 72 men in our platoon and came back with 19, Believe it or not, you know what killed most of us? Our own rifle. Practically every one of our dead was found with his [M16] torn down next to him where he had been trying to fix it.
- Marine Corps Rifleman, Vietnam.
Of course, most of these problems where rectified, but It took 4 phases, which is very long for a service rifle. 1 more thing. Who the fuck shoots ANY 7.62x51 Rifle fully-automatic? This analysis was extremely impartial.
The M14 are better 'cause we gotta get those muzzies at long range. (Before the do something like...uh, blow themselves up.) I would say something useful but everybody below can tell why the M14 is better in the desert.
@RebelSoldat1 Yes, I'm making fun of you. It sucks that all these weapon vids are plagued by inbred hicks like yourself. Go back to worshiping fairytales for adults hick boy. :)
@RebelSoldat1 Lol you're proud of being an inbred hick who dresses like a girl, sounds like an idiot, and lives in a trailerhome? Are you fucking serious?
We captured the rest no long later killing another insurgents and head back to camp. The M14 and M16 has different characteristic. M16 is more of a CQC rifle while the M14 is used as a ranging rifle BUT the M14 also can do CQC plus if you ran out of ammo and a guy came rushing towards you, the butt of the M14 can eaily kill him while the M16 would just knock him out cold. M14 could kill a target with 1 shot while the M16 has to take at least 2 shots beyond 400 yards for a kill.
I was fighting with a comrade in Iraq, Baquba, we met 6 insurgents staring at us and even less then 10 seconds they spotted us spying at them and they started firing at us with their AKs. I shot the 1st person I saw with my HK416 and gave him a shot at the upper chest. He tumbled down but he took out his pistol and fired a few shot at us but the 2nd shot I fired killed him. My partner aimmed his M14 at 1 person coming closer to us and that fella layed on the ground flat and never got up.*Cont*
@MrLolx2u As far as I know, the HK416 isn't being issued to Americans (except the M27 in the USMC, but it's rarer than gold), but only after the USMC left Iraq. No unit that's issued one has been in Iraq (Afghanistan, yes).
@SSgt24thMEU Er... No. 416 was issued to Iraq but not to the greatest extent of the entire Marines having it. It was first given the the Marines under M27 which we used and some was left to the Rangers company so total estimated rifles used in Iraq with the 416 was about 3000 rifles and that's the trail for the US Army.
No1 is to fire their rifles fully auto for more than 200 yards unless surpressive fire. That's what I learnt in Iraq and the M14 fits the bill. It's not that the M14's recoil plus fully auto wastes ammo. It's the soldiers in Vietnam that's stupidly firing at full auto when they see a single enemy hoping to "Spray and pray"that's wasting ammo. EVEN the M16A1 was sprayed with. So the military jammed the M16's fully auto capabilities and left it in 3 round burst. *Cont*
00011010100101101010101101001010101100110010q00101001010100111101001011010111101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101100101010110101010101010101010100101010101010101010110011001010101010101111111111110101000101010101010110000110101010101010101101010101101010101010101010101010101010101010101010120101010101100101101010100101010101010101010010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010100000000001101010101011001101010111000110101001101010011010100110101 bullshit i cant hearyou
The M-14 IS a better rifle for the WW-II style battlegrounds that it was designed for, however, the M-16 suits the niche of the frequent CQC that soldiers have been seeing in the guerrilla type warfare of the last 40 years. I've shot both extensively in matches, and I trained with the 16 in boot. I love my 14 for long range accuracy and power, but I'd grab the AR platform for home defense. They both have their places, and that is being shown by both the troops and designated marksmen.
The M14 was better suited for the jungle. It was heavier, the humidity could warp the wooden stock, but when it fired, you don't want to be in front of it. My uncle was issued the M14, and wouldn't want to touch the M16. Back then, the M16 didn't have chromed internals and would jam. The M14 would cut through the jungle, through the guy behind cover, and possibly kill his buddy too. There's a reason why you can't hunt with a 5.56, but a 7.62 is a popular deer killer.
@clonetrex M16s do a great job of killing people. Intermediate cartridges are nothing to sneeze at. Within 215ish meters with a 20'' barrel, M193 spec 55 grain ammo fragments like a motherfucker, tears shit up. You ever shot a watermelon with one? Plus I'd like to see you hauling ass in the mountains of Afghanistan with an M14 and a full load of ammo 11,000 feet above sea level with only 65% oxygen when the Taliban hits you with an ambush. Stick to your airsoft guns.
@something01992 It doesn't always fragment. I have an article by an army doctor where he notes the M193 round causing small wounds rather then large. Quite a number of soldiers carry M14's in Afghanistan. They do so because the smaller caliber 5.56x45 doesn't always cut it.
@something01992 im just sayin besides i have both airsoft and real so trust me i know the difference, only thing i find great of the m16 is its fully customizable, lightwieght,accurate, and a great training rifle.
@something01992 I'd like to see you hauling ass in the mountains of Afghanistan with an M14 and a full load of ammo 11,000 feet above sea level with only 65% oxygen when the Taliban hits you with an ambush.
Or any rifle :-)
And BTW, M193 will only fragment reliably at velocities of 2800fps or more. With the standard issue M4 with its 16 inch barrel, that only gets you to 100 yards. And penetration through barriers is pitiful with .556; another reason why M-14s are still being issued as DMRs.
@CaptainObvious1970 The general rule for M193 fragmentation is 2700 f/s. The M4 with it's 14.5 inch barrel has a fragmentation range of less than 100 meters with current issue M855 spec ammunition. I'm not arguing that M14s don't have their place, but for the general infantry, the M16 is fine and does its job well. All these armchair commandos need to stop arguing that their grandpa/uncle/whoever did this that or the other because combat experiences/memories aren't passed down in the bloodstream
fuck all of you....my grandpa had this in veitnam and he said it was far better then the m16.infact why do you think there bring m14's back? CAUSE ITS FAR MORE DURABLE AND CAN STAND A LOT OF BEATING>>>PLUS ITS ACCURCY IS BETTER!!!!!god you modern dipshits think carbine and aluminum oh its so special.
@pivotnoob236 i agree my grandfather was in korea and had a garand and when the amry adopted the m16 he was extremely disapointed in this. the m14 is anything but a failure the m16 would be the failure.
@pivotnoob236 I can see why "noob" is in your name. I agree that the M14 is an effective weapon, but overall the m16 and m4 carbine are more tactically effecient for modern warfare. According to military studies, most firefights happens within 225 yards, during which a large caliber's potential benefits are all wasted and the carbines and smaller assault rifles are more practical, more manueverable, and better for close range automatic fire. However, the m14 can get better ranges and accuracy.
@mlb0226 which is exactly why they are finding that the m16 and ar-15 carbines are not strong enough for insurgent warfare nor can they shoot far enough for Afghanistan so they are re-issuing the m14/m1-A. Don't pull bullshit on someone when you didn't re-search nor have fired either of them,
@50CalTV The 5.56x45 and the 7.62x51 were mistakes in my opinion. We should have just adopted the 7x43mm the British proposed back in the 1950's. No need for a 5.56 or 7.62x51 then.
@esh325 The 7.62 is a longer ranged round that cycles better in LMGs than 6-7mm rounds. Although an intermediate (between 5.56 to 7.62) round should've been adopted, we still need a larger round, for sniper rifles and machine guns, maybe something approaching 8mm.
@SSgt24thMEU In belt fed MG's? There have been 6mm and 7mm belt fed MG's. I never recalled them having issues with cycling. There's nothing unusual about their shape.
@SSgt24thMEU Bigger diameter does not grant better long range performance. There are many factors. 7mm and 6.5mm rounds can actually keep a flatter trajectory down range and retain velocity better then a lot of .30 caliber rounds.
@esh325 If I recalled, most, if not all, great machine guns are chambered in 5.45 or 5.56, or something over .30 caliber. While the trajectory of a 6.5-7mm round can be flat, they often don't possess the power of a .30+ without using a longer and bulkier round. Larger bullets are less susceptible to drift, which is why 7.62 can be used to longer ranges than nearly all 6.5-7mm rounds. But for most purposes, a 6.8 SPC machine gun would be great.
@pivotnoob236 I was in Operation Gamewarden in Viet Nam '67-68 and can attest to the M16 jamming during combat. I preferred the M14. Any fool knew that a human cannot control more than a 3-4 round burst without some stabilizer. Same thing with the .50 cal twins or the .30 cal single we had on our boats. So, PIVO - your grandpa was right.
This doc is somewhat misleading about the efficacy of the 5.56mm. That yaw or "tumbling" the projectile does when it hits its target only occurs at a certain range. Too close and the 5.56mm drills straight through, too far away & the projectile doesn't have the energy to tumble nor the mass to do much. But there are things that can be done to tweek the system to be effective at 600yds which is about 4times greater than the effective range of the AK47.Also, fragmentary projectiles might be used.
This doc doesn't give the full story of why the M16s made before 1970 sucked to the point of getting people killed. If you're interested in the real story, it's covered thoroughly in the book called The Gun ( about the AK47 ). Disposable aluminum magazines, chamber&barrell not chrome plated, cartridges w/ gunpowder that was not considered in the weapon's design that caused faster rate of fire and carbon build-up and, yes, as this doc said no maintenance. After 1970, M16s improved dramatically.
The M16 was better suited to jungle warfare than the M14 (at least after the reliability problems were fixed), but the M14 can hardly be called a "failure."
@rhurst1945 I agree except for the jungle part, the M14 has a bigger round, and could go though more people and things, I saw this thing where this guy downed 12 vietcong with his m14 at night shooting though brush and such things the M16 would have a tougher time doing this with the 5.56. I would however use the M14 EBR over the normal all wooden one due to weight, the M16 and M14 are amazing though.
@chrizmeister1992 You obviously don't know the meaning of 'suppression'. You want to put out maximum ammo so the enemy is pinned, not necessarily killing them. You don't usually want a 7.62 for this.
@SSgt24thMEU No alright in general weapons that shoot the 5.56 have a higher rate of fire yes. and yes the more lead in the air the better, but if they do an assault or whatever you would just need one round on them oposing to 2 or more with the 5.56; that's what i ment:) besides the 7.62 fly's further and is more accurate in place like iras, still a round between them like the 6.8 would be better... however making that transition for nato is a huge task...greetz
@chrizmeister1992 There's a magazine capacity issue with 6.8 and a standardization problem. But if those can be overcome, I'm all for it.
One 5.56 can often be sufficient. It also gives you a great option of taking a target alive. One technique used is to shoot to the chest to stop and shoot to the hip/thigh if they're wanted alive or to the head if they are wanted dead. You can also carry a hell of a lot more 5.56 than just about any round except .22 or .17.
@SSgt24thMEU Yeah true true:Dmag cap problem? hmm i might look in to that.Yeah 5.56 tumbles and all but you wan't something a bit heavier to knock em down, it's a fast round yes but i think slightly underpower, does have the benefit of low recoil, fired the m1a and an ar15 :D both great weapons, anyway i believe the m16 needs to be changed to something else so do a lot of other platforms, i'm still waiting for belgium (my country) to ditch our awesome fnc for the f2000 but i heard there were pro
@chrizmeister1992 The F2000 is a cheap plastic (yes, worse than the M16, that plastic is near Glock quality IMO) toy with little customizability. If Belgium wants to go domestic, they ought to use the SCAR-L. If not, use the HK416.
@SSgt24thMEU wouldnt the 416 be better because of it's heavier 6.8mm round? i heard that HK was making the 416 in 6.8 as it was a good balance between the 5.56 and the 7.62.
@SSgt24thMEU cheap plastic where did you get that from? extra rails and such can alway's be modified, scar:l would be good but not that much of an upgrade over our fnc's...
@chrizmeister1992 The largest rail on the F2000 isn't much larger than the carrying handle of a M16 (it is larger, not significantly). No spot for your AN/PEQ, flashlight, etc. Believe it or not, those things have a purpose.
Ever used an FN product of late? The plastic just isn't very good. Ever fired a Five-Seven? You'd know what I mean.
@chrizmeister1992 The largest rail on the F2000 isn't much larger than the carrying handle of a M16 (it is larger, not significantly). No spot for your AN/PEQ, flashlight, etc. Believe it or not, those things have a purpose.
Ever used an FN product of late? The plastic just isn't very good. Ever fired a Five-Seven? You'd know what I mean.
@Valholm Actually, the majority of battle rifles do have full auto on them. The L1A1 is one of the few that doesn't. Some M14's were modified to shoot semi auto only in military service.
@alluren0 It's obvious the M14 is best used in single shot, he's just demonstrating how the M14 had poor performance in full auto and wasn't able to meet the requirements for a controllable fully automatic rifle.
If you read the comment fully I said not just the m14 but any rifle. The militery doesnt allow full auto on any of their rifles because no matter what gun you are using full auto is a waste. Not even the m16 is accurate at full auto the best is burst fire and even then its to many shots one 7.62 can out do a 55.6 and any range
@alluren0 The army is actually going back to fully automatic fire believe it or not. They are ordering M4A1's (fully automatic) to replace M4's and M16's in service. Currently, SF use the M4A1 and the Navy uses the M16A3, which is fully automatic. The M16 is still going to be a lot better then the M14 in full auto. I agree that 7.62 is a more lethal caliber.
@alluren0 lol no wtfff? the marines arent switching to the ACR LOL!! why would they, theres nothing special about it, the only reason some special operation divisons are using the scar is because they have the choice of the 5.56x45 and the 7.62x 51 from the same company, the peices are more durable, simpler, and cheaper
@acesofshadows Who gives a fuck about that? He's right, it's stupid to fire a 7.62mm rifle on full auto at that range. The "test" they performed is based on a faulty premise.
@syalcin123 Exactly. Or any rifle for that matter. That's what machine guns are for.
That said, all this M-16 nut riding makes me want to puke. M-16 = jammomatic. I know I will get heat for that. Right, if you treat it like a Faberge egg, and constantly clean, swimming in CLP, then yes, 100% reliable. Maybe the new piston driven ones are better, but still yet to be proven.
Both rifles were designed to do different missions. For longer range, the M-14 has it hands down. In urban warfare, the smaller, lighter M-16 platform has an advantage. The 7.62mm M-80 ball has only limited advantage in penetration over the lighter 5.56mm round. The M-14 has a flaw in it's design that many won't talk about. It's entire operation depends on a cheap C-clip that holds the bolt cam roller on. If that binds on the op-rod or breaks and the cam falls off - the rifle is useless.
@redlegagent Only limited penetration? I remember Vietnam stories of 7.62 rounds being able to go right through trees where the 5.56x45 was easily deflected by brush. That's the first I've heard of. I've never heard of that part being prone to breaking.
M14 Very reliable dusty, wet, the M14 will still fire. M16 even with it's modifications still jams regularly. M14 you can feel safe in the knowledge that you will kill what you hit, and whatever is standing behind them. M16 need 4 or 5 rounds to kill them. M16 primary assault weapon, not used for long range. M14 used by special forces as a sniper. Ask every military who served with both, they all say the M14 is far superior.
@ArodWingfoot From US army reports and other offcial reports, it was actually suggested the M14 was less reliable then the M16. In other reports, they said the M14 was more reliable. They flipped flopped back and forth on what they said.
@esh325 I own a M14. It is very reliable. Dust, wind, even rain she fires true. Far more than my AR15 (Civilian version of the M16) Which needs constant cleaning.
@ArodWingfoot I've got both too. Never had to subjective my rifles to those conditions. I haven't shot tons of rounds through either of them, but both are reliable so far. Never had a jam with either yet.
@esh325 I never had to subject them to extreme conditions, but I do because I like to know their limits. If you properly clean and maintain them they will both be perfect. However, should zombies attack and you become unable to maintain them, don't count on the AR15 for more than a clip or 2.
@ArodWingfoot I think that's ridiculous the AR15 will go a lot longer then that. With the AR15 all you need a tip of a round or a punch to dissemble the bolt. With the M1A, you need a two special tools just to take the piston off. A wrench so you don't bend it while taking it off, and another to unscrew the nut.
@esh325 And with a M14 you can leave it in a locker for 2 or 3 years then take it out slap a clip in and she still goes good. You can't take it apart easily because you don't need to. I have put my M14 through hell and she still goes good.
@ArodWingfoot Generally, neglecting any firearm will yield bad results if anything. Some people will get away with it for a while, but it will catch up to them eventually.
@esh325 Well yeah. Leave any gun in a locker for ten year then take it out, no way it will fire. Just saying the M14 can take a fair bit of abuse before it has any problems.
The old semi auto 7.62x51 battle rifles certainly have their place in the squad to give them more 'reach'. The ideal path would have been to adopt the British .280 round as the NATO standard in 1950 instead of the US forcing the 7.62 on everyone, then giving it up for the 5.56 a few years later. The .280 British was an incredible round developed in 1949 to replace the .303 - google it. Such a sad waste of opportunity. The Modern 6.8SPC round is very similar in properties to the 50 year old .280.
A delta-ops sergeant (Paul Howe in Black Hawk Down) said that the m16, or his equivalents, lacks power, and that therefore an older master sergeant (Gary Gordon) still used m14, even with the mean recoil, because when you hit a guy, he should stay down. both fought in Mogadishu, Gary Gordon died defending one of the black hawks outnumbered several thousand to 3 and earned the Medal of Honor for that
@hardoncrimefromRS Yet won every major battle. We politically lost because liberals forced the military to adopt borderline suicidal actions. Many pilots where not allowed to shoot Air-to-air missile sights. Many military personal where not allowed to shoot known enemy hideouts.
@ArodWingfoot The USA was in Vietnam to prevent it from becoming communist and while the USA was there Nam never went communist, after the USA left the South Vietnamese did not have the acceptance of the majority of the Vietnamese people and subsequently became communist. So no, the USA did not "lose" a war vs Vietnam. It's not like Ho Chi Minh was in D.C. forcing Nixon to sign a surrender.
@oeyesea Like I said Military wise we did not loose. However do to political BS of the liberals they forced us to pull out and caused the destruction of South Vietnam and untold deaths of freedom loving vietnamese.
@ArodWingfoot You're just a rationalizing idiot. You want to pretend America didn't lose? Go stick your head in the sand, and put your fingers in your ears. Moron hick.
@EnigmaHood I have an eductation. We lost the war because politically it became unpopular at home and people demanded we bring the troops home which resulted in millions of freedom loving Vietnamese people to be murdered. Military wise it was a stunning victory, but politics can undermine even the greatest victory. Also you apparently don't know that the communist believe that the Vietnam War was a huge military disaster, which is why it was the last war based on communist aggression.
@ArodWingfoot You're an idiot. We lost the war, PERIOD. The Vietnamese just wanted their country back, and not be slaves to French colonists. Go read about the First Indochina War, because you are sorely uneducated with the prelude to the American involvement in Vietnam. The Vietnamese just wanted their own country back, and not be ruled by anyone else. Put your flag away you bible thumping hick.
@EnigmaHood You probably can't give a solid estimate on how many people have died thanks to communism can you? We lost the war, noone is denying this, but when even the communist claim that military wise we won it you are basically rolling in the mud trying to get someone else to come in with you so you arn't the only fool. (PS To answer the how many people commuinsim has killed, it is at the very least 100 million though the exact number is likely far greater)
@ArodWingfoot And you can't give a solid estimate to how many people died thanks to colonialism can you? I'll give you a hint, it was more than communism. You keep saying we won "militarily" as if it makes any fucking difference. WHO CARES? IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER. What matters is who won the god damn war, and we LOST. You want to have a pissing contest on who killed more people? Yes, America killed more people. They also tortured, and raped more people too. Congrats on being a fucking idiot.
@EnigmaHood It actually does matter because had we not left communism would of crumbled alot sooner than it did because remember the USSR Collapsed, USA didn't. It does matter. Actually there has never been a case of American torturing or raping any POWs though the cases of communist doing it are many. I find it funny how much of a fool you are. Just a product of a failure in education I guess. PS colonialism has killed no more than a quarter of the number communism has.
@ArodWingfoot No one cares about communism. It's just a scare word, like socialism is. Only inbred hicks like you keep repeating it as if it matters. LOL, you ruined all of your credibility with that. Americans have tortured and raped countless people. You are a fucking moron. Actually you give morons a bad name. Colonialism has resulted in the complete extermination of the Native Americans which was perpetrated by Americans. Go back to worshiping a piece of wood bible boy.
@EnigmaHood Actually people do because it is a word that is used as a title to a way of government. Actually when all your questions can be answered with the same answer. Are we ignoring the Russians who actually did it, or the germans who actually did it, or the romans who actually did it and just saying american's did it even though there is not a single case to prove it. Yet I know native americans. And communism has claimed more dead than the combat fatalities of all wars combined.
@ArodWingfoot No. No one cares except hicks like you, because it's just a scare word that uneducated people use to scare people. Not a single case to prove it... Lol. Go and read about the My Lai Massacre. Or the Haditha killings. Or waterboarding which was authorized by the bush administration. No. You are uneducated, colonialism resulted in the genocide Native Americans. You don't know any Native Americans, you are a hick that lives in a trailerhome, and never got a college education.
@EnigmaHood really have to define what words are for you? You keep saying america is bad but when you look around the world you see much worse treatment all around. Like in China you would be killed for speaking against the government. Torture? Seriously? I have been waterboarded and although not pleasant isn't torture. How about the people crippled by real torture. Like John McCain who can't lift his arms above his shoulders. I live in a full size house and my neighbor is native american.
@ArodWingfoot See, inbred hicks like you seem to think that if someone does something worse, that somehow makes it ok to rape and kill people. I wasn't talking about China dumbfuck, I was talking about America, China is irrelevant. You haven't been waterboarded hick, now you're just a liar. McCain is also against waterboarding fucktard, he knows it's torture because he was waterboarded. You live in a trailerhome and your neighbor is another hick.
@EnigmaHood No it doesn't but you are denying that worse happened. You think America is a great evil even though if you look though history you will see we are the most benevolent nation ever. I was just reminding you that you should be thankful for the freedoms you have. Actually Yes I have. It sucks, but I can think of worse. Well you can keep saying that but it doesn't make it true. I find it hilarious that you think you know more about me than I do. You know, I feel sorry for you.
@ArodWingfoot Yes, America is a benevolent nation. That's why the committed genocide against the Native Americans, enslaved blacks, discriminated and oppressed racial minorities. Your best argument is, "OH BUT OTHER COUNTRIES DID BAD THINGS TOO!!", like a typical idiot. No you haven't, you're just a liar. But proof speaks volumes, so go ahead and prove it. All I know about you is that you're a liar. I don't even feel sorry for you, you are just a waste.
@EnigmaHood We pay reparations to native americans and blacks enslaved other blacks long before America was even founded. No my arguement is that if you hate america so much go to one of these other nations, though in China you would be killed after you got off the plane, and Iran you probably wouldn't even have time to stand up. Prove that I was okay, only proof I got is my word because waterboarding doesn't leave scarring. Now you prove I wasn't. If I am a waste why ar eyou talking to me?
@ArodWingfoot Lol yeah, that makes it all better. Again with the "OH BUT OTHER COUNTRIES DID BAD THINGS TOO!!" argument. Didn't I already tell you that you're an idiot for using that argument? I don't have to disprove anything, burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. I don't like hicks spreading disinformation, so I'm here to make sure you don't.
@EnigmaHood And you with the "IGNORE OTHER COUNTRIES DOING MUCH WORSE AND FOCUS ON THE ONLY GOOD NATION" Yeah but your argument is retarded so I don't care. Like you for claiming that all American soldiers are rapist and murderers. You obviously don't know any of them. You don't like people spreading disinformation and that's what you are doing. Oh Hypocrisy.
@ArodWingfoot Lol no, we just aren't talking about those nations. Stay on topic child. :) Naa, not all of them. Some of them. Lol I'm not the one saying we won in Vietnam dum dum.
@ArodWingfoot So do you always cry this much or is it only when people don't agree with you. If you bring up the evils of a benevolent nation you should also bring up the evils of the actual evil ones. I am not saying we won in Vietnam either I am saying that when you look at the military scale we crushed them and when they agree that they got crushed you can't ignore it (though you are really trying to) Like I said Politics can undermine even the greatest victory. Something you can't grasp.
@oeyesea You don't know how war works do you? It's not a stupid baseball game you fucking hick. If you achieve no military objectives, you achieve no political objectives. The whole point of war is to coerce the enemy to do what you want him to do. NVA won. USA lost. Stop being an idiot and admit it.
Nothing wrong with the m 16 or the 5.56 Have any of you seen what the 5.56 does to humans when it tumbles and fragments??? Lets just say that saying its a wounding round is a myth.
LiveFreeOrDie1985 4 days ago
what I don't get, is why he's shooting the m14 full auto, and he wonders why he can't hit the helmet.
shotgater 6 days ago
Had the M14 been modernized and upgraded over the years rather than replaced by the venerable M16 system, it would have proved to be one the best systems in the world surpassing even the AK. The Garand action was used in the Pacific campaigns and the liberation of Europe with great success. Just ask any old war veteran out there. its one of the most reliable and simple actions ever to be invented,and it would never fail to do its job on the battlefield.
olkilldevil20 2 weeks ago
@olkilldevil20 The M14 has been upgraded and modernized, and is still being used today as a marksman rifle. Contrary to popular belief, the M1 Garand actually did poorly in sand and mud as they noted in army trials from an article published in time magazine in the 40's. It was certainly a reliable rifle, but not the most reliable or simple out there.
esh325 2 weeks ago
u dont need full auto if you knew how to shoot....
tanker882 2 weeks ago
i wouldn't care how much I would sink in, if I hit something i wanna be damn sure it's dead
TecZero1000 2 weeks ago
meet modernizing demands: enters Armalite 10
same excellent caliber as venerable M-14.
any novice sees the genesis of the Armalite 15
lighter caliber had its' application: the 10 goes 15
made more compact, it lost punch but that's what we got
original for shit ammo was improved & chamber chromeing.
M16A2 whole different weapon, newer ammo again &
no full auto rather 3 shot burst and fire discipline
difference between army doggies & marine grunts
commie copy; the AK-47 becomes an AK-74
zeuqzavaj 3 weeks ago
Not sure if this was posted on this thread - But as I understand the US military opted for cheaper propellent in the 5.56 cal. then what the M-16 was designed for, thus creating more dirt in the firearm and more down time cleaning. In the field the SKS/AK firearm would fire 100's of rounds while "dirty".
Just a Question: As for the muzzle rise of the M-14 wouldn't a proper muzzle break correct that issue?
davesnak 3 weeks ago
@davesnak I'm fairly certain it would correct that issue.
esh325 3 weeks ago
@davesnak The big reason that the army went with the cheaper propellant was that the new and improved powder called for by Stoner couldn't easily be produced. Batch for batch it was much more expensive, and only every other or every third batch was actually performing as advertised.
As for the M14, generally speaking, that weapon on fully auto would be a supression weapon. You really wanna leave fully auto to the guys who count remaining rounds by the belt, not by the mag :-)
nov284 2 weeks ago
Funny during WW2 the average was 25000 rounds per kill during Vietnam a war fought with the M16 it took 270000 rounds per kill 10 times the rounds waisted. Not good unless you are the company selling the bullets.
Wags675 3 weeks ago
@Wags675 hmm, funny how most of WW2 was not fought in jungles where u can only see 5 feet in front of you. also WW2 was a conventional war, vietnam was a gorella war.
randallschecter 3 weeks ago in playlist Favorite videos
@Wags675 Funny I thought they also fought in the jungles in the Pacific against the Japanese which was gorella fighting if I remember right, not just against the Nazi's in Europe but I could be wrong.
Wags675 3 weeks ago
Offhand full auto fire at 450 yards/meters? .....uh...ok.
TheNitro375 1 month ago in playlist More videos from 7dc
How did the crapy m16 get to #2.Just a newer ross rifle
The8thhussar 1 month ago
@The8thhussar b/c its made in America, cough cough >>
asdasdHunter 1 month ago
Well either way, you don't want to be on the receiving end of any of those rifles.
TheFutureMarine2012 1 month ago
@AfKman101 That is true, but they also where both made in 1957. They where designed simultaneously, stoner didn't warp the M14 into the M16
MicrocatM14EBR 1 month ago
M14 packs a punch but m16 is very light so hard trade of there
AfKman101 1 month ago
The M14 was one of the best rifles made in the world, the M16 was made to spray and pray an entire are with automatic fire. The M14 was made for one-shot-one-kill not full auto. The M14 has the same kinetic energy at 800 yards as the M16 at 100 yards.
MicrocatM14EBR 1 month ago
@MicrocatM14EBR even more
AfKman101 1 month ago
Yes the M14 can e fire in burst, but not in 500 yards, and Jesus Christ were people that dumb back in the day? A fiberglass stock can solve the problem twice effectively. The wood stock is the root of recoil! It was too heavy, it get moist-out in the field of 'Nam, and wood stock is rather useless for a modern rifle demand! Goddamn it why can't they just think of that?
1stMarineCapt 1 month ago
@1stMarineCapt McNamara wanted to destroy the springlfield armory, and Kennedy owned a lot of stock in Colt. It didn't, and doesnt, matter that they inflicted a woefully inadequate rifle on our military.
nov284 2 weeks ago
@nov284 I like McNamara's boots, but I'd certainly love to boot his asses by his own boots. About the M16 rifle, I just can't clear myself of why they wouldn't spend some more extras thousands just to put a piston kit into the rifles. I mean, are those lives out the front that cheap to these fucktards?
1stMarineCapt 2 weeks ago
@1stMarineCapt In a word? In a word? Yes. Our lives really are that cheap. Personally, I feel as though the DI system which, unlike certain other elements of this weapon, actually offer a plus side, gets more flack than it deserves. IMHO the heart of this rifle's problems is in a poorly designed BCG. (Couldn't post vid. Search M16 reliability. Should be 2nd one). Also, poorly designed magazines, generally flimsy construction, and off timing are halmarks of this series of rifle.
nov284 2 weeks ago
@nov284 Why, the Corp never treat any life that way - from the front foot infantry Marine, to the Supply Logistics to any Marine, that's why we still keep the M16A4 rifles. Not just in a word, but the US Army isn't any different to any army worldwide. Look at the troops, they are disappointed, they're tired, they are outage, because the Army want something that works the eyes but not the mechanisms. As to the M16, we need something that works in every bitter environment, so, yah a piston works.
1stMarineCapt 2 weeks ago
@1stMarineCapt A lot of servicemen lost their jobs to enable this rifle to be issued, and there was still vehement resistance. After a congressional investigation in which this rifle's problems were whitewashed and attributed to lazy soldiers and marines it was passed down that "anyone who complains about this rifle may as well tattoo their rank on their chest, because they'll never be promoted again."
Putting a piston in may make it better...but that still doesn't make it good.
nov284 1 week ago
@nov284 that was 40 years and 3 models ago, get over it
DaytonaRoadster 6 days ago
@DaytonaRoadster As long as this rifle keeps getting Americans killed, I'll keep fighting, and as long as people believe that this is a "proven" system, I'll be fighting to educate them.
nov284 4 days ago
@nov284 its was given a 98% satisfaction rate by US troops in the last 3 conflicts, ya im going to go with there opinion, over some un-informed D-Bag on youtube
DaytonaRoadster 4 days ago
@DaytonaRoadster Given the fact that absolutely everyone who has fired this rifle has suffered a stoppage, and that the ~2% that were dissatisfied identified themselves as having had their rifle fail at a critical moment (read: almost killed by a stoppage) I'd consider it significant, especially in light of the fact that every stoppage is blamed on the user, no matter the actual cause. I'm surprised as many people admit to regularly having problems as actually do.
nov284 3 days ago
@nov284 all machines fail, my AKs have jam'd too. While that does happen, its all about training to overcome it, judging by the fact they made it back to be pissed off, i'd say they like it well enough, not to mention that 2% didnt complain of jams, they complained they wanted it lighter.
DaytonaRoadster 3 days ago
@DaytonaRoadster I agree about the training. But when you're reflexively starting your immediate action drills every time you squeeze the trigger, whether or not the rifle actually fired, "absurd" has officially been reached. Idle curiousity, how many didn't make it back to be pissed?
Pretty amazing how they love every other weapon issued better than the standard, isn't it? And how...happy...were the special forces guys when they were forced to give up their carbines for M4s?
nov284 3 days ago
@nov284 SF guys got H&K 416s, they love them
DaytonaRoadster 2 days ago
" i don't know anyone walking around who has been hit by one" weird.... it's like you go to check if the enemy survived 1 shot...7.62 ftw
chrizmeister1992 1 month ago
My father in law fought in Vietnam and lost both legs stepping on a land mine. He absolutely refused an M16 due to the constant jams and bad reputation for that. He was issued an M14 and that continues to be his favorite all time weapon. It has been years since he held one so when he held my M1A he was shocked at the weight lol
airgreek 1 month ago
@airgreek agree. now M14 are back into action as sniper rifle.
rodcomia 1 month ago
@rodcomia m14 is still used as semi auto mid-long range sniper and battle rifle and has more power, range and reliability than m16. m16 is more of a machine gun than semi auto weapon
neverboardproduction 1 month ago
Strange how M16 is the M14 but with different weight, recoil, design, and cartridge
SkullKiller456 1 month ago
We left with 72 men in our platoon and came back with 19, Believe it or not, you know what killed most of us? Our own rifle. Practically every one of our dead was found with his [M16] torn down next to him where he had been trying to fix it.
- Marine Corps Rifleman, Vietnam.
Of course, most of these problems where rectified, but It took 4 phases, which is very long for a service rifle. 1 more thing. Who the fuck shoots ANY 7.62x51 Rifle fully-automatic? This analysis was extremely impartial.
theTicklemehellmo 2 months ago
The M14 are better 'cause we gotta get those muzzies at long range. (Before the do something like...uh, blow themselves up.) I would say something useful but everybody below can tell why the M14 is better in the desert.
RebelSoldat1 2 months ago
@RebelSoldat1 Naa, we gotta get those hicks at long range. Hicks are worse.
EnigmaHood 2 months ago
@EnigmaHood You talking about me? (I live in the South) Well, I already own a M1 Garand coverted into a M14/M1A. Ha Ha.
RebelSoldat1 2 months ago
@RebelSoldat1 Yes, I'm making fun of you. It sucks that all these weapon vids are plagued by inbred hicks like yourself. Go back to worshiping fairytales for adults hick boy. :)
EnigmaHood 2 months ago
Comment removed
RebelSoldat1 2 months ago
@EnigmaHood Ha ha, very funny. I'd rather be a hick boy than a whole lot of other things.
RebelSoldat1 2 months ago
@RebelSoldat1 Lol you're proud of being an inbred hick who dresses like a girl, sounds like an idiot, and lives in a trailerhome? Are you fucking serious?
EnigmaHood 2 months ago
@EnigmaHood I don't dress like a girl, and don't live in a trailer home. I was joking anyway.
RebelSoldat1 2 months ago
We captured the rest no long later killing another insurgents and head back to camp. The M14 and M16 has different characteristic. M16 is more of a CQC rifle while the M14 is used as a ranging rifle BUT the M14 also can do CQC plus if you ran out of ammo and a guy came rushing towards you, the butt of the M14 can eaily kill him while the M16 would just knock him out cold. M14 could kill a target with 1 shot while the M16 has to take at least 2 shots beyond 400 yards for a kill.
MrLolx2u 2 months ago
@MrLolx2u The M16A2 is plenty accurate to 500-600 yards for a shot to the heart or the head.
SSgt24thMEU 1 month ago
I was fighting with a comrade in Iraq, Baquba, we met 6 insurgents staring at us and even less then 10 seconds they spotted us spying at them and they started firing at us with their AKs. I shot the 1st person I saw with my HK416 and gave him a shot at the upper chest. He tumbled down but he took out his pistol and fired a few shot at us but the 2nd shot I fired killed him. My partner aimmed his M14 at 1 person coming closer to us and that fella layed on the ground flat and never got up.*Cont*
MrLolx2u 2 months ago
@MrLolx2u As far as I know, the HK416 isn't being issued to Americans (except the M27 in the USMC, but it's rarer than gold), but only after the USMC left Iraq. No unit that's issued one has been in Iraq (Afghanistan, yes).
SSgt24thMEU 1 month ago
@SSgt24thMEU Er... No. 416 was issued to Iraq but not to the greatest extent of the entire Marines having it. It was first given the the Marines under M27 which we used and some was left to the Rangers company so total estimated rifles used in Iraq with the 416 was about 3000 rifles and that's the trail for the US Army.
MrLolx2u 1 month ago
@MrLolx2u Only select Marine units have gotten it, and Rangers still use the M4, and some get the SCAR.
Who is the 'we' in your sentence?
SSgt24thMEU 1 month ago
SCAR was given in to the Rangers in 2007. SCAR was never given to or even saw action in Iraq.
MrLolx2u 1 month ago
No1 is to fire their rifles fully auto for more than 200 yards unless surpressive fire. That's what I learnt in Iraq and the M14 fits the bill. It's not that the M14's recoil plus fully auto wastes ammo. It's the soldiers in Vietnam that's stupidly firing at full auto when they see a single enemy hoping to "Spray and pray"that's wasting ammo. EVEN the M16A1 was sprayed with. So the military jammed the M16's fully auto capabilities and left it in 3 round burst. *Cont*
MrLolx2u 2 months ago
M14 battle rifle
M16 assualt rifle
TheMike00Jones 2 months ago
00011010100101101010101101001010101100110010q00101001010100111101001011010111101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101100101010110101010101010101010100101010101010101010110011001010101010101111111111110101000101010101010110000110101010101010101101010101101010101010101010101010101010101010101010120101010101100101101010100101010101010101010010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010101010100000000001101010101011001101010111000110101001101010011010100110101 bullshit i cant hearyou
sebluvstacos53 2 months ago
The M-14 IS a better rifle for the WW-II style battlegrounds that it was designed for, however, the M-16 suits the niche of the frequent CQC that soldiers have been seeing in the guerrilla type warfare of the last 40 years. I've shot both extensively in matches, and I trained with the 16 in boot. I love my 14 for long range accuracy and power, but I'd grab the AR platform for home defense. They both have their places, and that is being shown by both the troops and designated marksmen.
Lonewlf7676 2 months ago
i like the m14
TheMycrafters 2 months ago
The M14 was better suited for the jungle. It was heavier, the humidity could warp the wooden stock, but when it fired, you don't want to be in front of it. My uncle was issued the M14, and wouldn't want to touch the M16. Back then, the M16 didn't have chromed internals and would jam. The M14 would cut through the jungle, through the guy behind cover, and possibly kill his buddy too. There's a reason why you can't hunt with a 5.56, but a 7.62 is a popular deer killer.
SSgt24thMEU 2 months ago
The M14 still has more power than the M16.
subroc96 2 months ago
m16 is good for newbies in the army, m14 is for the veterans
clonetrex 2 months ago
@clonetrex M16s do a great job of killing people. Intermediate cartridges are nothing to sneeze at. Within 215ish meters with a 20'' barrel, M193 spec 55 grain ammo fragments like a motherfucker, tears shit up. You ever shot a watermelon with one? Plus I'd like to see you hauling ass in the mountains of Afghanistan with an M14 and a full load of ammo 11,000 feet above sea level with only 65% oxygen when the Taliban hits you with an ambush. Stick to your airsoft guns.
something01992 2 months ago
Comment removed
esh325 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@something01992 It doesn't always fragment. I have an article by an army doctor where he notes the M193 round causing small wounds rather then large. Quite a number of soldiers carry M14's in Afghanistan. They do so because the smaller caliber 5.56x45 doesn't always cut it.
esh325 2 months ago
@something01992 im just sayin besides i have both airsoft and real so trust me i know the difference, only thing i find great of the m16 is its fully customizable, lightwieght,accurate, and a great training rifle.
clonetrex 2 months ago
@something01992 I'd like to see you hauling ass in the mountains of Afghanistan with an M14 and a full load of ammo 11,000 feet above sea level with only 65% oxygen when the Taliban hits you with an ambush.
Or any rifle :-)
And BTW, M193 will only fragment reliably at velocities of 2800fps or more. With the standard issue M4 with its 16 inch barrel, that only gets you to 100 yards. And penetration through barriers is pitiful with .556; another reason why M-14s are still being issued as DMRs.
CaptainObvious1970 2 months ago
@CaptainObvious1970 The general rule for M193 fragmentation is 2700 f/s. The M4 with it's 14.5 inch barrel has a fragmentation range of less than 100 meters with current issue M855 spec ammunition. I'm not arguing that M14s don't have their place, but for the general infantry, the M16 is fine and does its job well. All these armchair commandos need to stop arguing that their grandpa/uncle/whoever did this that or the other because combat experiences/memories aren't passed down in the bloodstream
something01992 2 months ago
@something01992 Oops, meant 14 ... must of been thinking of my civ. AR. But I agree things have their place.
CaptainObvious1970 2 months ago
fuck all of you....my grandpa had this in veitnam and he said it was far better then the m16.infact why do you think there bring m14's back? CAUSE ITS FAR MORE DURABLE AND CAN STAND A LOT OF BEATING>>>PLUS ITS ACCURCY IS BETTER!!!!!god you modern dipshits think carbine and aluminum oh its so special.
pivotnoob236 2 months ago 2
@pivotnoob236 i agree my grandfather was in korea and had a garand and when the amry adopted the m16 he was extremely disapointed in this. the m14 is anything but a failure the m16 would be the failure.
mrecholizard 2 months ago
@pivotnoob236 I can see why "noob" is in your name. I agree that the M14 is an effective weapon, but overall the m16 and m4 carbine are more tactically effecient for modern warfare. According to military studies, most firefights happens within 225 yards, during which a large caliber's potential benefits are all wasted and the carbines and smaller assault rifles are more practical, more manueverable, and better for close range automatic fire. However, the m14 can get better ranges and accuracy.
mlb0226 1 month ago
@mlb0226 which is exactly why they are finding that the m16 and ar-15 carbines are not strong enough for insurgent warfare nor can they shoot far enough for Afghanistan so they are re-issuing the m14/m1-A. Don't pull bullshit on someone when you didn't re-search nor have fired either of them,
50CalTV 1 month ago
@50CalTV The 5.56x45 and the 7.62x51 were mistakes in my opinion. We should have just adopted the 7x43mm the British proposed back in the 1950's. No need for a 5.56 or 7.62x51 then.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 The 7.62 is a longer ranged round that cycles better in LMGs than 6-7mm rounds. Although an intermediate (between 5.56 to 7.62) round should've been adopted, we still need a larger round, for sniper rifles and machine guns, maybe something approaching 8mm.
SSgt24thMEU 1 month ago
@SSgt24thMEU In belt fed MG's? There have been 6mm and 7mm belt fed MG's. I never recalled them having issues with cycling. There's nothing unusual about their shape.
esh325 1 month ago
@SSgt24thMEU Bigger diameter does not grant better long range performance. There are many factors. 7mm and 6.5mm rounds can actually keep a flatter trajectory down range and retain velocity better then a lot of .30 caliber rounds.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 If I recalled, most, if not all, great machine guns are chambered in 5.45 or 5.56, or something over .30 caliber. While the trajectory of a 6.5-7mm round can be flat, they often don't possess the power of a .30+ without using a longer and bulkier round. Larger bullets are less susceptible to drift, which is why 7.62 can be used to longer ranges than nearly all 6.5-7mm rounds. But for most purposes, a 6.8 SPC machine gun would be great.
SSgt24thMEU 1 month ago
@SSgt24thMEU I'll continue this in a pm.
esh325 1 month ago
@pivotnoob236 I was in Operation Gamewarden in Viet Nam '67-68 and can attest to the M16 jamming during combat. I preferred the M14. Any fool knew that a human cannot control more than a 3-4 round burst without some stabilizer. Same thing with the .50 cal twins or the .30 cal single we had on our boats. So, PIVO - your grandpa was right.
jurycom 1 month ago
@jurycom i agree with you. M16 is also more difficult to clean.
rodcomia 1 month ago
@pivotnoob236 tell gramps to get on with the times, wood and iron are of the past, aluminum and polymers are of the future
powereater 1 month ago
This doc is somewhat misleading about the efficacy of the 5.56mm. That yaw or "tumbling" the projectile does when it hits its target only occurs at a certain range. Too close and the 5.56mm drills straight through, too far away & the projectile doesn't have the energy to tumble nor the mass to do much. But there are things that can be done to tweek the system to be effective at 600yds which is about 4times greater than the effective range of the AK47.Also, fragmentary projectiles might be used.
oeyesea 2 months ago
This doc doesn't give the full story of why the M16s made before 1970 sucked to the point of getting people killed. If you're interested in the real story, it's covered thoroughly in the book called The Gun ( about the AK47 ). Disposable aluminum magazines, chamber&barrell not chrome plated, cartridges w/ gunpowder that was not considered in the weapon's design that caused faster rate of fire and carbon build-up and, yes, as this doc said no maintenance. After 1970, M16s improved dramatically.
oeyesea 2 months ago
Isnt that the guy who narrates the apprentice.
bigbingham 3 months ago
The M16 was better suited to jungle warfare than the M14 (at least after the reliability problems were fixed), but the M14 can hardly be called a "failure."
rhurst1945 3 months ago 14
@rhurst1945 I agree except for the jungle part, the M14 has a bigger round, and could go though more people and things, I saw this thing where this guy downed 12 vietcong with his m14 at night shooting though brush and such things the M16 would have a tougher time doing this with the 5.56. I would however use the M14 EBR over the normal all wooden one due to weight, the M16 and M14 are amazing though.
Captbrass10 3 months ago
@rhurst1945 The M14 fail at being a good automatic rifle.
Redwing9107 2 months ago
@Redwing9107 Yeah but you need only 1 shot to kill an enemy. a squad full of 14's and m240's and 49's could be just as effective for suprresion.
chrizmeister1992 1 month ago
@chrizmeister1992 You obviously don't know the meaning of 'suppression'. You want to put out maximum ammo so the enemy is pinned, not necessarily killing them. You don't usually want a 7.62 for this.
SSgt24thMEU 1 month ago
@SSgt24thMEU No alright in general weapons that shoot the 5.56 have a higher rate of fire yes. and yes the more lead in the air the better, but if they do an assault or whatever you would just need one round on them oposing to 2 or more with the 5.56; that's what i ment:) besides the 7.62 fly's further and is more accurate in place like iras, still a round between them like the 6.8 would be better... however making that transition for nato is a huge task...greetz
chrizmeister1992 1 month ago
@chrizmeister1992 There's a magazine capacity issue with 6.8 and a standardization problem. But if those can be overcome, I'm all for it.
One 5.56 can often be sufficient. It also gives you a great option of taking a target alive. One technique used is to shoot to the chest to stop and shoot to the hip/thigh if they're wanted alive or to the head if they are wanted dead. You can also carry a hell of a lot more 5.56 than just about any round except .22 or .17.
SSgt24thMEU 1 month ago
@SSgt24thMEU Yeah true true:Dmag cap problem? hmm i might look in to that.Yeah 5.56 tumbles and all but you wan't something a bit heavier to knock em down, it's a fast round yes but i think slightly underpower, does have the benefit of low recoil, fired the m1a and an ar15 :D both great weapons, anyway i believe the m16 needs to be changed to something else so do a lot of other platforms, i'm still waiting for belgium (my country) to ditch our awesome fnc for the f2000 but i heard there were pro
chrizmeister1992 1 month ago
@chrizmeister1992 The F2000 is a cheap plastic (yes, worse than the M16, that plastic is near Glock quality IMO) toy with little customizability. If Belgium wants to go domestic, they ought to use the SCAR-L. If not, use the HK416.
SSgt24thMEU 1 month ago
@SSgt24thMEU wouldnt the 416 be better because of it's heavier 6.8mm round? i heard that HK was making the 416 in 6.8 as it was a good balance between the 5.56 and the 7.62.
falloutpraiser 1 month ago
@falloutpraiser The 416 only fires the 5.56, although I'm sure you could reconfigure it to fire nearly any other round easily. The 417 is 7.62.
SSgt24thMEU 1 month ago
@SSgt24thMEU must have been thinking of a different weapon then. is it possible to privately own a 416 or 417?
falloutpraiser 1 month ago
@SSgt24thMEU cheap plastic where did you get that from? extra rails and such can alway's be modified, scar:l would be good but not that much of an upgrade over our fnc's...
chrizmeister1992 1 month ago
@chrizmeister1992 The largest rail on the F2000 isn't much larger than the carrying handle of a M16 (it is larger, not significantly). No spot for your AN/PEQ, flashlight, etc. Believe it or not, those things have a purpose.
Ever used an FN product of late? The plastic just isn't very good. Ever fired a Five-Seven? You'd know what I mean.
SSgt24thMEU 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chrizmeister1992 The largest rail on the F2000 isn't much larger than the carrying handle of a M16 (it is larger, not significantly). No spot for your AN/PEQ, flashlight, etc. Believe it or not, those things have a purpose.
Ever used an FN product of late? The plastic just isn't very good. Ever fired a Five-Seven? You'd know what I mean.
SSgt24thMEU 1 month ago
@rhurst1945 agreed
Strauskizle 1 month ago
I know how to make a better gun but I never will because people will just shoot eachother with it.
planetofthescums 3 months ago
I WONDER WHY VERY FEW MIL.SPEC. BATTLE RIFLES HAVE FULL AUTO ON THEM HMMM
Valholm 4 months ago
@Valholm Actually, the majority of battle rifles do have full auto on them. The L1A1 is one of the few that doesn't. Some M14's were modified to shoot semi auto only in military service.
esh325 3 months ago
is that the A1?
KCChiefsAdams 4 months ago
M14/M-1a is a VERY accurate rifle, drop it to semi because at that distance... auto or bursts is just stupid anyways.
Emeianoite 4 months ago
Idiots.
The M16, yeah, has the lightweight advantage.
The M14, however, was more reliable, could bayonet easy, and if all else failed, you can use the stock to slam a guy upside the head repeatedly.
Lepper36 4 months ago
What an idiot you dont fire an M14 or any rifle for that matter on full auto one shot is all you need.
alluren0 4 months ago
@alluren0 It's obvious the M14 is best used in single shot, he's just demonstrating how the M14 had poor performance in full auto and wasn't able to meet the requirements for a controllable fully automatic rifle.
esh325 4 months ago
If you read the comment fully I said not just the m14 but any rifle. The militery doesnt allow full auto on any of their rifles because no matter what gun you are using full auto is a waste. Not even the m16 is accurate at full auto the best is burst fire and even then its to many shots one 7.62 can out do a 55.6 and any range
alluren0 4 months ago
@alluren0 The army is actually going back to fully automatic fire believe it or not. They are ordering M4A1's (fully automatic) to replace M4's and M16's in service. Currently, SF use the M4A1 and the Navy uses the M16A3, which is fully automatic. The M16 is still going to be a lot better then the M14 in full auto. I agree that 7.62 is a more lethal caliber.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325 I dont know where you get your info but the SCAR H and L is replacing the m4 and m16 the marine corps is switching to the ACR.
alluren0 3 months ago
@alluren0 lol no wtfff? the marines arent switching to the ACR LOL!! why would they, theres nothing special about it, the only reason some special operation divisons are using the scar is because they have the choice of the 5.56x45 and the 7.62x 51 from the same company, the peices are more durable, simpler, and cheaper
Robbieifyoucan 3 months ago
only a stupid would autofire a 7.62 at 400 meters
syalcin123 4 months ago 30
@syalcin123 Yup like those COD fanboys.No offence.
owner8515 3 months ago
@syalcin123 Yeah, this test was fairly retarded.
EnigmaHood 2 months ago
@syalcin123 only a stupid would say only a stupid
acesofshadows 2 months ago
@acesofshadows Who gives a fuck about that? He's right, it's stupid to fire a 7.62mm rifle on full auto at that range. The "test" they performed is based on a faulty premise.
EnigmaHood 2 months ago
@syalcin123 Exactly. Or any rifle for that matter. That's what machine guns are for.
That said, all this M-16 nut riding makes me want to puke. M-16 = jammomatic. I know I will get heat for that. Right, if you treat it like a Faberge egg, and constantly clean, swimming in CLP, then yes, 100% reliable. Maybe the new piston driven ones are better, but still yet to be proven.
CaptainObvious1970 2 months ago
Both rifles were designed to do different missions. For longer range, the M-14 has it hands down. In urban warfare, the smaller, lighter M-16 platform has an advantage. The 7.62mm M-80 ball has only limited advantage in penetration over the lighter 5.56mm round. The M-14 has a flaw in it's design that many won't talk about. It's entire operation depends on a cheap C-clip that holds the bolt cam roller on. If that binds on the op-rod or breaks and the cam falls off - the rifle is useless.
redlegagent 4 months ago
Comment removed
esh325 4 months ago
@redlegagent Only limited penetration? I remember Vietnam stories of 7.62 rounds being able to go right through trees where the 5.56x45 was easily deflected by brush. That's the first I've heard of. I've never heard of that part being prone to breaking.
esh325 4 months ago
so really the us armys assult rifle came from canada since a canadian invented the m1 grand
tyler22441 4 months ago
@tyler22441 He was working for Springfield Armory, which is an American company.
That's like saying that Italians discovered America. Columbus was Italian, but he did it for Spain so they discovered and exploited it.
Historianization 4 months ago
put that gun in an australians hands and he wont miss the helmet once
ultrazeen380 4 months ago
The M16 is an absolutely beautiful weapon. Do not underestimate its power. Thumbs up if you agree. ☺
SergeantMiller7 4 months ago
Comment removed
SergeantMiller7 4 months ago
M14 Very reliable dusty, wet, the M14 will still fire. M16 even with it's modifications still jams regularly. M14 you can feel safe in the knowledge that you will kill what you hit, and whatever is standing behind them. M16 need 4 or 5 rounds to kill them. M16 primary assault weapon, not used for long range. M14 used by special forces as a sniper. Ask every military who served with both, they all say the M14 is far superior.
ArodWingfoot 4 months ago
@ArodWingfoot From US army reports and other offcial reports, it was actually suggested the M14 was less reliable then the M16. In other reports, they said the M14 was more reliable. They flipped flopped back and forth on what they said.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325 I own a M14. It is very reliable. Dust, wind, even rain she fires true. Far more than my AR15 (Civilian version of the M16) Which needs constant cleaning.
ArodWingfoot 4 months ago
@ArodWingfoot I've got both too. Never had to subjective my rifles to those conditions. I haven't shot tons of rounds through either of them, but both are reliable so far. Never had a jam with either yet.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325 I never had to subject them to extreme conditions, but I do because I like to know their limits. If you properly clean and maintain them they will both be perfect. However, should zombies attack and you become unable to maintain them, don't count on the AR15 for more than a clip or 2.
ArodWingfoot 4 months ago
@ArodWingfoot I think that's ridiculous the AR15 will go a lot longer then that. With the AR15 all you need a tip of a round or a punch to dissemble the bolt. With the M1A, you need a two special tools just to take the piston off. A wrench so you don't bend it while taking it off, and another to unscrew the nut.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325 And with a M14 you can leave it in a locker for 2 or 3 years then take it out slap a clip in and she still goes good. You can't take it apart easily because you don't need to. I have put my M14 through hell and she still goes good.
ArodWingfoot 4 months ago
@ArodWingfoot Generally, neglecting any firearm will yield bad results if anything. Some people will get away with it for a while, but it will catch up to them eventually.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325 Well yeah. Leave any gun in a locker for ten year then take it out, no way it will fire. Just saying the M14 can take a fair bit of abuse before it has any problems.
ArodWingfoot 4 months ago
I would take the m14 any day
BALJIT147 4 months ago
The old semi auto 7.62x51 battle rifles certainly have their place in the squad to give them more 'reach'. The ideal path would have been to adopt the British .280 round as the NATO standard in 1950 instead of the US forcing the 7.62 on everyone, then giving it up for the 5.56 a few years later. The .280 British was an incredible round developed in 1949 to replace the .303 - google it. Such a sad waste of opportunity. The Modern 6.8SPC round is very similar in properties to the 50 year old .280.
Xiolablu3 4 months ago
This is bullshit.
kwansao 4 months ago
1:02 what game does that picture remind me of...?
trisrock226 4 months ago
he made the stoner63 first then then m16
jjbros195 4 months ago
Comment removed
MaxximII 4 months ago
A delta-ops sergeant (Paul Howe in Black Hawk Down) said that the m16, or his equivalents, lacks power, and that therefore an older master sergeant (Gary Gordon) still used m14, even with the mean recoil, because when you hit a guy, he should stay down. both fought in Mogadishu, Gary Gordon died defending one of the black hawks outnumbered several thousand to 3 and earned the Medal of Honor for that
brambodenbraber 5 months ago
7:13 sure not even for the HK416?
Rico85 5 months ago
And yet, America still lost the war...
hardoncrimefromRS 5 months ago
@hardoncrimefromRS Yet won every major battle. We politically lost because liberals forced the military to adopt borderline suicidal actions. Many pilots where not allowed to shoot Air-to-air missile sights. Many military personal where not allowed to shoot known enemy hideouts.
ArodWingfoot 4 months ago
@ArodWingfoot I blame Jane Fonda... even though I have nothing against her
hardoncrimefromRS 4 months ago
@ArodWingfoot The USA was in Vietnam to prevent it from becoming communist and while the USA was there Nam never went communist, after the USA left the South Vietnamese did not have the acceptance of the majority of the Vietnamese people and subsequently became communist. So no, the USA did not "lose" a war vs Vietnam. It's not like Ho Chi Minh was in D.C. forcing Nixon to sign a surrender.
oeyesea 2 months ago
@oeyesea Like I said Military wise we did not loose. However do to political BS of the liberals they forced us to pull out and caused the destruction of South Vietnam and untold deaths of freedom loving vietnamese.
ArodWingfoot 2 months ago
@ArodWingfoot You're just a rationalizing idiot. You want to pretend America didn't lose? Go stick your head in the sand, and put your fingers in your ears. Moron hick.
EnigmaHood 2 months ago
@EnigmaHood We won every major battle. Try again.
ArodWingfoot 2 months ago
@ArodWingfoot It's also irrelevant. We lost the war. Get an education hick.
EnigmaHood 2 months ago
@EnigmaHood I have an eductation. We lost the war because politically it became unpopular at home and people demanded we bring the troops home which resulted in millions of freedom loving Vietnamese people to be murdered. Military wise it was a stunning victory, but politics can undermine even the greatest victory. Also you apparently don't know that the communist believe that the Vietnam War was a huge military disaster, which is why it was the last war based on communist aggression.
ArodWingfoot 2 months ago
@ArodWingfoot You're an idiot. We lost the war, PERIOD. The Vietnamese just wanted their country back, and not be slaves to French colonists. Go read about the First Indochina War, because you are sorely uneducated with the prelude to the American involvement in Vietnam. The Vietnamese just wanted their own country back, and not be ruled by anyone else. Put your flag away you bible thumping hick.
EnigmaHood 2 months ago
@EnigmaHood You probably can't give a solid estimate on how many people have died thanks to communism can you? We lost the war, noone is denying this, but when even the communist claim that military wise we won it you are basically rolling in the mud trying to get someone else to come in with you so you arn't the only fool. (PS To answer the how many people commuinsim has killed, it is at the very least 100 million though the exact number is likely far greater)
ArodWingfoot 2 months ago
@ArodWingfoot And you can't give a solid estimate to how many people died thanks to colonialism can you? I'll give you a hint, it was more than communism. You keep saying we won "militarily" as if it makes any fucking difference. WHO CARES? IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER. What matters is who won the god damn war, and we LOST. You want to have a pissing contest on who killed more people? Yes, America killed more people. They also tortured, and raped more people too. Congrats on being a fucking idiot.
EnigmaHood 2 months ago
@EnigmaHood It actually does matter because had we not left communism would of crumbled alot sooner than it did because remember the USSR Collapsed, USA didn't. It does matter. Actually there has never been a case of American torturing or raping any POWs though the cases of communist doing it are many. I find it funny how much of a fool you are. Just a product of a failure in education I guess. PS colonialism has killed no more than a quarter of the number communism has.
ArodWingfoot 2 months ago
@ArodWingfoot No one cares about communism. It's just a scare word, like socialism is. Only inbred hicks like you keep repeating it as if it matters. LOL, you ruined all of your credibility with that. Americans have tortured and raped countless people. You are a fucking moron. Actually you give morons a bad name. Colonialism has resulted in the complete extermination of the Native Americans which was perpetrated by Americans. Go back to worshiping a piece of wood bible boy.
EnigmaHood 2 months ago
@EnigmaHood Actually people do because it is a word that is used as a title to a way of government. Actually when all your questions can be answered with the same answer. Are we ignoring the Russians who actually did it, or the germans who actually did it, or the romans who actually did it and just saying american's did it even though there is not a single case to prove it. Yet I know native americans. And communism has claimed more dead than the combat fatalities of all wars combined.
ArodWingfoot 2 months ago
@ArodWingfoot No. No one cares except hicks like you, because it's just a scare word that uneducated people use to scare people. Not a single case to prove it... Lol. Go and read about the My Lai Massacre. Or the Haditha killings. Or waterboarding which was authorized by the bush administration. No. You are uneducated, colonialism resulted in the genocide Native Americans. You don't know any Native Americans, you are a hick that lives in a trailerhome, and never got a college education.
EnigmaHood 2 months ago
@EnigmaHood really have to define what words are for you? You keep saying america is bad but when you look around the world you see much worse treatment all around. Like in China you would be killed for speaking against the government. Torture? Seriously? I have been waterboarded and although not pleasant isn't torture. How about the people crippled by real torture. Like John McCain who can't lift his arms above his shoulders. I live in a full size house and my neighbor is native american.
ArodWingfoot 2 months ago
@ArodWingfoot See, inbred hicks like you seem to think that if someone does something worse, that somehow makes it ok to rape and kill people. I wasn't talking about China dumbfuck, I was talking about America, China is irrelevant. You haven't been waterboarded hick, now you're just a liar. McCain is also against waterboarding fucktard, he knows it's torture because he was waterboarded. You live in a trailerhome and your neighbor is another hick.
EnigmaHood 2 months ago
@EnigmaHood No it doesn't but you are denying that worse happened. You think America is a great evil even though if you look though history you will see we are the most benevolent nation ever. I was just reminding you that you should be thankful for the freedoms you have. Actually Yes I have. It sucks, but I can think of worse. Well you can keep saying that but it doesn't make it true. I find it hilarious that you think you know more about me than I do. You know, I feel sorry for you.
ArodWingfoot 2 months ago
@ArodWingfoot Yes, America is a benevolent nation. That's why the committed genocide against the Native Americans, enslaved blacks, discriminated and oppressed racial minorities. Your best argument is, "OH BUT OTHER COUNTRIES DID BAD THINGS TOO!!", like a typical idiot. No you haven't, you're just a liar. But proof speaks volumes, so go ahead and prove it. All I know about you is that you're a liar. I don't even feel sorry for you, you are just a waste.
EnigmaHood 2 months ago
@EnigmaHood We pay reparations to native americans and blacks enslaved other blacks long before America was even founded. No my arguement is that if you hate america so much go to one of these other nations, though in China you would be killed after you got off the plane, and Iran you probably wouldn't even have time to stand up. Prove that I was okay, only proof I got is my word because waterboarding doesn't leave scarring. Now you prove I wasn't. If I am a waste why ar eyou talking to me?
ArodWingfoot 2 months ago
@ArodWingfoot Lol yeah, that makes it all better. Again with the "OH BUT OTHER COUNTRIES DID BAD THINGS TOO!!" argument. Didn't I already tell you that you're an idiot for using that argument? I don't have to disprove anything, burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim. I don't like hicks spreading disinformation, so I'm here to make sure you don't.
EnigmaHood 2 months ago
@EnigmaHood And you with the "IGNORE OTHER COUNTRIES DOING MUCH WORSE AND FOCUS ON THE ONLY GOOD NATION" Yeah but your argument is retarded so I don't care. Like you for claiming that all American soldiers are rapist and murderers. You obviously don't know any of them. You don't like people spreading disinformation and that's what you are doing. Oh Hypocrisy.
ArodWingfoot 2 months ago
@ArodWingfoot Lol no, we just aren't talking about those nations. Stay on topic child. :) Naa, not all of them. Some of them. Lol I'm not the one saying we won in Vietnam dum dum.
EnigmaHood 2 months ago
@ArodWingfoot So do you always cry this much or is it only when people don't agree with you. If you bring up the evils of a benevolent nation you should also bring up the evils of the actual evil ones. I am not saying we won in Vietnam either I am saying that when you look at the military scale we crushed them and when they agree that they got crushed you can't ignore it (though you are really trying to) Like I said Politics can undermine even the greatest victory. Something you can't grasp.
ArodWingfoot 2 months ago
@oeyesea You don't know how war works do you? It's not a stupid baseball game you fucking hick. If you achieve no military objectives, you achieve no political objectives. The whole point of war is to coerce the enemy to do what you want him to do. NVA won. USA lost. Stop being an idiot and admit it.
EnigmaHood 2 months ago
Comment removed
lagook 2 months ago