the armalite ar-15 was before m-16 and issued before the m-16 not only knowing the m-16 was a direct design of the armalite ar-15 (correct me if im wrong) so why does EVERYONE mention the m-16 and never the ar-15?
Well, if I was in the war, I'd use the M14 regardless of where I was and learn to take up a marksman role with it. It's like being a sniper, only without the responsibility of steadying the scope. The only problem with the M14 would be it's weight and considering if you were in close quarters, you'd be fucked without the full auto mode. The M16 is more ideal for both long range and CQC but of course, I wouldn't wanna be fucked if it jammed on me. M14 wins in my book.
@99thJediWarrior Saying that carrying a M14 makes you a sniper is like saying having a race car makes you a race car driver, it's not true. The M16 and M4 today doesn't even have full auto. One can get along fine without full auto. The M16 is not as unreliable as people think.
5.56 is decent but if you hit anything with a 7.62 it goes down. I have shot 7.62 through small trees in the military, also in nam the ak 47 had larger rounds so in a nutshell your issueing frontline rifles which offer less power than your enemy. But im a strong believer of its not the rifle you use, but how you use the rifle!
i'm in the Army, and i would take a slightly heavier weapon over a lighter one for better accuracy, reliability, and stopping power. (5.56 still gets it done, but im a fan of the 7.62)
the 5.56mm round should never have been adopted as a combat round. It is small, had low armor penetration and fragments when hits anything solid which completely dissipates its kinetic energy.
the rifle itself is great, the caliber of the round is pathetic.
lol I cut my self off. What I was trying to say was that the M-14 is basically a sniper rifle with a automatic setting and iron sights. Such a weapon is clearly better compared to an M-16, however in a situation where you can't even see the targets, those advantages are nullified.
Take into consideration that in Vietnam the US forces could not even see the targets, all the troopers knew was that some guys. This wold make a high accuracy, low fire rate low amo weapon like the M-14 relatively ineffective in such a situation because if you can't see the target you can't use the accuracy or superior range of your weapon to your advantage.
As a former active duty Marine who has carried the M-16 and is familiar with it, I feel that its weaknesses outweigh its strong points. I have, on more than one occasion, had jamming due to sand or dirt in the action. It is also a valid point that the M-16 lacks long range knock down power. As a matter of fact the M-14 is making a strong comeback in Afghanistan where long distance shots are more needed. I own a National Match model M-14 and it is a beautiful, reliable weapon. M-14 for me!
@AtOthenewbkillah ya larger rounds normaly do like if its a bigg difference. like say compareing a 12 guage slug to a 30.06 round. But in terms of the normal fighting ranges between two enemys there isnt all that much drop. me personaly id rather have the m14 because it is very very close to the civilian .308 winchester rounds and most if not all m14's/m1a's can fire both the .762 and the .308 round.
m14 and m16 are shit compared to the steyr aug. m14s are obsolete when you look at modern 308 semi auto rifles that have less recoil, simpler mounting for optics, and lighter weight. Larue OBR in 308 for example.
m16 is obsolete when you compare it to the steyr aug in every way.
@labartic the aug is an ugly plastic piece of shit. now go away you Cod fanboy. its ugly ugly ugly. not good looking. did i mention it looks fucking stupid. also its not as reliable and fires a weak .223 i little girls round
obsolete .308 guns? they are the BEST Battle rifles around you nucklehead
comeback when you learn about the m14 and how it kicks the shit out of that austrian piece of shit
M110 is a good modern 308. The m14 is old and out dated. It still shoot a large round, sure, but it is not a great weapons platform. Can you easily suppress it, no. Can you easily mount a scope, no. Is it as accurate as an M110, no. It weighs a ton and is front heavy too. Its not light, handy, fast enough for close combat. Good luck using it from inside a vehicle, or inside a tight room. Its too big and long. If you had real life experience with it, youd know how obsolete it is.
@labartic well then stop playing video games. and dont call me stupid. im not the one saying the m14 is out dated nor am i comparing a sniper rifle to a battle-rifle. whats next the M16 vs the M240
fucking retard like you just need to stay on you Call of duty videos and Gay porn sites and leave your ignorance there
@labartic The M110 wouldn't be suitable either for close range combat. It's not light or handy either. It's a true sniper rifle and can't be compared to the M14 really. The M110 is not as reliable as the M14. "The US Army has issued a request to the private sector to reconfigure or replace the current Knight Armament M110 sniper rifle as the current version of the M110 is not functioning well in the field requiring significant maintenance and replacement of parts."
@labartic The M14 is a good rifle, but I would agree that it's outdated. The particular armalite AR10 I use to own did not feel much lighter then my M1A. In terms of mounting optics, I would say the M14 is inferior. It is much harder to do, but once you get optics on them, it will be solid. Like I said, the M110 is more accurate, but not as reliable. The M14 EBR was adapted for close quarters combat and is almost as short as a M4.
oh....and the m16 is not a colt its origanly arm-a-lite and same for the m1911 its not colt its origanly browning(who didnt know that im not gonna call you a jack ass
i agree with him i like the m14 better cause in my family if you have a carbine we wont even talk to you....plus we like it heavy...and were more traditional.and we like a little kick when deer go down.my grandfather was a double expert sniper in the army and was given the chance for a carbine(rare in 1964)but he turned it down.plus his sidarm was another.
@SOA209 wow another trolling idiot. the best way to get out of an ambush is the blaze that area with lead. not sitting around wasting time trying to make accurate shits especially when you cant see through the bush where your enemy is.
I don't understand why they did not just re-chamber the M14 or M2 carbine in a smaller caliber like a caliber comparable to .243. There are features of the M16/AR15 that I love but the same goes for the M14&AK47. I favor the AR over other rifles because of; my experience level with it, its light weight, its accuracy, its ergonomics. The more resources you have the better the AR is whereas the AK is opposite, the less you have the more you need it.
@oeyesea Well it wouldn't have been a good idea anyway. The M14 is designed primarily for semi auto use not full auto, so it had no pistol grip and has a tendency to rotate on the axis where you hold the thing (between the stock and the receiver. One of the main selling points of the 5.56 round is that it's controllable on full auto, and the M16 was designed with that in mind. Of course the modern variants of the M14 have pistol grip and fiberglass parts, but still
After all is said and done, if you reworked the M14 for a smaller caliber, and added pistol grip, fiberglass and plastic parts, it's essentially a new gun anyway.
@countrymancurtis the m16 was far more accurate than the m16. but the m16 jammed a bunch. then they fixed it up a bit. id rather go to battle with an m16a1 than a m14
@baberaider18 actually on the contrary, the M-14 was much more accurate than the M-16, Take a look at the effective combat range of the two. The M-14 had an effective combat range over 3 times longer than the M-16. And due to the extra weight of the gun the muzzle climb was much less. hence why the M-14 is still commonly used with a magnified scope as a sniper and the M-16A1 Is not. The A1 was a complete flop, it required a far more intensive cleaning, even though it was designed to never need
@baberaider18 cleaning. the problem was solved once cleaning kits were issued, and later models of the M-16 (such as the current A4 model) have shown drastic improvement. I'd much rather go into battle with the M-14 than the A1 version. the A1 was basically a failure during the first years of service. That said I would feel better about having an A4 version in battle versus the M-14. Not to mention that the main adversarial weapon (Kalashnikov) has an effective range of 500 yards. versus
@baberaider18 the M-14 had good stopping power at over 1000 yards and the M-16A1 lost most of it's stopping power by 300 yards. Luckily for us, most Vietnam engagements didn't take place at anywhere over 200 yards, so that advantage was not a factor.
@countrymancurtis You never can have a rifle with too much stopping power or too much accuracy. More then what was needed would be more accurate. Plus the rifle and ammo was heavy burdening the soldier. It was also not very easy to control in fully automatic.
@esh325 actually it was much easier to control on full auto, because of the weight. Lighter rifles TEND to have more kick, although a good soldier could still keep a good pattern with the M-16 on auto, the M-14 stayed on target much better. and it is a proven fact that the M-14 had a combat range of 1000+ yards (hence why they were used as snipers very widely) versus the M-16's combat range of within 300. But for the mobile combat that the Vetnam war was known for.....
@countrymancurtis Weight is not the only factor in determining recoil. You're completely incorrect. Tell that to the US army. According a US army test conducting in the 1960's, the M14 had unacceptable fully automatic performance at all ranges. They said the M16 had superior fully automatic performance up until 400m's. A soldier is not going to regularly make 1000 yard shots. This was confirmed in studies conducted during WW2 and Korea. Most battlefield engagements are 300m' or less.
@esh325 you just proved my point. It was TOO ACCURATE for the army to take into combat. Funny how there are more M-14e1's in service as snipers and for those chosen as 'Designated marksmen' in Afghanistan than there are M-16A1's. and the latter was MUCH more widely produced. the only rifle to see service in the US army longer than the M-14, was the Springfield 1903 bolt action rifle. and accuracy is affected by three things: first and foremost, the placement of the barrel...
@esh325 in relation to the buttstock of the weapon. Try holding an AK on target for more than three or four full auto shots. second, the firing mechanism. Bolt action weapons have a lot more kick than semi automatics (the only reason they are figured to be more accurate is that you actually have to reset and reprepare to make a second shot, versus just pulling the trigger again) Third is the gun weight. You can fire a breech loading single shot 20 Ga. shotgun that weighs a couple of pounds
@countrymancurtis I can't tell you exactly why a bolt action is more accurate then a semi automatic, but here's what I think. A semi automatic bleeds off a little bit of gas to cycle the action which equals a loss in velocity, where a bolt action uses the full power of the round and no velocity loss. A bolt action does not have imbalance of gas ports or gas tubes hanging off the barrel to effect barrel harmonics.
@esh325 and fire it against a pump action 12 that weighs four times more. The 20 Ga will Knock you on your @ss much more versus the 12. why? Because physics states that energy has to go somewhere. the energy expended by the 20 gauge is approx 25% lower than that of the 12. but you also have a quarter of the weight to move. It's going to take 4X more energy to move the gun that is 4X heavier. do the math and that means that you will feel about 18% less energy in your shoulder using the 12 than
@countrymancurtis My personel experience with the M14 and M16 is that the M16 has less recoil and the majority of the people who have fired them will relate to that.
@esh325 using the 20. So lets figure this out. We have the same barrel placement. The same firing mechanism type (Spring and piston). and the M-16 was 25% lighter. now figuring that the round was about 25% heavier, you should be about even. Now consider that most "automatic fire" was tested as firing from the hip, because from the time that the original BAR was issued in the 30's up untill the mid vietnam era (when the M-14 was already out of frontline service) , automatic fire was taught to be
@countrymancurtis Your mathematics are incorrect or something. The M16 has less recoil then the M14. This is not debatable anymore. The .223 gives a MUCH lower recoil impulse compared to a .308. And the M16 has a buffer tube in the stock further reducing recoil.
@esh325 the M-16A2 has the buffer stock. and a muzzle break that reduces recoil too. The original M-16 was a flop, and the A1 hardly corrected for those deficiencies.
@countrymancurtis I imagine at that distance with the AK, they probably put their sights to 800m's aim a little bit high to compensate for the drop, and spray 30 rounds. A few of those rounds will probably hit something.
@esh325 actually they start out aiming low and hit the trigger I think. The AK is insane with it's muzzle climb. at 50 yards with a guy with 20 years experience has a hard time hitting a 6 foot target after 3 or 4 shots. the climb to a well trained wielder of the weapon is probably not that bad. but still if your rounds end up almost two feet apart at 50 yards, it's probably just enough to scare the crap out of whoever they fire at at 800 yards.
@esh325 used from the hip. Soldiers were trained to hold the rifle at their hip and fire as they walked. if they were using automatic fire, they were trained to keep the gun steady. even semi auto fire from the BAR was taught from the hip. you would point it at the target and walk, firing every time your left foot hit the ground. yes there was a lot of forest fighting and urban fighting during the Korean war and WW2. and vietnam you never SAW that far. A lot of insurgents in afghanistan today
@countrymancurtis I've seen combat footage of soldiers firing the M16 from the shoulder. And full auto fire tests the army conducted were most likely done from the shoulder. Hip firing in automatic at a 300m target? I highly doubt it.
@esh325 they were getting low to the ground to save their butts. their trainers attempted to drill fearlessness into them and they were trained standing up. Remember that the army tried to make it's soldiers think that they were invincible. they didn't teach tactics and marksmanship like they do nowdays. just relied on brute strength. not to mention the fact that the tactic of firing from the hip was to counter the tidal wave of russians that was going to come into Europe.
@esh325 it was too heavy to be practical. The M-14 outperformed the M-16 (A1) that replaced it in all tests that could be thrown at the two, the M-14 was just too heavy.
@countrymancurtis The M16 outperformed the M14 in tests also. The M14 was phased out because the rifle itself was too heavy, and the ammo was too heavy, and poor fully automatic performance and lacked firepower.
@esh325 fire from beyond 1,000 yards on patrols because americans need "designated marksmen" or snipers to return fire from farther than 800 yards in combat. Because the standard issue rifles and sights are not capable of making those kind of engagements but the AK's that the insurgents have can still do damage (even though they arent really aimed shots)
@countrymancurtis Yeah, the .223 doesn't really kill that well at a distance. Which is a drawback of using a varmint caliber. The M14 is a superior long range rifle. The M16 is a superior close range rifle. We could have made a rifle that could do the job of the M16 and M14 if we wanted to.
in my opinion, both are great rifles. the m14 does get a little heavy, though. it could benefit from plastic furniture... wait, the army's already doing that.
@esh325 both the m16 and the m14 have their pros and cons. to me, it's like comparing apples to oranges. the m14 is a battle rifle that fires a full sized round, while the m16 is an assault rifle that fires a shortened round. both are completely different beasts. personally, i prefer the m16 over the m14 because i can get in a much tighter stance than i can with the m14. besides that, it's almost too close to tell in my POV. if the army really wants to impress, bring back the M1 Garand.
Well if I wanted someone dead 600 yards away and his buddy standing beside him dead too I just want my M14! If I want to take out a room of terrorists i'll settle for the M16. If I wanted best of both worlds I'll take the M1a Socom its the same as the M14 only smaller and fitted better for the modern field of battle..
i sitll dont believe that shit about 200 000 rounds pr enemy kill. that must bes something wrong about how they counted that. you didnt send a squad into combat with 1m rounds and expected them to kill 5 guys for example
@CORWERA That number is too high. According to the department of defense, it took an enemy soldier 50,000 rounds to kill one enemy soldier with a M16 rifle in the Vietnam war.
reports such as that one were around since the age of the musket. Some claimed a 1000 musket shots equaled only one hit even in line warfare of the 17th and 18th centuries.
There are quite a few battles where volleys were exchanged and caused 4-5 casualties.
The number of rds per kill sky rocketed because of a change in tactics that centered around squad MMGs.
@Sturmmann Perhaps it was a change in tactics, or maybe it was because troops were spraying a lot. After Vietnam, they took out fully automatic in favor of a 3 round burst.
The numbers really dont add up. In WW2 they say only 20% of troops shot to kill, the number rose to 90% in Vietnam because of a change in training. The only believeable part about the 50,000 rds per kill figure is that the jungle can have a thick fog of war.
Also, Vietnam was an infantrymans war. The US to Communist kill ratio was often 20 to 1.
@esh325 whatever, thats not my point. my point is that ppl dont carry 50 000 rounds pr kill they estimate to make. 50 000 rounds is still 49 999 rounds too much than whats needed. i have little believe in those numbers
i prefer the m14 for open spaces in witch the enemy doesn't expect you yet the m16 for mid range combat where you can easily identify your enemy and for close range i prefer the m4 and for extremely close range you better wish you have a shotgun
If I had a choice I would take a modern M14(7.62x51 socom) then 2nd choice would be a AR-10(7.62x51) 3rd choice would be a AK-47(7.62x38) or AK-74(5.56)BUT if I really had the cash to throw around and if it was legal(COMMIEFORNIA) I would take a SCAR-H(7.62x51) or H&K G36(5.56x45)
My father was a Captain in the ARMY and when I asked him and his army buddys about the m16 cause as a kid I thought it was cool looking.Him and his friends all said the same think M16 SUCK they jam they melt they get hot in your hands after 2-3 mags,my dad was m14 all the way.1 of his guys when m14 ammo was getting harder to aquire had switched over to the old WW2 style sten guns.Now all the problems they fixed on the m16 chromed barrel,foreward assist,but I like the m14 cuz dad said so!
the m14 may is more accurate but while your waiting to place that one shot kill a couple of the enemies buddies sneak around behidn yah and slit your throat. The concept of volume of fire is to keep the enemy pinned down so cant move so your buddies can move up on em and cut em down making sure the enemy doesnt sneak up on you while your waiting for that one well placed shot.
@Iwantedtoknow16802 The thing about that is that if you in the marrines you trained to place that shot in less than a millisecnond, it becomes instinct. Not alot of time for someone to sneak around unoticed. And if you cant place that shot on instinct then you should be there fighting in the first place.
@alluren0 Your thinking about things in terms of One man Shooting at One other man. Your not taking into consideration the acctuall batlle feild terrain and the possitblity of being flanked by an enemy that has not been properly suppressed (or knows the terrain better than you)into their position by the volume of fire of all the other marines your with. Yourre right ab9ut the way marines are trained. But you claerly havent considered FULL SCALE battlefeild tactics.
@esh325 hes a tactidouche, the only people that really have problems with guns jamming are the soldiers, who drag them through the mud. Honestly no civilians gun will ever see much dirt. People that say its unreliable only read articles on the internet, and dont have much experience with them in the real world.
@dasdew2@dasdew2 @dasdew2 Not to contradict ya but he was in fact in the military. I am proud to call him a fellow Marine. Ronald Lee Ermey is a retired United States Marine Corps drill instructor You might be surprised at how many actors were in fact Marines. Don Adams Drew Carey Barry Corbin Brian Dennehy Bradford Dillman David Eigenberg R. Lee Ermey Mike Farrell Glenn Ford Scott Glenn Gene Hackman Bob Keeshan Randy Orton Robert Remus aka Sgt. Slaughter as well as countless others.
@RepublicofCannabeer The M16 is not nearly as unreliable as people say. True, the caliber of the M16 leaves a lot to be desired. The M14 wasn't a bad rifle, but there were better rifles then the M14 back then, and better rifles today.
The M-14 is what the Gunny likes, that's what I'm gonna buy ! Oh and hitting someone 200 yards away with the M16 is nice, but being able to seriously fuck someone up from 800 yards away is so much sweeter. Some say you can carry 30 rounds with the M16, but one well placed round with the M14 will do just as much damage to an enemy combatant. 30 light semi hard hitting rounds, or 20 asskicking, powerful enemy stopping rounds, the choice is obvious. M14 For The Win !!!!!!!
Between the M14 and the M16 i have to go with the M14 cuz back then the M16 would jam A LOT but the M14 is ideal for sniping, or just normal firefights.
@SingleFin1969 i dont know wouldnt it be better to have the M14 for battlefield combat then for house to house you would use your sidearm such as a M1911?
@SingleFin1969 i dont know wouldnt it be better to have the M14 for battlefield combat then for house to house you would use your sidearm such as a M1911?
@SingleFin1969 I bet you already know this, but the m16 isnt good for close quarter combat at all. i do agree with your decision though if you had to pick from those two only.
I respect the arguments made about the M16 and the AK-47, both are excellent weapons in their own right but are rather difficult to compare without too much opinion involved. I personally enjoy my bolt action rifles, I like the idea of picking someone off outside of their weapon's range. Call me crazy but I just don't like the idea of being shot at.
I respect the arguments made about the M16 and the AK-47, both are excellent weapons in their own right but are rather difficult to compare without too much opinion involved. I personally enjoy my bolt action rifles, I like the idea of picking someone off outside of their weapon's range. Call me crazy but I just don't like the idea of being shot at.
@TeenewsUpdate The AK47 is inferior in almost every way to the M-16. Only under 100m and cost of production is the AK-47 noticeably better. The M-16 is accurate out to 650m and has a significantly better energy retainment rate. It's also lighter, has better sights, and it'stumbling and fragmenting bullet causes more damage to a body. The AK-47 is accurate until 150m, is a pound and a half heavier, has very crude sights, and does not fragment or tumble.
@XxxSakura101 The only real advantages I can list to the AK-47 are the production costs, availability of 7.62 (but 5.56 is also damn common), and reliability in dirty conditions (which can be rectified on the M-16 with a little maintainence and common sense where possible.) Besides, I think the M-16 looks cooler.
Comment removed
ShadowSniperMaster 6 days ago
the armalite ar-15 was before m-16 and issued before the m-16 not only knowing the m-16 was a direct design of the armalite ar-15 (correct me if im wrong) so why does EVERYONE mention the m-16 and never the ar-15?
MrDip02 1 week ago
the m14 in vietnam was accurate up 850yrds and the new ones can hit a target at over 1000yrds
kirk0respite 1 week ago
In 1955, had the m-14 been manufactured with the cosmetic changes of the EBR, the m-16 may not have been so readily adopted.
dsspike51 3 weeks ago
the M14 is back in service.
MrHottleaded 3 weeks ago
@MrHottleaded it never left service
nblax41 3 weeks ago
ha ha they fixed the m16 and upgraded it, when they did that it didn't jam often and was pretty accurate.
chucknorris242 4 weeks ago
M-14 is beast! in the 70s they made a shortend version. too bad the M-16 was out
madpigz777 1 month ago
EM2 and FN FAL in British .280 would of been better. And the Armalite AR18 with its gas piston would of been better than DI. Shame.
parrotcar 1 month ago
M-14. hands down Gunny! I'd take the "teenage queen" over the "black widow"any day.
olkilldevil20 1 month ago
Well, if I was in the war, I'd use the M14 regardless of where I was and learn to take up a marksman role with it. It's like being a sniper, only without the responsibility of steadying the scope. The only problem with the M14 would be it's weight and considering if you were in close quarters, you'd be fucked without the full auto mode. The M16 is more ideal for both long range and CQC but of course, I wouldn't wanna be fucked if it jammed on me. M14 wins in my book.
99thJediWarrior 1 month ago
@99thJediWarrior Saying that carrying a M14 makes you a sniper is like saying having a race car makes you a race car driver, it's not true. The M16 and M4 today doesn't even have full auto. One can get along fine without full auto. The M16 is not as unreliable as people think.
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 Did I SAY havign an M14 makes you a sniper? Look closer at what I said, idiot.
99thJediWarrior 1 month ago
@99thJediWarrior Havign? You mean having?
esh325 1 month ago
@esh325 look closer at what I said in my old comment, idiot. I said it was LIKE being a sniper! Look before you respond, bitch.
99thJediWarrior 1 month ago
5.56 is decent but if you hit anything with a 7.62 it goes down. I have shot 7.62 through small trees in the military, also in nam the ak 47 had larger rounds so in a nutshell your issueing frontline rifles which offer less power than your enemy. But im a strong believer of its not the rifle you use, but how you use the rifle!
Thatuptownguy 1 month ago
i'm in the Army, and i would take a slightly heavier weapon over a lighter one for better accuracy, reliability, and stopping power. (5.56 still gets it done, but im a fan of the 7.62)
BigChiefMike 2 months ago
the 5.56mm round should never have been adopted as a combat round. It is small, had low armor penetration and fragments when hits anything solid which completely dissipates its kinetic energy.
the rifle itself is great, the caliber of the round is pathetic.
AMDfreak27 2 months ago
lol I cut my self off. What I was trying to say was that the M-14 is basically a sniper rifle with a automatic setting and iron sights. Such a weapon is clearly better compared to an M-16, however in a situation where you can't even see the targets, those advantages are nullified.
1169Timothy 2 months ago
Take into consideration that in Vietnam the US forces could not even see the targets, all the troopers knew was that some guys. This wold make a high accuracy, low fire rate low amo weapon like the M-14 relatively ineffective in such a situation because if you can't see the target you can't use the accuracy or superior range of your weapon to your advantage.
1169Timothy 2 months ago
What happened to the M-15?
supressorgrid 2 months ago
@supressorgrid well i think it was used more as a Support weapon
Remington61189 2 months ago
@supressorgrid lol
kirk0respite 1 week ago
m16 is cheaper , much much cheaper
jebaj0czeski0marynaz 2 months ago
Great video. Check out my guns on my channel.
iluv2viddyfilms 2 months ago
dude turn off ur mod ha your mod locked serves you right
dumcrapcat 2 months ago
m16 will kill you
m14 will blow your fucking head off
bman4099 2 months ago 3
As a former active duty Marine who has carried the M-16 and is familiar with it, I feel that its weaknesses outweigh its strong points. I have, on more than one occasion, had jamming due to sand or dirt in the action. It is also a valid point that the M-16 lacks long range knock down power. As a matter of fact the M-14 is making a strong comeback in Afghanistan where long distance shots are more needed. I own a National Match model M-14 and it is a beautiful, reliable weapon. M-14 for me!
MrCueball961 2 months ago 3
Only faggots and sailors are called Lawrence.....
coty734 3 months ago 3
@coty734 i am not
iamgig9876 3 months ago
i thought larger rounds would drop faster at distances
AtOthenewbkillah 3 months ago
@AtOthenewbkillah ya larger rounds normaly do like if its a bigg difference. like say compareing a 12 guage slug to a 30.06 round. But in terms of the normal fighting ranges between two enemys there isnt all that much drop. me personaly id rather have the m14 because it is very very close to the civilian .308 winchester rounds and most if not all m14's/m1a's can fire both the .762 and the .308 round.
blootoons 2 months ago
m14 all the way one shot kill:)
boonedogger 3 months ago
All objects on Earth drop at the same rate.
theflyingGoats 3 months ago
@theflyingGoats Actually they don't. how fast they drop depends on the shape and rigidity, which affect drag(also known as air friction).
DerStadtschutz 2 months ago
19 people best un-fuck themselves or they will be in a world of shit.
MrBanjo 3 months ago 46
This has been flagged as spam show
Thumbs up if you're SICK of stupid kids ranting about which gun is better.
JUST GO WITH THE GUN YOU LIKE!!!! If the Tommy gun's your kinda gun, go for it! If the MP40's your kinda gun, go for it! It's that simple.
STOP PISSING ON SOMEONE FOR LIKING A DIFFERENT GUN, IT'S THEY'RE BUSINESS, ANYWAY!!!!
bman4099 3 months ago
lol all the fags fighting on the internet
derfuher00 3 months ago
m14 and m16 are shit compared to the steyr aug. m14s are obsolete when you look at modern 308 semi auto rifles that have less recoil, simpler mounting for optics, and lighter weight. Larue OBR in 308 for example.
m16 is obsolete when you compare it to the steyr aug in every way.
labartic 3 months ago
@labartic the aug is an ugly plastic piece of shit. now go away you Cod fanboy. its ugly ugly ugly. not good looking. did i mention it looks fucking stupid. also its not as reliable and fires a weak .223 i little girls round
obsolete .308 guns? they are the BEST Battle rifles around you nucklehead
comeback when you learn about the m14 and how it kicks the shit out of that austrian piece of shit
4everUSNavy 3 months ago
M110 is a good modern 308. The m14 is old and out dated. It still shoot a large round, sure, but it is not a great weapons platform. Can you easily suppress it, no. Can you easily mount a scope, no. Is it as accurate as an M110, no. It weighs a ton and is front heavy too. Its not light, handy, fast enough for close combat. Good luck using it from inside a vehicle, or inside a tight room. Its too big and long. If you had real life experience with it, youd know how obsolete it is.
labartic 3 months ago
@labartic the M110 is a sniper rifle. cant realy be used for anything else. the M14 is still the Best .308 type weapon.
dont compare sniper rifles to battle rifles you Call of duty Noob
4everUSNavy 3 months ago
Youre stupidity is truly staggering. I dont play games son, I shoot REAL shit.
labartic 3 months ago
@labartic well then stop playing video games. and dont call me stupid. im not the one saying the m14 is out dated nor am i comparing a sniper rifle to a battle-rifle. whats next the M16 vs the M240
fucking retard like you just need to stay on you Call of duty videos and Gay porn sites and leave your ignorance there
4everUSNavy 3 months ago
@labartic The M110 wouldn't be suitable either for close range combat. It's not light or handy either. It's a true sniper rifle and can't be compared to the M14 really. The M110 is not as reliable as the M14. "The US Army has issued a request to the private sector to reconfigure or replace the current Knight Armament M110 sniper rifle as the current version of the M110 is not functioning well in the field requiring significant maintenance and replacement of parts."
esh325 3 months ago
@labartic The M14 is a good rifle, but I would agree that it's outdated. The particular armalite AR10 I use to own did not feel much lighter then my M1A. In terms of mounting optics, I would say the M14 is inferior. It is much harder to do, but once you get optics on them, it will be solid. Like I said, the M110 is more accurate, but not as reliable. The M14 EBR was adapted for close quarters combat and is almost as short as a M4.
esh325 3 months ago
oh....and the m16 is not a colt its origanly arm-a-lite and same for the m1911 its not colt its origanly browning(who didnt know that im not gonna call you a jack ass
pivotnoob236 3 months ago
i agree with him i like the m14 better cause in my family if you have a carbine we wont even talk to you....plus we like it heavy...and were more traditional.and we like a little kick when deer go down.my grandfather was a double expert sniper in the army and was given the chance for a carbine(rare in 1964)but he turned it down.plus his sidarm was another.
pivotnoob236 3 months ago
I love the M14, But the M16 is a fun Weapon
brianthao102 3 months ago
one shot one kill makes a better soldier
surfs1man 3 months ago
4:24 well thats because they cant shoot for shit
SOA209 3 months ago
@SOA209 wow another trolling idiot. the best way to get out of an ambush is the blaze that area with lead. not sitting around wasting time trying to make accurate shits especially when you cant see through the bush where your enemy is.
thats seemed to happen alot on Vietnam
4everUSNavy 3 months ago
i feel so american watching this...
Never been so proud in my life! :' )
evanatromitoszarsaz 4 months ago
"is that you john wayne...is that me"
MAKER6450 4 months ago
I love both the m14 and m16
spartancolonel 4 months ago
M16 is a great replacement for the thompson, im glad a squad nowadays carry both a M4 and M14 or a M110.
MrBsct 4 months ago
reworked the m14 for 5.56, and plasitc? its called the mini 14. ranch rifle
dabbchang 4 months ago 22
sentimental ol softy - haha - he cracks me up - legend
xtacy999 4 months ago
I don't understand why they did not just re-chamber the M14 or M2 carbine in a smaller caliber like a caliber comparable to .243. There are features of the M16/AR15 that I love but the same goes for the M14&AK47. I favor the AR over other rifles because of; my experience level with it, its light weight, its accuracy, its ergonomics. The more resources you have the better the AR is whereas the AK is opposite, the less you have the more you need it.
oeyesea 4 months ago 2
@oeyesea Well it wouldn't have been a good idea anyway. The M14 is designed primarily for semi auto use not full auto, so it had no pistol grip and has a tendency to rotate on the axis where you hold the thing (between the stock and the receiver. One of the main selling points of the 5.56 round is that it's controllable on full auto, and the M16 was designed with that in mind. Of course the modern variants of the M14 have pistol grip and fiberglass parts, but still
EnigmaHood 4 months ago
After all is said and done, if you reworked the M14 for a smaller caliber, and added pistol grip, fiberglass and plastic parts, it's essentially a new gun anyway.
EnigmaHood 4 months ago
@EnigmaHood i dont know much about guns but iv seen docos where snipers like the m14
MAKER6450 4 months ago
@MAKER6450 What does that have to do with my comment?
EnigmaHood 4 months ago
@EnigmaHood you said it was mainly used as semi auto and thats good for a sniper i guess.
i dont know why i replyed to your comment really.
MAKER6450 4 months ago
Comment removed
MAKER6450 4 months ago
@oeyesea Well, I have to say, marching with an M14 is... HELL I would take an AR or Mini14 over the M14 simply for he sake of weight lol.
SuperSneakySniper 3 months ago
The M-14's were phased out because they were too heavy. they were also:
-Too accurate
-Too much stopping power
-Too reliable
Instead they chose to go for the 'weapon of the future" because it was lighter.
countrymancurtis 4 months ago
@countrymancurtis the m16 was far more accurate than the m16. but the m16 jammed a bunch. then they fixed it up a bit. id rather go to battle with an m16a1 than a m14
baberaider18 4 months ago
@baberaider18 actually on the contrary, the M-14 was much more accurate than the M-16, Take a look at the effective combat range of the two. The M-14 had an effective combat range over 3 times longer than the M-16. And due to the extra weight of the gun the muzzle climb was much less. hence why the M-14 is still commonly used with a magnified scope as a sniper and the M-16A1 Is not. The A1 was a complete flop, it required a far more intensive cleaning, even though it was designed to never need
countrymancurtis 4 months ago
@countrymancurtis Have you ever shot a M14 or M16? I have, and the muzzle climb and recoil is much more on the M14.
esh325 4 months ago
@baberaider18 cleaning. the problem was solved once cleaning kits were issued, and later models of the M-16 (such as the current A4 model) have shown drastic improvement. I'd much rather go into battle with the M-14 than the A1 version. the A1 was basically a failure during the first years of service. That said I would feel better about having an A4 version in battle versus the M-14. Not to mention that the main adversarial weapon (Kalashnikov) has an effective range of 500 yards. versus
countrymancurtis 4 months ago
@baberaider18 the M-14 had good stopping power at over 1000 yards and the M-16A1 lost most of it's stopping power by 300 yards. Luckily for us, most Vietnam engagements didn't take place at anywhere over 200 yards, so that advantage was not a factor.
countrymancurtis 4 months ago
@countrymancurtis You never can have a rifle with too much stopping power or too much accuracy. More then what was needed would be more accurate. Plus the rifle and ammo was heavy burdening the soldier. It was also not very easy to control in fully automatic.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325 actually it was much easier to control on full auto, because of the weight. Lighter rifles TEND to have more kick, although a good soldier could still keep a good pattern with the M-16 on auto, the M-14 stayed on target much better. and it is a proven fact that the M-14 had a combat range of 1000+ yards (hence why they were used as snipers very widely) versus the M-16's combat range of within 300. But for the mobile combat that the Vetnam war was known for.....
countrymancurtis 4 months ago
@countrymancurtis Weight is not the only factor in determining recoil. You're completely incorrect. Tell that to the US army. According a US army test conducting in the 1960's, the M14 had unacceptable fully automatic performance at all ranges. They said the M16 had superior fully automatic performance up until 400m's. A soldier is not going to regularly make 1000 yard shots. This was confirmed in studies conducted during WW2 and Korea. Most battlefield engagements are 300m' or less.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325 you just proved my point. It was TOO ACCURATE for the army to take into combat. Funny how there are more M-14e1's in service as snipers and for those chosen as 'Designated marksmen' in Afghanistan than there are M-16A1's. and the latter was MUCH more widely produced. the only rifle to see service in the US army longer than the M-14, was the Springfield 1903 bolt action rifle. and accuracy is affected by three things: first and foremost, the placement of the barrel...
countrymancurtis 4 months ago
@esh325 in relation to the buttstock of the weapon. Try holding an AK on target for more than three or four full auto shots. second, the firing mechanism. Bolt action weapons have a lot more kick than semi automatics (the only reason they are figured to be more accurate is that you actually have to reset and reprepare to make a second shot, versus just pulling the trigger again) Third is the gun weight. You can fire a breech loading single shot 20 Ga. shotgun that weighs a couple of pounds
countrymancurtis 4 months ago
@countrymancurtis I can't tell you exactly why a bolt action is more accurate then a semi automatic, but here's what I think. A semi automatic bleeds off a little bit of gas to cycle the action which equals a loss in velocity, where a bolt action uses the full power of the round and no velocity loss. A bolt action does not have imbalance of gas ports or gas tubes hanging off the barrel to effect barrel harmonics.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325 and fire it against a pump action 12 that weighs four times more. The 20 Ga will Knock you on your @ss much more versus the 12. why? Because physics states that energy has to go somewhere. the energy expended by the 20 gauge is approx 25% lower than that of the 12. but you also have a quarter of the weight to move. It's going to take 4X more energy to move the gun that is 4X heavier. do the math and that means that you will feel about 18% less energy in your shoulder using the 12 than
countrymancurtis 4 months ago
@countrymancurtis The 20 gauge will usually have less recoil most of the time. Your figures went wrong some where.
esh325 4 months ago
@countrymancurtis My personel experience with the M14 and M16 is that the M16 has less recoil and the majority of the people who have fired them will relate to that.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325 using the 20. So lets figure this out. We have the same barrel placement. The same firing mechanism type (Spring and piston). and the M-16 was 25% lighter. now figuring that the round was about 25% heavier, you should be about even. Now consider that most "automatic fire" was tested as firing from the hip, because from the time that the original BAR was issued in the 30's up untill the mid vietnam era (when the M-14 was already out of frontline service) , automatic fire was taught to be
countrymancurtis 4 months ago
@countrymancurtis Your mathematics are incorrect or something. The M16 has less recoil then the M14. This is not debatable anymore. The .223 gives a MUCH lower recoil impulse compared to a .308. And the M16 has a buffer tube in the stock further reducing recoil.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325 the M-16A2 has the buffer stock. and a muzzle break that reduces recoil too. The original M-16 was a flop, and the A1 hardly corrected for those deficiencies.
countrymancurtis 4 months ago
@countrymancurtis The A1 correct most of the defencies actually.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325 I was just saying that it turned into a usable weapon with the A1 version. The A2 was the one that actually made it a good one.
countrymancurtis 4 months ago
@countrymancurtis I imagine at that distance with the AK, they probably put their sights to 800m's aim a little bit high to compensate for the drop, and spray 30 rounds. A few of those rounds will probably hit something.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325 actually they start out aiming low and hit the trigger I think. The AK is insane with it's muzzle climb. at 50 yards with a guy with 20 years experience has a hard time hitting a 6 foot target after 3 or 4 shots. the climb to a well trained wielder of the weapon is probably not that bad. but still if your rounds end up almost two feet apart at 50 yards, it's probably just enough to scare the crap out of whoever they fire at at 800 yards.
countrymancurtis 4 months ago
@esh325 even if they expend 1000 rounds it's still going to be a lucky hit LOL
countrymancurtis 4 months ago
@countrymancurtis Very lucky.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325 used from the hip. Soldiers were trained to hold the rifle at their hip and fire as they walked. if they were using automatic fire, they were trained to keep the gun steady. even semi auto fire from the BAR was taught from the hip. you would point it at the target and walk, firing every time your left foot hit the ground. yes there was a lot of forest fighting and urban fighting during the Korean war and WW2. and vietnam you never SAW that far. A lot of insurgents in afghanistan today
countrymancurtis 4 months ago
@countrymancurtis I've seen combat footage of soldiers firing the M16 from the shoulder. And full auto fire tests the army conducted were most likely done from the shoulder. Hip firing in automatic at a 300m target? I highly doubt it.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325 they were getting low to the ground to save their butts. their trainers attempted to drill fearlessness into them and they were trained standing up. Remember that the army tried to make it's soldiers think that they were invincible. they didn't teach tactics and marksmanship like they do nowdays. just relied on brute strength. not to mention the fact that the tactic of firing from the hip was to counter the tidal wave of russians that was going to come into Europe.
countrymancurtis 4 months ago
@esh325 it was too heavy to be practical. The M-14 outperformed the M-16 (A1) that replaced it in all tests that could be thrown at the two, the M-14 was just too heavy.
countrymancurtis 4 months ago
@countrymancurtis The M16 outperformed the M14 in tests also. The M14 was phased out because the rifle itself was too heavy, and the ammo was too heavy, and poor fully automatic performance and lacked firepower.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325 fire from beyond 1,000 yards on patrols because americans need "designated marksmen" or snipers to return fire from farther than 800 yards in combat. Because the standard issue rifles and sights are not capable of making those kind of engagements but the AK's that the insurgents have can still do damage (even though they arent really aimed shots)
countrymancurtis 4 months ago
@countrymancurtis Yeah, the .223 doesn't really kill that well at a distance. Which is a drawback of using a varmint caliber. The M14 is a superior long range rifle. The M16 is a superior close range rifle. We could have made a rifle that could do the job of the M16 and M14 if we wanted to.
esh325 4 months ago
in my opinion, both are great rifles. the m14 does get a little heavy, though. it could benefit from plastic furniture... wait, the army's already doing that.
rockergod789 4 months ago
@rockergod789 It's been done since the 1960's when they put fiberglass on it. It still will be heavier then the M16 though.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325 both the m16 and the m14 have their pros and cons. to me, it's like comparing apples to oranges. the m14 is a battle rifle that fires a full sized round, while the m16 is an assault rifle that fires a shortened round. both are completely different beasts. personally, i prefer the m16 over the m14 because i can get in a much tighter stance than i can with the m14. besides that, it's almost too close to tell in my POV. if the army really wants to impress, bring back the M1 Garand.
rockergod789 4 months ago
@rockergod789 True, neither one is really better then the other, otherwise they wouldn't be both used today side by side.
esh325 4 months ago
5.56 dont do shit against armored infantry, Ill take my M14 plz
kailem2 4 months ago
I don't want no teenage queen. I just want my M-14... ;-j
wolf2jon 4 months ago
I like m14 a ny day
sonyoudead1234567 4 months ago
Well if I wanted someone dead 600 yards away and his buddy standing beside him dead too I just want my M14! If I want to take out a room of terrorists i'll settle for the M16. If I wanted best of both worlds I'll take the M1a Socom its the same as the M14 only smaller and fitted better for the modern field of battle..
gunny426plymouth 4 months ago
@gunny426plymouth m14 works for both.
m14 all the way
4everUSNavy 3 months ago
i sitll dont believe that shit about 200 000 rounds pr enemy kill. that must bes something wrong about how they counted that. you didnt send a squad into combat with 1m rounds and expected them to kill 5 guys for example
CORWERA 4 months ago
@CORWERA That number is too high. According to the department of defense, it took an enemy soldier 50,000 rounds to kill one enemy soldier with a M16 rifle in the Vietnam war.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325
reports such as that one were around since the age of the musket. Some claimed a 1000 musket shots equaled only one hit even in line warfare of the 17th and 18th centuries.
There are quite a few battles where volleys were exchanged and caused 4-5 casualties.
The number of rds per kill sky rocketed because of a change in tactics that centered around squad MMGs.
Sturmmann 4 months ago
@Sturmmann Perhaps it was a change in tactics, or maybe it was because troops were spraying a lot. After Vietnam, they took out fully automatic in favor of a 3 round burst.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325
The numbers really dont add up. In WW2 they say only 20% of troops shot to kill, the number rose to 90% in Vietnam because of a change in training. The only believeable part about the 50,000 rds per kill figure is that the jungle can have a thick fog of war.
Also, Vietnam was an infantrymans war. The US to Communist kill ratio was often 20 to 1.
Sturmmann 4 months ago
@Sturmmann The 50,000 rounds per enemy killed is from the department of defense figures.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325
yea same people who let blunders like the philippine surrender of 1940s happen.
Sturmmann 4 months ago
@Sturmmann It could be a gross exaggeration, yes. Who knows.
esh325 4 months ago
@esh325 whatever, thats not my point. my point is that ppl dont carry 50 000 rounds pr kill they estimate to make. 50 000 rounds is still 49 999 rounds too much than whats needed. i have little believe in those numbers
CORWERA 4 months ago
m16 big bullets, 30 round mag
m14 bigger bullets 20 round mag
...I really don't see a point in giving either one edge over the other, other than the m16s higher capacity magazine and its lighter weight
CrazyVideoGamer815 4 months ago
i prefer the m14 for open spaces in witch the enemy doesn't expect you yet the m16 for mid range combat where you can easily identify your enemy and for close range i prefer the m4 and for extremely close range you better wish you have a shotgun
kolinmartz 4 months ago
M16 is designed to be a hybrid of a rifle like the M14 and a smg like the thompson. Of course its weaker....
MrBsct 4 months ago
gunny for 2012
CommonSenceMafia 5 months ago
m14 all day long
purehate999 5 months ago
@purehate999 yessir!!!!!!
mta415 5 months ago
2:48 Eugene Stoner is Holding an AK-47! says enough for me.
Nate619 5 months ago
sentimental softie - he got to be kiddin.
FrekeOne 5 months ago
I would choose a musket.
Kangur08 5 months ago
@Kangur08 Outdated man
thesoutherncross100 5 months ago
If I had a choice I would take a modern M14(7.62x51 socom) then 2nd choice would be a AR-10(7.62x51) 3rd choice would be a AK-47(7.62x38) or AK-74(5.56)BUT if I really had the cash to throw around and if it was legal(COMMIEFORNIA) I would take a SCAR-H(7.62x51) or H&K G36(5.56x45)
gijoekfg1969 5 months ago
@gijoekfg1969 Have you considered the KelTec RFB?
WALTERBROADDUS 5 months ago
My father was a Captain in the ARMY and when I asked him and his army buddys about the m16 cause as a kid I thought it was cool looking.Him and his friends all said the same think M16 SUCK they jam they melt they get hot in your hands after 2-3 mags,my dad was m14 all the way.1 of his guys when m14 ammo was getting harder to aquire had switched over to the old WW2 style sten guns.Now all the problems they fixed on the m16 chromed barrel,foreward assist,but I like the m14 cuz dad said so!
gijoekfg1969 5 months ago
the m14 may is more accurate but while your waiting to place that one shot kill a couple of the enemies buddies sneak around behidn yah and slit your throat. The concept of volume of fire is to keep the enemy pinned down so cant move so your buddies can move up on em and cut em down making sure the enemy doesnt sneak up on you while your waiting for that one well placed shot.
Iwantedtoknow16802 5 months ago
@Iwantedtoknow16802 The thing about that is that if you in the marrines you trained to place that shot in less than a millisecnond, it becomes instinct. Not alot of time for someone to sneak around unoticed. And if you cant place that shot on instinct then you should be there fighting in the first place.
alluren0 5 months ago
@alluren0 Your thinking about things in terms of One man Shooting at One other man. Your not taking into consideration the acctuall batlle feild terrain and the possitblity of being flanked by an enemy that has not been properly suppressed (or knows the terrain better than you)into their position by the volume of fire of all the other marines your with. Yourre right ab9ut the way marines are trained. But you claerly havent considered FULL SCALE battlefeild tactics.
Iwantedtoknow16802 5 months ago
I miss mail call and lock and load.
Snakebite142 5 months ago
The ONLY adavantage for the M16 is weight. That is it.
The M16 and civilian use AR15 are unreliable and in no way should be considered a great gun.
Sure, they are accurate as long as they are kept perfectly clean. Otherwise, the only reason most people buy them is because they look "Cool".
DownOnwax 5 months ago
@DownOnwax I've never had any trouble with the 4 AR's I've fired. I don't think you ever fired one.
esh325 5 months ago
@esh325 hes a tactidouche, the only people that really have problems with guns jamming are the soldiers, who drag them through the mud. Honestly no civilians gun will ever see much dirt. People that say its unreliable only read articles on the internet, and dont have much experience with them in the real world.
dumfart21 5 months ago
Stoner holding an AK.
AgentMorris94 5 months ago
a gun invented by a stoner...thats not really 60s like
Gool349 5 months ago
Comment removed
in4ser 5 months ago
Anyone else notice that this guy sounds just like the drill sargeant from full metal jacket?
punchmaster123 5 months ago
@punchmaster123 It is him lol
UghhGetATan 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@punchmaster123 he is the drill sargeant from full metal jacket
kylea45 5 months ago
@punchmaster123 That's because he is.
Mike82A1 5 months ago
@punchmaster123 how did this get top comment?
yeah he is the same guy,also he was never in the military he just use to play this character back in a old tv show and ever sincee then it stuck.
dasdew2 5 months ago
1wrld4all 5 months ago
@1wrld4all thankyou for the infomation and thankyou for serving our country.
take care.
dasdew2 5 months ago
@1wrld4all Steve Mc Queen And Astronaut John Glenn of Course.....
WALTERBROADDUS 5 months ago
@punchmaster123 /facepalm its the same guy
gatorboy124 5 months ago
Both are ingenious as well as legendary American designs, i love them both, and both hold a place in my personal armory.
2142Unknown 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is the AN 94 assault rifle operating mechanism
youtube.com/watch?v=3JxedhGg7z0
youtube.com/watch?v=Tfw4KIge_y0
If this link is not working, search for "AN 94 operating mechanism of two round burst" and click on the first and second results.
imalchanaka 5 months ago
@RepublicofCannabeer The M16 is not nearly as unreliable as people say. True, the caliber of the M16 leaves a lot to be desired. The M14 wasn't a bad rifle, but there were better rifles then the M14 back then, and better rifles today.
esh325 5 months ago
The M-14 is what the Gunny likes, that's what I'm gonna buy ! Oh and hitting someone 200 yards away with the M16 is nice, but being able to seriously fuck someone up from 800 yards away is so much sweeter. Some say you can carry 30 rounds with the M16, but one well placed round with the M14 will do just as much damage to an enemy combatant. 30 light semi hard hitting rounds, or 20 asskicking, powerful enemy stopping rounds, the choice is obvious. M14 For The Win !!!!!!!
centurion205 5 months ago
Gun is bigger than dude...lol
happydelicious 5 months ago
Between the M14 and the M16 i have to go with the M14 cuz back then the M16 would jam A LOT but the M14 is ideal for sniping, or just normal firefights.
LegoManiacNo1 6 months ago
4:57 orgasm there gunny?
ARomanianKid14 6 months ago
@ARomanianKid14
No. An orgasam had a Gunny.
f0ngtasticXD 6 months ago
My personal preference would be the M-16 for close, house to house combat. Then, for open battlefield combat, I like the M-14.
Unfortunately, we usually go to battle with only one.
SingleFin1969 6 months ago 13
@SingleFin1969 look up the Keltec RFB. Its the best of both worlds. A bullpump 7.62.
AwokenDemon 5 months ago
@SingleFin1969 hence the 6.5 grendel!
19Kettle93 5 months ago
@SingleFin1969 certain spec ops operatives choose to use the m14, and are allowed to
yoleekmendeek 5 months ago
@SingleFin1969 i dont know wouldnt it be better to have the M14 for battlefield combat then for house to house you would use your sidearm such as a M1911?
goldeneye0019 5 months ago
@SingleFin1969 i dont know wouldnt it be better to have the M14 for battlefield combat then for house to house you would use your sidearm such as a M1911?
goldeneye0019 5 months ago
@SingleFin1969 I bet you already know this, but the m16 isnt good for close quarter combat at all. i do agree with your decision though if you had to pick from those two only.
fukuzato33 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I respect the arguments made about the M16 and the AK-47, both are excellent weapons in their own right but are rather difficult to compare without too much opinion involved. I personally enjoy my bolt action rifles, I like the idea of picking someone off outside of their weapon's range. Call me crazy but I just don't like the idea of being shot at.
TheWhoaDude 6 months ago
I respect the arguments made about the M16 and the AK-47, both are excellent weapons in their own right but are rather difficult to compare without too much opinion involved. I personally enjoy my bolt action rifles, I like the idea of picking someone off outside of their weapon's range. Call me crazy but I just don't like the idea of being shot at.
TheWhoaDude 6 months ago
Ak47 all the way.
TeenewsUpdate 6 months ago
@TeenewsUpdate The AK47 is inferior in almost every way to the M-16. Only under 100m and cost of production is the AK-47 noticeably better. The M-16 is accurate out to 650m and has a significantly better energy retainment rate. It's also lighter, has better sights, and it'stumbling and fragmenting bullet causes more damage to a body. The AK-47 is accurate until 150m, is a pound and a half heavier, has very crude sights, and does not fragment or tumble.
XxxSakura101 6 months ago
@XxxSakura101 The only real advantages I can list to the AK-47 are the production costs, availability of 7.62 (but 5.56 is also damn common), and reliability in dirty conditions (which can be rectified on the M-16 with a little maintainence and common sense where possible.) Besides, I think the M-16 looks cooler.
paulalex19 6 months ago
Comment removed
XxxSakura101 6 months ago