AK47 vs. M14

[SR420]

The M14 is in use today because we have it, it responds well to modernization efforts and it performs much
better in harsh conditions than the newer better known platforms that have attempted to replace the M14.

For the purposes of this pole, I am interested in the popular civilian versions of the AK47 & M14.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

It's tenure as the standard issue service rifle for the US military was . . . what? . . . the shortest in the history of this country?

Given what the geniuses in Washington decided to replace it with, I'll try not to take that personally.

It is now wonderfully apparent that politicians are about as good at selecting weapons as they are at everything else

 

[Mike Irwin]

"It is now wonderfully apparent that politicians are about as good at selecting weapons as they are at everything else."

M1

Ma Deuce

M1919

M1917

M1918

M1911...

Yeah, those politicians really do stink at procurement decisions...

 

[ELMOUSMC]

I spent a good portion of my life as a Marine and the greatest disservice ever done to the Corps and the men who served was the replacement of the M14 with the M16.The AK was what it was.The M14 was the boss of any fire fight I was in and contrary to what has been said on full auto in the hands of a competent rifleman it was deadly(read MARINE). ELMOUSMC

 

[Dave85]

M1

Ma Deuce

M1919

M1917

M1918

M1911...

Yeah, those politicians really do stink at procurement decisions...

I may be wrong, but I believe these weapons were chosen by military procurement folks. The M16, while initially selected for testing by elements in the military was rushed into production (in an unrefined form, IIRC) by Robert McNamara, despite mixed reviews.

At any rate, the M14's service as the primary infantry arm was shortened by political and doctrinal pressures, not because it was in any way deficient or unpopular. It seems the only people who didn't like them were the people who had to look at the price tags for everything.

When my brother was in the Marines a couple of decades back, he told me of old timers who would still get misty when they thought of the day they had to turn in their M14s.

 

[amprecon]

Well, we have a very different breed of politician now than before.....do we not?

The title of politician has always been conjured up by the general populace to mean deceitful and loathsome.

Great Americans that have served their country greatly via the political arena have been described as great leaders, not politicians.

What we have residing in our congress today are not great leaders or even leaders......but politicians.

Any person today that invests their faith and hopes and dreams upon their government for their personal or societal relevation I do personally extend my sincerest personal apathies.

I much more admire the civil servant that paved the way for us to be armed with .30 caliber bullets rather than the sniveling servant which bestowed upon us the .22 caliber bullets, which we so fervently try to annihilate our enemies with.

Thank God for artillery and airborne munitions.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"I may be wrong, but I believe these weapons were chosen by military procurement folks."

Sort of.

As with anything, the bean counters have the final say.

In fact, in years past, the bean counters might have had even more input into military procurement than they do today.

Congress VERY tightly controlled the purse strings.

A good example are the USS Mississippi (BB 23) and the USS Idaho (BB 24).

Despite a global shift in battleship design brought on by the HMS Dreadnaught, Congress mandated that the Navy build these two ships to the old pre-dreadnaught design because they would be cheaper that way.

They were a disaster and served only 3 years in active Navy service before the Greek government bought them at a significant mark down.

Another good example of government intervention in the weapons procurement process is the battle waged in Congress between the advocates of the Garand and Johnson rifles.




"Well, we have a very different breed of politician now than before.....do we not?"

Actually, no. We don't.

Politicians are politicians no matter in which era they serve. In any political organization you've got the forward thinkers, those who are hopelessly stuck in the past, and the bulk, who are somewhere in between.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"When my brother was in the Marines a couple of decades back, he told me of old timers who would still get misty when they thought of the day they had to turn in their M14s."

Over the years I've worked with quite a few former Army and Marine Vietnam-era combat veterans.

It seems to be split close to 50-50 over whether they liked or disliked the M14.

 

[44 AMP]

Very true about politicians...however...

There is a huge difference in the effect, or the intention of political interference before and after WWII.

In general terms (and there are, of course exceptions) before the war, the great depression, saving money was the major priority. Most often the answer to the military was "no, you cannot have new toys!", and even went to the extremes of not allowing the military to test their weapons, because of the expense (like torpedoes), which had clear unsatisfactory results when we did gio to war, while after WWII, the military often got what it asked for, and in the case of the M16, got it rammed down their throats, whether they wanted it or not. The pendulum swings, and we are today still more on one side than the other.

We fought the early part of our involvement in WWII with a lot of our major weapons systems being inferior to those of our enemies is many aspects. Our small arms measured up, and beyond, but planes, tanks, torpedoes, bombs and many other things turned out not to be as good as we assumed they would be. We did overcome this, but the time it took, the cost in lives, and the missed opportunities (which added to the cost in lives in the long run) left a lasting impression on the military, and to a degree, the American people. Today, we have a national mania for giving our troops the "best available", and yet we still fall short in many areas, sometimes because we do not understand what will actually be needed in order to give our troops the best, and sometimes because the people whose job it is to figure it out and see it done just screw up.

The M14 got its legs cut out from under it by the same political forces who held up the M16 as the best thing since sliced bread and canned beer, and kept it propped up against all complaints. Both weapons have their place in our armory, neither one is the best for every possible situation. The M14 is a fine rifle (which the Army screwed by trying to make it a SAW) and the M16 is a tolerable assault rifle (now that the bugs are finally out of the gun/ammo combo). The AK is an assault rifle (under the proper definition, not the legal one), and as such a direct comparison between it and the M14 is flawed. The only point the rifles have in common enough for a valid comparison is the bore size, .30 caliber!

 

[SR420]

44 AMP
The AK is an assault rifle (under the proper definition, not the legal one),
and as such a direct comparison between it and the M14 is flawed.

The only point the rifles have in common enough for a valid comparison is the bore size, .30 caliber!

No - the comparison between the two piston driven platforms is not flawed.
Both can be utilized as assault weapons, one is better suited to that job and one can also perform several other jobs.




.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

No, it really is a flawed comparison, whether you see it as such or not.

The two rifles were intended for completely different doctrine. The AK was designed from the ground up for massed automatic fire at intermediate ranges. It is an assault rifle because of this, and the fact that it is chambered for an intermediate powered rifle round. The M14 was the last of a line of American standard issue battle rifles designed to place accurate fire to extended ranges with a full power rifle round capable of completing the task. Attempts to make the M14 fire automatic were largely unsuccessful because of the relative lightweight of the rifle, and the power and cyclic rate of the round. I am confident that these shortcomings could have been resolved if the government had been as patient with it as it was to be with the rifle that replaced it, but that was not to be. The government got behind Stoner's poodle shooter and that was all she wrote. So much for good taste...

Improvements largely from the commercial sector have show the M14 to be completely capable of providing a legitimate war fighting rifle in the 21st century, still completely capable of proving its own alongside competing designs, but anyone who is paying attention knows it is too little and too late for the M14, and the MBR in general. It continues to serve certain limited and specific roles, but will never see the popularity it once had. The battlefield belongs to poodle shooters now, though I do not agree with it, and can only morn the passing of the last real rifle to be bestowed upon the American rifleman.

Having been trained in modern infantry tactics with the very best, I understand them, but still don't completely agree with them.

Even from a functional perspective, the AK is long stroke, the M14 is short stroke. The AK continues to be used as an automatic rifle, the M14 is used almost exclusively on semi-automatic. The AK is made of stamped sheet metal riveted together by peasants, the M14 is precision machined by much higher paid and trained technicians.

The AK is what it is--power to the people. It is cheap, durable, reliable, and it does its job without fail and without complaint. It makes no excuses, it just works. I have a lot of respect for the design, and a pretty good idea of what it is capable of. But the M14 is a whole nother ball game. To any true rifleman, the M14 is a wonder to behold. Everything is where it should be, sights and trigger, ergonomics and balance, are all excellent. It is a rifleman's rifle, to an almost magical degree. I swear my M1A is enchanted, because my heart beats faster every time I pick it up. Anyone who doesn't feel it is a weapon of war is just confused, or fooling themselves. The M14 has pedigree from the weapon of war, the "finest battle implement ever devised," that the Kalashnikov, nor Stoner's spacey cartoon rifle just can't claim.

 

[SR420]

Well said

However, there is no flaw in comparing two rifles intended for completely different doctrine.
Especially when you compare two entirely different weapons that have a bit in common.

MTMilitiaman Even from a functional perspective, the AK is long stroke, the M14 is short stroke. The AK continues to be used as an automatic rifle, the M14 is used almost exclusively on semi-automatic. The AK is made of stamped sheet metal riveted together by peasants, the M14 is precision machined by much higher paid and trained technicians.

Both the M14 and AK are almost exclusively semi-automatic in civilian trim.
Both can be extremely reliable. Both can shoot a mixed diet of ammo.
Both use a gas piston. Both are built on a proven old school platform.
Sure, the M14 is the Cadillac of MBRs, but a good AK is nothing to ignore.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

True enough, but it is rather like saying a Honda Civic compares to Cadillac Escalade, just because they both use an internal combustion engine. Yes, they'll both get you from "A" to B," but both were designed and built to serve completely different roles...

 

[SPUSCG]

when my friend's uncle was in vietnam, he had a 14. then the govnt said all m14s need to be traded in and m16s issued. he buried his 14, said he had already turned it in, and when the govnt people left he dug up his 14 and buried the m16, and fed the 14 with 762 nato he got off the belts of m60s.

he dropped his share of commies, wielding innaccurate aks, with his hard hitting deadly accurate m14

 

[Crosshair]

I want to compare apples to apples, so I'm going to compare my Saiga 308 to the M-14. I think the AK comes out ahead in most areas.

Areas where the AK is better:
Lower Bore centerline = Less muzzle rise.
Easier to field strip.
Side rail means mounting optics is far easier than with an M-14. Able to easily swap out optics as well.
Easier and cheaper to produce. $350 for Saiga vs $1000+ for M-14

Areas where the M-14 is better.
Open sights. (The AK sights aren't as bad as some people say though.)
Better suppressed weapon because of the design of the gas system.
Easier to make match grade. (Though both are good enough for designated marksman rifles as is.)

 

[BerettaFox]

M14 as well. They are using them right now in Iraq as anti-sniper sniper rifles. That's the accuracy we're talking. The Iraqis are using.... you guessed it AKs. So I'd go with an M14.

 

[Crosshair]

The Iraqis are using.... you guessed it AKs. So I'd go with an M14.

The Iraqis are using whatever they can get. If they could get a shipment of M1 Garands, they would be using those. They are finding Webley break action revolvers and other WWI/WWII leftovers still in use over there.

The Iraqi Al Kadesih is perfectly adequate for the job of wacking our troops. The people we are fighting aren't more effective because of the simple fact that, for most of them, their marksmanship and weapon handling skills are on par with an 8 year old with ADD.

 

[AutoPistola]

LOL!

 

[HorseSoldier]

M14 as well. They are using them right now in Iraq as anti-sniper sniper rifles. That's the accuracy we're talking.

Most M14s in theater are lucky to deliver accuracy to match an ACOG-equipped M4 or M16. The ones that have been 'smithed to improve accuracy tend to have trouble holding that accuracy under operational conditions. The reason they're being used is simply because they were a cheap way to get a squad or platoon level long gun that slings 7.62x51 downrange.

 

[USMCGrunt]

Lemme see here, I've used M-14s, M-16A2s, M-4 carbines, and fired captured AKs and today I own civilian-legal versions of all of them. To be honest, in the order I listed them would also be the same order I prefer them.
The M-14/M1A is accurate, reliable, and rugged. Heavy? Yes, but so what, hit the gym you pansy! Ammo is also heavier and nobody can carry as much 7.62 NATO as you can 5.56mm or 7.62X39mm but then again, with the accuracy and power, you really don't need to. I agree that the full auto feature outside of the E2 model propperly used is pretty much worthless but I'm not a big fan of full auto or bust. Sure, when I go the field and am shooting blanks I never used semi but when for serious use, I never let a selector go past semi.
The M-16/AR-15 is as accurate as the M-14 but is also a design that poops where it eats. Have I ever had a malfunction with one? No, but I'm also a cleaning fanatic and have no problems with cleaning my weapons in a timely and thourough fashion. The stopping power of the 5.56mm is going to be less than the 7.62 NATO but you can carry more of that ammo with you.
I list the M-4/CAR-15 in third because while it's another accurate rifle with a lot of the same pro's and cons of the larger M-16 rifle, it's shorter barrel decreases velocity which decreases the range at which the bullet starts to slow down enough to make a small hole in and a small hole out rather than tumble and fragment. Both the full size M-16 as well as the shorter M-4 rely on thehigh velocity to make this happen and while both can reach out to longer ranges, what damage they do to a target when they get there is debateable.
In last place, I list the AK. While they have an excellent reputation for ruggedness and reliability, that is really their only claim to fame. They are awkward to use when compared to an M-14 or M-16 and the accuracy of a typical AK is lackluster to say the least. This doesn't mean there is no such thing as an accurate AK but then again, it could also be said that an honest politician can be found from time to time too. To me, it's just a lot easier to make an M-14 or M-16 as reliable as an AK (clean your freakin' weapon you nasty slob! ) than it is to make an AK as accurate and ergonomic as a M-14 or M-16.