Video comparing M14 to AK/M16 combat effectiveness
- Thread starter KnightofCydonia
- Start date
trg42wraglefragle
New member
I'd love to know who that video was intended for.
And when it was made.
And when it was made.
Art Eatman
Staff in Memoriam
Back fifteen or twenty years ago, some of the guys from Soldier of Fortune magazine took several full-auto rifles into the field for comparative testing. The target was a large boulder at around 500 meters.
FAL, G3, M14 and a BAR.
The BAR was the only one which could be held on target for a full magazine.
FAL, G3, M14 and a BAR.
The BAR was the only one which could be held on target for a full magazine.
Back when I was running the AK NG Marksmanship program I ordered a bunch of service grade M14s.
My intend was to issue 4 to each Battalion and Separate Company for their Unit Marksmanship Programs and training for selection for the state rifle team.
Several came with the selector switches for FA. Before we went over the rifles to make sure they would work for our attended purposes, we took the Full autos out to play a bit.
On full auto, they weren't worth a hoot. I doubt anyone can get two hits per burst at 500 yards on a E-silhouette target. It would be pure luck to do it at 100 yards. We tried, had lots of ammo, and some dern good shooters.
I've shot enough Infantry Trophy Matches to know you can be successful in semi, but its my opinion a full auto M14 is useless.
One day I was running a sniper school when a young LT from the Reg Army asked if he could use one end of the range to qualify a Machine Gun Crew. Sure why not.
After his qualification we got into some friendly competition. The LT was to pick any two of my students, and we'd pick any two of his people, they used the M60 and my guys used their M1's with the scopes removed.
We, the sniper students got more hits on targets to 400 yards, in less time then the Machine gun crews. We then switched shooters, our guys shooting the M-60 and theirs using our M1s. Again the rifle shooters got more hits in less time (and less ammo) then the Machine gun shooters.
This even includes the two young soldiers who never fired the M1 before.
As mentioned, the BAR is a better auto rifle, but again, its twice as heavy as the M14, plus its designed to fire full auto. The M14 a poor design for an auto rifle, excellent design for a semi rifle in my opinion.
Machine guns and full size auto rifles, have their place, but in in precision fire.
My intend was to issue 4 to each Battalion and Separate Company for their Unit Marksmanship Programs and training for selection for the state rifle team.
Several came with the selector switches for FA. Before we went over the rifles to make sure they would work for our attended purposes, we took the Full autos out to play a bit.
On full auto, they weren't worth a hoot. I doubt anyone can get two hits per burst at 500 yards on a E-silhouette target. It would be pure luck to do it at 100 yards. We tried, had lots of ammo, and some dern good shooters.
I've shot enough Infantry Trophy Matches to know you can be successful in semi, but its my opinion a full auto M14 is useless.
One day I was running a sniper school when a young LT from the Reg Army asked if he could use one end of the range to qualify a Machine Gun Crew. Sure why not.
After his qualification we got into some friendly competition. The LT was to pick any two of my students, and we'd pick any two of his people, they used the M60 and my guys used their M1's with the scopes removed.
We, the sniper students got more hits on targets to 400 yards, in less time then the Machine gun crews. We then switched shooters, our guys shooting the M-60 and theirs using our M1s. Again the rifle shooters got more hits in less time (and less ammo) then the Machine gun shooters.
This even includes the two young soldiers who never fired the M1 before.
As mentioned, the BAR is a better auto rifle, but again, its twice as heavy as the M14, plus its designed to fire full auto. The M14 a poor design for an auto rifle, excellent design for a semi rifle in my opinion.
Machine guns and full size auto rifles, have their place, but in in precision fire.
Dr Big Bird PhD
New member
Those are pretty much 3 round bursts
Destructo6
New member
They should have,.at least,.compared apples to apples: shoot all weapons in the same fire mode, using the same position, at the same distances.
All they did was demonstrate why full auto isn't useful on point targets past 25 yards.
All they did was demonstrate why full auto isn't useful on point targets past 25 yards.
AS ISSUED
The M14 isn't controlable in full auto fire AS ISSUED. Not for most people, anyway. I have seen reports of some fairly simple mods to the gun that reduced the fire rate down to around 450-500rpm and that was reported to me much more controlable.
It is conceivable that the military might have also discovered this, given enough time, but political considerations (in and out of uniform) ruled the M16 to replace the M14 too soon.
My first experience firing the M14 on full auto came in Small Arms Repair school. My class was the last class to be trained on the M14. Firing was done at the indoor performance test range. A student was issued a weapon with a number of defects, which they had to find, and repair. Filling out the 2407 form was half the grade! The repaired weapon was cursorily inspected by an instructor, then the student fired it through a small port in the wall into a sand filled room, to function test it.
The firing port was set low, so one had to kneel to use it. We were given a magazine with 15 rnds. 5 rnds semi auto, 10 full auto, to be fired in short bursts.
Being the 4th or 5th one finished, I got to hear the students ahead of me firing "short" burts, of two rounds. Two round bursts are fairly easy to pull off with the M14. Having fired the M16A1 and the M60 in basic, and owning a couple of .308 Win bolt action rifles, this cheeky 18yr old decided to pull off a 3 rnd burst.
What I did not realize, and what the M16 nor the M60 taught me was that in a rifle of that caliber, weight and cyclic rate, is that recoil is cumulative.
I had not allowed for that, and my 3 round burst was 6 rounds, which moved me from a kneeling to a sitting position! My rifle, however didn NOT come out of the firing port. I got a dirty look from the gunny, and the stern reminder "SHORT bursts!", which I did take to heart, firing the remaining four rounds in two round bursts.
In as issued condition, the M14 is not good for full auto fire, beyond short bursts at close range. And as lots of people will tell you, aimed semi auto fire gets more hits per round expended.
Had the military kept the M14 in frontline service and had they introduced some rate reduction to the full auto fire rate, it could well have proven to be a viable successor to the BAR. We'll never know for certain, all we can be certain of is that as issued, it was not a satisfactory full auto rifle.
The M14 isn't controlable in full auto fire AS ISSUED. Not for most people, anyway. I have seen reports of some fairly simple mods to the gun that reduced the fire rate down to around 450-500rpm and that was reported to me much more controlable.
It is conceivable that the military might have also discovered this, given enough time, but political considerations (in and out of uniform) ruled the M16 to replace the M14 too soon.
My first experience firing the M14 on full auto came in Small Arms Repair school. My class was the last class to be trained on the M14. Firing was done at the indoor performance test range. A student was issued a weapon with a number of defects, which they had to find, and repair. Filling out the 2407 form was half the grade! The repaired weapon was cursorily inspected by an instructor, then the student fired it through a small port in the wall into a sand filled room, to function test it.
The firing port was set low, so one had to kneel to use it. We were given a magazine with 15 rnds. 5 rnds semi auto, 10 full auto, to be fired in short bursts.
Being the 4th or 5th one finished, I got to hear the students ahead of me firing "short" burts, of two rounds. Two round bursts are fairly easy to pull off with the M14. Having fired the M16A1 and the M60 in basic, and owning a couple of .308 Win bolt action rifles, this cheeky 18yr old decided to pull off a 3 rnd burst.
What I did not realize, and what the M16 nor the M60 taught me was that in a rifle of that caliber, weight and cyclic rate, is that recoil is cumulative.
I had not allowed for that, and my 3 round burst was 6 rounds, which moved me from a kneeling to a sitting position! My rifle, however didn NOT come out of the firing port. I got a dirty look from the gunny, and the stern reminder "SHORT bursts!", which I did take to heart, firing the remaining four rounds in two round bursts.
In as issued condition, the M14 is not good for full auto fire, beyond short bursts at close range. And as lots of people will tell you, aimed semi auto fire gets more hits per round expended.
Had the military kept the M14 in frontline service and had they introduced some rate reduction to the full auto fire rate, it could well have proven to be a viable successor to the BAR. We'll never know for certain, all we can be certain of is that as issued, it was not a satisfactory full auto rifle.
Contests with experts are interesting, But in my opinion of limited informational value.
Average soldiers experience considerable difficulty controlling an M-16A1 in automatic mode past CQB range. My troops learned quickly tp fire in semi-auto mode past 25 meters,
Fully automatic fire from individual weapoins is most useful for fire suppression rather then precision.
Average soldiers experience considerable difficulty controlling an M-16A1 in automatic mode past CQB range. My troops learned quickly tp fire in semi-auto mode past 25 meters,
Fully automatic fire from individual weapoins is most useful for fire suppression rather then precision.
In that case, suppression I'd imagine would then fall to the squads designated machine gunner wouldn't it? Suppresive fire is best provided by a dedicated MG (According to one of my marine friends, being a belt fed MG when combat conditions allow for it. Though the M27 IAR I've heard has been supplementing the dedicated belt feds as of late due to mobility issues)
At any rate, I'll leave the technecalities to those who are much more informed than I. Though from what I've observed from videos and so on, the M14 certainly does appear to be extremely unwieldly in full auto.
At any rate, I'll leave the technecalities to those who are much more informed than I. Though from what I've observed from videos and so on, the M14 certainly does appear to be extremely unwieldly in full auto.
Kimio
You are correct, sir. Fire suppression is,or at least should be accompllised by light and/or general purpose machineguns, not individual infantry rifles.
I was fortunate enough to have a platoon sergeant who had the experience and intelligence to teach that concept to the men.
You are correct, sir. Fire suppression is,or at least should be accompllised by light and/or general purpose machineguns, not individual infantry rifles.
I was fortunate enough to have a platoon sergeant who had the experience and intelligence to teach that concept to the men.
