Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!emory!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: efulsang@ads.com (Ejner Fulsang) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: M14 vs. M16 Message-ID: <1991Jan8.005433.20692@cbnews.att.com> Date: 8 Jan 91 00:54:33 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 82 Approved: military@att.att.com From: efulsang@ads.com (Ejner Fulsang) Having fired both weapons extensively, I couldn't resist adding my own two cents' worth to the discussion. When I first joined the Army in 1967 we were issued the M14. It was described as having a maximum effective range of 460 meters and we used to fire regularly at that range while learning to shoot. When we fired for qualification, I seem to recall that there were several targets that were actually at 460 meters. I don't recall them being particularly difficult to hit SO LONG AS you practiced proper firing procedures, i.e., sight alignment, trigger squeeze, etc. Later on when I was a cadet at USMA, I joined the rifle team. A big treat for us was going to the outdoor range every spring to shoot match grade M14's. We used to regularly fire at and hit a basket ball sized bull's eye at 600 yards. This was from standing position, using match grade iron sights, leather shooting jackets and military slings. Once again, you had to practice proper firing procedures but, the inherent accuracy of the M14 was definitely proven. After being commissioned in the Infantry, my first assignment was as a training officer at Ft. Dix, NJ where we had to teach new recruits to fire the M16. The Army was really hung up on MacNamara-style scientific management at the time and really made a big deal out of getting all soldiers qualified in about a week. My personal view was that if you want somebody to remember something for a long time, you should spread the instruction out over a long period of time -- in this case two or three afternoons per week throughout boot camp -- but they weren't asking me for my opinions much in those days. Anyway, it should be noted that they were still teaching that the maximum effective range of the service rifle (in this the M16) was 460 meters. But, strangely, there were no longer any 460 meter targets at the firing range. I think the longest shot at record fire had degraded to a miopic 300 meters. The ballistics of the military 5.56 mm round are such that after a few hundred meters of flight, the round begins to tumble. This was rationalized to be `OK' because it was felt that the round would do more damage upon striking a fleshy target. Hence, I strongly dispute the long range accuracy claims of M16 fans. [mod.note: One must take care to distinguish from the original models of the M-16 and the newer M16A2, which has a tighter rifling twist and fires a heavier bullet; both factors should increase the round's stability at longer ranges. - Bill ] Some of the arguments voiced in favor of the M16 are that the ammunition is much more transportable since it is smaller than the M14. Frequent accounts of soldiers going into battle carrying 1000 rounds or more are cited. By contrast, an M14-equipped soldier would normally only carry 200 rounds or so. My own response to this is that the tendency of most M16 shooters is to use the weapon like a garden hose instead of a rifle. Hence, you will very likely need those 1000 rounds. This came about because of three reasons: 1) the Army stopped teaching marksmanship mastery and decided to settle for marksmanship qualification; 2) the M16 is inherently not as accurate as the M14 and; 3) the Viet Nam experience taught that most of the time you couldn't see the target anyway, so you used your rifle as an area fire weapon hosing down where you thought the source of enemy fire came from. [mod.note: 1000 rounds ? That's an awful lot of ammo; I be surprised if anyone could carry that much, along with other combat gear, on patrol, although I wouldn't be surprised if troops in static positions has such plentiful ammo. - Bill ] As for short range combat potential, the M14 offers no disadvantage so long as you are adept at snap-shooting. This is an instinctive method of firing which does not utilize the sights at all but instead uses the position of the barrel relative to the target. The Army, to my knowledge, has never taught snap-shooting. Then, of course, there is extreme close-in fighting with the bayonet as you might encounter in house-to-house or trench warfare. In my opinion, this is to avoided as much as possible but if it becomes unavoidable, the M14 is quite a bit superior to the M16 for bayonet fighting due to its greater size and stronger stock. Ejner Fulsang Senior Systems Engineer Advanced Decision Systems Mountain View, CA