[milprileb]

Up Front: Used both M14 and M16 in jungles. I have engaged NVA with full chest rig of magazines and NO...that did not any provide NVA a ballistic protection from my fires. And NO, I never sprayed my M16A1 (initially issued a XM16E1 mind you) and shot semi auto. In 1980's when M16A2 came about we got a upgraded rifle with far better barrel, better ammo and far better sights. It was welcomed .

At the time of VN War, being a dog face gravel agitating, prime mover of the XM 16E1, then M16A1 and later XM177E1, these weapons never failed to operate for me as an Infantryman. What I would have preferred but was not able to make happened was a M14 with chopped down barrel and that was because I never was in the rear areas where I could find a M14 and get t hat done. That said, I used what was issued and the limitations of such weaponry.

A shorter M14 in .243 Win would have been ideal but dreams of such in my mind during my time in RVN were day dreams of what might be...and M1A's later evolved this way under SAI manufacture.

All the good research done in this thread is academic, after the fact and only proves how Army R&D lost control and by the way that small arms acquisition program is still going no where...we've been promised a new battle rifle since 2008 in the Army and no cigar yet to the field. Marines gave up on Army and went in early 2008 to HK platform and have a new rifle albeit still 556 caliber.

I am not a proponent of 556 nor AR15, although piston system AR's are the obvious end state for the AR platform. 556 has limitation even with 77 gr ammo (far better than 55 gr).

Myths: 18 or 28 in a mag is about as valid as the Army put salt peter in our chow to limit sexual drives of soldiers. Fact: issue of mags is abuse and non maintenance and use of cruddy ammo. Keep ammo and mags clean and inspect for any issues, keep weapon clean and operational , then performance of mag, ammo and weapon (any weapon) will serve you well.

By the way, the other myth of that era was if you got the "black syph", there was no cure, you were put on an island off Viet Nam and that was all folks, so don't forget to take prevention seriously on R&R and always load 18 in a 20 rd mag or 28 in a 30 rd mag. Keep faith in all myths and rumors and if you don't hear one today by 0900,, take charge and issue one your self.

I found the M14 too long in jungles and M16 far more effective in jungles.

The only time I know my rounds deflected was in U Minh Forest , IV Corps, Mekong Delta where green bamboo could be 4 to 6 inches thick (diameter) and it was defeating 556 and even our M60's with 762 had a rough go shooting thru that stuff. The other guys weapons no better by the way. Casualties happened though on both sides so a fight is a fight.

I'd rather argue M1A Scout vs AK 47 and if I could turn the time machine back, I'd put my pay check on the Scout out matching the AK47. However M16 vs AK47 was a near match that , in my view, favored the AK47 for absolute trustworthiness and a better caliber for Viet Nam conditions. However the M16 with lesser caliber was adequate but not superior in all regards. As said , all flavors of M16 ever issued to me in RVN and later years always worked and never failed me but never was I ever demented to believe it was the "Best" rifle American ought to be armed with.

There were times in Afghanistan & Iraq that the distances defeated the M4 and 556 caliber and I so wanted a M14 or a M1 rifle to reach effectively at 600 meters or farther. The SAW didn't hack it at those ranges either, the PKM of the other guy was what worked !!!

One shot at SLAM Marshall limited
"survey" in Europe in WWII...No Cigar !!! . In VN War, Afghanistan nor Iraq, I never saw, heard or know about soldiers or Marines not firing their weapons. Come to think of it SLAM Marshall, you never asked USMC if Marines fired their rifles in the Pacific nor US Army in Pacific nor Italy. My experience is soldiers shoot, they have a vote and they vote in a fire fight. Oh yes they do. We fight , we are not neutered and need a safe space to hid !!

Well, besides the comments above, I don't have an opinion whatsoever to jot down.

 

[milprileb]

So, you shoot. All the time, every time?

Even if if the situation is outside the ROE? (Rules, we don't need no stinkin' rules.)

Even if you were ordered "Don't open fire until you get permission?" (Orders, who bothers with obeying orders.)

Even if you cannot see where the enemy is? (Spray and pray, we don't care about wasting ammunition.)

Even if you are under such intense suppressive fire that putting your head around the cover you are behind would mean getting a hole in it? (Hey, I'm bullet-proof.)

Even when you move in a rush from cover to cover? (I'm Rambo, dammit!)

Have you read "Men Against Fire"? What was the aim of his quoting that statistic? Was the statistic intended to be an exact number calculated to the nth decimal point? What was the point of the essay?

The quoting of that statistic: "What percent on solders shoot during an engagement?" has grown into it own little world far removed from the context it was originally placed. The point he was making was that in fire fights, a percentage of troops, (and in his opinion, a disturbingly large percent) did not shoot their weapons because:

a) They were waiting for orders to open fire,
b) They did not know what they supposed to shoot at.
c) They were suppressed.

These reasons have nothing to do with a willingness to fight, or being cowards, It has to do with training and effective command and control at the squad and platoon level. A 13 man squad is difficult to control with only one squad leader, most of his attention is going to be with directing the squad automatic, and coupled with the fact that men furthest away from where the leader is at the moment are going to find it difficult if not impossible to see or hear his commands.

The platoon and squad needed to be organized so that the leaders can effectively control their men and properly direct their fire, and the men need to be trained so that in the absence of direct control by leadership, they know what they are supposed to do.

Wow, taking it over the top. I said nothing of violating ROE. Returning enemy fire is all I commented about. I think by your response, you owe me an apology and were you ever a Infantry Platoon or Company Commander i combat ...well, I was so I know my business really well Thank You Very Much. Oh, I forgot....Bless Your Heart for trying.

 

[milprileb]

TXPI

First, I am not defending the AR vs M14 decision, I was in high school then so all I can comment upon is my experience with both rifles. I'd have been just fine with a M14 in .243 in Viet Nam and a shorter barrel for jungle operations. In Europe, Cold War Era the M14 hands down in 762 Nato for all missions in my view.

The A2 heavier barrel was more accurate and its rear sights far more effective in adjusting. It was plagued by the half nitwit idea of a 3 rd burst device so that was a real sore point with all who used it. The A2 butt stock stronger and more robust than the A1. The 62 gr ammo more effective shooting through things and you do shoot through things, ie penetration. It was found to be inadequate later and replaced by 77 gr ammo which is far better but here we are debating 556 ammo and I'm not defending 556 ammo, I prefer a heavier caliber for all missions of the Infantry. Is that .243, 6.8, or 6.5...I'll take any or all of them over 556.

So argue what is best but at the soldier level, we made the M16 in all forms work as best as it could be made to do , it was in my view reliable enough but lacked a sufficient caliber. We made the M16 work because we had no other choice. That doesn't mean it won't kill and do that effectively. I said but perhaps not as clear as necessary, I think the NVA had a advantage with 762x39 caliber over our 556 in the jungle.

Here's a angle if you want to chase wind mills, find out who benefitted financially over the decision to adopt the M16, the foot steps will lead from McNamara out to somewhere is my guess. Follow the money and the actors involved: there you may find the real evidence of why the M14 was pulled and the M16 replaced it.

.300 Black Out might have been a great caliber for RVN operations is my guess had it been in Eugene Stoner's mind but it seems velocity was his focus .

As to the M16A2 which you do not consider an improvement and we did at the time of issue. Just remember nothing else was on the table to replace all the worn out M16A1's on hand , add that fact along with the US Army did not test to find a better combat rifle, they just improved the status quo. Do not read that to mean approval , read that to mean anything was better than our worn out ratty M16a1's. The A2 was better but it was not great and it was not the battle rifle we needed then or now.

I don't think the Army Ordinance Corps was innovative, rather it was at best not up to the task post WWII to find a better battle rifle and likely had no funding to do so. They did manage to make the M1 better in the M14 rifle design and managed to swindle the tests of M14 vs FNFAL to win the competition. I'd have been fine with either rifle winning and own both rifles, but I prefer the M14 because of its far better accuracy and superior rear sight. Both rifles ruthlessly reliable and firing a more than effective caliber for the missions of Cold War.

I'd be remiss not to remind all the myth that floated on the M16 being self cleaning and it was not myth that many M16's got issued w/o troops trained on it and proper cleaning gear issued along with the Correct 556 ammo. Give McNamara full credit for the changing of proper propellants for obtuse rationale and it cost lives. That was a crime.

 

[milprileb]

TXPI, I don't know what your objective is at this point except the M14 ought not to have been replaced, that 556 caliber is worthless. That must be your end state?

I'll end my responses merely to say in combat the weapons in 556 issued to me worked but were not the weapons nor caliber I would have wanted and that fact lasted the entire 30 years of my career in Infantry & Special Forces. Full Stop.

The M14 could have been modified for use in Viet Nam and why not is a missed opportunity.

Soldiers shoot their rifles: Full Stop and Pound Sand to SLAM Marshall.

 

[milprileb]

Wow. So let me get this straight- this guy on here that I don't know (and that you may or may not) put 30 years in the Army is the world's foremost authority on infantry operations and small arms that is not to be questioned because you deem him so? How does he have firsthand experience for small arms and ammunition that was used after he retired? And those are the sole required credentials; nothing else counts for anything? Got it. Even against Eugene Stoner, Jim Sullivan and Colt engineers? If your buddy is the world's foremost authority, I am not impressed with the amount of false statements he made in his past posts. You could get more correct info from The Black Rifle book. What I stated are NOT OPINIONS, it would behoove you to learn the difference between fact and opinion. His experience is limited to firing these weapons in combat; which carries weight, but not as an engineer building or having to modify/repair them. Most of what your buddy stated was patently false, as I have outlined. Adequate in terms of performance according to who? It had a grocery list of problems that the M-14 never did, nor did any other platform fielded by the US military. It got people killed; I hardly would qualify that as "adequate" and utilized a varmint cartridge that did not always get the job done. You "fully agree that the A2 was an improvement" That is an opinion. For the third and final time, the A2 barrel WAS NOT A HEAVY BARREL. It is absolutely identical to an A1 barrel behind the front sight base. IDENTICAL. 4-5 inches of thicker diameter forward of the FSB does not dissipate heat better to improve accuracy. It is also a pencil barrel behind the FSB. If that were the case, all M40/M24 barrels would not be a uniform thickness throughout; they would only be thicker at the muzzle end. The accuracy is most affected by barrel whip and max heat buildup about 3-4" forward of the chamber area. That's fact. I own an A1 clone, and qualified expert in the Army myself with an A2. From my firsthand experience, the accuracy is the same. You are under the misbelief because you have heard it so many times that A1 barrels were bent, and that is why they went to the govt. profile. You would be wrong, as is your buddy. Again, for the third time, it was due to excess metal left after drilling the gas port hole; it was not because the barrel was "bent in bayonet training". That is complete BS. That came from military armorers that could not get the barrel straightness gauges to drop straight down; they would get stuck. When Colt engineers brought this to the attention of the Army, they just let the govt. profile remain, even though it made the rifle unnecessarily front heavy. Do a little research. Barrels are not flexible rubber, and most soldiers firing under duress do not have sling tension on their rifle, nor do I believe that has any noticeable effect on accuracy. Your buddy did not bring any new facts to light, so there is nothing to keep an open mind about. Most of it was false statements; I'm sorry he is not supposed to be called out on it.

And by the way, it is well known that Springfield Armory was shut down due to the rigged tests of not only the M14 vs. the FAL, but especially about the M16. The higher ups had just gotten the M14 adopted and were not keen on adopting a foreign made rifle like the FAL, and especially not a plastic and aluminum toy like the M16. Not trying to start anything, but with all due respect, you have zero credibility when it comes to this subject based on your posts. Far be it for me to dare question a self appointed forum expert, but the recorded data and history are out there if you want the truth. It seems to me you have cognitive dissonance, or such an emotional attachment to your AR-15 that you cannot accept any actual data on it or flat out don't know what you're talking about. Numbers and recorded history don't lie.

Congrats on qualifying with the M16, even Hellen Keller could do that.

 

[milprileb]

Too long for jungle warfare? 5" is not night and day difference The average contact in Vietnam was about 20 yards or so. ..

Simply put, you've never carried a M14 in the jungle and here is a gem you can take home....contacts averaged 20 yards is BS. The M14 was too long and that front sight/flash hider caught on vegetation constantly.

Your comments are inaccurate.

 

[milprileb]

Having lived it, the M14 would have been ideal in a 18 inch barrel for Viet Nam in the original 762 Nato cartridge or 243 Winchester but all of that never came to minds back then and the M14 was replaced. Personally I have never met or heard of a soldier who used the M14 early in VN War ,ever snivel about the rifle . The M16 was lighter as was its ammo and some pundit will flag that was a big bonus and here is what I say to that: The M16 was what we had and given no choices, we made the best use of it. Everything is easy when you got no choice, you press on with what you have.

Kurt C mentions weight. When you got 80# of gear on you in 100F temps with 100% humidity in jungles , the M16 was easier to carry and any weight saved from it and 556 ammo not insignificant to the Infantry soldier but this weight saved did not give you an advantage in Viet Nam over the other guy punching 762x39 toward you in dense jungle in which we operated.

I also did Afghan and Iraq and our weight increased immensely , made our 80# rucksacks and gear in Viet Nam look easy . Add the body armor and all the new high speed low drag state of art equipment ...The Infantry soldier is humping 120 pounds which is a massive disadvantage to which we added the light weight M4 with light weight 556 ammo. If weight is an issue then fix the actual problem: lighten the soldiers load . His rifle and ammo weight IS NOT THE PROBLEM.

Do us a favor, get a supply system that does not demand the soldiers hump 80 to 120 pounds of gear. We had such in prior wars up to Viet Nam. Drop that load so the soldier isn't dehydrated, exhausted and in a less than advantageous condition when he engages the enemy.

Todays vets out of the 20 year Sandbox Wars have destroyed knees, ankles and serious back issues ,all due to criminally high weight of equipment they had to carry day in and day out. This issue is not getting any press and its still a problem for soldiers on active duty right now and no one is solving the weight issue.

Frankly, if you can't do the logistics to keep the soldier supplied with what he /her needs, then don't deploy him / her.

Parting Shot: Take a look at the size of rucksacks on soldiers today, they are nearly the size of duffle bags / sea bags. You'd think something would be done about this....some leadership perhaps from Sergeant Major of the Army ? well the SMAJ of US Army was too busy making the Pinks & Greens WWII General Milley uniform happen, not a new battle rifle nor taking down the weight soldiers are burdened with in combat. Such Leadership continues ..Generals and SMAJ levels but good news, we got a new brown raincoat and maybe a "Ike" jacket in the works.

SNORT.

 

[milprileb]

Just out of curiosity, have you carried an M14 in Vietnam? I'm betting not, as that means you would have to have been there prior to about April 1967, which is when the USMC switched to the M16 anyway, (I believe the Army switched earlier than that) making your time in grade closer to 40 years, and as a ground pounder. I believe you told me in an earlier post you were in high school when they were carrying the M14 in Vietnam. So, if you never carried one in Vietnam, how can you say it was too long? You discount what I have to say about it, but it appears that you probably haven't done the same thing either. So how do you have any more credibility on the subject than I do, having never done it yourself as well? I have a friend that was a USMC 8541 and carried an M40A1 and DMR M14 in Ft. Sherman, Panama (and was there for the '89 invasion) in the thick jungle and said it was no different than any other rifle in terms of catching on vegetation or excessive length. Just food for thought...............

Half right...i carried a M14 in Panama and the rifle is too dang long for jungle operations. Look wher Panama is, on the equator and jungles there no laughing matter. I've posted that on this board before. The Aussies dropped the SLR in Viet Nam for the same reason and adopted the M16.
Not cheerleading the M16 but it was far easier to carry and use in Viet Nam
and I was there with 1/501 Abn Infantry , 101 Abn Division.

 

[milprileb]

Just out of curiosity, have you carried an M14 in Vietnam? I'm betting not, as that means you would have to have been there prior to about April 1967, which is when the USMC switched to the M16 anyway, (I believe the Army switched earlier than that) making your time in grade closer to 40 years, and as a ground pounder. I believe you told me in an earlier post you were in high school when they were carrying the M14 in Vietnam. So, if you never carried one in Vietnam, how can you say it was too long? You discount what I have to say about it, but it appears that you probably haven't done the same thing either. So how do you have any more credibility on the subject than I do, having never done it yourself as well? I have a friend that was a USMC 8541 and carried an M40A1 and DMR M14 in Ft. Sherman, Panama (and was there for the '89 invasion) in the thick jungle and said it was no different than any other rifle in terms of catching on vegetation or excessive length. Just food for thought...............

What....carried an M40A1 and DMR M14 in Ft. Sherman, Panama...?/
They must have invented a big lawn mower and cut Ft Sherman vegetation because the reason Ft Sherman was the Jungle Operations Training School was because it had jungles and I don't care what your buddy said, the jungles there are significant. and they are significant in Viet Nam ...

 

[milprileb]

milprileb said:
Simply put, you've never carried a M14 in the jungle and here is a gem you can take home....contacts averaged 20 yards is BS. The M14 was too long and that front sight/flash hider caught on vegetation constantly.

Your comments are inaccurate.

The above is repeated to you and I will add your comments remain inaccurate because you have no first hand experience in jungles nor fighting in them.

Try connecting Dots on stuff you are on top of....

 

[milprileb]

I'm out of here, this guy's a Troll