I have been doing a little research for a variety of reasons of what might be the best rifle for current events in our insane society, even though two of the rifles I have anyway for my Vietnam collection as my father used both. Reading up on some of the reasons for switching to the M16 and further weapon adoptions later on to me just don't jive. Kind of a long read, but here is what I have found-
Weight of the M14 unloaded- 9.2 lbs., 10.7 lbs. loaded, 1.5 lbs.- loaded magazine, 44" OAL
Weight of the M16A1 unloaded- 6.37 lbs., 8.81 lbs. loaded (30 rd. mag & sling), .75 lbs.- loaded 20 rd. mag, 1.06 lbs.- loaded 30 rd mag
Weight of the M16A2 unloaded- 8.31 lbs., 9.06 lbs. loaded w/30 rd. mag, 39" OAL
Weight of the M16A4 unloaded- 7.5 lbs., 8.25 lbs. loaded w/30 rd mag., 39" OAL
Weight of the M4 Carbine unloaded- 6.43 lbs. unloaded, 7.75 lbs. loaded w/30 rd mag, 33" OAL
Weight of the M4A1 Carbine unloaded 7.74 lbs., 8.5 lbs. loaded w/30 rd. mag, 33" OAL
Weight of the XM7/6.8 unloaded- 8.38 lbs., 9.4 lbs. w/suppressor, 36" OAL w/suppressor, 13" bbl.
Everybody knows the AR15 started out in 7.62 NATO. Stoner was not even specific on what caliber to go to supposedly, guys on his design team settled on .223 for whatever reason; a varmint cartridge.
So an untested rifle was adopted in 1967 right at the start of a war that only weighed maybe 2 lbs. lighter with a faulty magazine (well known that troops in Vietnam downloaded the 20 rd. mag to 18 rds.) The M14 suffered from none of the technical problems that the M16 did, other than being rust prone, and men died as a result of this. Imagine having your rifle's ammo deflected by twigs as well; a common complaint of 5.56. The standard loadout for a Marine Infantryman in Vietnam was 4 loaded mags on the M1961 cartridge belt, 1 mag in the rifle, and 2 bandoleers (60 rds. each), for a total of 220 rds. of 7.62. Conversely, the loadout for an M16A1 rifleman was 2 bandoleers/7 mags each for a total of 252 rds. of 5.56, or 4 M1956 pouches w/12 mags for a total of 216 rds. So an increase of 4-32 rds. approximately is night and day difference/improvement using a vastly inferior cartridge? How do you have an M14 rifleman vastly outgunned, especially with mags that only work right with 2 rounds less than what the M14 carries? And only 5" shorter than the M14. Some of the testing was of the M16 bordered on ridiculous; i.e., penetrating 3/4" pine boards, sandbags, concrete building blocks, 14 and 8 gauge steel/Kevlar or steel helmets at distance. I guess if one is ever attacked by any of these inanimate objects, the test would be valid. And even though reports early on around 1962 said the AR15 did quite well with the 1 in 14" twist, it lost about 30% of its wounding capability going to the 1 in 12" twist (ironically they made the change due to its performance in Arctic weather, a test it never passed, and considering we were fighting in a 120 degree jungle. Every video I've ever seen of Navy SEALs in the Arctic, they all have M14's). M14 barrels have the same twist as well. When that little 55 gr. FMJ bullet fails to tumble, yaw and fragment; it's virtually useless, and you can never predict when that will happen. And it will only do that to about 200-225 yards max. Direct gas impingement? Even a dog don't where it eats. Add that to the lack of cleaning gear, changing the powder, and lack of a chrome lined bore and BCG, you have a recipe for disaster, which is exactly what happened. Why you would go from a rifle (M14) that had a chrome bore and cleaning gear to one that doesn't is beyond me. In Vietnam even the 1911A1 barrels were chrome lined. There is no self cleaning gun. Again, thanks a lot Robert McNamara, you ignorant POS.
Fast forward to 1983 to the even worse dumpster fire and train wreck called the M16A2. Now we have increased the weight of the M16 by two more pounds making it just less than a pound lighter than the M14. So much for the lighter rifle argument. The standard loadout with ALICE M16 mag pouches was 6 mags in the pouches and 1 in the rifle for a total of 210 rds. Still 10 rounds less than the M14 loadout and the mags only weigh 1/2 lb. lighter. Still with an inferior cartridge. Don't see the upside or worthy tradeoff. The pistol grip had that god awful cancerous tumor growth called a finger groove which accomplished nothing and is completely in the way. The 3 rd. burst was shown to be a huge mistake. The "improved" rear sights were a joke (even Eugene Stoner said that), the govt profile which made it front heavy was because stupid armorers were using barrel straightness gauges that got stuck in the A1 barrel; they in their infinite wisdom said that this was because the barrel was bent from bayonet practice or whatever fabricated reason. Epic fail. It was because the excess metal that was not smoothed out and left behind from drilling the gas port hole made the gauge get stuck. Brilliant. When this was brought to Big Army's attention, they basically said oh well, just leave the needless thicker and heavier barrel; it's already in the TDP. And, the wounding potential was further made worse by going to a 1 in 7" twist, for no other reason other than to stabilize the 64 gr. tracer, which infantry troops rarely use, other than machine gunners. Lastly, and worse, using green tip M855/SS109 that did little more than make .22 cal holes in bad guys. Just ask Gen. David Petraeus. He got shot with one by one of his own guys and was out of the hospital 2-3 days later back on duty from a 40 yd. shot. Talk about inspiring confidence.
So now, it gets really better. We go to the M4 Carbine in 1994. Now we are chopping the barrel back to 14.5 inches (had nothing to do with getting in and out of vehicles; it was the shortest barrel length that would still accept a bayonet; brilliant, it's 1862 again) from 20". As if 5.5" is some huge difference. Also increased muzzle blast and flash becomes an issue. For a barrel that was optimized for a 20" length and is solely dependent upon velocity, now we're shortening the barrel, requiring a different gas system and bolt upgrade parts, due to increased parts wear. Wow. Perhaps Colt should have drug tested their engineers in the 80's and 90's. After the introduction of the M4 carbine, it was found that the shorter barrel length of 14.5 inches also harms the reliability, as the gas port is located closer to the chamber than the gas port of the standard length M16 rifle: 7.5 inches instead of 13 inches. This affects the M4's timing and increases the amount of stress and heat on the critical components, thereby reducing reliability. In a 2002 assessment, the USMC found that the M4 malfunctioned three times more often than the M16A4 (the M4 failed 186 times for 69,000 rounds fired, while the M16A4 failed 61 times). Thereafter, the Army and Colt worked to make modifications to the M4s and M16A4s to address the problems found. In tests conducted in 2005 and 2006 the Army found that on average, the new M4s and M16s fired approximately 5,000 rounds between stoppages. And, we still got that 3 round burst nonsense, done away with with the even HEAVIER M4A1. And the icing on the cake, most M4's with all the useless battery powered crap hanging off of it (lights, lasers, optics, broom handles, batteries, night vision, grenade launchers, etc.) weigh in excess of 10 lbs. So the M14 was too heavy loaded at 10.7 lbs., but an M4 weighing the same or more is somehow magically a better overall platform? On what planet does that math work out? And, the standard loadout is still 10 rds. less than an M14 armed rifleman, with the even MORE inferior M855 green tip round. I read online that troops in the sandbox were taught to shoot hajis 6 times to put them down. So that's 5 kills total with a 30 rd. magazine? How is that viewed as effective or beneficial to a fighting man? That's a waste of ammo and insane. 1 round of 7.62 NATO and it's game over. Why are sniper rifles and machine guns still chambered in 7.62 if 5.56 is so good?
Lastly, we come to the new George Jetson 6.8X51 XM7 rifle (in reality its just a new and improved AR10). Hmmm, haven't we been down this road before? We're going back to a 51mm OAL for a cartridge and back to a 20 rd. magazine? And an 80,000 psi 3 piece cartridge case for about $3 per round? So we're back to carrying more weight and less ammo? Why not just go back to the M14 if these perceived issues are no longer a problem? It's already somewhat in the inventory. Aren't these the very reasons they went away from it to the M16 to begin with? A buddy of mine has shot the XM7 in 6.8; its recoil is more substantial than 5.56 and he said the entire package with rifle, optic, suppressor and sling was almost 13 lbs. So at 10.7 lb. the M14 was too heavy, but somehow magically this is not? How does that work? And the base rifle appears to go for about $4500 each. Oh, well, it's just unlimited taxpayer funded toys. I somehow don't think 6.8 is going to be a better performer than 7.62. The proposed combat ammunition load for each soldier will be 140 total rounds, distributed across seven 20-round magazines, in total weighing 9.8 lb. Compared to the M4A1 weighing 6.34 lbs. unsuppressed with a basic combat load of 210 rounds in seven 30-round magazines in total weighing 7.4 lbs., the XM7 weighs about 2 lbs. more and each soldier carries roughly a 4 lb heavier load with 70 fewer rounds.
The point of all this is- For a weapon and magazine touted as lighter and can carry more ammo (the M16), it's simply not true. If one CAN carry more ammo, it didn't seem to happen, canceling out the ammo weight argument. Seems the same amount of ammo was carried between the two. The M16 was made heavier over time to equal the weight of the M14 (canceling out the lighter rifle argument), worse ammo over time was issued and was far less effective and reliable; it's recorded fact. The testing criteria for 5.56 was nonsense and 7.62 will smoke it every time. I can keep you back and put a hurtin' on you at a much longer distance than the varmint cartridge that is 5.56. To quote car guys- there is no replacement for displacement. Same thing goes for bullets. In a military situation in a war, you're generally getting re-supplied everyday, anyway (but not always) so it may not be a big issue. I get ounces equals pounds, and the lighter the better, but the numbers don't lie. Why the military settled for a mediocre rifle and cartridge made worse over the years is mind boggling. If the M16 platform was all that and a bag of chips, they wouldn't have brought back the M14 for the GWOT since the M4 could only reach out to about 125 yards or less, which is pathetic, and they wouldn't be trying to get rid of it with the new Captain Billy Whizzbang 6.8 XM7, which now we are going backwards, which invalidates the entire reasoning for going to the M16 platform, and validates why the M14 is still viable. Coupled with the fact that 73% of all applicants can't meet military fitness standards, going to a heavier rifle and mag will most likely be problematic. Simply put, there is no comparison of 7.62 to 5.56 or 6.8 in terms of performance. Google 7.62 NATO stopping power problems; you won't find one page. Now do the same with 5.56. Page after page. The new concern is our adversaries and body armor. Well, most other armies that are enemy to us don't use body armor. So what if they do? Shoot them in the head or the pelvis. Even if they have body armor, a square hit to center mass will take you out of the fight with 7.62 just due to blunt force trauma at 2600 fpe. The USMC did bullet testing early last century and came to the conclusion that .30 cal bullets were the best overall in every way. They weren't wrong and physics don't change. In theory, a somewhat lighter rifle came about, but at what cost? I think they had it right prior to 1967. It's a little heavy, but the M14 still reigns as king in my book, which is why it has been America's longest serving rifle. Food for thought........
Weight of the M14 unloaded- 9.2 lbs., 10.7 lbs. loaded, 1.5 lbs.- loaded magazine, 44" OAL
Weight of the M16A1 unloaded- 6.37 lbs., 8.81 lbs. loaded (30 rd. mag & sling), .75 lbs.- loaded 20 rd. mag, 1.06 lbs.- loaded 30 rd mag
Weight of the M16A2 unloaded- 8.31 lbs., 9.06 lbs. loaded w/30 rd. mag, 39" OAL
Weight of the M16A4 unloaded- 7.5 lbs., 8.25 lbs. loaded w/30 rd mag., 39" OAL
Weight of the M4 Carbine unloaded- 6.43 lbs. unloaded, 7.75 lbs. loaded w/30 rd mag, 33" OAL
Weight of the M4A1 Carbine unloaded 7.74 lbs., 8.5 lbs. loaded w/30 rd. mag, 33" OAL
Weight of the XM7/6.8 unloaded- 8.38 lbs., 9.4 lbs. w/suppressor, 36" OAL w/suppressor, 13" bbl.
Everybody knows the AR15 started out in 7.62 NATO. Stoner was not even specific on what caliber to go to supposedly, guys on his design team settled on .223 for whatever reason; a varmint cartridge.
So an untested rifle was adopted in 1967 right at the start of a war that only weighed maybe 2 lbs. lighter with a faulty magazine (well known that troops in Vietnam downloaded the 20 rd. mag to 18 rds.) The M14 suffered from none of the technical problems that the M16 did, other than being rust prone, and men died as a result of this. Imagine having your rifle's ammo deflected by twigs as well; a common complaint of 5.56. The standard loadout for a Marine Infantryman in Vietnam was 4 loaded mags on the M1961 cartridge belt, 1 mag in the rifle, and 2 bandoleers (60 rds. each), for a total of 220 rds. of 7.62. Conversely, the loadout for an M16A1 rifleman was 2 bandoleers/7 mags each for a total of 252 rds. of 5.56, or 4 M1956 pouches w/12 mags for a total of 216 rds. So an increase of 4-32 rds. approximately is night and day difference/improvement using a vastly inferior cartridge? How do you have an M14 rifleman vastly outgunned, especially with mags that only work right with 2 rounds less than what the M14 carries? And only 5" shorter than the M14. Some of the testing was of the M16 bordered on ridiculous; i.e., penetrating 3/4" pine boards, sandbags, concrete building blocks, 14 and 8 gauge steel/Kevlar or steel helmets at distance. I guess if one is ever attacked by any of these inanimate objects, the test would be valid. And even though reports early on around 1962 said the AR15 did quite well with the 1 in 14" twist, it lost about 30% of its wounding capability going to the 1 in 12" twist (ironically they made the change due to its performance in Arctic weather, a test it never passed, and considering we were fighting in a 120 degree jungle. Every video I've ever seen of Navy SEALs in the Arctic, they all have M14's). M14 barrels have the same twist as well. When that little 55 gr. FMJ bullet fails to tumble, yaw and fragment; it's virtually useless, and you can never predict when that will happen. And it will only do that to about 200-225 yards max. Direct gas impingement? Even a dog don't where it eats. Add that to the lack of cleaning gear, changing the powder, and lack of a chrome lined bore and BCG, you have a recipe for disaster, which is exactly what happened. Why you would go from a rifle (M14) that had a chrome bore and cleaning gear to one that doesn't is beyond me. In Vietnam even the 1911A1 barrels were chrome lined. There is no self cleaning gun. Again, thanks a lot Robert McNamara, you ignorant POS.
Fast forward to 1983 to the even worse dumpster fire and train wreck called the M16A2. Now we have increased the weight of the M16 by two more pounds making it just less than a pound lighter than the M14. So much for the lighter rifle argument. The standard loadout with ALICE M16 mag pouches was 6 mags in the pouches and 1 in the rifle for a total of 210 rds. Still 10 rounds less than the M14 loadout and the mags only weigh 1/2 lb. lighter. Still with an inferior cartridge. Don't see the upside or worthy tradeoff. The pistol grip had that god awful cancerous tumor growth called a finger groove which accomplished nothing and is completely in the way. The 3 rd. burst was shown to be a huge mistake. The "improved" rear sights were a joke (even Eugene Stoner said that), the govt profile which made it front heavy was because stupid armorers were using barrel straightness gauges that got stuck in the A1 barrel; they in their infinite wisdom said that this was because the barrel was bent from bayonet practice or whatever fabricated reason. Epic fail. It was because the excess metal that was not smoothed out and left behind from drilling the gas port hole made the gauge get stuck. Brilliant. When this was brought to Big Army's attention, they basically said oh well, just leave the needless thicker and heavier barrel; it's already in the TDP. And, the wounding potential was further made worse by going to a 1 in 7" twist, for no other reason other than to stabilize the 64 gr. tracer, which infantry troops rarely use, other than machine gunners. Lastly, and worse, using green tip M855/SS109 that did little more than make .22 cal holes in bad guys. Just ask Gen. David Petraeus. He got shot with one by one of his own guys and was out of the hospital 2-3 days later back on duty from a 40 yd. shot. Talk about inspiring confidence.
So now, it gets really better. We go to the M4 Carbine in 1994. Now we are chopping the barrel back to 14.5 inches (had nothing to do with getting in and out of vehicles; it was the shortest barrel length that would still accept a bayonet; brilliant, it's 1862 again) from 20". As if 5.5" is some huge difference. Also increased muzzle blast and flash becomes an issue. For a barrel that was optimized for a 20" length and is solely dependent upon velocity, now we're shortening the barrel, requiring a different gas system and bolt upgrade parts, due to increased parts wear. Wow. Perhaps Colt should have drug tested their engineers in the 80's and 90's. After the introduction of the M4 carbine, it was found that the shorter barrel length of 14.5 inches also harms the reliability, as the gas port is located closer to the chamber than the gas port of the standard length M16 rifle: 7.5 inches instead of 13 inches. This affects the M4's timing and increases the amount of stress and heat on the critical components, thereby reducing reliability. In a 2002 assessment, the USMC found that the M4 malfunctioned three times more often than the M16A4 (the M4 failed 186 times for 69,000 rounds fired, while the M16A4 failed 61 times). Thereafter, the Army and Colt worked to make modifications to the M4s and M16A4s to address the problems found. In tests conducted in 2005 and 2006 the Army found that on average, the new M4s and M16s fired approximately 5,000 rounds between stoppages. And, we still got that 3 round burst nonsense, done away with with the even HEAVIER M4A1. And the icing on the cake, most M4's with all the useless battery powered crap hanging off of it (lights, lasers, optics, broom handles, batteries, night vision, grenade launchers, etc.) weigh in excess of 10 lbs. So the M14 was too heavy loaded at 10.7 lbs., but an M4 weighing the same or more is somehow magically a better overall platform? On what planet does that math work out? And, the standard loadout is still 10 rds. less than an M14 armed rifleman, with the even MORE inferior M855 green tip round. I read online that troops in the sandbox were taught to shoot hajis 6 times to put them down. So that's 5 kills total with a 30 rd. magazine? How is that viewed as effective or beneficial to a fighting man? That's a waste of ammo and insane. 1 round of 7.62 NATO and it's game over. Why are sniper rifles and machine guns still chambered in 7.62 if 5.56 is so good?
Lastly, we come to the new George Jetson 6.8X51 XM7 rifle (in reality its just a new and improved AR10). Hmmm, haven't we been down this road before? We're going back to a 51mm OAL for a cartridge and back to a 20 rd. magazine? And an 80,000 psi 3 piece cartridge case for about $3 per round? So we're back to carrying more weight and less ammo? Why not just go back to the M14 if these perceived issues are no longer a problem? It's already somewhat in the inventory. Aren't these the very reasons they went away from it to the M16 to begin with? A buddy of mine has shot the XM7 in 6.8; its recoil is more substantial than 5.56 and he said the entire package with rifle, optic, suppressor and sling was almost 13 lbs. So at 10.7 lb. the M14 was too heavy, but somehow magically this is not? How does that work? And the base rifle appears to go for about $4500 each. Oh, well, it's just unlimited taxpayer funded toys. I somehow don't think 6.8 is going to be a better performer than 7.62. The proposed combat ammunition load for each soldier will be 140 total rounds, distributed across seven 20-round magazines, in total weighing 9.8 lb. Compared to the M4A1 weighing 6.34 lbs. unsuppressed with a basic combat load of 210 rounds in seven 30-round magazines in total weighing 7.4 lbs., the XM7 weighs about 2 lbs. more and each soldier carries roughly a 4 lb heavier load with 70 fewer rounds.
The point of all this is- For a weapon and magazine touted as lighter and can carry more ammo (the M16), it's simply not true. If one CAN carry more ammo, it didn't seem to happen, canceling out the ammo weight argument. Seems the same amount of ammo was carried between the two. The M16 was made heavier over time to equal the weight of the M14 (canceling out the lighter rifle argument), worse ammo over time was issued and was far less effective and reliable; it's recorded fact. The testing criteria for 5.56 was nonsense and 7.62 will smoke it every time. I can keep you back and put a hurtin' on you at a much longer distance than the varmint cartridge that is 5.56. To quote car guys- there is no replacement for displacement. Same thing goes for bullets. In a military situation in a war, you're generally getting re-supplied everyday, anyway (but not always) so it may not be a big issue. I get ounces equals pounds, and the lighter the better, but the numbers don't lie. Why the military settled for a mediocre rifle and cartridge made worse over the years is mind boggling. If the M16 platform was all that and a bag of chips, they wouldn't have brought back the M14 for the GWOT since the M4 could only reach out to about 125 yards or less, which is pathetic, and they wouldn't be trying to get rid of it with the new Captain Billy Whizzbang 6.8 XM7, which now we are going backwards, which invalidates the entire reasoning for going to the M16 platform, and validates why the M14 is still viable. Coupled with the fact that 73% of all applicants can't meet military fitness standards, going to a heavier rifle and mag will most likely be problematic. Simply put, there is no comparison of 7.62 to 5.56 or 6.8 in terms of performance. Google 7.62 NATO stopping power problems; you won't find one page. Now do the same with 5.56. Page after page. The new concern is our adversaries and body armor. Well, most other armies that are enemy to us don't use body armor. So what if they do? Shoot them in the head or the pelvis. Even if they have body armor, a square hit to center mass will take you out of the fight with 7.62 just due to blunt force trauma at 2600 fpe. The USMC did bullet testing early last century and came to the conclusion that .30 cal bullets were the best overall in every way. They weren't wrong and physics don't change. In theory, a somewhat lighter rifle came about, but at what cost? I think they had it right prior to 1967. It's a little heavy, but the M14 still reigns as king in my book, which is why it has been America's longest serving rifle. Food for thought........
