M16 / M4 vs AR15

[Pandaz3]

The intent of 5.56 was for something more controllable in full auto. They replaced the M14 due to how difficult full auto was to handle with it.

Keeping in mind that light machine guns like the M249 aren't the only guns used for suppressive fire, a lot of rounds are used just to keep enemy heads down.

As a person who trained and qualified with a full automatic M-14, I'll call that a misinformation. The M14A1 (Sometimes known as E-1 or E-2 but when it was made a issued weapon it was A-1) The M-14A1 Appeared longer than a regular M-14, but it was still a 22" barrel with a long muzzle brake. It had a bipod and a scary wooden pistol grip, part of the big wood stock. On the forend of the stock was a hinged piece of Bakelite. The sling fastened to the gas assembly and the Bakelite's swivel/hinge. The Bakelite could act as a vertical foregrip that worked with the sling to pull down on the barrel while the rest of the sling was intertwined with the shooters arm providing additional downforce. In the prone, the shooter had his heels together, the imaginary bore axis would split his body right down the split of his posterior and both heels, body and gun in linear. There was no BS mechanical burst control of the trigger, you did it all with your trigger finger. With full auto selected I could send the standard burst of three or a single round, just let you finger do the talking. We used open sights on targets 700 meters away, they were bigger panels, but still hard to see. We also fired our bursts of three from the shoulder standing. Walking fire could be done with the stock tucked up under arm, the arm holding on tight.....Assault fire. Assault fire was not the preferred method.

The M-14A-1 was a replacement for the BAR, it was lighter and hit nearly as hard.

The Army was in a hurry to get replacements for the BAR, but slow to field the M-14A1 so many M-14's were used with a select fire switch. This was a double poor idea, first a compromised weapon and second no real shooter training. The 7.62 full auto M-14 would be no harder to control than a 30 caliber full auto M1 Garand. Doable with training. Lots of extended barrel burning bursts, heavy use of tracers. Amateur stuff.

The Army continued with it's dumb bunny ways with the arrival of the M-16. They gave everyone a select fire weapon and then said only a couple could use them full auto. As soon as the guy next to you fired in auto, everyone went auto. Ammo, Ammo, Ammo!

I carried 19, 18 round magazines, one in gun and the rest in three bandoliers, I carried six frag and four smoke grenades. Six to eight canteens of water. Lots more crap. Lot of work hauling that around.

In any case I think 7.62 full auto is very doable.

 

[Boboclown]

As a person who trained and qualified with a full automatic M-14, I'll call that a misinformation. The M14A1 (Sometimes known as E-1 or E-2 but when it was made a issued weapon it was A-1) The M-14A1 Appeared longer than a regular M-14, but it was still a 22" barrel with a long muzzle brake. It had a bipod and a scary wooden pistol grip, part of the big wood stock. On the forend of the stock was a hinged piece of Bakelite. The sling fastened to the gas assembly and the Bakelite's swivel/hinge. The Bakelite could act as a vertical foregrip that worked with the sling to pull down on the barrel while the rest of the sling was intertwined with the shooters arm providing additional downforce. In the prone, the shooter had his heels together, the imaginary bore axis would split his body right down the split of his posterior and both heels, body and gun in linear. There was no BS mechanical burst control of the trigger, you did it all with your trigger finger. With full auto selected I could send the standard burst of three or a single round, just let you finger do the talking. We used open sights on targets 700 meters away, they were bigger panels, but still hard to see. We also fired our bursts of three from the shoulder standing. Walking fire could be done with the stock tucked up under arm, the arm holding on tight.....Assault fire. Assault fire was not the preferred method.

The M-14A-1 was a replacement for the BAR, it was lighter and hit nearly as hard.

The Army was in a hurry to get replacements for the BAR, but slow to field the M-14A1 so many M-14's were used with a select fire switch. This was a double poor idea, first a compromised weapon and second no real shooter training. The 7.62 full auto M-14 would be no harder to control than a 30 caliber full auto M1 Garand. Doable with training. Lots of extended barrel burning bursts, heavy use of tracers. Amateur stuff.

The Army continued with it's dumb bunny ways with the arrival of the M-16. They gave everyone a select fire weapon and then said only a couple could use them full auto. As soon as the guy next to you fired in auto, everyone went auto. Ammo, Ammo, Ammo!

I carried 19, 18 round magazines, one in gun and the rest in three bandoliers, I carried six frag and four smoke grenades. Six to eight canteens of water. Lots more crap. Lot of work hauling that around.

In any case I think 7.62 full auto is very doable.

Bolded for importance. They didn't want to spend a lot on training them to use 7.62 NATO. Easier to train them on the M16. Its not about doable, it was about cutting training as short as they can, and having a gun that's easier for more people to shoot is part of that.

Now, to where you took me out of context. I said they wanted something MORE controllable. The M16 was easier to control on full auto and with less training than 7.62 NATO. So yes, in comparison the M14 would be harder to use full auto.

 

[Tony617]

As a person who trained and qualified with a full automatic M-14, I'll call that a misinformation. The M14A1 (Sometimes known as E-1 or E-2 but when it was made a issued weapon it was A-1) The M-14A1 Appeared longer than a regular M-14, but it was still a 22" barrel with a long muzzle brake. It had a bipod and a scary wooden pistol grip, part of the big wood stock. On the forend of the stock was a hinged piece of Bakelite. The sling fastened to the gas assembly and the Bakelite's swivel/hinge. The Bakelite could act as a vertical foregrip that worked with the sling to pull down on the barrel while the rest of the sling was intertwined with the shooters arm providing additional downforce. In the prone, the shooter had his heels together, the imaginary bore axis would split his body right down the split of his posterior and both heels, body and gun in linear. There was no BS mechanical burst control of the trigger, you did it all with your trigger finger. With full auto selected I could send the standard burst of three or a single round, just let you finger do the talking. We used open sights on targets 700 meters away, they were bigger panels, but still hard to see. We also fired our bursts of three from the shoulder standing. Walking fire could be done with the stock tucked up under arm, the arm holding on tight.....Assault fire. Assault fire was not the preferred method.

The M-14A-1 was a replacement for the BAR, it was lighter and hit nearly as hard.

The Army was in a hurry to get replacements for the BAR, but slow to field the M-14A1 so many M-14's were used with a select fire switch. This was a double poor idea, first a compromised weapon and second no real shooter training. The 7.62 full auto M-14 would be no harder to control than a 30 caliber full auto M1 Garand. Doable with training. Lots of extended barrel burning bursts, heavy use of tracers. Amateur stuff.

The Army continued with it's dumb bunny ways with the arrival of the M-16. They gave everyone a select fire weapon and then said only a couple could use them full auto. As soon as the guy next to you fired in auto, everyone went auto. Ammo, Ammo, Ammo!

I carried 19, 18 round magazines, one in gun and the rest in three bandoliers, I carried six frag and four smoke grenades. Six to eight canteens of water. Lots more crap. Lot of work hauling that around.

In any case I think 7.62 full auto is very doable.

 

[JRuby]

Disagree. Anyone who goes into combat without a full auto, or multiple team members with full auto is at an automatic disadvantage. The inability of semi autos to mach enemies volume of fire will crush you. pull the trigger quickly as you want that finger will get tired.

It doesnt matter how comfortable you are, being comfortable with a gun and it actually being effective in combat are two different things.

As far as military grade im half and half. Milspec is garbage and the civilian market has almost always had access to better firearms. Whetherthe day of lever guns or now with 4000$ rigs which are objectively better, but not in the role of combat

The m14 I used in the service was semi auto please explain how it is different from my m1a. Fals are another example of this.

 

[Basedgreaser]

The m14 I used in the service was semi auto please explain how it is different from my m1a. Fals are another example of this.

Emphasis on team, having guys with semi is different then all having only semis was my point

*to add further for clarification what i was speaking too was taking all full autos away from modern soldiers and handing them civilian semi autos, full auto is necessary and serves a purpose

 

[Boboclown]

The m14 I used in the service was semi auto please explain how it is different from my m1a. Fals are another example of this.

People often forget FALs did get pinned for semiauto only, and it served the Australians well in Vietnam. The L2A1 was select fire, but the L2A1 served as a light machine gun while the L1A1/C1A1 was semiauto.

Whether or not each team had one person with L2A1 I wouldn't know, need to ask the Australians. Given their logistics were not so great and they had to make each shot count, doubt every team had one.

 

[Basedgreaser]

The m14 I used in the service was semi auto please explain how it is different from my m1a. Fals are another example of this.

I misread your post, on the topic of m14/ m1a, there isnt much of a real difference. Mostly the roll mark, and where its made

 

[titsonritz]

The primary reason for the adoption of the AR-15/M16 is less weight pure and simple. One can carry 3x the 5.56 over the 7.62x51 and the weapon is a lot lighter.

And yes the 7.62x51 is controllable in full auto mode IF you know how to handle it. That said plenty of folks do not know how and if you don't it will stand straight up in the air.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

As for the question of Full Auto / Burst in combat....
I can say that when I was in combat , Full Auto or Burst was used at times , but in very limited and very special circumstances.
Those being mostly :
During an ambush...
When going from room to room or house to house...
And even then , it was not really a "regular" thing or practice , just at various times or places....

The over whelming majority of time , Rifle fire was aimed Semi Auto fire from our M16's , CAR 15's or M4's.

Of course we had and made use of the M60 , M249 and M2...but in the above paragraph , I am referring to rifle fire.
Andy

 

[Boboclown]

The L2A1, keep in mind that much like the Austrian STG-58 and German G1 it was meant to be fired full auto off the bipod.


Then there's the L1A1 which was semiauto. Seems that it was the FALs with bipods were typically the ones that kept select fire.

Again, don't take my words out of context. Sure 7.62 NATO full auto is doable, WITH training. Training that they didn't want to give anymore it seems.

Also, don't have a convo about FALs with me irl unless you're ready to get bored.

 

[Ura-Ki]

The idea of the M-16 auto being more controllable during full auto is false, because it's a lighter weapon, it's worse, and in part because of the very high rate of fire! I was issued an A-2 as my first weapon and I can tell you, an 8 pound rifle jumps all over the place, and you went through a LOT more ammo to get the job done! About the only good thing the later M-4 did was take the full auto out and make it burst and then later semi only!
Keep in mind, I was deployed all over Europe during and after the Cold War area, and part of how we operated was to be armed as the locals were, so we had extensive training with many weapons that you would see locally, the G-3 and FAL were two of the more popular, and both were quite a hand full running full Rock and Roll, especially the G -3 because of its roller locked bolt being faster cycling! Combined with a pretty short barrel, and a poor muzzle brake/flash hider, that was nearly impossible to control, and the FAL would get so friggin hot,and the handguards didn't do squat! The more interesting weapon we ran were Garands, those could be modified to run full auto, and the size and length made them sort of ok, but again, you sure went through those 8 rounds fast, and you didn't carry much more then 120 rounds! Same deal with the 7.62X51, you only carried maybe 8 to 10 mags max, I usually only carried 8 total! Trust me, you didn't run the Rock and Roll ever, that was a sure way to run your self out of ammo and leave you hangin with a side arm, or the luckier of us with a Mossy or Remmy shotgun! Not a fun position to be in when facing a squad of Comblock armed tangos
Full auto is not a very smart way to fight, and the weapons we have been issued don't support that very well, something that gets learned into you pretty quick, especially when you can burn up a barrel pretty quick and now your accuracy just went to hell! Try lugging 140 rounds of 7.62X51 around, not very pleasant in 120+ temps, same with 12 or more 30 rounds 5.56 mags, that's a bad day right there!

 

[Boboclown]

the FAL would get so friggin hot, the handguards didn't do squat!

The wood was best for heat. However, wood was not doable with the bipods, except the Israeli HBARs. They initially used steel with bipods, you can guess how that works for heat (I wear gloves with my STG-58). Polymer (came later which is why German G1 and STG-58 never had em) is better than steel, and wood is better than both. However, its gonna get hot no matter what you do. Guess that's why the L2A1 had the handguard as the bipod, so you shot it full auto with it deployed and the handguard is still cool enough to hold after!

That aside, sure the M16 was lighter, but 5.56 also had less recoil. Typically full auto in general is not easy, but one will be easier than the other.

The point of burst was just so people didn't have to learn HOW to burst. Hand the average person a full auto and they won't know how to burst fire. That aside, even on bursts its easier with 5.56. I've shot both a pre-ban M16 and pre-ban AK, while 7.62x39 isn't much recoil it most definitely is a noticable difference! Then again, I was still only shooting it both bursts instead of full auto (remember I'm cheap). The M16 sure was better, but the AK was a whole lot cheaper (I'm cheap so you can guess which I liked more).

 

[Diamondback]

Back in WWII, studies found that 10-20% of the GIs in the field accounted for 80-90% of the enemy casualties. The MG's and SAW's made the enemy keep their heads down, most of the infantry rifle fire was similarly suppressive in effect--lots of guys willing to die for their country, but still not quite across the line into KILLING for it*. So effectively, in your ten-man squad you have one, maybe two real "manhunters"--if "efficiency in warfare" is the goal, we need to identify these individuals and assign them with DMR's or SPR's, so that while everyone else keeps the fire off them they can concentrate on efficiently removing enemy personnel from the fight.
*This is not a knock or an accusation of cowardice--there are natural inhibitions against killing one's fellow human being that run very strong and deep, and except in cases of the fundamentally miswired those inhibitions are not easily broken nor *should* they be.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

S.L.A Marshall and his work on WWII GI's bears this out....
( Men Against Fire )
Andy

Back in WWII, studies found that 10-20% of the GIs in the field accounted for 80-90% of the enemy casualties. The MG's and SAW's made the enemy keep their heads down, most of the infantry rifle fire was similarly suppressive in effect--lots of guys willing to die for their country, but still not quite across the line into KILLING for it*. So effectively, in your ten-man squad you have one, maybe two real "manhunters"--if "efficiency in warfare" is the goal, we need to identify these individuals and assign them with DMR's or SPR's, so that while everyone else keeps the fire off them they can concentrate on efficiently removing enemy personnel from the fight.
*This is not a knock or an accusation of cowardice--there are natural inhibitions against killing one's fellow human being that run very strong and deep, and except in cases of the fundamentally miswired those inhibitions are not easily broken nor *should* they be.

 

[Diamondback]

I think Marshall's study was my source, Andy. Thanks for jogging my memory.

 

[Boboclown]

Keep in mind changes they made cut the amount of training needed. Going M16? Lighter recoil, won't need as much training as giving them something with more recoil (not everyone going in has previous experience). Getting rid of full auto in favor of burst? Don't need to train them to shoot full auto in bursts.

Ammo is lighter, recoil is easier to manage for the average person. You can see why the change was going to happen. The United States wasn't the first with the idea of an intermediate cartridge. The British had the .280 British (less recoil than .303 British and .30-06), and the Belgians designed their FAL around it (after the British asked them to), but when FN was trying to enter it in the competition for the United States, the U.S said they won't look at it unless it was chambered in 7.62 NATO.

Ironically, the United States later did go to an intermediate cartridge, while the rest of NATO was stuck with 7.62 NATO for a relatively long time. Talk about hypocrisy!

 

[Diamondback]

Still goes back to the operator, though... if the operator is unwilling or psychologically unable to put lead into OPFOR personnel, all tinkering with the General Issue rifle is just so much technician and engineer masturbation. Now technical work on the DMR's for that ten to twenty percent, on the other hand, and you get somewhere...

 

[Boboclown]

Of course, but while a lot of them are using suppressive fire its typically the others who are able to pick targets of opportunity.

That being said, some of the famous snipers in history were hunters. Something for the military to consider.

 

[Ura-Ki]

One thing to also consider is the way we fight these days, and more importantly our enemies willingness to die for martyrdom! We got a taste of that in the Pacific during WW2, a faninatical enemy who were not only highly trained, but highly motivated by the thought of a glorious death for their Emperor. These things were lessons the U.S. has had to learn repeatedly! The fact were still operating under the terms and policies of the last war should tell you something!
My war fighting was quite a bit different then most, as a Medic first and foremost, my job and mindset were to save life first, and to avoid contact with the enemy if at all possable, the irony was in rder to do the first, you had to accept the second by going right into the teeth of the enemy to pick up and treat the casualties you were sent to recover, and you did so by whay ever means you had! We had to train to put ourselves in harm's way, and to fight to protect those we were sent to rescue! The thought of taking life is a very strong instinct to train around, and you try very hard to avoid killing, but it becomes a nessessory skill set to not only your own survival, but that of those you are there for! Our mission and training was very different from what you find through out the normal military, and our effectiveness made us vary highly sought after targets, especially our helicopters!
Facing an enemy who charges into you rather then taking cover and mounting an effective defensive was not a priority for them, just like the Japs in WW2, they became emboldened to fight to the death, and with the penchant for suicide, made things especially dangerous!

 

[Diamondback]

Granted, "kill that f***er before he blows himself up to kill all your buddies" does add to the motivation to overcome those inhibitions... it'd be interesting to see the Marshall study repeated for the various wars since, compare what has and has not worked long-term.