Posted on 02/07/2017 11:26:27 AM PST by w1n1
I beg to differ, my friend - I carried one for all my 17 months in combat and it was perfect: it always worked, it was effective to 500m or better, and things that were hit with it stayed hit.
I had a buddy who served with the 82nd ABN in Vietnam and when he told me that "the M-14 was too heavy for Vietnam" , I told him that I had wished that he had told me at the time.
He asked why and I said "because I would have sent a big, strong Marine to hold the rifle up for him".
Says you! The FAL's dandy and reasonably accurate but it's longer and heavier than the M-14. I carried an L1A1 version of the FAL for one day when were working with Australian troops in I Corps. It wasn't as pointable as the M-14 and not any more controllable in full auto and the sights were lousy.
I was happy to have my M-14 back and the Aussie was sad to let it go.
- and because the M-16 has an inaccessible chamber, wasn’t properly tested in the environment that it was to be used in battle, and the round itself was anemic and not effective against human targets in its initial fielding.
Better weapon, sturdier. some parts are billet machined. All parts on Ruger mini 14’s are investment cast and then machined. It comes down to you get what you pay for, and the Socom and Springfield M1A are better weapons.
CC
If you're going to bash McNamara over the M-16, don't forget that he refused to allow Colt to chrome line the barrel and chamber, which would have mitigated some of the fouling issues.
We never had any problems with the gas tubes: it was the fouling in the chamber which caused the cartridge case to stick in place and then the bolt withdrew with enough force to tear the cartridge case head off.
Then the little sweetheart fed another cartridge into the old case and we had an unclearable mess. All while the enemy was shooting at you.
Fun stuff.
False:
It was Stoner, paid as a representative by Colt who told the TCC in 1963 the chrome chamber and bore was not needed. Colt was desperate for the first 508 order for 116,000 rifles and they did not want anything to delay the order. They had bet the business on it.
The ultimate problem was insufficient cleaning equipment to units that were given the rifles in Vietnam, as opposed to being deployed with the rifle and the problems of the WCC846 powder. WCC 846 had calcium carbonate added to the powder, I forget the exact percentage but it was nominally around 0.25 to 1 % by weight. In that percentage it allowed for longer barrel life in automatic fire with the 7.6 NATO cartridge. In the M16 direct impingement system, concentration higher than .75% would lead to the gas tube fouling and hydroscopic deposits that lead to rust. That oversight was fixed in 1968 and by 1970 all of the old lots were out of the system.
All of the defects the XM16E1 to M16A1 had in the first few years are typical introduction of a new technology sort of issues.
Did your weapon have a chrome chamber/barrel?I seem to remember that some of the early guns didn’t have that.
The early ones had chrome bolts - not sure about the chamber. After one day with the M-16, I retrieved my M-14 and kept it from then on. My life depended on it.
I have a Ruger Mini 14 with a Zeiss 3X9X40 scope.
Awesome coyote rifle. Nearly no recoil. Lots of fun on the range. Get it when you can. Worth the $$.
The m4 still has the forward assist. .. just sayin.
Thanks for the post.
I’ve had an M16A1 in my collection since 1992.We’ve put about 35,000 rounds through it over the years and it never fails to function properly.We have shot as many as 1500 rounds in an afternoon and the rifle continued to fire with no jams.It seems like the early problems were fixed by the time my gun was built.
I’m sure. They function just fine at rifle ranges - but Vietnam with its 100% humidity, temperatures consistently above 100 degrees, dust, mud, and the aforementioned cruddy ammo reduced reliability a bunch.
The latest versions of the M16 work fine and are reasonably accurate. But if I was called to return to combat (like they’d ever be that desperate) I’d ask for an M14.
I’m with you on the M14,although I might opt for a G3A2.
You’re probably wondering how I kept my M14 in Vietnam when everybody else in my grunt battalion had the M16. I had the incredible luck to have been home on a 30-day extension leave when the M16s were issued. When I got back, I heard all the horror stories about the M16s and since I was an artillery observer, my M14 was being held for me at my parent artillery battery so I went a got it.
When I got back to the company, the Skipper asked me why I didn’t have an M16. I told him that “I’m in artillery, Sir - we don’t have them yet”. Whenever I’d go back to my battery, they’d tell me that they had an M16 in the armory for me but I’d tell them “the grunts want me to keep my M14”.
I worked that scam all the rest of the time I was there.
Great rifle!
Thanks or your service and your comments here.
Got my eye on a FAL.
L
The FAL is an elegant weapon.I love the balance and thin receiver.I would have to do something about upgrading the sights however.
In basic training in 1968, my drill instructor borrowed my M-14 to use for a training ambush and installed a full auto switch. When he returned it he forgot to switch it back to semi-auto only. I noticed it and at the nest session on the firing range, I unloaded a full magazine full auto. Do not know what I hit, but it caused a major stir. I pleaded ignorance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.