In my opinion, the M14 is still a better weapons. Just a lot heavier.
Range is not an issue with either of them. A lot more ammo is usually burned in a M16 vs a M14.
“In my opinion, the M14 is still a better weapons. Just a lot heavier.”
Agreed. I could shoot expert with the M14 with my eyes closed. I had a hard time transitioning over to the M16, I could not hit a barn if I were inside it.
I still favor traditional long rifles. But considering what’s going on today, anything that throws lead is OK with me.
I was in Vietnam central highlands 65 ~ 66. Was issued an M-14 with selector switch initially. However, was issued a M-16 towards the end of my tour. But, I also kept my M-14. I had access to lots of different weapons so I sometimes carried a Thompson just for the hell of it.
Both had identical effective range, although the M14 had a greater Max Range.
The M16 had greater muzzle velocity. But early variants due to the twists of 1:14 were a little unstable. The so called tumble does occur on impact, but the round does not continue to tumble inside the body. The turning over effect of a .223 or 5.56 round on impact was not something new to the M-16. In the Seventies Marines I knew who used both in Vietnam claimed the M-16 round could be deflected by a tree twig. I have read that may have been true of early 1:14 models and mismatched ammo.
The two biggest complaints about the M14 were weight and through and through hits on a small enemy that did not utilize body armor. It did not knock down the target. Not sure how fair those assessments are. It did weight a little less then 3 pounds more than an M16. Supposedly, you carried the same amount of weight because you carried more ammo for an M16. It took a few tweaks before the M16 functioned as an effective combat weapon. They were still tweaking ammo and twist during the Iraq war. With time, changes in ammo and polymers it may have been possible to reduce the weight of the M14 and develop a round that created more hydrostatic shock at close range. I think had the M14 been kept around and tweaked the way the M16 was, it would have been a better weapon. There was a lot of Army politics going on favoring the M16. It was always my impression the the Corps liked their M14s. They reluctantly gave them up in the Seventies. I know my DIs preferred the M14 over the Mattel model rifles.
Besides the catastrophic jamming, it didn't kill reliably and I saw many VC take a hit and keep going. He may have died later but the immediate effect was to doubt the weapon. It also had crappy sights and the safety would jam on "safe" and it took beating it with a Kabar butt to move it to "fire".
My guess as to why the ARs and AKs are effective in these bear confrontations is that they fire several rounds very rapidly, overwhelming the bear. You'll note that none of these kills was with a single round.