Combat Weapons Failure

[Siskiyou]

I was surprised to learn from a TV news show that they are having problems with the M16 and little brother M4 rifles jamming in combat.  It takes me back to 1967 or 1968 when my brother was a grunt up near the DMZ.  .

I was in shock when he started writing home for cleaning rods and lube for his new plastic rifle.  He was one unhappy marine because they took away his M14.  It was earth shaking that this country could not provide a reliable infantry rifle.  My brother had taken a number of deer by the time he went into the Marine’s, owned a deer rifle, and a shotgun.  Cleaning a firearm was not a new activity for him.  As a civilian the order of the day in Dad’s house was to clean our hunting arm. 

So forty years have passed and the situation has not improved?  I know that there will be those individuals who fail to maintain their weapon.  But you do not want to be running a cleaning rod down a bore to clear a jam in a firefight.

I have been impressed seeing all the M4’s equipped with Aimpoint’s on the nightly news

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/atCarbine070219/

[Rogue Ram]

I/we carry AR-15s and some M16s daily. The full size A3 is far less prone to jamming than the M4s which I am told has something to do with the gas system. We had a number of entry guns with even shorter barrels that were so accurate you'd call me a liar if told you what they were capable of........but the JAM all the time. The company exchanged them for us.

We hear from our guys in the sandbox(es) that even the full size M16s still jam due to the dirty conditions.........   HK supposedly is marketing a rifle (I think its called the 416??) that utilizes a completely different system involving some kind of piston that makes a major difference in how the gun functions. Supposedly THIS is the "cure all" to the M16 type weapon; there is enough of an improvement that the procurement types tell us as soon as they make a semi-auto version and maybe produce interchangeable uppers, the ARs are history.

I dunno. Me, I get to use expanding ammo which in our case takes care of most of my main pet peeve which is the .223 is a poodle shooter.   Personally, an M14 along the lines of Springfields M1A medium type rifle (the midsize barrel length one, the name escapes me) with an optic like an Eotech, Aimpoint, etc and synthentic stock would make me feel very comfortable. If I ever find that pesky link I'll post a website which shows ALL government procurement....    in 2002 the amount of M14 magazines procured following 911 for certain Spec Ops outfits was, well, amazin'!! That in and of itself tells alot.

I feel sorry for the grunts.........

RR

[williamlayton]

It seems too me that all armies have had problems with dirty weapons over the years.
One marine I am familiar with said the same about the M-1 in the South Pacific during WWII.
The AK was seemingly the best weapon in Viet Nam--reliability wise-due too loose tolerances, though accuracy was poor.
The old bolt actions did not do much better in war #1 because of the mud and muck.
Weapons are a trade off, in war. Accuracy vs reliability is an oft argued value and only the living have an opinion.
Remember, the weapons are bought from the low bidder.
Blessings

[Heavy C]

RR I think you're referring to Springfield's SOCOM.  That is one bad motor scooter!  A buddy of mine has one and it is just plain awesome.  The muzzle brake on those things is really effective.  I never thought I'd see myself being able to double-tap a 308, but with a SOCOM you can.

As far as the M16 and M4 go I've seen where they have come up with a piston mechanism that replaces the gas tube.  Bushmaster is already offering it as an option on their uppers.

[Siskiyou]

One unfortunate issue is the individual who fails to maintain his weapon.  Having crawled around in the dirt with weapons I know that even under good conditions they pickup crud.  But when I read about a solider using ties to carry a cleaning rod into the field I expect his weapon to be maintained and unlikely to fail. 

Anything around operating helicopters in dry conditions is filled with grit.  Just loading on board I have had my ears, my eyes, mouth, clothing, and pack filled with grit.  The grit even gets into your shorts.

Unlike WWII we are no longer a society of hunters who were raised caring for firearms.  And as standards for the military recruit fall weapon maintenance will suffer.  But our army will be going to the field for years with M16/M4 rifles.  Weapon maintenance and inspection is more critical.  Even with the horror stories coming out of Vietnam of M16 failing, there were incidents of lazy (criminal) grunts stealing others weapons for inspection.  I surely would not want this guy at my back.

Are these incidents random?  And are manufactures taking advantage of the incidents to sell their product.  Is the “other” rifle really better?  Should the government conduct new weapons tests outside of normal procurement process because somebody thinks they have a better rifle?

When I got into LE I was surprised how poorly some LE weapons were maintained.  I was paired up with Deputy Slick a number of times.  Slick did not have a hair out of place and impressed all the ladies.  One day I was riding in Slick’s unit when we got a call regarding a felony in progress.  At that point I felt the M1 Carbine in the gunlock was a better option then my M19. 

After securing the weapon from the gunlock I asked Slick what the point of aim was at 100 yards.  He did not know.   He had not had the weapon out of the gunlock in the six months he had the unit.  A quick check of the magazine disclosed it was filled with green gunk.  I was back to my M19.  The good thing was the call amounted to nothing.

We went to my house and took the weapon into the garage and cleaned it up.  I suggested that he get with his departments range officer and get some training with the M1, and qualify with it. 

But the example points out the sad conditions many LE weapons are in.  These are kept in far better conditions then what our soldiers face around the world.  Officers have used their 870-barrel as an ashtray, or garbage can. Depending on the State, and department these are highly trained people.  So a good combat arm needs to over come the elements, and the fools.  And the farm boy with a high school education maybe the ticket for a good solider.

As a footnote the California Highway Patrol is having to replace a part in 3000 of their new S&W high bid semi-autos.  At this point the weapons have only failed on the range and not in the field.

[Sourdough]

No wonder the other armies carry AKs or SKSs.   They may not be as accurate, but they don't jam.

[ironglow]

  My grandson is a Marine armorer, and remembering the stories from 'Nam..where the trouble was primarily from non chrome-lined bores as well as the Army refusing to use IMR powder instead of ball powder; I asked him on his return from Iraq how the M16/M4 weapons performed.
 
    He said...no problem as long as routine maintenance was done.

      True, the AK/SK weapons rarely jam...due to their sloppy tolerances, with poor accuracy as a result !
     
     Yes, that white powder sand is miserable, but their present lube oil with CLP ( same stuff as in Break-free) works great.
 
  He said that in NO WAY would he trade his M16, M4 or SAW for any 3 AKs/SKs..

   For your own info...drop into the   myspace.com and youtube.com websites and check the videos that have been posted by our returning troops...that will give you on-the-spot knowledge about how well the 16 series rifles function, without any hype..one way or the other.

  If a unit has a lot of trouble with the systems now...someone may well check their maintenance materials and/or procedures.

    My grandson was also his unit's designated sniper...another good reason not to like the AKs...LOL

[Echo4Lima]

Hate to beat a dead horse but the M4/M16 "problem" is the usual disinformation about our equipment being inferior.

The AK/SKS is used by so many due to its being CHEAP to purchase.


The M1 and the M14 were and still are the best in the world for accuracy reliability.  I will say the M16 is not far behind them with proper care.  The difference is the M14 didnt have to be babied.

[ironglow]

  I am not sure about the reference Siskiyou cited and I don't fault him, but I always tend to look at much of today's "articles" with a jaundiced eye.
 
   It seems there are so many folks out there that are ready to run down our military weapons and personell...
 
  I cannot fathom why some "Americans" want to tear down everything our military does..seems very ungrateful to me..

...But you can rest assured, our weapons are much better than what "Haji" is using..

[Siskiyou]

A lot of years back I got use to reading the Army Times in my in-laws living room. (He was a LT. Col.)  Of course back in the 60’s it was more the party line and nobody wrote anything Washington did not want published.  It has changed a little now.

In 1967 I did not believe it at first when my brother asked for Breakfree for his M16.  I thought we had the best-equipped military in the world.  I mean at the same time we were sending them grenade’s that did not work.  I personally got to visit with one of the experts the Army sent to Vietnam to research the grenade problem.  But the letters from Vietnam carried a lot of creditability and our community stepped up and sent lube to Vietnam.  I still have the letters with the red mud of Vietnam on them.

Clearly the jamming issue is known to the military otherwise they would not be spending money researching the problem. 

http://www.dees.dri.edu/Projects/tcald_GPCIDSS.htm

I do not know the answer to the question.  I do know there are always contractors out there ready to sell to the government.  Is it a weapon problem or a lube problem?  Interesting to know that different lubes react differently when exposed to Iraq soil samples.

The public may not know for years the true answer to this issue.

[S.S.]

I have found that most folks I have discussed this with have the Semi-Auto
Civilian version and have never even touched its service issued cousin.
Sure, their heavy barrelled customized AR is deadly accurate out to 2 or 3 hundred meters !
Sure, they have never had theirs jam and are curious about what all the fuss is about ?
But the thing is, They have never been in a combat situation with theirs either.
They are shooting off of nice padded benches. They can spray the chamber and bolt head
with solvent after every couple of mags if they wish. And theirs is not as complicated as the mil-spec version either. This is all well and good when there is not bullets wizzing around you and schrapnel flying around. Or no fella on the other side of the line with a Dragunov trying to punch a 7.62 diameter hole through your k-pot from 6 or 8 hundred meters.. And your rifle simply can not effectively return fire at that distance.
From this perspective, I disagree totally with what Mr. Zumbo said a little while back... My opinion, These black rifles are fine in the sporting world but have no place in combat.

[ironglow]

Sumner;

  Please check back on my posts..I just gave you the testimony of my grandson who has "been there, done that"..
  He is especially qualified to speak upon the issue  since he is not only his unit's designated sniper..he is also an armorer..charged with keeping his unit's firearms functioning properly.
  He has used them not only long range but also "up close and personal"..cleaning terrorists out of villages, houses and such.
 
   No; he is not one who automatically considers our weapons as best..he doesn't care for the Beretta 9mm...the troops long for the .45 ACP..and may soon get it !

  Thus your statements about lack of experience in all these instances do not apply to him..
 
    Most of his sniping altercations..usually against other snipers..came in a village or urban setting..or as was often the case.across the Euphrates river (not as wide in Al Anbar as it is from Baghdad south)..
 
   In those cases, his .223, which he built up himself, served well.
 
    When far out in the field and the unit recieves some distant sniper fire..as I understand it, they usually answer with at least the 240 mg (.308) or most often, the Browning .50 cal.
   
   Generally, Haji is not that great a shot..so the first couple rounds usually do little damage...and the .50 cal answer is devastating.
   
  Again; being Special Ops, he could have used any of the AK/SK weapons if he wished, but eschewed them..as an armorer, he doesn't admire their sloppy tolerances and the resulting inferior accuracy.
 
    Yes; Haji can drag them through the sand and they still work...but then, so does a well worn entrenching tool or sledgehammer in the same situation...

    Siskiyou;
       I also was concerned with proper lube when my grandson arrived in Iraq back in Nov 2005, simply because I had read a couple articles that implied such a situation with the white "powder sand"  that gets into everything in "the sandbox"..
    Being Special Ops, he didn't spend much time in the FOB ( forward operating base) because his unit was busy out in "Indian country", searching out and killing/capturing terrorists.
 
    When he did get back in and I got a call, I inquired specifically if he wanted me to send some Breakfree..he said "no thanks Gramp"..then went on to explain that they have an excellent lube that like Breakfree, contains CLP.
 
   He had Iraqi Army inbeds (and their Aks) serving with him..after months of experience, he was more convinced than ever that the m16/m4 rifles & derivatives were far superior to the AKs in just such combat conditions..

   Yes, maintenance is the key and every US troop knows that he is to take good care of his rifle....

   Yes, the Kalashnikov weapons do have two advantages:

   1) They are cheap..and terrorists can afford many of them..and since there are so many out there, parts availability (to terrorists) is good.

   2) Because of their sloppy (stamped metal) tolerances, they are not very prone to jamming, even when not properly maintained.
  If the terrorist is either too lazy, too harried or too stupid to maintain his weapon properly, the AK/Sk series may be just the ticket for him...
   
   Again, as I said..take a look at the action pics our troops themselves have posted on  myspace.com  or  youtube.com  and see how their weapons atre performing under battle conditions !

          
     

[Dusty Miller]

For the life of me I cannot see how a .223 rifle can make a good battle rifle, BUT, if the guys using them are satisfied who am I to question that?

[Dee]

I carried a Car15 for 20 years of L.E. 6 of those in the Red River bottoms along the Ok-Tx border working marijuana growers, and the same weapon spent 5 years with me on a SWAT unit. It was sandy, humid, wet and sultry hot in the river bottoms, and I carried military ball and tracers, as we worked a lot at night in these areas. I was a armorer and instructer also and with the thousands or rounds fired thru this one weapon I never had a mal-function of any kind, EVER. It was an old SP 1 with Colt upper and lower. Wish I had it back.
My youngest son had heard the rumors just before his first combat deployment and asked me what I thought about the weapon (M4). I told him to keep it reasonably clean and it would work. He is a Sgt. with the 82n Airborne, and has had one combat tour in Afghanistan, and is on his SECOND combat tour in Baghdad, Iraq. He says that it is all about maintenance and doesn't think you could carry a better weapon fighting house to house, than an M4 with a Holo-sight. TV reporters as a general rule bore me.

[ironglow]

Thank you Dee..

   Well fellas; There is the straight dope ..right from the horses' mouth.
 
  No, I don't own an M15, M16 or any of their derivatives. I just rather like my .223s ion rifles like my NEF Handi and  my Savage 11G.
   My military years were spent with the battle rifle being the M1 and the M14..
   
   ..But you can't discount the testimony of the guys that actually USE these rifles..as opposed to some reporter that may or may not have some kind of " bone to pick"..

[williamlayton]

consistent comments from troops seem to differ greatly on weapon durability and reliability, not all being reported by reporters.
Seems we rely on these reporters if we agree with their words, disagree, if it is a different stance than we want too accept.
The AK was not a sloppily manufactured weapon--the design was in the manufacture.
This age old difference in philosophy goes back too the Civil War or farther.
In all ages the Ordnance Department has been slow too change--or unwilling. In Viet Nam it was over a low powered M15 versus a high powered M14. We got some folks into real problems with the first variations of this new "plastic Gun" because of the Ordnance Department. It was reported, by reporters, and I remember the cry of "liberal reporters", peacenics, etc.
Turns out that a simple letter to a congressman from a grunt got the ball back on track.
I have no particular dog in this fight or a favorite gun.
I do know that weapons fail-often without advance notice.
Blessings

[Dee]

Commercial planes crash with out notice also. We have an entire generation of young people going into war, whom prior to joining the military had NEVER FIRED a gun, EVER!. Some people change their oil in their cars more regularly than others, and some people watch their physical fitness better than others. Some doctors made all A's in med school, and some just barely go thru. The same is true for the soldier. Some take their breaks, and rest, and some clean their weapons, AND THEN REST.
I personally have tried carrying heavier weapons on difficult terrian recon. I'll take the refined over the years (and proven) well maintained M4. There is nothing like a 105 degree day with 80 percent humidity to make you fall in love with an 11 pound weapon and 7 or 8 pounds of ammo.

[ironglow]

  The rap the Stoner designed rifles got in Vietnam were not Stoner's fault or a design fault.
  
  The big problem with hangups and misfires were due to;
  
   1) Secy of defense McNamara being brought over from Ford by JFK, was not an engineer, but rather, a "bean counter".
  He just couldn't justify (in his mind) the extra couple $$ to chrome line the chambers..and that in a jungle environment !
  Naturally, with a rusty or corroded chamber there is likely to be hangups.

  2) The well known military intransigence was at work..the Army powers to be insisted on staying with ball powder as it had for generations, and forego the reccommendations by Stoner to use flake powder. They should have listened to the designer.

  Wm, you will note that I didn't address the sloppy tolerances as being sloppy manufacture. iin fact, I believe they sloppy tolerances were designed in because... A) they would be used by people that are not especially conscientious about maintenance  and..B) they would be manufactured by various manufacturers across the Communist sphere, where some could hold close tolerances and some could not.. and..C) With sloppy tolerances they could be produced rapidly AND CHEAPLY..where life is cheap, weapons also must be so.
     
    In any case, sloppy tolerances result in sloppy accuracy..
  
      I do understand there were initial problems with the 15/16 series..almost all caused by the stubbornness listed above.

   However, at this time, I would defer to those who currently use the rifles...and could use the Kalishnikovs if they so desired, such as Dee's son and my grandson.
      I also give great credence to the armorers that are required to maintain and keep these weapons firing efficently....and who KEEP RECORDS as to the dependability of these weapons systems.

   Dee and my grandson are both armorers..and obviously, Dee's son has great experience with both the M16/M4 rifles AND the Kalashnikovs..
        
   ...NOTE..All three choose the M16...far above the AK/SK rifles...

[Siskiyou]

Remember the Jessica Lynch issue with jamming weapons.

As I understand it she was part of a under strength support unit, that had been working extended hours.  Sounds like war, it could be any war. 

http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=1


Interesting reading and links.  http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m16-iraq.htm

US Army Official Report on 507th Maintenance Co.:
An Nasiriyah, Iraq

http://www.sftt.org/PDF/article07102003a.pdf

Excerpts from the Official Report.

The investigative report, compiled by Army officers, said the 507th soldiers fought hard,
but that they had trouble with their weapons jamming, partly because they were not
properly maintained

An interesting point is that all the weapons demonstrated failures, including the trusted .50 caliber.  This might lead one to think the issue is not the weapons, but other factors including training, maintaince, type of lube, and the environment. The mind set of the unit and leaders come into question. 

It would be interesting to find out if Marine Units have less weapon failures then Army Units.  And the failure rate in real units compared to combat units.

 

[ironglow]

 All I can say is that right here you have the testimony of two (my grandson, Dee's son) who are currently using M16/M4 variants regularly..could be using the AKs if they wished..but are telling us clearly that the M16 is a far superior weapon.
   
     We have two in the group that are armorers..who know both weapons inside and out..who have used, repaired and maintained them..and they say the M16 is far above the AK/SK weapons...

   In any case the clock keeps on ticking  and the military is about to consider a replacement for the Stoner design..

   Top of the list so far is the H&K XM-8...Now you folks that like to call the M16s "Mattels" will have a fit over this one...

   just do an image search for    H&K XM-8

[S.S.]

A relative of mine also just returned from Iraq and he said they were "VERY SPECIFICALLY ORDERED" not to carry Liberated AK47's.. Reason for this was that it didn't look good on the news with American soldiers carrying enemy weapons... As I would say about any weapon, if you feel comfortable with it
then by all means carry it.. For fast "drop and chop" operations it is probably an acceptable weapon.
But for extended operations where you can't clean it every night, No thanks.. The reason It has not already been replaced is financial / logistical , not because of it's reliability. It would simply cost too much to re-arm our troops with something better. The soldier who was captured at the outset of the war who were rescued, What was almost the first thing the female soldier said ?
"She was captured because her weapon jammed"... One of the dead soldiers was also found with a jammed weapon if I heard correctly... That is two out of I think a 5 vehicle convoy.
That is 2 to many for such a brief fire fight. My room clearing weapon (they didn't call it CQB back then) was an Ingram M10 in .45 ACP and I am sure some folks despise those also ! But it served me well !! As I said before, if you feel comfortable with it then by all means carry it ...


HK MX8

[Dee]

I tried an ingram mac 10, for an entry weapon, YUK!, and then was offered mac11 in 9mm that was suppressed. It was fair. Both were truly spray and pray weapons.  You could hear the bolt work on the 11 though, it was so quite. I settled for an M4 and a gas operated automatic shotgun for room clearing. On high threat level warrants, I opted for the shotgun, but in really tight areas, the M4. I have yet to see a well maintained M4 fail with good ammo and magazines. I used these weapons in an L.E. career, in SWAT operations and marijuana eradication ops for 20 years.  My son echos the view, and has fought in some of the harshest enviorments in the world. I asked him what the longest sustained fire fight ammo expenditure had been to date, recently and he said five thirty round magazines, before the ambush was repelled. I asked him if he trusted the M4, in bad conditions and his answer was; Hell yes!

[Echo4Lima]

The Marine Corps fires the M16 @ 500 meters for qualification. That's 541 yards.

I'll take an M16/M4 any day over the AK

[ironglow]

  Right on Echo...

    My grandson got "possibles" in rapid fire at 300 and 500 meters.. he likes his M16

   This is a USMC photo of him that was posted on his unit website..he is engaging an terrorist across the Euphrates, according to the caption..

[Sourdough]

Having been there and done that, I would like to add my 2 cents.  My job was to maintain the camp facilities.  We were over worked, tired most of the time.  We did not have the time to maintain out weapons, yet we had to carry them with us at all times.  They got dirty just from being carried around all day.  Our job was to maintain the camp infastructure, and if the sinks or lights did not work we caught ____!  No one gave a thought about our weapons.  Then when they were needed they did not work.  Give me an AK, at least when I pulled it's trigger it went bang, not click.  I was one happy Tech Sgt when a Marine gave me my first AK, and two bandaliers of ammo.  Was threatened twice with Courts Martial for leaving my M-16 locked in my locker and carrying the AK.  Nothing ever happened.   

[williamlayton]

The story that Sourdough related is not at all unusual for the times and the weapons presented too the troops of that era. The new ones have got too be better that those of the first generation.
I do know that the weapons TODAY are far more reliable and are able too take much more abuse than that first generation.
This field of operations today presents a somewhat different situation than that of the other era, however; It does seem that there is some amount of controversy, even on this little thread, that there is some amount of failures of this generation of arms.
The Germans, in WWII, had much of the same problems with that last generation of tanks they fielded--they took much heavier maintenance than the older tanks. It had nothing too do with the manufacturing of the tanks, it had too do with the complexity and tolerances of the mechanics.
The old grease gun, with its stamped metal parts was, according too reports, a much more reliable gun that the Tommy Gun was.
Blessings

[Dee]

If your talking about the Risening sub-machine gun I believe the opposite was true. It was for the most part junk according to most "actual combat troops" and was gladly disposed of in preference to the Thompson. Many were thrown into rivers, in disgust, and other weapons were used that could be trusted, until a Thompson could be aquired.

[Siskiyou]

Interesting comment on the Grease Gun.  My brother was a marine in Vietnam in the 67-68 eras and was involved in a lot of action, resulting in two purple hearts.  Along the way he picked up a Grease Gun.  After carrying it into action and using it, he discarded the weapon and went back to his M16.  But as a gunnut he had to give it a try, and he was rather disappointed in it.  For all its early problem in Vietnam he considered the M16 a better weapon.  He called the Grease Gun a 30-yard spray and pray cannon.  He is the only person I personally know who has fired the Grease Gun in combat.

[scout34]

I recently returned from my 2nd tour and have carried both the M4 and M14.  Prior to crossing the berm in OIF 1 I was making my guys (I was Platoon Sergeant) clean their weapons twice a day.  In my first firefight I had a failure to feed on my second round and have not trusted the weapon since.  Is it accurate?  Yes.  Does it put the bad guys down?  Not with authority.  I've seen bad guys get hit multiple times center mass at 10 meters and run off.  Nothing like following blood trails in the dark to make you wish you had more.  

I found that you had to carefully clean and lube your weapon at least twice daily (in a mechanized environment) and CLP (Breakfree) attracts more dust, I used Mili-Tec.  Never re-use rounds that you had chambered once.  

Carefully check each magazine for positive feeding, if the 1st round in a full mag will not chamber under the pressure of the buffer spring you should either ditch that mag or file and polish the feed lips until it works.  

You can't use a sling for support on an M4 because the barrel is not free floated and your point of impact is all over the place.  

There is no reciprocating bolt handle for positive control of the bolt if something gets hung up.  A 5.56 cartridge that hangs up halfway into the chamber is a true dilemma; do you use the forward assist to pound the thing in there and risk a failure to extract?  Good luck getting a truly jammed round out of the chamber with that little charging handle.

Just before we deployed to Iraq in '05 my Troop was issued 7 M14s as Designated Marksman rifles.  I was the only person who had ever used one before and was drafted to instruct the rest of the troop in it's maintenance and operation.  It's big, it's heavy, and it kicks alot more than the M4.  But that's the rub with kinetic energy, you have to take some in order to project some.  Don't blame me, blame Newton.

The 7.62x51 is no panacea, especially in FMJ.  All I know is that when guys got hit with it, they just folded up.  It's good at punching through mudbrick as well.  Stops cars pretty quick as well.

Too big to ride in the turret of my Bradley, mine rode on top where it would acquire a thick frosting of dust.  One day after a mission I took some of the nastiest rusty link 240 ammo I could find out to the range and ran two full mags through that gun without cleaning it first.  Not a single hiccup.

I ponied up for a Sage EBR stock and was able to carry my weapon in the ready sling position as well as sling up for longer shots without effecting my point of impact.

If mine ever got seriously jammed (it never did) I could just kick the bolt handle to free a stuck case.

From my experience the M14 is more effective and reliable than the M4.  It's not my first choice for room clearing, but it works.  

JMHO

[ironglow]

  I have to echo...Echo..

  The M1 and M14 probably are the best rifles ever issued as regular standard issue infantry weapon. They were the ones I used..(I preferred the M14).
  Although I was never issued an M16...I cannot feature a bayonet sitting as comfortably on an M16 as on an M14...LOL
 
     The M1 required the 8 rd spring clip, while the M14 had a bit better arrangement magazine-wise...and of course, the 30/06 and the .308 are more powerful than the .223 .  I also would prefer an M14 over an M16 or any AK/SK....however, in most cases an M14 is not an option so for accuracy the answer is obvious.
 
    ...But then; M16/4s weren't designed for wall smashing..there are other weapons for that purpose..like the .50 cal.. and the grenade launchers are quite prevalent..
 
   One of the reasons for the .223 was logistics..a soldier could carry nearly twice as many .223 rounds as he could 30/06..
 
   However, I do think the 16 still is better than the AKs..just my $ .02