IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> I spoke to an old vet about M14 versus M16A1, Firearms history/realism post
Wounded Ronin
post Mar 3 2007, 01:43 AM
Post #1


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,640
Joined: 6-June 04
Member No.: 6,383



Yesterday I sat at a bar getting drunk with this skinny elderly fellow who used to be in the Army in 1962. He knows that I like history so he started telling me about the P38 can opener. Then, I had a flash of inspiration and asked him about M14s. Apparently he'd had the chance to operate M1s, M14s, and M16A1s.

"Everything I've read on the internet says that the M14 had excessive muzzle climb when fired in full auto. Was that true in your experience?"

He replied, "No, it was very easy to control in full auto! The M16, that was hard to control in full auto! You'd fire it and it would jerk upwards much harder than the M14. They they did something with it and instead of jerking upwards it would jerk to the right. Then they did something more and it was jerking to the left!"


This was interesting because, well, everything on the internet tells you the M14 was fiercely difficult to control on full auto. Also, the old M16A1s must have been really terrible if they were harder to control in 5.56 than M14s in 7.62. This tidbit was particularly interesting to me because someone who was in the Army more recently said that you could hold a M16A2 against your testicles and fire it and get nothing more than a pleasant vibration. The A2 must be a lot better behaved than the old A1s.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Crakkerjakk
post Mar 3 2007, 02:03 AM
Post #2


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 238
Joined: 24-January 07
Member No.: 10,756



The testicle comment is a slight exaggeration. M16A2s are different than A1s in that they only fire burst fire(3 round burst per trigger pull), not full auto. They also implemented a brass deflector to prevent ejected shell casings from flinging themselves down your collar in the prone quite so much. They also use circular hand guards, as opposed to triangular hand guards. There may have been some internal reworkings, but I'm not aware of what precisely those changes may have been.

He may have just felt that M14s were more controllable due to more familiarity with the weapon. Regardless, all of my training on any automatic firearm has been to use short controlled bursts. The only point of laying on the trigger is to convince folks to keep there head down.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Austere Emancipa...
post Mar 3 2007, 02:05 AM
Post #3


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,889
Joined: 3-August 03
From: A CPI rank 1 country
Member No.: 5,222



Fuck. Mozilla ate my reply. Another run minus all the hard numbers.

Far bigger bullets and more propellant together with a stock well below the barrel, instead of being in line with it like on the M16 rifles, mean the M14 recoils more and force is directed more upwards, ceteris paribus. This person was most likely more comfortable with the M14 to such a degree that he felt more in control of the M14 anyway.

[Edit]The M16A2 is meant to fire 62gr bullets at 3025fps (M855) as opposed to 56gr bullets at 3250fps (M193), and the weapon is 1.4lbs heavier. This makes for about 20% less recoil energy, although the recoil impulse remains roughly the same. That might be too small an effect to be noticed by most shooters, but if (and I have no particular reason to think this is so) there is a trend towards thinking the M16A2 has less recoil than the M16A1, this might be part of the explanation.

The 3-round burst limiter mentioned by Crakkerjakk above would of course also play a role in people's perceptions of the recoil.[/Edit]

This post has been edited by Austere Emancipator: Mar 3 2007, 02:16 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Crakkerjakk
post Mar 3 2007, 11:36 AM
Post #4


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 238
Joined: 24-January 07
Member No.: 10,756



The M16 also has a spring inside the stock that the bolt retracts against after firing, when it chambers the next round, after being driven backwards by the expanding gas from the powder. This is the main reason for the light recoil of a M16. It really doesn't have a lot more kick than a 22. A little bit more, but not much. Most folks I know could shoot one all day, unlike my 30-06 which I have trouble putting more than two boxes(40 rounds) of ammo through in a day. I've personally gone through...250 rounds on a m16 in one day. At least. I think we did more at coach's course, but it was a while back. I don't think the M14 has this, given it's wood stock and older tech.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HullBreach
post Mar 3 2007, 05:41 PM
Post #5


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 366
Joined: 9-August 06
From: Holiday Florida
Member No.: 9,055



QUOTE (Crakkerjakk)
The M16 also has a spring inside the stock that the bolt retracts against after firing, when it chambers the next round, after being driven backwards by the expanding gas from the powder.

First time I fired one, I heard the spring go back inside the stock (which is right next to your ear if you have proper cheek weld) and got this weird look on my face. The coach sitting next to me rolls his eyes and says:

"Yeah its supposed to do that. Dumb ass recruits"

Here I thought I had broken my rifle LOL
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Large Mike
post Mar 3 2007, 06:39 PM
Post #6


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,311
Joined: 26-February 02
From: Calgary, Alberta
Member No.: 2,062



I use the Canadian C7A2, which is essentially an M16 with a retractable stock and the ability to fire full auto, rather than in bursts, and I gotta tell you, after about 4 shots, it actually does get pretty hard to control.

Although that's not my problem. Machine gunners do it defilade.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HullBreach
post Mar 3 2007, 08:10 PM
Post #7


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 366
Joined: 9-August 06
From: Holiday Florida
Member No.: 9,055



QUOTE (Large Mike)
I use the Canadian C7A2,

Do they still issue out those sweet Elcan scopes for those? I did a joint op with some Canadians on one occaision and we has some optics lust for those things.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Crakkerjakk
post Mar 3 2007, 08:42 PM
Post #8


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 238
Joined: 24-January 07
Member No.: 10,756



Wierdest thing about firing the M16 is the slight "sproing" noise you can hear when you have your cheek against the butstock. Can actually hear the spring inside, so it's like, "Bam-sproing, Bam-sproing."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Butterblume
post Mar 3 2007, 10:10 PM
Post #9


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,150
Joined: 19-December 05
From: Rhein-Ruhr Megaplex
Member No.: 8,081



I know several people who have a permanent hearing impairment from firing the G3 without earplugs.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HullBreach
post Mar 3 2007, 11:57 PM
Post #10


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 366
Joined: 9-August 06
From: Holiday Florida
Member No.: 9,055



QUOTE (Crakkerjakk)
"Bam-sproing, Bam-sproing."

Ahh the memories that noise brings up!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Thane36425
post Mar 4 2007, 12:38 AM
Post #11


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 548
Joined: 21-December 06
Member No.: 10,416



QUOTE (Large Mike)
I use the Canadian C7A2, which is essentially an M16 with a retractable stock and the ability to fire full auto, rather than in bursts, and I gotta tell you, after about 4 shots, it actually does get pretty hard to control.

Although that's not my problem. Machine gunners do it defilade.

That was the German WWII philosophy too. The rifle squad was a machine gun with infantry support. The MG would lay down volume fire while the riflemen took precise shots. The US moved away from that during Vietnam partly due to the infantry having many conscripts and not so much money for training. So, the M16 came along with its light ammo so the troops could just spray and pray. There's more to it than just that, of course, some politicans and BS.

We do seem to be going back more toward the German ideal though. Troops are better trained marksmen and have far better sighting systems. This has led to the renewal of the argument about a more powerful bullet since the troops can shoot more accurately.

A few years ago, I read a story about a new, 7.62 x 51 rifle like the M14 that was balanced to produce very little muzzle climb. It was supposed to be very controllable and reasonably light. That info is bound to be on the net somewhere.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mfb
post Mar 4 2007, 06:30 AM
Post #12


Immortal Elf
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 11,410
Joined: 1-October 03
From: Pittsburgh
Member No.: 5,670



QUOTE (Butterblume @ Mar 3 2007, 05:10 PM)
I know several people who have a permanent hearing impairment from firing the G3 without earplugs.

most professional soldiers have greater or lesser amounts of hearing loss. almost all of my drill sergeants had a medical profile for it (basically in order to collect disability when they got out). i went to the range without earplugs--once. i like working ears.

QUOTE (Thane36425)
We do seem to be going back more toward the German ideal though. Troops are better trained marksmen and have far better sighting systems. This has led to the renewal of the argument about a more powerful bullet since the troops can shoot more accurately.

the model that's popping up more and more in irregular armies is 3-4 riflemen protecting one guy with an anti-armor weapon. they all pop out of their spider-holes when a convoy goes by, lay down some suppressive fire with the rifles, and loose the anti-armor weapons to blow up the vehicles. then they all scatter. works really well, apparently.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
warrior_allanon
post Mar 4 2007, 09:32 AM
Post #13


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 775
Joined: 31-March 05
From: florida
Member No.: 7,273



i can give explanation on why the A1 your friend was talking about would go one way and then the other after it was fiddled with. The Original A1's the muzzle break was screwed on and though it wasnt supposed to be adjustable, was. Thus, if the break had its center opening pointing to the left the rifle would jerk right and vice versa as well as up for down and so on. The M14 on the other hand its muzzle break was made with the barrel so it didnt turn giving the same problem
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Butterblume
post Mar 4 2007, 09:33 AM
Post #14


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,150
Joined: 19-December 05
From: Rhein-Ruhr Megaplex
Member No.: 8,081



The War Nerd agrees (Most Valuable Weapon: the RPG)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wounded Ronin
post Mar 5 2007, 12:36 AM
Post #15


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,640
Joined: 6-June 04
Member No.: 6,383



QUOTE (Large Mike)
I use the Canadian C7A2, which is essentially an M16 with a retractable stock and the ability to fire full auto, rather than in bursts, and I gotta tell you, after about 4 shots, it actually does get pretty hard to control.

Although that's not my problem. Machine gunners do it defilade.

It's comical how Jagged Alliance 2 decided to make the C7 mysteriously a lot better than the Colt Commando, thus displaying the hideous ravages of that savage and militaristic Canadian nationalist jingoism. :rotfl:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Crakkerjakk
post Mar 6 2007, 07:37 AM
Post #16


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 238
Joined: 24-January 07
Member No.: 10,756



@ Thane

The M16 is an accurate rifle. It may not have as much stopping power as heavier rounds, but most people trained to do so(including myself, and I'm guessing Hullbreach and SgtShellback. Semper Fi guys.) can hit a man sized target at 500 yards with iron sights at least 80-90% of the time. Which is a hell of a lot farther than most folks ever engage a target(outside of "designated marksman" aka snipers.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Thane36425
post Mar 6 2007, 07:53 AM
Post #17


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 548
Joined: 21-December 06
Member No.: 10,416



QUOTE (Crakkerjakk)
@ Thane

The M16 is an accurate rifle. It may not have as much stopping power as heavier rounds, but most people trained to do so(including myself, and I'm guessing Hullbreach and SgtShellback. Semper Fi guys.) can hit a man sized target at 500 yards with iron sights at least 80-90% of the time. Which is a hell of a lot farther than most folks ever engage a target(outside of "designated marksman" aka snipers.)

I didn't say it wasn't accurate, just that it is a little light on stopping power.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Crakkerjakk
post Mar 6 2007, 10:19 AM
Post #18


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 238
Joined: 24-January 07
Member No.: 10,756



Sorry, misread your post. :oops:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Thane36425
post Mar 6 2007, 10:40 AM
Post #19


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 548
Joined: 21-December 06
Member No.: 10,416



QUOTE (Crakkerjakk)
Sorry, misread your post. :oops:

No problem.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Kagetenshi
post Mar 6 2007, 12:44 PM
Post #20


Manus Celer Dei
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 17,007
Joined: 30-December 02
From: Boston
Member No.: 3,802



QUOTE (Crakkerjakk)
(outside of "designated marksman" aka snipers.)

Not the same thing, though what you say applies to both.

~J
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wounded Ronin
post Mar 6 2007, 11:50 PM
Post #21


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,640
Joined: 6-June 04
Member No.: 6,383



QUOTE (Crakkerjakk)
@ Thane

The M16 is an accurate rifle. It may not have as much stopping power as heavier rounds, but most people trained to do so(including myself, and I'm guessing Hullbreach and SgtShellback. Semper Fi guys.) can hit a man sized target at 500 yards with iron sights at least 80-90% of the time. Which is a hell of a lot farther than most folks ever engage a target(outside of "designated marksman" aka snipers.)

Oh, I have a cultural question. What is the difference between "semper fi" and "oorah"? What are the circumstances in which one thing would be said versus the other? I think I've been confused by popular culture representations.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HullBreach
post Mar 7 2007, 12:13 AM
Post #22


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 366
Joined: 9-August 06
From: Holiday Florida
Member No.: 9,055



'Semper fi' is short for 'Semper Fidelis' which is latin for "Always Faithful"

It is representative of our undying loyalty to our nation, and our brother and sister Marines.

Ooh-Rah is somthing we like to grunt and yell at each other. Im not entirely sure why, but like most Marine traditions Im sure its origin involves large amounts of drinking and at least one barfight.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Wounded Ronin
post Mar 7 2007, 12:30 AM
Post #23


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 6,640
Joined: 6-June 04
Member No.: 6,383



QUOTE (HullBreach)
'Semper fi' is short for 'Semper Fidelis' which is latin for "Always Faithful"

It is representative of our undying loyalty to our nation, and our brother and sister Marines.

Ooh-Rah is somthing we like to grunt and yell at each other. Im not entirely sure why, but like most Marine traditions Im sure its origin involves large amounts of drinking and at least one barfight.

So it sounds like "semper fi" is more of a formal or ceremonial phrase, whereas "ooh-rah" is more like typing "pwned!".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Butterblume
post Mar 7 2007, 12:43 AM
Post #24


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,150
Joined: 19-December 05
From: Rhein-Ruhr Megaplex
Member No.: 8,081



QUOTE (HullBreach)
Ooh-Rah is somthing we like to grunt and yell at each other. Im not entirely sure why, but like most Marine traditions Im sure its origin involves large amounts of drinking and at least one barfight.

Sounds reasonable :rotfl:. I find that particular expression amusing, everytime I see it on TV.

Haven't encountered a marine yet, only belgian, french, russian, italian, spanish, swedish troops. My cousin is married to an ex-82nd airborne.

The formal motto of my first battalion was 'semper talis', which translates to the lame 'always the same', but it probably looses somewhat ripped out of context ;).

My company had it's own battlecry, but it just doesn't translate into english :D.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HullBreach
post Mar 7 2007, 12:56 AM
Post #25


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 366
Joined: 9-August 06
From: Holiday Florida
Member No.: 9,055



QUOTE (Butterblume)
QUOTE (HullBreach)
Ooh-Rah is somthing we like to grunt and yell at each other. Im not entirely sure why, but like most Marine traditions Im sure its origin involves large amounts of drinking and at least one barfight.

Sounds reasonable :rotfl:. I find that particular expression amusing, everytime I see it on TV.

Haven't encountered a marine yet, only belgian, french, russian, italian, spanish, swedish troops. My cousin is married to an ex-82nd airborne.

The formal motto of my first battalion was 'semper talis', which translates to the lame 'always the same', but it probably looses somewhat ripped out of context ;).

My company had it's own battlecry, but it just doesn't translate into english :D.

Well my old unit's official slogan was 'Tairngreacht Bas' which is galic I think. Means 'Death Foretold'.

The unofficial slogan was: "VMAQ-1: We make dead people!"
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th December 2024 - 06:52 PM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.