M1 vs M16

[All American Kid]

this is probally the most appropaite place for this

I don’t think that the military should have never left the M1 rifle for the M16. The M16 does not have the penetrating power or the range the M1 does. Yes it is lighter but the new Springfields are weighing in at 9-10lbs I don’t think that is too much to carry as a primary assault weapon. Furthermore I like the 11-1 twist will barrel through trees braches and shrubs unlike the what 7-1 of the M-16 and when that .308 hits bye-bye lights out. I just think that because city boys where not use to a kick was not reason to get away from a good weapon. Heck I got plenty of complaints on the M16 but would like to here what every else thinks.

and ain't it hot!!! (http://www.springfield-armory.com/images/rifles/AA9627Large.jpg)

[shotdrops286]

well I was a marine and we primarily used the M16A2 service rifle. It was a very light and accurate rifle up to 800 yards at a point target and 1000 yards at an area target. It was very easy to operate and it rarely jammed. Although i am partially bias.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

AAK, with all due respect, any manner in which someone can lighten a grunts load, is a good thing.

don't know a whole lot abour the M-1, but there is such a thing as a too powerful weapon. If the M-16 was not working out well, I doubt that it would have been kept.

Keep in mind that Israel has dropped their home grown Galil assault rifle in favor of an M-16 variant, the Galil is a superb weapon, so it does say something about the M4A1

[All American Kid]

AAK, with all due respect, any manner in which someone can lighten a grunts load, is a good thing.

Actually I’m glad you commented being your experience. The M1A squad rifle (http://www.springfield-armory.com/images/rifles/AA9126Large.jpg) (thats hot too! one of my two favorite things to look at) is about 9.3lbs vs the M16A2 at 8.5. I would think that the extra pound would be justified by the extra punch down range maybe to get through a door or something. The weapons are about the same length as well (M16 39.63in vs M1 40.33in) I imagine there would be a weight difference in magazine weight as well to consider that may not be too significant. What do you think?

Reading post from shotdrops286 I do have to admit I do not have much time on a M16A2. My experience with the A1 is that when they got hot they where extremely inaccurate you would get one that may never jam or get one that always jammed. I also found that they where temperamental with the weather as well as read some resources that suggested the same.

[Guns R Cool]

Why in the hell are we discussing the difference between the M1 and the M16?

M1-8 rounds and hard to reload unless you have shot all 8 rounds and is only a semi-auto

it's like asking why did we trade in warships with sails for those with nuclear energy

[All American Kid]

The M1 now has detachable clips that are more than 8 rounds. more like 20 and 30 now. Furthernore the weight and length issues had been addressed as well.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

You gotta keep in mind other things like what ammo your allies are all using etc etc.

I'm not sure what calibre the M1 is, looking at that magazine I'd think it's at least a 7.62mm.

Seeing as how NATO uses 5.56mm, it's counter productive to use a calibre that won't 'cross polinate' if you will with other weapons in NATO's arsenal.

We got to use the Israeli Galil, it's a refinement of the AK47, beautiful weapon......leaps and bounds ahead of the FN/FAL we used to use.

The FN was one helluva accurate weapon, but it didn't do well with dirt getting in it's working parts. I suspect that might be a draw back to the M1 too

[RLord4268]

There are a few main reasons why the M-16A2 is a better weapon for the present times. First, the round that is fired in each. The 30-06' which the M1 fires would be overkill now. The combat situtations we are facing nowadays are usually where each party is no farther than 100 yards each other. That is why we moved to the 5.56mm :lighter, and more powder behind it. The same concept the Germans used with the dreaded 88mm. Further more the 5.56 is not round designed to actually kill an enemy but rather wound him. The 5.56mm is designed to have some wobble in it, so that when it hits the target it might bounce around a little inside. When you got some BMF'in bullet with a ton a powder behind it, (like the .308 and the sister 7.62 x 52 i think. The aks fire 7.62 x 39) the round penetrates, yes right through them possible without doing as much damage. Thats why hollow points are in use. And the .45 will always beat the 9mm! Am I right marines? The 9mm was designed to well, so that it penetrates without neccessarily doin enough damage. Hope this long post answered everyones questions. Other than these differences, the M1 mechanically could be modified to compete with the M16A2. :icon_bigg

[HOKIEHUNTER]

there is a lot of uninformed discussion here. we didn't get away from the m1A b/c of recoil. The M16 is more reliable, more forgiving platform. the reason we switched from 7.62 (.308) to 5.56 (.223) wasn't due to recoil it was actually due to the amount of ammunition a soldier could carry. A .223 bullet is a heck of a lot smaller than a .308 bullet. a similar sized magazine can hold more .223's than .308's. the guns themselves may be similar in weight, but when loaded, the M16 is lighter (much lighter ammo). also for the same weight the M16 has a lot more gizmo's than the M1. the M16 is also VERY modular and you can easily repair one in the field.

i got a buddy in the marines who can put 10 / 10 rounds in the black at 500 yards with the m16. thats pretty damn accurate. also, it's a myth that the .223 round tumbles as it flies... that wouldn't make sense ballistically. and the knockdown power difference really doesn't matter. NO shoulder fired pullet can "knock" a man down. The felt recoil would have to knock the shooter down as well (conservation of energy). also military rounds use ball (full metal jacket) ammo. FMJ bullets don't expand, they just pass through. all you're doin with the .308 is passing through quicker and making a slighty bigger hole. the range is similar, and if the military could use frangible / expanding bullets there might be a difference.

goin back to the M1 isn't gonna happen, and in fact when the Future Force Warrior platform comes out the caliber will actually be a 6mm round i believe.

[WhiteAfricanAmerican]

NO shoulder fired pullet can "knock" a man down

What about the Barret?

[HOKIEHUNTER]

the barrett is a beast and kicks like crazy, but in order for the bullet to knock a man down it has to create the same amount of energy in the opposite direction. guess who is in the opposite direct... the shooter. now i realize you can come up with a high-tech recoil system that would make you feel little to no recoil, but that bullet is still flying downrange at about 3000 fps? a bullet flying that fast is gonna pass right through and flesh it hits. no it'll make a head explode, but any "knockdown" you witness is due to trauma to the CNS or sheer shock. the .50 might be able to knock you down at point blank range, but that would only be in the case that the bullet did not exit.

plus it wouldn't be practical at all to have soldier runnin around with 6' long rifles and about 10 bullets.

[14edsullivan]

Which M1 first of all are we talking about here. The M1 garand, as patton put it, was "the finest battle implement ever devised". It shot the .30-06 bullet which is a 7.62 by 61 i if recall correctly, This round was DEVASATING at long distances and was a potent man dropper all the way out to 900+ yards. There were drawbacks to this weapon. The recoil is a bear, the rounds are friggen huge, 8 round enblocs were used and it is sem auto. Total firepower is severly curtailed with this type of wepon system and is outdated, overpowered, and not in tactical advantage for todays battle field.

The M1A, which is springfield armories civvy version of the M14 is a more modern weapon, yet still with disadvantages on todays battlefield that recomended a new weapons system. The M14 used the 7.62 by 51 cartige which is comparible directly to the .308 winchestor. This round also carries a lot of punch to long distances, and is used in the military sniper rifles of today such as the m24. The M14 uses a full auto firing system, and while increasing the volume of fire, the FA function does NOTHING to help out with the muzzle climb of this beast, the magazines are of the 20 round area, and FA is absolutly useless, as it is on almost all non support weapons. The guns themselves do not lend to modualarity as do the M4/M16 weapons do, there really is no modualrity until just recently with the MIA socom, but still are not in any way rivaled by the M4/M16, and also the changing battlefield of today must be taken into account, no longer are 300+ yard shots nessacary to infantry, the days of long shots are over, the .308 is no longer nessacary for kill shots and only decreases the amount of ammo able to carry. Most fighting is within 100 yards, and this is where the 5.56 SHINES, let me go into some detail of the terminal ballistics of the 5.56 at sub 100 yard ranges. These rounds are stable in flight but when entering a soft target the center of gravity of these bullets makes them yaw head over tail and they begin to tumble, this happens AS SOON AS THE BULLET ENTERS THE BODY, the bullet continues to tumble making a large wound cavity, and then the force of this tumbling makes the bullet spilt and fragment, right down the cannual (SP) the area where the jacket is seamed and then the round fragments and creates seperate wound channels. This makes the 5.56 untouchable by other rounds at sub 100 yard ranges. This round entered into a weapons platform that is the most modular and interchangble EVER, makes the M4/M16 platform a very sound weapons system. You can add any type of gizmo imaginable easily to a M4, the possibilities for outfitting for ANY type of action lends the M4 to be an easy favorite for a military weapon platform. Ill add more to the discussion later on, theres more.

Ed

[The Sheriff]

As much of an M1 fan as I am, I'd have to say that the M16 is typically a better choice. There's little that can beat the accuracy, range, reliability, and power of an M1, but it simply can't measure up to the metal wall quickly tossed up by a squad with M16s. And then, of course, there's that whole issue of reloading, though I figure you can use a magazine without a clip nowadays. The M1 may be a marksman's rifle, but the M16 is a soldier's rifle.

As for bullets knocking people down, that is absolutely possible. People making such claims usually state conservation of energy, but the law does work quite that simply. If it did, then if one man pushed another, they'd both fall down equally. Look at the way a target absorbs the force of the bullet and then compare it to the way the shooter does. The shooter has a gun, likely a stock, and his hands, arms, and entire body set up to take the recoil of the shot, while the target surely does not. Now, this isn't going to be Sin City or The Matrix here, but a powerful enough round certainly has the potential to knock a man off of his feet and down to the ground.

[the-man]

http://www.exoticarms.com/Pages/Selection.html

I am more partial to the ak47 but thats just me.


(just kidding)

[emptythemag]

Although we have gotten way off of the original topic, I would have to agree with Mr. EdSullivan. We are now fighting a new war, where the average grunt doesn't need a rifle that is going to drop the enemy at 500 yards. Missions like that are given to snipers who utilize a 50 cal. sniper rifle. And there is no question there, whether or not the enemy is going to still be standing after the impact. He'll be lucky if he is still in one piece. I cannot speak for the other branches of the service, but as for the Marine Corps, we are now centering all of our basic training and weaponry around the new kind of war we are fighting. We are no longer concentrating on hitting 10/10 center mass at 500 yards. Our focus has been shifted to shooting at moving targets, and being able to accurately put "two in the chest, one in the head" while on the move and within 100 yards of the enemy. As previously stated, the weapon of choice for most grunts is the M4. Being even lighter and shorter than the M16A2, it is the ideal weapon for patrols, MOUT, and most importantly convoys. I am not sure how many of you are currently enlisted, but if you have ever hassled with trying to utilize an M16A2 while driving in an up armored HMMWV, then you know that the short stock M4 is a life saver. And now there is going to be yet another advancement in weaponry, by the end of this year we should be shooting with the new XM8. Here is the website that gives you a few of the specs.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-oicw.htm

Personally, I don't think that anything beats a MK19 Fully-Automatic Grenade Launcher. On cyclic fire, this beast can pump out 325-375 40mm High Explosive Dual Purpose grenade rounds. On impact, it has a kill radius of 5 meters and a casualty radius of 15 meters and can penetrate armor up to 2 inches thick. Although, it might suck to have to hump around. When this bad boy is mounted on top of a HMMWV, I have seen it take out entire buildings in a matter of seconds.

Joshua C. Moore
Sergeant / USMC

"For those who have fought for it, Freedom has a flavor that the protected will never know"

[shotdrops286]

As much of an M1 fan as I am, I'd have to say that the M16 is typically a better choice. There's little that can beat the accuracy, range, reliability, and power of an M1, but it simply can't measure up to the metal wall quickly tossed up by a squad with M16s. And then, of course, there's that whole issue of reloading, though I figure you can use a magazine without a clip nowadays. The M1 may be a marksman's rifle, but the M16 is a soldier's rifle.

As for bullets knocking people down, that is absolutely possible. People making such claims usually state conservation of energy, but the law does work quite that simply. If it did, then if one man pushed another, they'd both fall down equally. Look at the way a target absorbs the force of the bullet and then compare it to the way the shooter does. The shooter has a gun, likely a stock, and his hands, arms, and entire body set up to take the recoil of the shot, while the target surely does not. Now, this isn't going to be Sin City or The Matrix here, but a powerful enough round certainly has the potential to knock a man off of his feet and down to the ground.



I don't think a bullet has enough mass behind it to knock down a man a child maybe but not a average sized man

[RightisRightLeftisWrong]

I don't think a bullet has enough mass behind it to knock down a man a child maybe but not a average sized man


It does if its your head or possiably neck or leg because its an automatic reaction for you to hit the ground. And It probably depends on body weight but shot gun pellets will most likely knock you down.

[Mr. Glass]

FWIW, some of the best civilian marksmen are shooting modified M16 / AR15 rifles, some in modified calibers with the 6.50 beowolf gaining in popularity from what I've been seeing.

The rest shoot variations of the M1 and the M14... get out the paper towels and check out http://www.creedmoorsports.com/store/home.php?cat=270 for some drool worthy 30 cal rifles.

I was at a local CMP match on Sunday (I don't even want to talk about my score, I'm just a beginer) and the masters there were all shooting 68g lapua moly rounds 5.56 (I've heard there is actually a slight differnce in the shoulder on a 5.56 vs. a .223 it's pretty insignificant till you're firing full auto) one guy busted out a very nice .308 custom match rifle and was shooting X/9's at 600 yards, but the rest of us were shooting AR15s

As for the idea that the 5.56 is designed to be non-fatal that's pretty much a myth. Most of the military people I have heard speak on that issue say it was something that came up after the fact. The .223 rifle designed by Eugene Stoner was based off the remington .222 varmit / small game round to have a little more oophm. Something everyone needs to keep in mind is why guns were invented for and that their primary function, besides long rang hole punches, is to KILL THINGS.

It would be against various treaties to design a bullet soley to maim an enemy, guns and bullets are made to kill things, pure and simple. If we wanted to main we'd use .22lr, they're cheap, light, and fast. Also, there's no truth AFAIK to the idea that a .223 is designed to wobble. What you may be refering to is the tendency for early rifles using a 1:9 twist to frag and wobble light bullets, but that was a problem solved very early on in development of the M16. It's still true that if you use too light a bullet and spin it too fast it will wobble, this is a matter of physics, not gun design - the same holds true for any gun in any caliber. Only in a perfect world....

And... ya know, a M95 realy doesn't have as much kick as you'd expect. Barrett makes a hell of a well tuned gun, and the compensator / muzzle break really swallows a great deal of the recoil. I got to shoot one several years ago, it's a great gun. I'll probably be buying one as soon as I can afford the $7k price tag :)

-Doug

[DoleIn08]

the M14 in a reconfigured platform known as "Crazy Horse" is being deployed with US army in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Those M4's with 14.5" barrels just aren't getting the velocity for engaging targets beyond 300yds.

three oh eight holes
make invisible souls.............

[BushRocks]

I hunt with the M1 grand. Its an awesome gun with an excellent penetration power.

[aaron22]

The m4 might not have the penetrating power of the m16, but with the stock retracted it is much easier to manuever especially in tight situations (building searches) My navy buddies always brag about it. As for me I prefer the GAU-8 Avenger. Ya' know the 7 barreled gattling gun mounted on the A-10. Imagine 3900 30mm rounds per minute flying at ya. Packed with explosive heads, armor piercing shells, tracers, and depleated uranium. We like to call it "The Party Pack."

[BushRocks]

Also, the M1 ways 9 friggin pounds...without the bayonette.

[Mr. Glass]

oooh ooooh bragging time.

I was at the range last week and a guy had an m4 w/ the Trijcon ACOG optics and he let me pop off a few bursts. That's a sweet little gun...makes me want to get back on my NFA thing....but not till I have the money for the gun....FA rifles to civilians don't come easy or cheap, for good enough reason I suppose, kinda.... but that's a whole 'nuther thread....


ANYWAYS....anyone seen the SCAR-L :)

And for those who like something a bit larger, the SCAR-H.

Of course, before we even know it the battle field will be dominted with robot mounted Aria Denial Systems that fire 40mm HE Grenades at 100k RPS ... seriously....check out Metal Storms website.



So anyways at the match yesterday I shot a 541-2 (541 points out of a possible 800 with 2 in the X ring which counts as a 10, but there's also a 10 ring, weird huh?), the first score I feel like posting to CMP, it classifies me as a marksman (the lowest class) so anyways.... that's about it.... I still think that unless you've shot at the least, variants of the M16 and the M1 you'd understand why we switched; Shooting a measly 88 rounds through an m1 or an m14 is physically much more tasking than with the M16/AR-15. Anyways, it may be a moot point now, if the competitive shooting circuit is any indicator it's not going to be long before we start seeing systems based on the 6mm PPC and the various 6.5mm rounds available.

anyways...sorry... in a gun mood...wish our range would install lights (and a sound system would be cool, too)....

-Doug

(HAH! I dislike those damn anti-gun "liberals" as much as you all do! put that in your pipe and smoke it. What part of liberal involves telling people what they can and cannot own anyways....of course the conservatives do it too, with other things.... everyone wants to protect us from ourselves and each other when we're perfectly capable of doing it ourselves....bah)

[namvet]

this is probally the most appropaite place for this

I don’t think that the military should have never left the M1 rifle for the M16. The M16 does not have the penetrating power or the range the M1 does. Yes it is lighter but the new Springfields are weighing in at 9-10lbs I don’t think that is too much to carry as a primary assault weapon. Furthermore I like the 11-1 twist will barrel through trees braches and shrubs unlike the what 7-1 of the M-16 and when that .308 hits bye-bye lights out. I just think that because city boys where not use to a kick was not reason to get away from a good weapon. Heck I got plenty of complaints on the M16 but would like to here what every else thinks.

and ain't it hot!!! (http://www.springfield-armory.com/images/rifles/AA9627Large.jpg)

sorry pal. these are the ones i fired
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/images/bb-62-8406362.jpg

[AssaultRifles4All]

this is probally the most appropaite place for this

I don’t think that the military should have never left the M1 rifle for the M16. The M16 does not have the penetrating power or the range the M1 does. Yes it is lighter but the new Springfields are weighing in at 9-10lbs I don’t think that is too much to carry as a primary assault weapon. Furthermore I like the 11-1 twist will barrel through trees braches and shrubs unlike the what 7-1 of the M-16 and when that .308 hits bye-bye lights out. I just think that because city boys where not use to a kick was not reason to get away from a good weapon. Heck I got plenty of complaints on the M16 but would like to here what every else thinks.

and ain't it hot!!! (http://www.springfield-armory.com/images/rifles/AA9627Large.jpg)M1s (garand, not to be confused with M1As, semi-auto M14s) are .30-06, 8 rounds is worthless in a modern battlefield no matter how powerful it is. Even military sniper rifles have 10 round magazines for big magnum calibers or .50 BMG. They switched from the M1 Garand to the M14 and then to the M16 cause they knew as far back as WWII that the gun, while powerful and accurate, was obsolete on a rapidly changing battlefield where assault rifles were starting to appear and submachine guns dominated. Maybe in a battlefield where bolt-action rifles were still predominant, the M1 Garand gave an advantage but not any more. Big, long ranged excessively powerful rifles have shifted from the infantrymans weapon to the snipers specialized weapon, as it should be. When you're firing from positions with a 100 or 200 yards of each other, whats the point in having a .30-06 and only 8 rounds semi-automatic before you need to reload? You can't cover fire with it, you can't fire nice controlled bursts at moving targets, and the capacity is greatly decreased. The M1 made up for low fire volume by having an exceptionally fast reload time, but I guarantee you, someone could knock off 30 aimed rounds out of an AR much faster than an M1. It's also large, which makes manuevering in close quarters, urban scenes or trenches difficult. The M16 (I should say the M4) is a nice gun in its modern variations, very accurate and great for CQB, but it suffers from weak power and the gas acting directly on the bolt means it needs to be constantly cleaned. A brand new, gas-piston styled upper should make for a much more reliable weapon. And before you start pretending to be a tough guy complaining about "city boys who have never fired a real gun", Id like to see you controllably hit targets at 100 yards with a full auto .308 with just the basic rifle training they give recruits. You'd probably be more likely to hit low flying aircraft than that target with all but the first round. .223 is a LOT more controllable and still kills when you aim for the turban lol. The only problem is use of the .223 caliber is that is very very small. AR-10s could solve this problem and combine the superiority of an AR with the smackdown of the .308 caliber for a battlefield rifle. For a battefield weapon, none pass the test better than the Kalashnikov :icon_mrgr though. Dont get me wrong, I love my AR and would not trade it for anything other than maybe, a better AR with a gas-piston upper but you can't beat the rocksolid build and indestructibility of the AK along with the power of the M43 cartridge.