History of the M-14 & M-16 Rifles during the Vietnam War

[@richardjohnson9614]

I was in Viet Nam 1967 to 1968, I walked point for 8 months with an M14, we were first marines to get M16's. Mine jammed first time out! I carried M14 the rest of the time. Thank you M14 for getting me back home. A co. 1st bn 5th Marines.

[@roberttaylor914]

Did you have a problem with "burn off"? We had a fire team leader whose M14 would keep on firing after he quit firing.... The carbon buildup was so hot it burned the carbon in the chamber

[@joeholt6727]

Johnson, I remember the day we had to file by and trade in my trusty M-14. I felt instantly unarmed. Thankfully I only had to carry it for a month. I rotated in April. C co. 1/5

[@Soldiereasy]

if you're really the one who get early m16 then I feel bad for you because US Ordnance F up early m16 , They cut the budget remove chrome-lined barrel , changing magazine from 25 round steel magazine to 20 round cheap aluminum magazine with weak spring and worst of all Wrong specification smokeless gunpowder ( Inadequate production problems ). Some idiot in US Ordnance think they can change gunpowder from IMP to ball smokeless gunpowder without messing up the gun functional ( Spoil alert it's f***** up the gun) so that's right even if they don't cut costs , early m16 will jam because they give you a bad ammunition.

[@williammunny6061]

You can blame the Army Ordinance Corp for sabotaging your issued M16 with ball powder ammo and not requiring chrome lined bores. They committed criminal negligence and treason IMO

[@yuch1102]

you've got the most generic soldier name ever. but thanks for your service Mr. Johnson

[@64usmarine]

I carried the M 14 the whole 17 months I was there. It was heavy but one hell of a battle rifle.

[@dylanvogel4503]

I'm kinda excited to get my riffle when I join

[@64usmarine]

@@dylanvogel4503 I wish you the best! Keep your head down and watch your 6 if your in a combat zone. Take Care & Be Safe

[@64usmarine]

@Time4Survival you have to be 18 years old to be in a combat zone. Take Care & Be Safe.........

[@dylanvogel4503]

64usmarine thanks brother

[@Dat_Boy_Dale_Gribble]

God bless you sir. My uncle was in Vietnam in the Army. We don’t know what he did, but he came home with so many medals he looked like a Christmas tree, according to my aunt.

[@HONEYBADGER210]

My father Ranger , fought in Vietnam with the M-14 and he said was that the M-14 was the best rifle he had ever hold in his hands. Saved him and his platoon . He said that the first m-16 were pure junk and that they were never meant for jungle warfare. RIP dad you earned it." For all the American Soldiers whom fought in Vietnam . You have given American a debth that can never be repaid. Thank you and God bless.

[@joebarber4030]

My cousin served in the Army Rangers as a radioman did two tours in Vietnam, I remember him telling me before his second tour, only deadmen carry M-16’s he lost a lot of buddies because of the jamming issues. He put his away and used a sawed off 12 ga. Shotgun. And guys hung on to there M-14’s Reconnaissance missions in the jungles are up close and personal I guess. He had three radio’s shot off his back, and on his last Recon mission only him and two others survived. Frankie was never Frankie again

[@henrybenson1348]

Thank you and prayers out to all those who fought in the Vietnam War and sincere condolences to all the families of those who died.

[@SuperGreatSphinx]

Love

[@BloodEagle1583]

I'm a Marine Viet vet and 71 years old. I trained with the M-14 at PI and used one in VN until we transitioned to the M-16. I actually had to be threatened to take that thing. It looked like a toy, with that little colt on the receiver. Also, the word was out that the M-16s could jamb and get you killed. Guess some of those men on The Wall can attest to that. The M-14 was all wood and steel and something you could rely on. Anyway, I have a couple of Springfield M1As that approximate the M-14 and now find that I can hardly pick one up. LOL ! These battle rifles are not for old men.

[@Mrmikemike46]

I to was there when they switched . I agree.

[@JohnSmith-qv6hp]

Was m16 higher velocity any.benefit 3000fps over m14.2200fps

[@JohnSmith-qv6hp]

@@Mrmikemike46 was the m16 higher velocity any benefit 3000fps m14 2200fps

[@Mrmikemike46]

The Riflemen loved the M14s. Trusted the M14s. The velocity of the M16 rds. was presented to them when perimeter line was broken late one night by a lone person. The linemen "opened up" on the man. Next morning I came out to the foxhole of the incident ( I was a 0341, Mortarman ) & found the remains the intruders head completely cut into two by the velocity of the M16 rounds.! After that the 0311s (Rifleman) kind of settled down their revolt of losing the M14.@@JohnSmith-qv6hp Delta Co. 1st. Bat. 3rd Mar. 1966-67.

[@JohnSmith-qv6hp]

@@Mrmikemike46 m16 3000fps m14 2200fps did shorter time to target make deflection shooting more accurate like throwing a stone at a running rabbit

[@richardlahan7068]

My dad carried them both in Vietnam as a Marine. He liked them both but found the M14 to be heavy. He also didn't have the malfunction horror stories that other guys had with the M16.

[@LuvBorderCollies]

A good friend of mine did two tours USMC in VN, 67-68, 68-69. He in no uncertain terms will tell you or anyone the M16 was superior to the M14 in VN. The M14 had to be cleaned multiple times because it rusted like crazy inside and out. Plus it was heavy. Plus it was too long to carry through heavy vegetation. Plus the M14's power did no good because you rarely saw anything specific to shoot at. Plus most engagements were at close range.

[@archcunningham5579]

Much easier to insert a magazine into an M-16 than an M-14. You have to cant the magazine forward while inserting into the M-14. Much quicker with the M-16.

[@tomlee432]

Never had the pleasure of using an M14. I carried an M16A1. That rifle never let me down. I kept it clean same as my ammo. Served in Honduras and Nic. Also carried a 1911. Hit a bastard over his right eye with that 1911. He did not get back up. Anyway wish I had that old A1.

[@eddiebowen277]

Yes Eugene Stoner created a very good rifle when he created the M16

[@garydowd7313]

You can still get one very similar.

[@ihatemaybachs2217]

@@eddiebowen277 You're a complete idiot to think that he created it all by himself

[@Tinfoil_Hardhat]

@@ihatemaybachs2217 He was the main designer

[@clarencelafuentes4801]

.40 or .45 caliber pistol, good to have.

[@DoowopLover]

I had a M-14 during my tour of duty in Vietnam. Very accurate at long range, and very dependable. It was heavy and kicked like a mule, but if it was muddy, or wet, it would still fire. When the M-16 first was issued, there were all kinds of problems. Several issues with jamming, and not firing.

[@jameylane9196]

DoowopLover 1946 - I know that the number of rounds someone can carry weighs heavily on the "firepower" equation, but a platoon full of what are basically light machine guns (if need be)?? Now that's got to be firepower.

[@752brickie]

A lot of my friends complained about the 16! They all loved the 14! GOD BLESS EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU-THANK YOU!!

[@Little_Sams_Top_Guy]

Yeah what alot of people didn’t know is The powder type was exchanged for the 5.56 round thats what caused the malfunctions but alot of people attribute the malfunction to the weapons design its not the case at all its actually very reliable system

[@Icarusvampire]

@@Little_Sams_Top_Guy - Yep. I have heard that is the main reason why they had all the problems they did back in Nam!

[@DoowopLover]

@@jameylane9196 We also had many M-60s and a ma deuce.

[@rrudydedogg3779]

The opening minutes shows one M-14 malfunctioning after another. I carried an M-14 for three years and each of the three rifles I had were absolutely reliable. I well recall during ITR crawling through some muck that covered my rifle. With no time to clean it we had to engage targets using full automatic fire. I don't recall a single rifle malfunctioning. The M-14 remains to this day a reliable and accurate firearm that sees continued use by our military.

[@stephenpowstinger733]

I trained on the M-14. We got the same rifle every day, of course, and i soon realized mine had a defective rear sight. With the M-14 one would "notch up" the peep sight and every so often mine would creep up a notch but itself, throwing my aim high at the range. The drill sergeant would not believe me so I was stuck with targeting errors which lowered my score. So the M-14 was not flawless, although I liked the gun otherwise.

[@roberttaylor914]

M14s at Geiger? We can to hump M1s and BARs.....and that was in spring of 67.. All WW11 shit

[@STdoubleDs]

If you're referring to the clip at 2:00, I believe the rifle malfunctioned because he was shooting blanks.

[@billpohlman803]

The video shows m14's jamming-Never happened! I had 5 m16's fail during an attack on my convoy..Complete garbage!

[@takinisurvivalchannel3812]

Definitely blanks ! In a civilian type rifle.

[@michaelrichards5092]

I credit the M-14 for my survival during the first siege of Khe Sanh {Apr/May '67}. Panel 19E of the Wall hold the names of most of the 198+ brothers, many of whom died with their M16's broken down because of jamming.

[@flamingstag2381]

yea mate it was,nt pretty was it ! total bullshit that lives were used as an experiment on its function ! i cant remember exactly but i think i had version 4 in 1970 , but i still had no total confidence in it ! in fact its still big in my nightmares as i write , you know, pulling on a dead trigger as there coming at you !

[@spookyengie735]

I must admit that the m16 is quite a unreliably rifle(not A1 or A2). As a vietnamese,i been to khe sanh 4 times to honor the fallen ones. it doesnt matter what side you on,it war

[@MarineVeteran99]

I want to thank you for your service in Vietnam. You guys got cheated back then. Don't think the younger guys like myself don't know. We respect the shit out of you and salute you brother.

[@shellz150]

Yes sir thank you for your service brother!!! God bless

[@SailorRob]

The Ordnance Corps purposely sabotaged the early M-16. The blood of our soldiers is on their hands.

[@agoodlife2]

I was a grunt in 1967 and carried the M14A1 and it was easily controllable on full auto, drop the bipod and the muzzle rise was controllable, ours didn’t have a pistol grip and was very reliable even when dirty, more reliable than the M16 at the time

[@davidward3848]

That's because the m16 was setup to fail by ordance corps

[@boknows3841]

Thank you for your service

[@johndaugherty4127]

8 million m16/ar15s' produced worldwide? Hell, there's that many in Kentucky!

[@baird5776mullet]

I thought there were over 10 million in civillian hands in the US alone?

[@baird5776mullet]

@@ecr-9341 Amen

[@baird5776mullet]

@my2cents I welcome it considering the alternative if Trump gets cheated out of re election.

[@rightwing66]

@@baird5776mullet Molan Labe, my dude!

[@majorlee76251]

@@baird5776mullet 15m

[@CaesarInVa]

I loved the M-14. When I was in the Navy (late 70's, early 80's), it was the preferred shipboard weapon because the 7.62mm round would penetrate a steel bulkhead and take down whatever was on the other side, whereas the M-16's 5.56mm would just ricochet around in the compartment and take out you and your own people.

[@robertmaybeth3434]

That's amazing, was it because they worried about enemy boarding your ship somehow?

[@dalanwanbdiska6542]

Funny

[@tylerlondon5052]

Why would you shoot into a barrier you can't see through?

[@davidbacon4165]

M16was A PO plastic Shit!!!! Compared 2 ,m-14 which had STOPPING POWER!!!!

[@paratrooper7340]

I was issued the M16 in the 82nd in 65. We carried and used the thing in Santo Domingo with no issues that I recall. In May of 66 I was reassigned as a replacement for the 1st of the 12th Cav a part of the 1st Cav Division in Vietnam. The M16 during that period was a piece of crap as was the ammunition we were issued. During my tour of duty I experienced at least 4 complete malfunction's with 4 different M16 rifles and I'm not entirely sure the problem was with cleaning the weapon as much as it was with the Ammunition which had a nasty habit of the extraction ring on the brass breaking off and lodging itself in the area where the exactor was supposed to remove the spent round. This would jamb the weapon but with a cleaning rod we were able to push the spent case out of the chamber which would leave an unsuspecting trooper thinking his weapon was cleared and ready but with that little piece of brass still lodged in the chamber the weapon would not load or fire. This was really a frustrating situation because even with the weapon apart and the bolt removed chances were that the piece of brass could still not be seen and there was no tool that would remove the broken brass. In total frustration I asked an armorer for his opinion and his response was rather unique. He told me the next time my weapon jammed to break it apart and holding the barrel vertically with the receiver out of the way - pour water down the barrel - this he said would flush out the metal chip from the chamber and clear the weapon. He also said this flushing might take a couple of tries but from his experience this was the surest and quickest way to get an M16 back in action - he also said to shake the barrel up and down as hard as was possible to clear any water which might have settled in the chamber. I never tried this though I did mention my conversation with my buddies but we all agreed there had to be a better way to clean the chamber but until I rotated back to the world the M16 was still giving the troops a hard time. From my military experience with the M16 I can tell you that I wouldn't have one of those things in my gun safe even if someone tried to give one to me - I think the 223 round is totally inadequate for a military weapon - I wouldn't use one deer hunting and as far as varmint shooting I think a 22-250 is a far better round to use for smaller game. All of the above is just my opinion but I think the only reason the M16 replaced the M14 was so certain people could make a killing and that's just what if did to the troops who had to fight with it.

[@boknows3841]

M 16 was not a rifle but a intermediary weapon somewhere between a 1911 and a M1 carbine. The goal was to make money for the politicians who promoted the firearms and ammunition because they got a kickback from Remington for everything they bought. Vietnam was about money not Communism.

[@worddunlap]

My cousin was in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in a SOG type unit. He had carried both but when I asked he told me h/they loved the M16 compared to the M14. The 'mad minutes' could clear the area out like a giant weed whacker. The group was constantly in the crap and he carried a radio at first but has more radio parts in his backside than most radios...He was a target. I bought a new AR, m-forgery to his house to let him shoot and boy did he light up! He loved the M4 size and weight, loved the OG green Magpul furniture. He loved it so much within a week he had gone and purchased one of his own....

[@rodneyjaynes2485]

As a Navy Corpsman going through field medical training (Marine boot camp for corpsman) I carried the M-14. Yes it was heavy, but no heavier than the rifles and shotguns that I carried hunting. I loved that M-14. During our training we only got to fam-fire about 15-20 rounds through the M-16, 5 slow and the rest auto. LOL during the slow fire my troop handler kicked my feet and said, "Damn doc , good shooting!" I couldn't tell if I was hitting anything! I later went on to represent the Naval Hospital Quantico in the intramural rifle and pistol leagues there. Got to meet some excellent marks men.

[@davidmasland5627]

good on ya doc

[@lriper4702]

I was a marine, from 2001 to 2006, I loved my M16 A2. It was super durable.

[@blueduck9409]

I never had any issues with my M16. I think regular PMC, and the right ammo make all the difference. I carried an M16 for years on active duty.

[@Darth-vade123]

@@blueduck9409 thank you for your service

[@Darth-vade123]

Thank you for your service

[@blueduck9409]

@@Darth-vade123 Thanks. Merry Christmas.

[@Darth-vade123]

@@blueduck9409 no prob 🎄🎄merry Christmas

[@briancullimore2893]

I served in the US Navy from 1978-1982. Half of the guys that I served with were Vietnam veterans. I had all the respect for them; in the world. By the way, I never fired an M16; in the service. My ship had M14s and I got to shoot one once. Great rifle for sea dity.

[@stephenpowstinger733]

1000th comment yeah. I was trained on the M-14 in Basic but at infantry training they swtched us to M-16. The 14 felt more solid than the 16 but it got quite heavy and the ammo was heavy. I received one of the the first improved M-16s when I arrived at my unit, 4th Division, in early 1968 Central Highlands SVN. The early open flash suppressors could catch on foliage so you can easily spot one. I was ordered to jettison the sling immediately. We were not issued bayonets. I had two bandoleers of magazines loaded with 18 rounds each. It never jammed on me.

[@danvertdavis6867]

If you had put 20 rounds in she would jam!

[@1776adb]

We we’re early arrivals 1966-67. Carried M-14s. It’s a matter of opinion but I prefer it over the M-16. Not as light but it hit a hell of a lot harder.

[@ethanstang9941]

Wow, what was it like over there during that time period, if you dont mind me asking.

[@bthorn5035]

@DSTG-たから-MG42 The AK has a long stroke system. The M14 is a short stroke system. They operate completely different. The gas impingement AR had issues because the chamber wasn't chrome lined and dirty powder caused fouling issues. These 2 problems were the fault of McNamara changing the specs of the rifle, not Stoner. When they changed it back to its original design, all the problems went away. Yes, the M14s wooden stock would swell in the humid environment. The AK has a wooden stock as well, but it only attaches at each end of the receiver. The M14's stock wraps around the receiver. Totally different design. That's why fiberglass stocks became prevalent. I own all 3 guns, in semi auto form. All are accurate and reliable. All 3 have different strengths.

[@almorgan2926]

I went to basic training with the M-14 in July 1966. I was finally assigned to an Artillery Unit in Ft. Still to train for Nam. They gave an M-16 I told the armorer to take it back and give me a real gun. But I did carry thew M16 for 19 months and it never failed me. All thru 1967 and 1968 in 1st Infantry.

[@1776adb]

Alford Morgan Basic in June of 1965 (Fort Knox). AIT in Fort Sill. Nam in 66. Small world after all - WELCOME HOME.

[@SuperDarkrock]

I laugh at this video, looks like they're shooting a bb gun.

[@stevejennings1373]

Got to totally agree with the other vets here. As a helicopter crew chief our main weapon was a M60. I won't get into it's problems. We all carried backup side arms. Because of all the dirt thrown up by helicopter landings the M16 was virtually useless. Most of us carried something else. I took quite a fancy for the Swedish K. It was basically a 9 millimeter machine pistol. Very accurate, light weight, fast firing, and didn't jam. In a chopper you had to keep up a constant rate of fire as much as possible or die. You were always the target and had little to no protection in a fire fight. Only a cherry or a fool carried an M16. Many times I carried a good old 12 gauge riot gun. Amazing what a pump shotgun will throw out. Might not kill them, but definately keeps their heads down. We were most vulnerable coming in an out of LZ's. Like to thank all the grunts for help keeping us alive. 174th assault helicopter company.

[@timothygaffney3407]

I used to talk to an old Vietnam grunt who said he carried an AK47 and a Colt .45. He didn't like the M16.

[@AtlantaFalconry]

I used to have a Swedish k, it’s my favorite subgun, that and the m3a1 grease gun

[@felixmadison5736]

When I went into the army in 1968 the M14 was still being used. The first 4 weeks of basic training we trained with the M14, and the last 8 weeks we trained with the M16.

[@miduv82]

My father was a marine Vietnam vet who served with the 2nd battalion 11th marines 1st marine division from 1964 to 1968 with two tours. He told me the M14 was a very accurate reliable rifle. However the marine corps philosophy was to keep these rifle clean as well as all their equipment. It was a great rifle if cleaned correctly.

[@Bbutler787]

Trained on the m-14, arrived in Vietnam nov67 and handed an m-16. It did jam a few times but not so as to get me killed. The early versions had the three prong flash suppressor which we used to open our c-rations cases. I always looks for that suppressor feature when viewing films of Vietnam. Tells me the vintage of the film. My second tour 68-69 I was issued the newer version with the closed suppressor.

[@stephenanthony55]

I qualified on the M14 in basic..in 1966. It was my primary weapon in Germany (NATO)... but I had to transition to the M16 for Vietnam in 1969. The M14, once zero'd in, was very, very accurate.

[@titsmagee4469]

Until it lost its zero every few rounds lol

[@blueduck9409]

The M16 is capable of very fine accuracy. Much more than the AK47.

[@kojigray]

I carried an M-14 and M9 my whole tour Kunar, Afghanistan

[@WhosYourPoPo]

Wow! That's all you need! Thank you for your service!

[@simonyip5978]

grumpy old fart probably a side arm (automatic pistol??).

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

Travis, what did you think of the M14? Did you love it, hate it or what? Was it stock or one of the newer ones redone with a Sage EBR set-up? Glad you made it home....

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

Beretta M9 - standard issue U.S. service pistol at the time. What was selected in the mid-1980s as the replacement for the Model 1911 .45 ACP.

[@fredherbert7920]

Designated Marksman?

[@ArmyVet82ndAbn]

My late father carried both in 3 tours in Nam, and an M1 Garand in the Korean war. I trained and deployed 3 times with the M-16A1, and I have no complaints, just keep it clean. I didnt care for the M-16A2, there are times you need full auto. Thanks for the video.

[@theroadrunnerjarhead4109]

I was issued the M1 Garand, the M14 during my tour in the USMC in the early 60s. I never had problems with either of them. In Vietnam 1967 my weapon was the M16. Never had problems with the M16. I had ten magazines of ammo on my cartridge belt. When I had the time I would take every round and make sure there was no sand or dirt on them and kept the chamber and bore of the rifle clean. During firefights I would use full automatic but shot 4 or 5 round bursts. The M16 was good in the bush because it was light and maneuverable. I had 10 20 round magazines of ammo and 3 or 4 bandoliers of ammunition. My major issue with it was the lack of stopping power. One time I hit a guy with 3rounds and he was knocked down but he got up and returned fire and came at my position. That was spooky.

[@johndaugherty4127]

A vet related to me that they had a VC prisoner take off running on them, and when it was all said and done, they counted 27 bullet holes after he was dropped with a shot from an m-14. Fwiw.

[@bjornsmith9431]

@@johndaugherty4127 the NVA and VC soldiers were given opium drugs to take causing them reaction or ignore pain, the NVA would put chain their Tankers and Truck Drivers on the Ho Chi Minh trails, Eastern Offensive 72 in South Vietnam, AAA Gunners and Sa2 crews were chain to their guns and Fan song Radars too, their there to die by bombs, missiles, mines, artillery shell, knife, Hands and Bullets, no wonder the NVA and VC loss between 1.5 to 2 Million soldiers, the communist never values sad fact about that system.

[@ronwilson5476]

I qualified with the M14 when I went aboard the USS Kittyhawk in 1976. We used the M14 mainly for ceremonial stuff but it was a great shooting weapon. When the M16 first came to Marines they had issues with the ammunition and once that was straight the M16 was more dependable that the 14. My understanding with the 14 was sand and it really affected the operation of the 14.

[@Lupinthe3rd.]

My dad was in the first signal brigade as a tactical microwave radio technician in cam ranh bay from November 1968 to January 1970. He told me that his unit still had the m-14 as the standard combat rifle till the middle of 1969 and they managed to keep a few after the m-16 changeover. he told me the m-14 was a great rifle, especially for his work. The thing was he used the weapon with some frequency even though he was in a combat support role, especially at the relay post outside cam ranh. The microwave radio towers are similar to how cellphone towers worked today; they were needed for the RTOs when they called for airstrikes or dust off (medivacs) otherwise they would not work. So those towers were like 200 ft and often had wild animals like birds monkeys and whatnot that got up near the equipment. Sometimes even damaging said systems. The m-16 used a round that was too light not good for distance and prone to ricochet (dangerous near communication equipment) he believed the m-14 might have saved his life and those in the field on a few occasions as if he had to climb up the tower and repair that equipment after some animal got up their he would have been a target for nva and VC snipers as they liked to shoot at the technicians. After all and repairing some of that equipment took time and time is important or men died in the field.

[@joed3264]

I never had a problem with my M16. I learned how to keep it clean. Co. H (Ranger) 75th Infantry. Phuoc Vinh 1970.

[@Spade_1917]

I know the M16 isn't as bad as what people say, (rep given because improper powder and no chrome lining) but would you mind giving proof of your service so that critics believe you?

[@joed3264]

@@Spade_1917 what kind of proof? I just stated where and when. I don't need to provide proof.

[@Spade_1917]

@@joed3264 I was just thinking like a picture of you in-country. Just asking so that people don't pass you off as a fake youtube comment.

[@SA-iu7xj]

@@Spade_1917 cut the crap

[@Spade_1917]

@@SA-iu7xj What am I doing wrong? Validating a source is important, no?

[@johngaudesi521]

Vietnam Vets and all US soldiers. Thank you for you past and present service. Our country owes everything to you. May your lives and families be blessed as your service and sacrifice has blessed ours. 🙏🏻🙏🏻JG

[@thurstonpowell8687]

It was Westmoreland not McNamara who failed his troops, constantly telling the President he could do this with less, on budget with high kill ratio's, much like MacArthur in WWII he was a jack off.

[@michaelgriffith9205]

I had some training when I qualified expert in basic training. My opinion? Anyone who couldn't at least qualify was a hopeless case.

[@gunner678]

No, it was the whole concept that the Vietnamese people were furthering the communist world cause, when all they wanted was independence from colonial rule. That was the failing, and the West doesnt seem to learn from it....going to war with the wrong people has become a costly habit adopted by governments from 1950s up to today.

[@user-cn4tc5tq2s]

This is not true. You need to back up and find better sources of verified information. Each was as deficient and as deceitful as the other. Between the two McNamara is the more deficient and as such - Guilty. And this doesn't even treat an individual named Kissinger.

[@stankygeorge]

100% agreed!

[@dav7710]

You don't work out the bugs of a weapon in war. This should have been done way before. Sad!

[@peterraab3411]

Combat not war. Combat is honorable. War isnt, war is political bullshit!

[@H43339]

@@peterraab3411 What are you talking about ?

[@XxKniFingGHSTxX]

Especially when they are using such beautiful weapons as the sks

[@superfamilyallosauridae6505]

The only bugs were using the wrong powder and not issuing cleaning kits. Both things that were completely avoidable, without combat experience. The rifle itself's bugs were few and far between.

[@peterpiper_203]

I blame mcnamara for pushing it through before it had its trials completed Probably had something to gain

[@manuelgchapajr2000]

I used the M-14 and 45 in Nicaragua and El-Salvador NOT one Problem!!!

[@GunsNGames1]

Was you a officer? Infantry don't carry sidearms, they are issued to officers for personal defense.

[@Cavelson]

@CYBERSTRIK3 Damn right

[@pedrorodriguez2914]

Sure you didn't use it for combat,just in the range,just like me.🇺🇸🇵🇷

[@busterbeagle2167]

Thanks for serving

[@EroticOnion23]

@@GunsNGames1 Some soldiers in Vietnam even ordered (and carried) shotguns from back home since the M16 jammed at the worst times...

[@bryanjaeck4828]

In my experience with the M-14 and M-16 as an active duty US Army Private, Viet Nam era. The M-14 went bang every time you pulled the trigger, as an average rifle shooter out of basic training I could consistently hit targets at 350 meters. I felt dangerous, and that is what the Army wanted. The M-14 never failed to fire in mud, rain, goop, pull back the slide and hear mud grate in the action it went bang every time. Later I had a early version of the M-16 , clean gun under ideal range conditions the entire company could never get a single 20 round mag to fire without failures, firing semi auto, a real POS to us. We were told by a NCO never fire it full auto they do not work. I am sure they improved the rifle over time but what I shot was a pure garbage rifle.

[@allandavis8201]

When the United Kingdom switched from the Self Loading Rifle to the L85-A1 (SA80) most of us sighed in relief as the SLR was heavy and cumbersome, doing a 2hour guard duty or n exercise was a pain in the backside, but the SA80 proved to be a even bigger pain in the butt, stoppages were very common and a failure to fire completely was not unusual due to the working parts not going fully forward preventing the firing pin striking the rounds base hard enough, so we were soon yelling for the old faithful SLR back, but at least they got the SA80 to a point where it was reasonably reliable and it was a synch to maintain and carry with a really nifty sling that allowed both hands free for other things and incorporated a quick release so it could be brought up to the aiming and firing position in milliseconds, so the USA aren’t the only nation to have had problems with a new standard issue weapon.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

DJ, if you step back and look at it from the big-picture standpoint, the assault rifle revolution which began in WWII has taken since that time to completely transform most of the larger armies in the world, almost all of whom now use at least some form of assault rifle or carbine in an intermediate caliber, in addition to whatever full-bore battle rifles they still employ. As noted firearms authority Ken Royce has written, the assault rifle is the "Roman short sword" of the modern small arms world, a paradigm-changing weapon which has since become perhaps too ubiquitous. Royce goes on to state that while he is glad that the assault rifle - and the intermediate cartridges they fire - were invented, he thinks they should be "put back in their place and kept there," meaning that they are not the answer to every firearms question that many nation-state militaries seem to take them as. Like any weapon, they have their proper time/place. In the end, a weapon is a tool, and just as no skilled tradesman's tool belt has only one tool, no army should be equipped with only one type of long arm. If a trooper is clearing houses, a short, handy weapon like an M4 or one of the SA80A1s might be just the ticket, but if that same soldier is equipping for a LRRP into the Hindu Kush, maybe someone in his squad ought to have something with greater power and reach. Perhaps even himself, carry a battle rifle. Flexibility is the key - our senior military/civilian defense leaders have to give our forces the latitude to equip themselves how they best see fit for their missions. Sometimes that heavy old SLR is just the sort of medicine the bad guys need....

[@rhunter762i]

It's GENE Stoner (Eugene). The M16 series of arms, is like any other rifle fielded by the US military, in that it has gone through corrections/modifications ("growing pains") as lessons are learned. As already mentioned here, "The Black Rifle" by Stevens/Ezell, is the best reference in print, so far, as are the entire "Collector Grade Publications". Sad thing is that it usually costs lives to learn these lessons. FYI; we knew as early as WWII about the benefits of chrome-lining the bore/chamber from the Marines in the Pacific--hot, humid jungle conditions. The reason for switching from extruded "stick" powder, to "ball" powder is because the Army wanted a faster cyclic rate on F/A. Problem was, while it BURNED faster, it was finer and DIRTIER. Combined with no chrome, and no/little cleaning gear, was a Perfect Storm waiting to happen. Sad. Remember... Murphy's law of combat; "Your rifle was built by the lowest bidder".

[@ThommyofThenn]

I noticed that also. Weird that the museum curator didn't know that.

[@Wildkat-1]

Shot Expert with the M-14 ,.. fam training with the M-16 in 1972 ....I would take the select fire M-14 over the M-16 every day ..Semper Fi

[@anthonyagnone5440]

I agree wildcat. Trained expert with m14. Ss with m16. I remember preferring the m14 although never in combat where I think would have preference for m16 select fire, lighter weight with ability to carry more ammo. 305IB/77id. 68-72

[@anthonyagnone5440]

@grumpy old fart . Our eyes are getting better with the right rifle. After m14 and m16 I can now bullseye with my 30/30 winchester lever at 200 yards . Try that shooting up hill on a sunny day with a rifle made for 25 yards. during deer season. Miss shots on the 16 in 1965 caused by ammo not eugene stoner. My m16 in 69 was a killer. D/305 /77ID

[@anthonyagnone5440]

@grumpy old fart . Cut an x on that copper head and watch cider block explode.

[@videomaniac108]

I shot sharpshooter on the 16 in 1969 in Army basic and fired familiarization on the 14. My M-16 jammed frequently, both the XM-16 E1and the M-16 A1.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

Wildkkat1, I was at a party at a friend's house ten or twelve years ago, and a group of maybe a half dozen or so Vietnam veterans were there. All grunts - Army or Marine infantry - just hanging out and having some cold ones and talking. Troublemaker that I am, and interested in military history, I asked these guys about the whole M14 vs. M16 thing. Man alive, did I get more than I bargained for! I was too young to fight in that war - I turned fourteen in 1975 - but I still remember seeing the news footage and so on. I'm sure you've heard how grunts cuss and curse when they get riled up - well, these guys didn't have a single good thing to say about the black rifle, which they called a worthless POS, that "Mattel gun," the "space gun," and various other things, none of which are suitable for polite conversation. They hated it. In contrast, every single one of them said that he loved the M14 and hated having to trade his rifle in for an M16. Couldn't say enough good things about the '14. So, the story doesn't end there. One of the Vietnam grunts was in the 101st A/B - he was a paratrooper. His son joined the Army also and had just gotten back from a tour in the sandbox (Iraq) as an 11B (infantryman). We grabbed him and asked him how he liked his issue rifle, an M16, and he said he liked it fine and that it had never let him down. He didn't have an opinion about the M14 as he'd never been issued one and hadn't been a DM.

[@jammer3618]

Isn't it interesting the Pacific war was fought with the M1 and none of these proble.s arose. The M14 was of course an updated M1.

[@hoppes9658]

An M1 with a smaller round and automatic function.

[@jamesbayly5785]

M1 was 30-06 and m-14 .308.

[@jamesbayly5785]

@@8166PC1 basically.....a shorter range and not as flat a trajectory for the remaining distance. However more are able to handle the recoil of the .308 with greater accuracy than the .06.

[@noobzrule]

Cos that was back in 1942 🤦

[@emuriddle9364]

@Sam Green You're right. The Japanese mainly fought with Arisakas. Which is different from the Kalashnikov.

[@samsammy6210]

Welcome home. Served in Nam 68-69 Tayninh providence. M-14 no problems. Didn’t transition to the M-16A1 till the early 70’s. I’m 74 and just ordered the socom m1a. Memories. I still think I can deal with one. Shoulder joint ain’t the best but the head says go for it. Airborne!

[@jameshaskins6610]

My 4 man signal detachment was issued new 14"s w/selector switch when we shipped out from Ft. Hachuca, AZ in late '66.

[@almorgan2926]

We had the M-14 in basic training in Ft. Leonard Wood in 1966. Then was transferred to Ft. Sill in November 1966 to train with an artillery battalion for 7 months prior to deploying to SVN. I was issued the M-16, was given one magazine and a few boxes of 5.56 ammunition. Told to take to the rifle range and zero it to 100 meters. That is the only formal training I got on the M16. I carried that same rifle for 19 months. Was in Nam from May 1967 thru May 1968. It saved my life over and over. Never malfunctioned. I was with the 15th Artillery in First Infantry Division. I hated it at first but could carry 25 20 round mags. Only 7 mags with the M14.

[@charlesdeangelo4055]

In 1968 during the TET Offensive I used a M-14 with 7.62 ammo

[@Natedawg38]

The m14 is clutch. Great use from the delta sniper in black hawk down

[@charlesbarker3781]

Served in the U.S,M.C. in I Corps, Viet Nam, carried a M14 with full auto calability. IMO far superior to the M16s I came in contact with during my tour.

[@harrydietrich3854]

Carried m14 in 65 66 many miles, very reliable with long range accuracy, considered it the best... also m79 and .45 hand gun...

[@H43339]

Alota Guy's commenting on here that were over there. Thank You !!!

[@AR15fan]

For the war it had to fight in the jungles of Vietnam, the M14 was outclassed by the AK-47 or to be precise, the Chicom Type 56 AKM.

[@oakvue45]

Shot expert with the M-14 in 1965, Ft Ord CA....Fine rifle.

[@trickydick2909]

Very cool! M14s are still quite common in the navy. They are mostly used for shooting lines across to other ships but are used for various watch and port security duties as well. Makes sense given that there are often very long sight lines in these situations (also the fact that the navy doesn't need to spend the money on the latest and greatest small arms). Most other small arms will be a mix of M9 pistols, Mossberg shotguns, and M16A3s. The dedicated response teams of course have M4 carbines. I do love the M14 though and I always enjoyed handling it. They were in pristine condition and still capable of full-auto fire. If I'm not mistaken, most M14s were later limited to semi-auto due to the lack of control in firing a full sized cartridge with an automatic weapon? Personally I don't know what they mean by that. I once put a full 20 round mag on target with one squeeze of the trigger. I mean, the target was the ocean but still...

[@GiuseppeSimonetti]

@@trickydick2909 Wait you guys use the M16A3 in the Navy? Full auto M16 variant with picitini scope rail ontop? That's pretty cool, only people I knew to use them before that was Marsoc.

[@trickydick2909]

@@GiuseppeSimonetti That makes it sound way cooler but yeah pretty much haha. No rails or scopes though. Looked exactly like a plain A2 except for the fire control group.

[@ashsnowfrost2092]

@@GiuseppeSimonetti nah that's m16a4, and burst setting, not full auto for marines .

[@GiuseppeSimonetti]

@@ashsnowfrost2092 US Marines 0311 infantry use the M16A4 burst but Marsoc sometimes use the M16A3 full auto. Now the M4A1 and M27 IAR are becoming popular with the USMC.

[@georgesnyder2192]

I was a radio operator for 3rd recon. 3rd marine division, half of 67, all of 68. First time we were in serious contact, within 5 minutes 4 16's were down. Wound up losing half the team. Carried a 14 from there on. Might be heavier, but no matter how dirty it "will" fire. Sumpter fi my friends

[@michaelhodges8312]

I like both, but I love my two M-14’s! Never a failure of any kind.

[@william.pjohnson1531]

I was a Air Force combat security police,when I had to use my m16 it worked

[@MrBuddylove50]

I've shot a metric ton of ammo while in the army with the m16A2, and later an m4. It's 'ok'. Light, accurate, decent weapon. It must be maintained, though. My biggest problems were FTF. The bolt would stop an inch before hitting home, and had to perform sports. She liked to be run real wet with the inside of the upper receiver lubed and the front, inside section of the bolt carrier cleaned meticulously. I'm talking bright shiny clean. Since I got out, I've owned two Springfield M1A's and both have been awesome. My second is a preban, all usgi parts. Accuracy is superb. Reliability is insane. Ammo is hard hitting and those irons are the best i've ever used. Uncle Sam can keep his M16. I'll keep rocking my M1A, thank you very much.

[@bawbremy]

MrBuddylove50 (Bevis and Butthead voice). He he SPORTS he he he

[@stevegable2707]

was it magazine related ?

[@hairydogstail]

You have other issues. The M-16 will run very dirty if it is kept lubed..

[@rabidfarmer9765]

The M14 is my rifle choice to this day. The M16 rifle is a fine rifle too. But the M14 rifle holds a special place in my heart. I just love it -

[@RealLifeWorthLiving]

Great rifle for everything but automatic. My shoulder still aches. We had it in basic training and in Ait, then, it was the first rifle issued in the first company I was sent to in Viet Nam (1968 to early 1969). I was moved to another company and issued the M16 for most of my stay in Viet Nam.

[@richardjohnson9614]

I carried an m16 when I first arrived in Viet Nam. They jammed, in the sand or heavy jungle. The M14 was my choice to carry during my tour. My M14 had a selector switch for automatic. I carried bipods from an M16 to give me some range. It worked great in the Citadel, Hue. 1st Batt. 5th Marines, Que Son Valley, Hoi An, Danang, and Phu Bai 4/67-5/68

[@roberttaylor914]

You could kick it (which is what you did when your cleaning gear got stuck in the receiver, bury it in sand, bury it in mud and ram it against a tree and it still did its job.

[@tylerfreal6472]

they let you pick?

[@jonnybravo3055]

John Stoner ? Didn't he mean Eugene stoner.

[@mardiffv.8775]

John Stoner lives in my neighborhood and he smokes pot.

[@Mr12ob]

He probably meant to say Gene Stoner, as many refer to him.

[@boatnut64]

My thoughts precisely... Who the f**k is John Stoner???

[@rouymalic4463]

Eugene STONER's M16 has a HIGH rate of fire!

[@jameylane9196]

He meant Skippy Stoner.

[@546cowboy6]

As you will see in the comments below the M-14 was the weapon of choice for many another point is that when they went to the M-16 the shot to kill ratio skyrocketed and has since never declined. My favorite was the M-60 machine gun with a range of 1100 meters and that 7.62 round I qualified First Class gunner with that.

[@ltcajh]

We went to Kuwait and Iraq, 21st CSH, without cleaning kits! My M-16 was clogged with sand until a friend mailed me a cleaning kit!

[@michaelsix9684]

McNamara never served in combat, he was a technocrat from Ford Motor Co.

[@aflyertwo]

McNamara's morons they were called. Those draftees who weren't the brightest men and boys who became cannon fodder upon arrival in VN. With low scores on their GT and maybe never seen a rifle before the service. Some 2000 of them.

[@sgoell75]

McNamara was a moron even if he supposedly had brains he had no common sense at all AND YOUR 100% correct had zero idea about combat

[@d.v.2688]

McNamara was a decorated WW 2 vet who served with Gen. LeMay in the US Army Air Force.

[@ninemilliondollars]

McNamara brought his Harvard "quants" in to run the war. They collected numbers, lots of numbers. Each day, 14,000 pages of documentation was created, however, his team could never digest them. Body count became the currency. Around '95, McNamara apologized for his handling of the war saying "I Was Wrong." Too late. US. Army - '70 - '71

[@hoppinggnomethe4154]

He did serve in the US Army Air Force during WWII as a lieutenant colonel

[@maa5sseagroup99]

I'm carry m16 to save us ranger at bakara market.. Nice weapon because no stopages.. From Malaysian Army

[@lestermount3287]

the M-14 had an effective range of 500 meters meaning you could reach out and touch someone rather than the M-16 whose effective range was much less with out the knockdown power. Only two men in each infantry company had fully automatic capabilities not everyone.

[@petar80]

Yeserday took a look documentary about Vietnam at one point they talk about ambushed platoon that was wiped out .After day or two when Marines went retrive bodies they found half of platoon all dead with jammed M16 .I was stunned

[@kristinarain9098]

I LOVE the early M-16 design with that triangular jacket over the barrel with the vent holes along the top and the really long barrel w/ pronounced front sight post and distinctive carry handle. I think the M14 is just a better and still a sexy weapon but the early M-16 is my favorite aesthetically

[@ChrisGilliamOffGrid]

Smart lady.

[@garyK.45ACP]

Until the M16A2, and subsequent versions, were adopted since the late 80s the M14 was by far the better combat weapon. I think, now, after 50 years of rifle and ammo development, the M16 is finally a serviceable rifle. Our men and boys should not have been used as test subjects in combat. And the decision to change ammo to ball powder in the M16 should have resulted in criminal charges against the idiots that did that. Even the rifle designer had warned them not to use that ammunition. The rifle's direct impingement system was designed for a specific pressure curve/dwell time which the ball powder did not meet. Simply put, the pressure curve of the powder resulted in the pressure in the case being too high at the moment the bolt was trying to extract the case, resulting in the case still being "stuck" to the walls of the chamber at that precise moment. The extractor would tear through the rim leaving the case in the chamber, which then had to be extracted by a cleaning rod....which were not issued because the rifle "was self cleaning". ALL cartridge cases expand at the moment of firing (as designed) to seal the chamber and then the metal "springs back" when the pressure is reduced as the bullet travels up the bore. This results in a "pressure curve" and the pressure needs to be at a specific level at the point of the gas port in the barrel of the M16. With the improper powder, changes in the pressure curve, the cases in the M16 had not "sprung back" by the time the bolt extractor was trying to pull them out of the chamber. Dirty or corroded chambers would not help, but they were NOT the cause. You hear tales of the cases "swelling in the tropical heat" which was an excuse to cover for the criminal negligence of the people who switched ammo. It had nothing to do with "jungle heat". BULLSHIT! They switched loadings to another powder which resulted in the specified velocity with no regard for the pressure curve of the powder charge, and what it was at the gas port position in the barrel. Just as nonsensical, the "forward assist" feature was added. The problem was not forcing a case IN to the chamber, it was getting the fired cases OUT of the chamber. I have been shooting these rifles for many decades and never used the "forward assist". The Air Force never adopted it for their rifles. It was a solution to a problem that didn't exist, and another way to cover their ass for the poor decision on ammo. In short, the commission investigating this so muddied up the water with nonsense "problems" and threw so many "solutions" at the "problems" it was not known at the time (except among a few gun experts) what ACTUALLY was the problem, and THAT was the intent. They skated through Congressional investigations by legislators who know nothing about firearms and bought off on all the cover stories. The final "solution" was chrome lining, forward assist, ammo change, better training (ALL guns need cleaning!) and cleaning kits in the buttstock. Throw in a new type of muzzle brake for good measure. VOILA! Now it works! See, we fixed it! See how that works.

[@Viewer-ld5rc]

gary K Such an underrated comment! Much appreciated explanation.

[@joedeats]

And it only took about 30 years to get the M16 into fighting shape....no thanks I'll stick with the M14.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

Gary K, thanks for such a well thought-out and logically-constructed comment. As a military historian, it is a pleasure to read something so well done. A little rough GI language, but given what a fiasco it all was, entirely justified. I was fourteen in 1975, so missed being sent to SE Asia, but I know maybe a half dozen or so guys a decade or more older than I am who were there and fought as grunts - Army or Marine, one Navy FMF HM. One night at a party maybe 12-13 years ago we were all standing around having some cold ones, so I asked these guys what their views were on the M14 vs. the M16. To a man, all loved their M14s and hated the "black rifle," which they called "that worthless POS," "the poodle-shooter," or "the Mattel Gun," amongst other names. I got an earful, I'll tell you.... so in comes the son of the 101st A/B Army combat veteran, a young guy in his twenties - also a paratrooper - just back from a tour in Iraq. We grabbed him and asked him about the M16/M4; he said he never had any problems with his in the sandbox.

[@deannahext]

GeorgiaBoy1961 Rough language.

[@jemfly1062]

@ gary K. Best comment here. Have you possibly read Chapter 14, 'The AR 14', in 'Mortal Error', by Bonar Menninger? As a military historian, you may find it most interesting. As well as the powder, different bullet jacket and forward assist handle, he notes other retrograde alterations which added to the causes of the malfunction repertoire. Chilling reading. As a side note, Australian diggers in Vietnam using the L1A1 SLR discovered that VC soldiers used to the poor penetrative abilities of the M16, thought that tree trunks would afford them protection. The hard-hitting 7.62 mm NATO round quickly disabused them of this belief, going through the tree and whatever was standing behind it too.

[@robertclippinger6562]

I will keep this as clean as I can. Time; 1965 > 66. I Corp, 2nd Batt. 3rd MAR DIV. I walked point & scouted for S-2, off & on, for 65 > 66 (11 1/2 months). In 1967, as I was told later while in Yokosuka, Japan Hospital, 2 survivors of my old Company told me of how our Batt. was wiped out due to the M-16, (Matty-Mattel). We (2nd Batt, 3MAR) were used as `Bait` to seek out the strength of the V.C, on Hill `881 N`. Up they went, and not many came down. When they went back up to retrieve the dead & wounded. They found M-16's , stripped down , cleaning rods down their barrels (Because they jammed) and 90 % of them were hand-me-downs from the Army.. 2nd Batt 3rd MAR DIV. was made into a `floating BATT. and sent to Hawaii for staging. 2nd BATT. 3rd. Mar. Div was reactivated , as I understand in Afghanistan Years later.. There weren't many of us back in 65 > 66 in our company. Hell, my squad had only 2 men (2nd squad) 1st squad had 7 men, and 3rd squad had 5 men. There was no 4th squad. They were all gone. In my last days there, we ended up with a 2nd LT. from the Korean War. Not sure of who our CO. was either, at that time (Nov 1966.). To this day, 2022. I will never own or touch an M-16 of any type. My M-14 "NEVER" miss fired for 11 1/2 months. In rice paddies , rivers, mud, or rain (even when it rained up instead of down -' > ) Ya had to be there, to appreciate that little humor.

[@Dr.Pepper001]

I trained with the M-14 for my entire Marine Corps enlistment...1964 - 1968. Never held an M-16.

[@donaldoldaker6914]

I trained with the 14 Loved it.carred it when I was in Country. When ya hit with it they stayed down

[@lepanhman]

Never fired one myself but I’ve read that a lot of troops much prefers the -14 in that it wouldn’t get blockages & jam

[@bobkohl6779]

M14s were first shipped in 1961. A lot went to the troops in Europe for the Berlin crisis. 1 in 4 were shipped with a selector switch. The only remaining M14s came from Naval stores. Clinton got rid of 750,000, either shipped overseas or destroyed

[@Sapper61000]

He (Clinton) should have been impeached for that alone.

[@gsp49]

Clinton ended GIs being able to keep what they captured, was a real fool of a president.

[@larpingtonboogecke]

I didn't watch it all ,was the issue of ammunition not intended for use in the m16 mentioned. The wrong powder created the jamming issues and many soldiers and marine's killed

[@duster0066]

I stopped it to.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

Wrong propellant was one of the issues, but not the only one. The AR15/M16 was rushed into use under the time pressure of a "hot war" and was not properly sorted-out as far as ironing out bugs, problems and issues of the kind which always occur when any new weapons system is introduced into the armed forces. The blame for that probably falls at McNamara's feet and those of the senior brass at the Pentagon/DOD. The people at Armalite deserve some blame, however, for designing a weapon so particular about its ammunition that a simple powder change caused it to fail. Eugene Stoner and his team should have foreseen those kinds of things happening and built greater robustness into their weapon. Failing that, Stoner should have raised hell when the Ordnance Dept. changed to a different propellant. He did protest - but not hard-enough. The original AR15/M16s had issues with feeding - especially magazine-related - as well as with extraction and ejection. Extraction/ejection issues were exacerbated by the lack of chrome lining, and the fact that some moron told the military that the rifle was "self-cleaning" and that therefore no cleaning kits were needed in the field. The brass in the Army and Marine Corps should have treated such claims with the skepticism hey deserved; that some officers and SNCOs did not - is on them in terms of blame. It is also on the senior leaders of both services that they blamed their men - the guys out in the field using the new rifles in battle - for the problems, instead of investigating them and finding the real issues involved. And then they - the Pentagon brass - compounded the problem by trying to cover up their incompetency. That's why Congressional hearings were eventually needed - and they only happened because outraged friends and family of the men who'd lost their lives due to weapons failures raised holy heck about it. The propellant change had a cascading effect. It burned faster and hotter than the stick powder used previously - and ended up increasing the cyclic rate of fire beyond the design parameters. This resulted in accelerated wear at the least, and in higher rates of component failure in the field at worse. I know a few men of that generation who fought as grunts in SE Asia, and IMO, they have every right to be upset about how the whole thing went down. The introduction of the AR15/M16 into service-wide use in Vietnam was, on the whole, a complete Charlie Foxtrot, a fiasco from top to bottom. The rifle was eventually developed into a good weapon, but it took time - something many of those men didn't have enough of. By the time the numerous teething troubles with the design were fixed, remediated, etc. - the war had ended.

[@GeorgiaBoy1961]

St. Louis Chris, the defects, problems and issues with the M16 at that time were: unapproved switch from stick (extruded) powder to ball powder, for the 5.56x45 cartridge; lack of chrome in the chamber and barrel, which led to rapid corrosion and rusting; insufficiently robust extraction and ejection; poor QC with the aluminum magazines, leading to feeding malfunctions; lack of cleaning kits issued to troops in the field, who'd been told the rifle was "self-cleaning." What total BS. The (hybrid) direct-gas impingement design was also at fault to the extent that such designs cycle heat, combustion soot/carbon fouling and microscopic debris back into the action. As it happens, the AR15/M16 was well-sealed against ingress of material from the outside, but that didn't matter - because the operating cycle itself fouled the bolt-bolt carrier group such that the rifle needed to be cleaned every 400 rounds or so, sometimes much less. Stoner's design would have benefitted enormously from an adjustable gas block or valve, similar to the FAL, a feature some more-modern ARs now have. That way, when the rifle starts slowing down due to accumulated dirt and fouling, just dial in a bit more gas to keep it running until it can serviced.

[@hookeye2]

@@GeorgiaBoy1961 Please see my post above (11Bravo, 1Cav, 66-7)

[@haroldburrows4770]

@@GeorgiaBoy1961 , I may be wrong but I thought the powder changed to a slower burn that increased muzzle velocity because some ingrate at ordnance thought the bullet wobbled at sub zero

[@DennisBell-tz2sb]

The M-14 is still my favorite rifle of time.

[@mfro4422]

“Firing range of 2000 feet of muzzle energy” kinda like a .30 cal magazine clip

[@steveburgamy4262]

M Fro haha..

[@dickblackbeard5752]

I can’t believe he said that.

[@jameylane9196]

Jack Woods - Did it even weigh 6lbs empty?

[@stevecook413]

You forgot self cleaning, night vision, self reloading

[@muddyhotdog4103]

@@jackwoods535 Well the first m16s and a1s with lightweight pencil barrels DID weigh about 6 1/2 lbs with a loaded 20rd magazine. They have since gotten heavier from add-ons and heavier barrels.

[@galesams4205]

i carried the m-60 23 lbs. 200 rounds when on ambush patrol far better than the toy M16 . m14 was my favorite . only seen one in vietnam. 4th inf div. 10th armored cav. LZ Xray .

[@dubvuchyea502]

I think you forgot about DOD pushing out of spec ammo to be used on the m16. The higher pressures caused more malfunctions than the dirt ever die

[@scotcoon1186]

Didn't the heavier-fouling propellant also increase the rate of automatic fire, exacerbating the fouling?

[@hairydogstail]

@@Future-Preps35 That is not true. They switched to ball powder, not flake. The ball powder gave a higher velocity than stick powder at a lower chamber pressure. The problem was it changed the port pressure, "increasing the bolt carrier velocity" creating bolt bounce malfunctions on full auto and parts breakage. The real problem came from lack of maintenance, which pitted the bore and created mechanical locking of the brass in the chamber. Once they changed the buffer to match ball powder, chrome lined the chamber and bore, improved the extractor and taught maintenance procedures the problems stopped. They have since made a reliable magazine: Magpul" which increased reliability..They still use ball powder in the Stoner rifle today...

[@stephenhoffman6869]

Carried M14 in xm21.It was effective.Carried Car 15 but always kept my M14.68-73.

[@VNV67]

I was in Vietnam 1967-68 as a engineer. I carried the M-14. I was offered at that time a M-16 and refused it because of the problems they had. During TET on Jan 30th the M-14 never let me down but there were still problems with the M-16A even then. At least the ones we had. I wish I had now a M-14 in my collection. It was a great weapon and had a long history from 1951-52. I was issued a M-16a when I came stateside to Ft. Meade, Maryland and never fired it.

[@reymeradrianotv4001]

It's incredible to think that these rifles made in 1914 and 1916 are still effective to these day in 2023

[@BDavis-kc7fb]

As a kid of 10 years or so in 66 the Mattel toy company did have a toy M16 rifle. I remember it being the envy of all the boys on the block at the time. In 1976 I would use that same rifle in Germany. I'm glad they finally got the bugs worked out of it and I'm also glad I never had to use it in a combat situation. At that time it still had a jamming issue; was nearly impossible to keep clean even in a peace time army.

[@berzerker1100]

Grafenwehr Wildflicken , Hohenfels , Berlin Brigade Check point charlie German women were HOT ! oh the memories !

[@s.sestric9929]

Mattel actually made the plastic stocks for the M16. They were selected because they had the expertise and capacity for producing plastic parts in high quantities.

[@shadowwolf7622]

I was in a local National Guard Field Artillery unit ;82-89. I was issued an M-16A1 in both basic and during my time in my unit. We had malfunctions a lot with them. I was glad I never had to take one into combat.

[@oldreb285]

1/15 Inf 3ID Kitzigen Germany Sept 74 - Dec 76

[@jeffreyelliott622]

I know I still have my M16 rifle made by Empire toy company it was blue and black in color and had that realistic machine gun sound when pulling the trigger and boy I must have had a ton of fun with it back then in the 60's !!!

[@TheHawkeye61]

I was in Germany from January 1961 to January 1963; 1st Airborne Battle Group, 504th Infantry, 8th Infantry Division. We were issued our M14s in September 1961 along with the 1/505 Infantry which was co-located with us at Lee Kaserne, Mainz Gonsenheim, Germany. Until then we soldiered with the tried and true old M1 Rifle. Our M14s were full auto capable though we weren’t issued the full auto switch. I don’t recall any special training on the M14. Everyone just thought of it as an M1 with a twenty round magazine rather than a top loading 8 round clip.

[@sessiontelemetric5618]

This is a whole lotta misinformation. About as many blanks as the bad actors are cycling.

[@NYPATRIOTBX]

SgtBaker16 watch a channel called Small Arms Solutions, 2 videos to watch are “why I despise the M-14”and the other is “ what happened to the M-16 in Vietnam”

[@nickdial8528]

Yep

[@JohnnyRebKy]

My dad said if he went back to Veitnam again he would still prefer the M14. I had the M16 when I was in the Marines but they had come a long way since Veitnam.

[@PDZ1122]

"...Had a firing range of 2000ft of muzzle energy." Gibberish.

[@ventroid4473]

Maybe he meant 2000 ft lbs?

[@hookeye2]

See above

[@bdbailey9225]

I could routinely hit the 400 yard silhouettes. That's 1200 ft. A high powered bullet can easily kill at over half a mile. Just saying.

[@stoneblue1795]

Compared the utter Gibberish muttered by former President Johnson.... this is articulate.

[@raysmith7543]

I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one who noticed that.

[@usmc-veteran73-77]

Oct 73, I was in the 1st Series to be issued the M-16 at MCRD Parris Island, Platoons 392, 393, 394, 395. I'm sure Platoons in the 1st & 2nd Battalion were also issued the M-16.

[@k_enn]

The problem with the initial M-16 was not so much the gun, as it was the last minute change in the ammunition. After the gun was designed and being prepared for issue, McNamara got the brilliant idea of changing the powder that was used in 5.56 ammunition. They change from a very clean powder to one that much more dirty, causing the fouling and the extraction problems.

[@eddiehaskell1957]

McNamara was a narcissist shitbag.

[@Icarusvampire]

The new powder didn't fire hot enough and gunked up the barrel and parts making it sticky and crap! That is why all the jamming for the most part!

[@eddiehaskell1957]

@@Icarusvampire And instead of going to a better powder, we'll make cleaning kits. When you're in a firefight and your weapon jams, call time out so you can clean your weapon, assuming you brought your cleaning kit with you. Politicians need to stay in their own lane.

[@RichGreenKs]

The change started with Army munitions. Documented in a old Gun Digest article. What McNamara wanted was speed -ship it fast as you can. The hell with testing. He let the grunts (a Beloved Marine term) test it.

[@petersclafani4370]

During my training with firearms was the m14 angle the m16. M14 was heavy but very accurate. The 16 was light and good semi. But the rifle I enjoyed and deadly accurate but heavy was the m1 rifle. Great weapon.

[@1776adb]

I was in Nam 1966-67 ( Cu Chi ). When the AR-15s first appeared we laughed and called them toys compared to the M-14. The laughing stopped when our men started dying due to failures. God bless the M-14.

[@tonyvalente]

All you guys in the comments are Warriors on the highest level. Much respect and love that 90% of this generation would have quit.

[@jamesseaman6919]

I carried plenty of 7.62MM for my M-14! I had 10 magazines and I carried a 1911w/4xtra mags! I was a Radio op and sometimes on forward observer teams! If we got into a firefight I wouldn’t be running out of ammunition!

[@leebaker2588]

James, might be the reason you're here today.

[@657449]

I took my oath in 1968. The training I had in basic and AIT sucked. Qualification on the range on the M14, M16, 1911 pistol and the M3 submachine gun consisted of just bring there. You get the quality soldiers you train.

[@georgesakellaropoulos8162]

First of all, it's Eugene Stoner. Second of all, all firearms need regular cleaning and maintenance, lastly, the ball powders that replaced the extruded, or stick powders were, before the later technology that makes them less temperature sensitive today, very susceptible to radical increases in chamber pressure when exposed to the high ambient temperatures found in Vietnam. The increase in chamber pressure caused by the increased sensitivity of the ball powders of the time, caused extraction problems, including torn case rims, and ruptured cases. This has since been corrected by advances in powder technology.

[@hairydogstail]

Ball powder changed the dwell time, which was corrected by a new buffer. They still use ball powder in the Stoner rifle today..

[@georgesakellaropoulos8162]

@@hairydogstail Yes. New technology has made ball powders much less temperature sensitive.

[@hairydogstail]

@@georgesakellaropoulos8162 The stick powder was much worse, "for getting stable chamber pressures" when trying to achieve the required muzzle velocity. Ball powder gave higher muzzle velocity with lower chamber pressures. The pressure problem occurred at the gas port which had a different dwell time than the stick powder, for which the Stoner system was designed around...This created a higher velocity for the bolt carrier, creating full auto bolt bounce malfunctions and parts breakage...

[@marks1638]

Long before WWII even started there had been a push for lighter recoiling (and more controllable) weapons for the average Soldier and Marine. John Pederson even developed an accurate and potent .276 caliber round (essentially a 7mm x 51mm round) in 1923 that forced John Garand to redesign his famous M1 rifle (twice) over the next decade. It still fired from a clip and used 10 instead of 8 rounds. Some suggestions to modify the rifle to a larger magazine fed weapon were made by members of the Army Board (and some field officers). Eventually it came to nothing as Gen Douglas MacArthur (Army Chief of Staff) wanted the 30-06 as the standard round due to large amount of surplus ammo from WWI and the Army Ordnance Dept didn't want to change barrel rifling equipment at Springfield Armory to save money. I've seen the prototype test weapons on Forgotten Weapons and they looked like a great idea, but it sadly never happened. The more powerful 30-06 round required some serious design and development to make the M1 Garand functional to absorb the energy and recoil of the round. A smaller, but potent .276 round in the M1 Garand (which would have been lighter) could have easily been developed and fielded long before WWII alleviating some of the original M1 shortages at the beginning of the war. The Marines went into Guadalcanal in 1942 with 30-06 Springfield bolt actions, instead of M1 Garands until the Army show up with Garands later in the campaign.

[@cavscout62]

Having carried both I’ll take the M-14 every time. I’m so happy to know that the U.S. Military is finally phasing out the poodle shooter round in favor of the 6.8 it’s way overdue. 😎

[@VagoniusThicket]

cavscout62 Loved the M14 , got my expert badge in 1964 (Fort Knox) with it , the M1 was too bulky and kicked my ass . Wish I had one today . I would even take a mini 14 over an M16 .

[@Tinfoil_Hardhat]

Poodle shooter? All this nonsense about 5.56 being a bad cartridge is honestly hemorrhage inducing

[@miketaylorID1]

The new cartridge is 6.8mm. But it is not the 6.8 SPC - Ironically the SPC developed out of the 556’s deficiencies in terminal ballistics when fired through an m4 or an SBR’s shorter barrel- it met that need but was never adopted. Now a new 6.8mm cartridge is being proposed and tested. Seems redundant

[@rad_lad_2715]

@@miketaylorID1 the new 6.8 cartridge is supposed to be a full power rifle round. Which is the dumbest thing ever considering we've known for the past 50 years that intermediate cartridges are the way to go. They should have adopted 6.5 grendel.

[@user-cn4tc5tq2s]

as you know we are not alone in this sentiment, but like the "experts" at twatter this utoobe is one of their counterparts. In succession to the Garand the M14 and its comm counterpart the M1A is the finest Main Battle Rifle ever built and issued. I've built two M1A's - one using Winchester/OM parts and the other with also original TRW parts most all NOS which took a lot of time to source - now it would be near impossible to find these components. The receivers are commercial an LRB the other a Fulton. Barrels a SAK and the other a commercial from Criterion. No they're not moa weapons, but in the right hands close enoughat 100 yds. supported and through the irons -NO optics. This rifle was meant to be minute of man - not moa. Each eventually goes to our boys and our grand kids who love to fire them.

[@charlesrichardson2655]

The M-14 was the standard sniper rifle before the 90,s. I was in Germany in 1986, and it was the standard sniper rifle at that time.

[@cw7422]

I love my M-14 & Colt 1911. CWO4 (Cryptology), USN, RET, 73-95

[@gunner678]

The US missed out on the very best of cold war western battle rifles, the FN FAL. Performed excellently in jungle conditions with the hitting power and legs of the 7.62mm.

[@jimspink2922]

I agree was issued to the Australian Army as the SLR L1A1 very sturdy weapon and good hitting power there was also the L1A2 which was an automatic rifle version could fire single shot or automatic with 30 round mag. The SLR had been replaced with the Steyr which is 5.56mm

[@treeliniusmaximus8412]

I remember my father telling me when the M16 was introduced to Australian forces in Vietnam. They hated it. They were armed with the Australian version of the Belgian FN-FAL rifle, which they called the "SLR" which was overwhelmingly considered a superior weapon by the soldiers. He referred to the M16 as a "plastic piece of crap that always jammed".

[@dillonc7955]

Somewhat reminiscent of how US soldiers chose to keep the M14 over the new M16.

[@martinsparrow150]

I think the kiwis also used mostly the SLR

[@eog5038]

This video gives somewhat different explanations of traits of the M-16 than those I read decades ago in a book about the Vietnam war. That book (sorry, it's been so long that I don't recall the title) said that the M-16 was the result of two research findings: (1) studies had determined that the majority of US soldiers in WW2 never even fired a shot with their standard issue rifles, because they felt it was useless when they were surrounded by automatic weapons fire; (2) other studies had determined that a smaller caliber bullet at higher velocity had more stopping power than a larger caliber bullet at standard velocity. So, the M-16 had full automatic capability, and used the .223 caliber bullet with special high-velocity powder. Soldiers issued the rifle were told that they wouldn't have to clean their guns because the special powder burned so cleanly. But, someone in high command unfortunately had the idea that money could be saved by using standard powder in the bullets, and so overrode the order for the special high-velocity powder. This of course meant that the bullets traveled too slowly to be really effective, and that the guns were clogging because soldiers had been told they didn't need cleaning when now they actually did.