testtest

Always wondered, though I would ask.

B

Bloodknight

Master Class
Founding Member
I was one of the guys who lugged the 11. something pound M-14 over hill and dale in our 10 year adventure in beautiful Vietnam. Although it wasn't perfect, and I used a "LOT" of luberplate. I always like the 7.62x51 cartridge. The M-16 with it's 5.56x45 was not introduced until after I had departed the scene. It is my understanding that the Army received them much earlier than the Marines. I was informed that at one point the weapons were changed out as such."Gimme that M-14 ! Here take this M-16" and off we go.I can't say that for a fact but that's how I got it from a buddy who was there. Here is the thought that has run through my mind for many years. Knowing how the 7.62x51 (how can I say this with tact?) reacted to contact with a persons body. What in fact was the difference (if any) with the 5.56x45.Again, I was informed by guys who were there that they saw people take up to 5 hits with the 5.56x45.If anyone has reliable info I would appreciate some feed back. Not hearsay?
 
Bloodknight said:
I was one of the guys who lugged the 11. something pound M-14 over hill and dale in our 10 year adventure in beautiful Vietnam. Although it wasn't perfect, and I used a "LOT" of luberplate. I always like the 7.62x51 cartridge. The M-16 with it's 5.56x45 was not introduced until after I had departed the scene. It is my understanding that the Army received them much earlier than the Marines. I was informed that at one point the weapons were changed out as such."Gimme that M-14 ! Here take this M-16" and off we go.I can't say that for a fact but that's how I got it from a buddy who was there. Here is the thought that has run through my mind for many years. Knowing how the 7.62x51 (how can I say this with tact?) reacted to contact with a persons body. What in fact was the difference (if any) with the 5.56x45.Again, I was informed by guys who were there that they saw people take up to 5 hits with the 5.56x45.If anyone has reliable info I would appreciate some feed back. Not hearsay?
Click to expand...
I was never in the service, so I cannot say how it goes on a human body, but on a feral hog there is a huge difference in knock down. (Head shots excluded)

I’ve seen lots of hogs take 62 gr green tips and keep on trucking.
The .308 if not a kill shot will make them falter, stumble or flop around like a fish for follow on kill shot. The 5.56 rounds you could hear hit and get the squealing of the hog to watch them run off to die somewhere else
 
Hi just joined yesterday. I go by "Fish" don't know how to put my screen name below my avatar.
As for this post I can tell you first hand about the M-16 I was in Never Never Land for the 68 Tet Offensive.
The M-16 was not a man stopper from personal experience. It took 4 rounds for me to take down a NVA at about 15 feet.
Being in a mechanize Recon plt. I opted for the M-14 which was a very effective man stopper. Much heaver then the 16
but only had to carry it when dismounted during the rainy season when our tracks got bogged down. I was a 50 gunner on my track. Which also explains my ears haven't stopped ringing since 68.
Another reason for hating the M-16 was it would jam with the least little dirt. I had the imprint of the forward assist
inbedded in the palm of my right hand. 1st Inf.Div 1/16 Iron Rangers Mech Recon Plt. class of "68".
Can someone tell me how to put my screen name below my avatar?
Sorry for the ranting of this old man. VA rating 100% disabled 2 Purple Hearts. Bingo there's my screen name!!
 
Fish said:
Hi just joined yesterday. I go by "Fish" don't know how to put my screen name below my avatar.
As for this post I can tell you first hand about the M-16 I was in Never Never Land for the 68 Tet Offensive.
The M-16 was not a man stopper from personal experience. It took 4 rounds for me to take down a NVA at about 15 feet.
Being in a mechanize Recon plt. I opted for the M-14 which was a very effective man stopper. Much heaver then the 16
but only had to carry it when dismounted during the rainy season when our tracks got bogged down. I was a 50 gunner on my track. Which also explains my ears haven't stopped ringing since 68.
Another reason for hating the M-16 was it would jam with the least little dirt. I had the imprint of the forward assist
inbedded in the palm of my right hand. 1st Inf.Div 1/16 Iron Rangers Mech Recon Plt. class of "68".
Can someone tell me how to put my screen name below my avatar?
Sorry for the ranting of this old man. VA rating 100% disabled 2 Purple Hearts. Bingo there's my screen name!!
Click to expand...
Welcome to the forum! Thank you for your service! The facts you listed are in no way considered ranting. I have several friends who also served there and all preferred the 14 over the 16 for the same reasons you stated.
 
Last edited:
Lock n' Load said:
Welcome to the forum! Thank you for your service! The facts you listed are in no way considered ranting. I have several friends who also served there and all preferred the 14 over the 16 for the same reasons you stated.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the welcome. Bought a Hellcat OSP 4 months ago took it home broke it down cleaned it. Went to the range the next day put 400 rounds of every 9mm from lead handloads from 2002 to factory FMJ without a hitch. Just put a Crimson Trace red dot on it. Zero it in at 30 ft. Only took 10 rounds. My carry load is Fed.HST 147gr. Can't say enough about the Hellcat. Springfield Armory hit a home run with it.
 
Fish said:
Thanks for the welcome. Bought a Hellcat OSP 4 months ago took it home broke it down cleaned it. Went to the range the next day put 400 rounds of every 9mm from lead handloads from 2002 to factory FMJ without a hitch. Just put a Crimson Trace red dot on it. Zero it in at 30 ft. Only took 10 rounds. My carry load is Fed.HST 147gr. Can't say enough about the Hellcat. Springfield Armory hit a home run with it.
Click to expand...
I got the OSP FDE Hellcat, good gun, but I like the XDs Mod 2 more, fits my hand better and just a tad more accurate.
 
Fish said:
Hi just joined yesterday. I go by "Fish" don't know how to put my screen name below my avatar.
As for this post I can tell you first hand about the M-16 I was in Never Never Land for the 68 Tet Offensive.
The M-16 was not a man stopper from personal experience. It took 4 rounds for me to take down a NVA at about 15 feet.
Being in a mechanize Recon plt. I opted for the M-14 which was a very effective man stopper. Much heaver then the 16
but only had to carry it when dismounted during the rainy season when our tracks got bogged down. I was a 50 gunner on my track. Which also explains my ears haven't stopped ringing since 68.
Another reason for hating the M-16 was it would jam with the least little dirt. I had the imprint of the forward assist
inbedded in the palm of my right hand. 1st Inf.Div 1/16 Iron Rangers Mech Recon Plt. class of "68".
Can someone tell me how to put my screen name below my avatar?
Sorry for the ranting of this old man. VA rating 100% disabled 2 Purple Hearts. Bingo there's my screen name!!
Click to expand...
Nice job, all the way 'round
 
Fish said:
Hi just joined yesterday. I go by "Fish" don't know how to put my screen name below my avatar.
As for this post I can tell you first hand about the M-16 I was in Never Never Land for the 68 Tet Offensive.
The M-16 was not a man stopper from personal experience. It took 4 rounds for me to take down a NVA at about 15 feet.
Being in a mechanize Recon plt. I opted for the M-14 which was a very effective man stopper. Much heaver then the 16
but only had to carry it when dismounted during the rainy season when our tracks got bogged down. I was a 50 gunner on my track. Which also explains my ears haven't stopped ringing since 68.
Another reason for hating the M-16 was it would jam with the least little dirt. I had the imprint of the forward assist
inbedded in the palm of my right hand. 1st Inf.Div 1/16 Iron Rangers Mech Recon Plt. class of "68".
Can someone tell me how to put my screen name below my avatar?
Sorry for the ranting of this old man. VA rating 100% disabled 2 Purple Hearts. Bingo there's my screen name!!
Click to expand...
Welcome to the forum and thank you for sharing your life experiences.

As for the location of your screen name and avatar my guess it’s the written program and would require re-writing of said program.
 
From what I have read when the M16 was introduced they weren’t using the same cartridges or twist rates in the barrels that the M4 has. Also judicious lubrication considerations were later realized. I’m guessing stopping power is increased in the current iterations of Stoner’s design. The trade off of course being weight and the amount of ammo that can be carried. Again, this is my thoughts based on the books and accounts I have read. I don’t believe many soldiers were happy to give up the M14 for the M16.

I was never in the military and I was born at the end of 1968, but I want to be sure to thank you gentlemen for your service and sacrifice for our country.
 
Bassbob said:
From what I have read when the M16 was introduced they weren’t using the same cartridges or twist rates in the barrels that the M4 has. Also judicious lubrication considerations were later realized. I’m guessing stopping power is increased in the current iterations of Stoner’s design. The trade off of course being weight and the amount of ammo that can be carried. Again, this is my thoughts based on the books and accounts I have read. I don’t believe many soldiers were happy to give up the M14 for the M16.

I was never in the military and I was born at the end of 1968, but I want to be sure to thank you gentlemen for your service and sacrifice for our country.
Click to expand...
The M16 had a 20" barrel, longer burn time and different gun powder than the M4 with its shorter barrel.
Things internally changed as well.

While things have gotten better, ground pounders from afghanistan still complained of jams due to dust.
 
I arrived in country 2 years post Tet (USAF) We still had some M14's on hand but most everone had M16's. I spent a lot of my first year behind an M60 and often carried a GAU5/A. I eventually was assigned as an instructor in USAF heavy weapons and small unit tactics where we shot everything in the inventory. I love the M14 but dang it is heavy and hard to keep on target on full auto. With the M16/GAU5 we taught our people to use 2-3 round bursts in full auto mode. We were convinced that M16 jams in the field were mostly caused by propellant that the AR was not designed for, and poor maintenance and lubricants. A lot of folks don't know, when the M16 was first sent to the field in Southeast Asia, they did not come with cleaning kits. I never had any doubt as to the lethality of the 5.56 round.

I shot various AR's in training for many years and don't recall ever needing the forward assist. Double feeds, though, is a whole other goblin.....
 
Last edited:
Welcome to the forum from Virginia! I also thank you for your service! I have a buddy that was there a year before you were. In basic he trained and qualified with an M14. When he walked ashore in Vietnam he was issued an M16. Because the early M16s didn't have a chromed chamber if he bunked down at night while out in the jungle he had to sleep without a round in the chamber. Seems the brass shell casing would swell enough that if the rifle was fired the empty would fail to extract. The early rifles didn't have a forward assist so if your round didn't feed all the way you were SOL. As you point out cleaning kits were rare, and many GIs had to ask family to send them a cleaning kit from home. My buddy was wounded when the helicopter he was riding in was shot down. They were able to keep the enemy at bay until help arrived. During the course of the attack he used up all of his ammo and was evaced without his M16. About a year after he was back home the gov't sent him a bill for the M16 he lost. One of Virginia's Senators took care of the matter.
 
Recusant said:
Welcome to the forum from Virginia! I also thank you for your service! I have a buddy that was there a year before you were. In basic he trained and qualified with an M14. When he walked ashore in Vietnam he was issued an M16. Because the early M16s didn't have a chromed chamber if he bunked down at night while out in the jungle he had to sleep without a round in the chamber. Seems the brass shell casing would swell enough that if the rifle was fired the empty would fail to extract. The early rifles didn't have a forward assist so if your round didn't feed all the way you were SOL. As you point out cleaning kits were rare, and many GIs had to ask family to send them a cleaning kit from home. My buddy was wounded when the helicopter he was riding in was shot down. They were able to keep the enemy at bay until help arrived. During the course of the attack he used up all of his ammo and was evaced without his M16. About a year after he was back home the gov't sent him a bill for the M16 he lost. One of Virginia's Senators took care of the matter.
Click to expand...
You can thank Robert McNamara for the M16 not having a chromed chamber.
He had zero experience in firearms but made the decision of no chromed chamber as is cheaper, along with no cleaning kits. My older brother while in Viet-Nam in 67-68 asked parents to send Outer cleaning kits with extra of their fluids and lubes. He stated that the lube the Army gave them was so sticky and they had to clean rifle a few times every day even if unfired.

Unfortunately the first one to receive the Mattel M-16 in Viet-Nam were the guinea pigs to personally find out the serious issues.
Fast forward, the present M4 is much improved rifle.
 
Lexie__M said:
You can thank Robert McNamara for the M16 not having a chromed chamber.
He had zero experience in firearms but made the decision of no chromed chamber as is cheaper, along with no cleaning kits. My older brother while in Viet-Nam in 67-68 asked parents to send Outer cleaning kits with extra of their fluids and lubes. He stated that the lube the Army gave them was so sticky and they had to clean rifle a few times every day even if unfired.

Unfortunately the first one to receive the Mattel M-16 in Viet-Nam were the guinea pigs to personally find out the serious issues.
Fast forward, the present M4 is much improved rifle.
Click to expand...
Add to that the change from stick powder, which the gun was designed to use, to ball powder, which was a train wreck
 
Well : All that feedback seems to confirm the feedback I received from grunts that I served with and went on to obtain the M16. We got a lot of that "You can carry more ammo with the M16.Well Yea I guess you would need it if you gotta pump half a dozen rounds into a target to stop it.The M14 was (I believe) 11.4 pounds with a full magazine. The M1 was 9.5.I believe the M14 with some sort of stock other then wood. Could have made it much more desirable weapon. Like I said.I used a lot of luber plate to keep ole betsy running.I believe many special ops units are using the M14 modified. I had never handled any firearm until Marine boot camp. I was able to shoot a 217 which gave me a sharpshooter rating.I maintained that for 4 years. Yep ! 7.62x51 all the way
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top