M-14 or M-16?

M14 or M16 in Iraq?

  • M14

    Votes: 7 43.8%
  • M16

    Votes: 9 56.3%

  • Total voters
  • Poll closed .

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules


Staff Sergeant
Sep 19, 2005
Phoenix, AZ
I have heard from many people that the M-16 is a decently accurate weapon out to its combat limit, but that recently it is being found lacking in the stopping power when it goes against fanatics with bombs on their bodies who are intent on doing damage. To this I pose the question, in Iraq, would you prefer a M-16 or a M-14? I know I would have less ammo, but I would take the old M-14. Less ammo means I'll have to careful of how I use my shots, but the .308 is probably going to make up for the lighter weight of fire headed towards any given individual. Heck, just for kicks or close range survival I'd take a .44 or .50 caliber Desert Eagle, just to make sure a downed baddie stays down, or that I'm not defenseless if my gun jams or runs out of ammo. Any way, what would your choice be? This does not inclued the M4 carbine, just the M-16 and the subsequent attatchments it has, the same going for the M-14 not being the M-21 sniper variant.
I'd go for the M14 for even CQB (I'm a crap shot at long range:oops: ). I like it's penetration and stopping power and IIRC you can get them with folding stocks. Ammo may be a slight problem though (would have to ask nicely for GPMG ammo?).

I wouldn't like your chances with a Magnum - roomclearing yes, streetfighting no.

I'd go for an AK or an Uzi/Sterling myself.

I don't suppose the Mini-14 is included?

I've never liked the M16, particularly the 1st versions.

The M16A2 with the SS109 is better, but I still just don't like it - particulary the 3-round burst setting, though I know some do (weirdos!:lol: ).

I don't like the 5.56mm round, but love the 7.62 which I suppose is the key to this poll.

I've heard of the 5.56 Corbon is good, anyone got any info on that?
Well having been someone who has fired both and someone who was trained on the M-16 in Basic Training and beyond, I would go with the M-16. It is an overall better weapon and the stopping power is just fine. Ive seen it first hand. You dont really need the 7.62 for a personal weapon to take down the enemy. They fall just fine, trust me I know.

McArther said:
To this I pose the question, in Iraq, would you prefer a M-16 or a M-14? I know I would have less ammo, but I would take the old M-14. Less ammo means I'll have to careful of how I use my shots, but the .308 is probably going to make up for the lighter weight of fire headed towards any given individual.

Well I would still want an M-16. You say you would have to take better aimed shots with the M-14 due to to less ammo. Got news for you, as someone who spent 14 months in Iraq, you want the more ammo and you dont have time to take the careful aimed shots (leave that for the snipers and the M-1 Abrams tanks).

Iraq is fast paced urban combat. It is not being fought out in the desert where you can see your oponent for miles away. It is hit and run, and the guy with the quicker shots and most ammo is the guy that lives.
I voted M-16 as well, although the M-4 is the more viable version.... We talked about this before, and this is what I would do to my M-16....

The Barrett M468 Conversion Kit....

The core component of the Barrett M468 is Remington's new 6.8mm SPC (Special Purpose Cartridge). Indeed, the rifle's name comes from the combination of M4 and 6.8mm. Introduced by Remington Arms in 2004, the 6.8mm (.270 caliber) SPC is more lethal than the 5.56mm cartridge, without a significant increase in overall bullet dimensions. Though slightly larger than the standard M-16 cartridge (6.8x43mm as opposed to 5.56x45mm), current issue M-16 magazines can easily be reconfigured to accept the new cartridge. In addition, while the SPC has a slightly lower muzzle velocity than the 5.56mm cartridge, its larger mass makes it ballistically similar to the lighter 5.56mm round (in terms of accuracy and bullet drop), and it delivers half again as much kinetic energy. In real terms, this means that the 6.8mm SPC has the same relative trajectory as the 5.56mm (which allows for the M468 to be fired and treated essentially like a 5.56mm M-16), but with 50% more stopping power, and a bullet speed of 2650 feet per second from a sixteen and one-half inch barrel, delivering 1715 foot-pounds of energy, with a six hundred meter effective range...


  • M468_model1_3.jpg
    25.8 KB · Views: 214
  • m468 6.8 vs 5.56.jpg
    m468 6.8 vs 5.56.jpg
    46.5 KB · Views: 220
  • M-16 cutaway.JPG
    M-16 cutaway.JPG
    28.8 KB · Views: 222
  • M468-1.jpg
    17.4 KB · Views: 216
  • m468.jpg
    128 KB · Views: 222
The muzzle velocity of the .223 is a good bit faster than that of the .308, it's supposed to have more energy, etc etc, more ammo, lighter, but I'd just want an old-fashioned big-bore rifle, you know? It'd be a pain to lug around the battlefield, but it makes for a hell of a security blanket.
mosquitoman said:
I'd go for an Ak personally- I'm left handed so I wouldn't be able to use an SA80

I do't want to dissapoint you but if your left handed you would be in as much trouble with an AK47, which I believe is also right hand only.

Happy to be corrected by anyone with more experience than I.
lesofprimus said:
The AK-74M is the newest generation of the AK-47 model, and is considered to be superior in everyway, owing to the smaller cartridge size...

Downrange in Iraq plenty of guys started using ht Ak because it was so abundant and worked so well in the desert.
The thing I liked about the -47 was the ease of field stripping and cleaning, as well as the ruggedness of it... The heavier cartridge also allows for "brush hunting" where the 5.56 round will skip and bounce and the 7.62 goes right on through...

It was my preferred weapon of choice while on active duty....
I don't know how anyone can like the SA80.

The AK74M isn't the newest, there's also the Abakan (AN94 IIRC?) and others.

2-round bursts - not a bad idea?

Also there's a new counterweight that is moved by the gas piston on somew models - reducing (or even cutting out completely!) recoil.

An SAS test of the AK74 said something like; 'on full-auto, the muzzle brake means the LoS doesn't shift'.8)

A lot of Russians issued with the AK74 have gone back to the AK47, for it's stopping power.

I like the G36 and Steyr AUG. They are also ambidexterous. The G36 is strangely comfortable, but certainly doesn't look it.

Has anyone got any info on the Corbon 5.56mm round please?

I think Fedorov's 6.5mm, which was the 1st intermediate cartridge, is probably the best size. The 2nd best would be the EM2's 7.7mm. The 3rd? - the 7.92 Kurz Patrone.
I voted for M-16. I haven't fired one, but from what I have heard, its a good weapon.

Personally, I have fired an AK-47 that belongs to my dad's cousin.(Its only semi...) Its a very good gun with some kick to it. It can get heavy when you have all the ammo, which is probably why I would prefer a -16 or M-4.

Les is right. Its a rugged weapon and is pretty good. Knockdown power is definetly a tribute in this rifle. But if were a soldier walking miles with heavy gear on me, I would want a rifle thats light weight, using more ammo in a magazine.

Also, I would want a rifle with less recoil so I could line up my shots.
Apparently the Israeli operators like the AK-47 too. It was THE weapon to use when they attacked the Eygptian Green Island, because they came from under-water. They wanted a weapon that worked when they got out.
I did not find the AK-47 that bad when it came to recoil. There was practically no recoil. Maybe a bit more than the M-16 but not much.

It also was not very heavy in my opinion. Atleast no heavier than any other weapon of its class.

Users who are viewing this thread