I voted the M14. I have shot a couple and a number of the civilian semi auto onlys that do not even have the auto disconector or lug for the selector system. I found them in service and out to be capable and dependable rifles. I especially liked the M-14 E2 withits pistolgtip stock long sling and bipod. I found this gun to be controllable in full auto fire using two to three round bursts on targets to 300 meters fom the prone/bipod position.
I would like to have handled some of the Ft. Benning "M14 Improved" systems from around 1973. The were working on lighter magazines, a lighter folding stock and new ammunition. The ammunition was to use a 90 grain bullet ( the bullet from the old Duplex round) launched at 3200 FPS. As this bullet was short ad flatbased it supposedly destablized when changing mediums as well as M193 ball 5.56 mm. Recoil impulse was about halfway between the normal M-14 and M-16A1 recoil impulses. Wonder how one of the Scout type M1As would be using one of those experimental side folding stocks.
By 1973 however there was no going back unfortunately.
I did not have the rosey experience of some with the "M-16" though there are many things I like about it.
I first fired a flat sided (no fence) AR-15 sporter in 1971. I was immediatly underwhelmed with the rifle and that colored my expectations. My first Army issue M-16 was marked XM16 E1 and had appearently been in the 16th training battalion at Ft. Knox since the adoption of the same. It truely was a POS. One could grab the frontsight tower in one hand and the carrying handle in the other and twist them in oposite directions and the Armorer was OK with that. During Fam-Fire leading up to qualification the extractor cracked and the front half blew out leading to a failure to extract and yes a new round well and truley jamed in there with the bullet set back in the case.
This rifle really made me loath the system.
In EUrope I was assigned to a unit that broke down into re enforced platoon sized sub units for weeks or even months at a time and away from the arms room and the armorer. I jumped at the chance to be a "platoon Armorer" and so got to personally oversee the condition of M-16A1s of my platoon and supprting troops. The number and types of breakages and the shear number of user induced failures made me less and less happy with the system.
Finally came the issue of failures to fire. As many as half of the guns on the firing line in cool damp weather experienced a second or third round stoppage. This was not good. I did find that the vast majority of these were a result of (wait for it) the Direct Impingment system turning all those hot gases. powder residue and patroleum based lubes in to "Black Gunk" Using PL-Special lub rather than the LSA POL in weather the least bit cool semed to go a long way to preventing stopages, but they hapened even when I inspected the weapons before and after lubeing.
Also the Germans and Brits and Canadians all made fun of us for having a gun suited for "Frauen und Kinter"
I will say that the new synthetic lubes go a long way to preventing these Black GunK problems.
As to never seeng stoppages with the AR-15 family.....Hmmm. I took a Carbine Class from Bill Jeans last year and in it were a number of ARs from A1 types forward, in barrel lengths from 20 inches down to 10.5. From Daddy bought it in the early 1970's civilian ARs to GI issue M4s.
I saw stoppages. Two rifles had so many stoppages they were pulled from the line. I thought it instructive that we spent a couple of hours on immediate action drills for a host of problems even having purposefully made double feeds made so as to learn to clear them. I thought it instructive that one of Col. Coopers boy's who did much to develope realistic carbine training himself would spend such time and effort on immediate action drills if the need to know such were not vital.
All that said I love the layout of the M-16 family's controls......except the charging handle. I am considering getting one of the charging handle latches with the paddle type end to make charging easier for my own AR-15. The ARs controls can be easily manipulated with out removing the firing hand from the pistol grip by the vast majority of right handers and there are after market helpers for the lefties.
With my hands I have never found the G3 or FN-FAL controls as easy to operate and the AK is even worse.
Something just did not feel right about the AUG and it seemed to get awfully hot awfully fast. Certainly controllable for short bursts out to 100 meters when used with the doughnut reticle built in scope, though the pull through trigger makes it difficult to actuall shoot multiple quick 2 to 3 roundburst, often something like a hick-up with a single shot followed by 2 to four rounds actuall at full auto cadence. Twas high on kewl actors, but other thanthat I just do not like it.
Le Claron I did not fire, but it just did not feel right......and it was French. I still can not get over all the civilians state side going ga-ga over the older MAS49/56 rifles. Many of the French troops I spoke to hated them (wait for it) because the Direct Impengment system made them filthy and in cool damp weather ( European Standard) casused failures to feed. Most carried a hankerchief devoted to whipping out the action on occassion.
My experience with AKs shooting is limited to an East German MPiK, one of the early Styer import Maadi rifles a few Chinese semis and a Hungarian. I have handles RUssian, Rumanian, and Chinese Military AKs as well but not fired those. The safety/selector lever is clunky and a PITA to use. They are relaible as Mr Majestik's Ford F-150. They do make you set up rather high when in the prone with that long magazine and folks tened to want to rest tem on the same running any hope of accuracy. Supposedly when th eold SOviets had a military olympics of sorts all firing, out to 300 meters was conducted in full auto using short controlled bursts. Must have been fun atleast. Needles to say my early experiences with two of the worlds best made versions of the gun and Czech ammo set me up for a disapointment when the China guns and ammo came in. I was actualy at a rifle class where someone I know to be a pretty good shot brought a MAK 90. He had grown up and joined up and gone ABN Ranger and while on leave thought it would be cool to take a rifle class with the other sides gun. Waste of ammo. It did settle down a bit and srink groups a bit when I brought him some Lapua for the second days shooting, yet the kid that could normaly out shoot 90 percent of us had the worst performance show up on the paper.
I have BTW seen both the G3 and FN-FAL suffer stoppages in military service I qualified four times with the G3 and it was OK. At the time with the M-16A1 as my issue rifle I wished for one, still wish I had bought a HK91 at about $160 US in 1975 and brought it home tax free. I would prefer the M-14 though.
Shot the British L1A1 and was underwhelemed with what seemed and ancient and worn out gun. handled the Canadian version and it seemed the same. When the first Springfield SAR48s came out of Brasil I was shocked to see a nice rifle that shot great......still not up to the M-14 by my standard. Bet it was something to behold in the Brit .280 experimental rounds or in the original 7.92 Kurz
Which brings me back to the M14. I like the controls as I feel 7.62 battle rifles should have an auto fire lock out unless designated for use by automatic riflemen The safety is easy to manipulate and very positive in operation. The magazine release is the same as most of the rifles of its time and while the rocking magazine insertion can seem a pain....it wrks fine on the AK. The sights are absolutely first class. There is a dedicated optics mount on the rifle that is pretty darned secure. Unfortunately there is no way to make this mount sit as low as sight systmes on an AR flat top, but a cheek pad can be added to the butt for serious scope use. I had no particular hardship firing the M-14 with the AN/PVS 2 NVS or the SPringfield Armory M1A with a scope without the use of the add on cheek pad though. I like the reciever being open on top as it allows room for my fingers to get into the action if need be and allows one to see a problem with just a quick glance. Having an operating rod handle mecahacally linked to the bolt so the one item can be safely used to both charge the weapon and act as a forward assist is a plus. The M-14 bolt can be easily cycled using the left hand by a right handed firer with out the need for removing the firing hand form the stock or doing weird contortions. I also like the stripper clip guides permanantly affixed to the rifle as this reduced the effor in reloading a magazine. Even with the guides included in ever bandoleer of M16 ammo it is a PITA to move it from clip to clip to hold a loose mag in position and strip the ammo in. BTW there is also a guide with every bandoleer of M14 ammo on stippers in a Bandoleer if one choose not to use the rifle mounted guide Finally I just like 7.62 NATO.
I have not fired a mechancal gas sytem AR 10/15 but fired an AR180 a lot. I have to say that I think such a system would improve reliability on AR10/15 systems, it would however add some weight to the system. I would like to see an AR-10 with such a system and try it and an AR-15 with such a system and 6.5 Grendal or 6.8 SPC might be something worth looking into for personal use if I win the lottery.
-Bob Hollingsworth
