Used both in Vietnam. The 14 wins.
Kevin
Current a2 and a4 variants of the M-16 are a far cry from the a1 M-16s from Vietnam. I think many will agree that the original M-16 first issued was a poor decision.
It's nice for some of you to be able to shoot 1000+ yards with your M-14s. However, there are few instances when I was in Iraq and Afghanistan that I could even
see 1000 yards, let alone shoot that far. Why would I want to? That's what Marine Air is for.
The M-16 shoots across the room, and out to 500 just fine. Makes a heck of a hole at close range, too.
It's lighter, so I can get to the objective faster and less exhasuted while carrying more water, ammunition, or other gear. Its light weight and superb ergonomics also allow me to hold the rifle in a firing position, covering a threat with less fatigue (meaning I'm more effective once it's "go time")
The round it shoots it lighter and smaller, so I can carry more and so can our 7-tons and helos in the supply chain. That means more ammo for everybody.
Less recoil means more rounds on target faster. Believe it or not, large volumes of accurate fire are a valid, important, and tried-and-true tactical concept.
It's easy to work on and very simple. There are very few parts to the rifle. Armorers can work on them and fix them very easily.
The pistol grip allows me to hold the rifle with one hand, keeping my hand in a firing position while keeping the rifle pointed down-range.
I havn't used the M-14, but from what anecdotes I gather, the things it has going for it are a .30 caliber round and the capability to effectively shoot farther than the M-16. There is a bigger picture to consider when evaluating a military rifle, however.
For these reasons, I like the M-16.