Experiences and Comparisons of the M14 and M16 During Vietnam War Training

During the Vietnam War, two common rifles were the M14 and the M16. Each carried its own unique set of advantages and disadvantages. In this article, we explore the experiences of individuals who were trained with the M14 and then issued the M16, highlighting the key differences and contextualizing their experiences within the broader context of the war.

Introduction to M14 and M16

My training with the M14 began in the United States, where I knew how to handle and maintain the rifle. Upon arrival in Vietnam, I heard about the adoption of the M16, which was touted as requiring less daily cleaning. However, this turned out to be misleading, as rumors abounded about potential issues with the M16's reliability. One critical experience that stood out was during a rifle range training session where several Marines raised concerns about the M16's performance. It became clear that the M16 was not as straightforward as initially claimed.

Learning and Adaptation

Although the M14 was the primary rifle issued to the artillery outfit I was with, I learned to adapt and maintain it. For a year, I happily carried my M14, but upon being called to the range, I encountered a different reality. The M16 turned out to be problematic for some users, raising questions about its reliability and user experience.

My experiences were starkly different from some others who also trained with both rifles. At Fort Bliss, Texas, in 1969, we were trained with the M14 for basic, then, to our surprise, trained on the M16. While I had to deal with a tender shoulder due to my lack of padding, I found the M14 cumbersome and uncomfortable. Despite this, I still managed to qualify at the middle rank, the Sharpshooter. However, the experience was miserable, and I quickly came to dislike the M14.

Advantages of the M16

When I transitioned to the M16, the experience was markedly different. Unlike the M14, the M16 was lighter and easier to handle, even when using one-handed pistol grips. Additionally, the ammunition capacity was significantly increased, allowing me to carry more rounds. These factors made the M16 more versatile and efficient in the jungle environment.

Another significant advantage of the M16 was its superior effectiveness at close range. In Martin Fackler's study of WWII, it was found that the majority of gunshot wounds and deaths occurred within 200 yards. Therefore, the M16's ability to deliver more tissue damage at close range proved to be a substantial benefit. The M193 round, which was used with the M16, often broke into fragments, causing more tissue damage than the heavier and larger M14 round.

Conclusion

The switch from the M14 to the M16 in the Vietnam War introduced different challenges and opportunities for American soldiers. While the M14 required more maintenance and was often perceived as cumbersome, the M16 offered greater portability, ease of use, and effectiveness at close range. As the war progressed, these differences became increasingly important in the challenging and unforgiving environment of Vietnam.