Which do you prefer M16 or M14 and why?

[Ciaran Zagami]

title says it all
I personally like the M16 more because I find myself making frequent use of the full auto to compensate for my some times lackluster aim

[Al Capwned]

I like the M16.

1. Selective fire
2. Less recoil

It does deal less damage but it's not that bad if you're aiming for the torso/head... And if the first shot doesn't down the guy, you're able to quickly and accurately send another round down range.

[Vegan Friendly Rolling Papers]

The M-14 had its short time and place as a semi auto battle rifle but it was not from 1965-1975 in the jungle.

I really like peep sights in real life but the way they are done in RS2 is just wrong. The players eye is too far away from the peep and instead of being a center of focus it becomes a distraction as its dimensions are not correct.

[IRDCAM]

Again the M-14 was designed for the open terrain of Europe, not the 25m ranges of the jungle.
Look at the M-16 as the M1 Carbine to the M-14's M1 Garand styled applications. But again the M-14 in various forms is back for the sand pile wars, and doing quite well in its new form and applications.


Pretty much are in scale, and I have no problem with the game sights. The peep and post is uncomfortable for many, but to some the muscle memory and learned skill is just that. The position of face on the M-14 is important for sight picture, but not a game breaker. The M-14 and old M-16 series were two different face to sight picture distances. My M1A (civilian M-14) and AR-15 need two distinct face placements for a clear and correct sight picture. But the 8 steady hold factors will get you the desired result with both game and IRL sights.

[CvB]

M16 because of automatic. All the other differences can be played around or learned to handle. But for close quarters/fast movement attack and just general twitchy play then automatic is just so much better.

[[AUS] TheSpetsnaz_77]

Originally posted by Tjabo:

M16 because of automatic. All the other differences can be played around or learned to handle. But for close quarters/fast movement attack and just general twitchy play then automatic is just so much better.

what about XM177E1? A carbine version of M16

[Bad Hombre DC]

Yeah aside from the loading 18 rounds into a 20 round mag meme, I think the M16 is generally better. Doesn't have quite as much stopping power but it's a lot easier to make follow up shots if the first round doesn't kill whoever you hit, plus the full auto completely shreds people up close.

[Ciaran Zagami]

Originally posted by United States™:

Originally posted by Tjabo:

M16 because of automatic. All the other differences can be played around or learned to handle. But for close quarters/fast movement attack and just general twitchy play then automatic is just so much better.

what about XM177E1? A carbine version of M16

the XM17 is just a straight upgrade imho.
Everything that was good about the M16 is better in the XM17

[Communism]

Originally posted by Ciaran:

Originally posted by United States™:

what about XM177E1? A carbine version of M16

the XM17 is just a straight upgrade imho.
Everything that was good about the M16 is better in the XM17

I think that's how pretty much everyone sees it. The only real difference is that it has an extendable stock but no bayonet due to the massive compensator.

[Ciaran Zagami]

Originally posted by Communism:

Originally posted by Ciaran:

the XM17 is just a straight upgrade imho.
Everything that was good about the M16 is better in the XM17

I think that's how pretty much everyone sees it. The only real difference is that it has an extendable stock but no bayonet due to the massive compensator.

What is the point of collapsing the stock? It just seems to make it way harder to use the gun

[IRDCAM]

In the bush for LRRP and other special units a shortened weapon in the land of 'wait a minute' ground foliage was a god send as noise was your enemy as well. And shooting a CAR-15 type shortened is not that hard at the ranges in the jungle or urban even today. And a simple lever and tug, full length.

The XM177 had a nasty habit of heating up too fast and cooking off rounds and still had the pencil barrel and the issues therein.

[kamikazi21358]

Originally posted by Ciaran:

Originally posted by Communism:

I think that's how pretty much everyone sees it. The only real difference is that it has an extendable stock but no bayonet due to the massive compensator.

What is the point of collapsing the stock? It just seems to make it way harder to use the gun

Faster ADS, faster weapon switching, sight is closer to your face.

[Thor]

Originally posted by kamikazi21358:

Originally posted by Ciaran:

What is the point of collapsing the stock? It just seems to make it way harder to use the gun

Faster ADS, faster weapon switching, sight is closer to your face.

With the sight close to your face it can obstruct more peripheral vision, however everything within the sights become more visible.
I think it's more situational or dependent on which one you prefer.
But generally collapsed stock at close range and tight spaces is what I find it useful for. Whilst extended stock for anything outdoors.

[kamikazi21358]

Originally posted by Raizo:

Originally posted by kamikazi21358:

Faster ADS, faster weapon switching, sight is closer to your face.

With the sight close to your face it can obstruct more peripheral vision,

Basically most stupid American gunsights in a nutshell.

Originally posted by Raizo:

however everything within the sights become more visible.

It is very interesting, this might make it better at long range in semi-automatic, but usually with the stock retracted, you would expect the opposite.

Originally posted by Raizo:

I think it's more situational or dependent on which one you prefer.

Basically.

Originally posted by Raizo:

But generally collapsed stock at close range and tight spaces is what I find it useful for. Whilst extended stock for anything outdoors.

This is what I do mostly for the Type 56.

[Vegan Friendly Rolling Papers]

I find that in real life i get my eye right into a peep sight with no peripheral borders giving me a perfect center of focus immediately. Which is what it is designed for. I feel in the game the rear site is too far away from the players eye which obstructs view, adds peripheral edges and uses none of the advantages of the design.

Its interesting to think about these sights for ww2. The garand being a peep and the K-98 having the double V pattern. K-98 sights are complete trash for anything over 100 yards because they are so hard to see however they offer much better peripheral vision and would technically be better for close range target aquisition. I Love the K-98 and own a wartime one and it is very straining on the eyes. This thread and peep sights made me realise they are just designed for shorter ranges and overall view of your line of sight.

[Thor]

Originally posted by kamikazi21358:

Originally posted by Raizo:

With the sight close to your face it can obstruct more peripheral vision,

Basically most stupid American gunsights in a nutshell.

Originally posted by Raizo:

however everything within the sights become more visible.

It is very interesting, this might make it better at long range in semi-automatic, but usually with the stock retracted, you would expect the opposite.

Originally posted by Raizo:

I think it's more situational or dependent on which one you prefer.

Basically.

Originally posted by Raizo:

But generally collapsed stock at close range and tight spaces is what I find it useful for. Whilst extended stock for anything outdoors.

This is what I do mostly for the Type 56.

Are you here to troll or have a discussion? I wasn't addressing the M14 anymore at this point. The discussion moved on to the differences between the M16A1 and XM16E1.
If it indeed was the stupidest American gunsight in history, why is it still used today in present 2019? Please explain that to me. Why, have they not changed it, if it is so terrible?
Furthermore, they both use the same tri-prong front sights.
And again, the M16's rear sights has more pheripheral vision than the M14.