Maybe ours are just worn out. They are rather old. I agree that they are as reliable as an M16/M4, but I always see on the internet posts about how the M14 is so much more reliable than the M16 design. Not true, at least in the experiences of the guys in my unit here.cropper97E said:The M14 I carried in Iraq worked just fine. I had no malfunctions or problems of any kind with it. The only things I replaced on it was the stock, scope and a three point sling. It was just as reliable as any of the M16s in the unit.
When I taught marksmanship in 1972, I had to preface every rifle class with a statement about how McNamara's morons at the Pentagon had allowed the M-16 to be issued to troops without cleaning tools or supplies, and with instructions that they were "self cleaning". That issue was discovered and corrected within the first eighteen months of issue. M-16s have had chrome-lined barrels ever since late 1964 - early 1965. Around that time, it was also discovered that some of the powder used in the ammo was not well suited to the small diameter gas tube of the M-16 and caused obstruction.keninaz said:I am not sure about the cleaning of subsequent M16s that were built after the first issues in the mid 1960s, but the early ones had to be cleaned regulary if you wanted them to work without jamming. Like I said before, they had to get better or we would have moved on to something else.
On the other hand, the M-14 had to be cleaned very infrequently in the same era and were not known for problems.