The M-1 Garand and M-14 and FN are fine weapons. No question. However, they have one problem, weight. The M-1 also is limited by the en-bloc system of reload, eight shots or nothing, no topping off the magazine. In terrain that demands long range and re-supply is readily available, the three above weapons shine, But, Hollywood movies not being completely accurate, sometimes, the choppers can't come in and you fight with what's on your back. The three above mentioned rifle's weigh almost 1 1/2 times what an M-16A2 weighs. The big problem is the ammunition. That weight is twice the weight of a .223/5.56MM round. A lot of talk about the M-16 jamming. It worked fine until some bean counter figured he could save 1/2 cents a round by switching to IMR propellant, not the powder the M-16 was designed to shoot. It kicked the cyclic rate from 750 to 1,000 RPM and it was dirty, carboning up the chamber so that double feeds, bad extraction of spent shells and no cleaning or lubricants were issued. Also, a "No clean" order was given, stating that the M-16 was self cleaning. You ever see a self-cleaning gun? In the latter part of 1968 the M-16A1 was issued, "Bird Cage" suppressor, chrome chamber, and a cleaning kit issued with each one. There was also a handy 4 oz. plastic bottle of LSA (Lubricant, Small Arms) handy at all times. Turned the whole "Jamming Jenny" phobia around. The one I was issued in 1969 never let me down. We cleaned our '16's 2 to 3 times a day, and lubed them generously. I once put 35 magazines through mine in four hours. No malfunctions. (18 rounds per magazine, the magazines were still crap). If the terrain had been different, or the supply situation different, I might have wanted an M-14, but I doubt it.