Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Long Guns > General Rifle Discussion > m14 unnecessary?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-01-2008, 05:23 AM   #1
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 51
Default m14 unnecessary?

While the M14 is a great rifle I think it was unnecessary to create. Instead of designing a new rifle I think all they would have needed to do was make the M1 garand accept detachable mags and be chambered in .308 which would be fairly easy to do.

__________________
Ermac is offline  
 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 06-01-2008, 09:39 AM   #2
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 441
Default

Well there are a great many more people on this forum with far better knowledge than I on the subject of the M14.

From what I understand the M14 was a redeveloped M1, to incorporate the new (at the time) 7.65 NATO cartridge, and give a 20 shot detatchable magazine. The Italians had a large quantity of M1's and I think it was Beretta that designed a conversion for the rifles to incorportate a detachable magazine and to the new calibre. The prototype of the BM59, I don't think the magazine's where interchangeable with the M14, not too sure.

The M14 is an exceptional rifle but I think things had moved on, the development of the intermiated round (7.92 kurtz and 7.63x39) during the war had sent weapon design in another direction, that of the 'assault rifle'........

__________________

Last edited by Boris; 06-01-2008 at 09:47 AM.
Boris is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2008, 09:41 AM   #3
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Recon 173's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 190
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts
Likes Given: 1

Default

The M-14 came about because of needs for a modern rifle. Basically the M-14 was an M-1 Garand updated to take 7.62 NATO ammo and use 20 round detachable magazines. In fact, before there were enough M-14s to go around, some M-1 Garands were converted to use 7.62 NATO ammo and the old en bloc clips. So either way that you go, what you proposed was actually done and then the M-14 came into service. The nice thing about the M-14 was that it was lighter than the M-1, shot a decent size and weight bullet and it had really good range. On average the M-1 was basically at its "practical limit" with a 400 yard/meter shooting distance. The M-14 though did good far out beyond the 400 yard/meter limit even out to 700 yards or so. With the M-21 rifles in Viet Nam snipers were able to shoot and hit man size silhouette targets at a 900 meter distance and even farther out in some cases. So, the M-14 really was a good replacement for the M-1 which is why it has returned to service again in Iraq as a sniper rifle. The M-14 has proven itself to be a valuable tool in the arsenal of military rifles.

__________________
Recon 173 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-01-2008, 03:46 PM   #4
Moderator
FTF_MODERATOR.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
c3shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Third bunker on the right,Central Virginia
Posts: 15,761
Liked 7572 Times on 3299 Posts
Likes Given: 1122

Default

IIRC, the M-14 was intended to replace a coupla weapons, the Garand being ONE of them. Another was the BAR. Which it did quite well. HEAVY sucka!

__________________
c3shooter is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 02:04 AM   #5
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 51
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Recon 173 View Post
The M-14 came about because of needs for a modern rifle. Basically the M-14 was an M-1 Garand updated to take 7.62 NATO ammo and use 20 round detachable magazines. In fact, before there were enough M-14s to go around, some M-1 Garands were converted to use 7.62 NATO ammo and the old en bloc clips. So either way that you go, what you proposed was actually done and then the M-14 came into service. The nice thing about the M-14 was that it was lighter than the M-1, shot a decent size and weight bullet and it had really good range. On average the M-1 was basically at its "practical limit" with a 400 yard/meter shooting distance. The M-14 though did good far out beyond the 400 yard/meter limit even out to 700 yards or so. With the M-21 rifles in Viet Nam snipers were able to shoot and hit man size silhouette targets at a 900 meter distance and even farther out in some cases. So, the M-14 really was a good replacement for the M-1 which is why it has returned to service again in Iraq as a sniper rifle. The M-14 has proven itself to be a valuable tool in the arsenal of military rifles.
I don't think the M14 would be a whole lot more accurate then a M1 garand.
__________________
Ermac is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 03:53 AM   #6
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
marysdad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: No. California
Posts: 97
Liked 1 Times on 1 Posts

Default

They must have tried 20 different versions of selective-fire M1's before deciding that a selective-fire M1 wouldn't be the way to go. One major improvement in the M14 was the shortened gas system. Not having the gas cylinder go all of the way to the muzzle improved accuracy quite a bit. The M14's shorter op-rod was less prone to bending and breakage. I suspect that the M1's op-rod would not have held up to extensive full-auto cycling.

__________________
worldbayonets.com | Bayonet Collector's Network (BCN) | Society of American Bayonet Collectors | Life Member NRA | C & R 03 FFL

Follow us on Facebook! facebook.com/worldbayonets

The bayonet cannot be abolished for the reason, if for no other, that it is the sole and exclusive embodiment of that willpower which, alone, both in war and everyday life, attains its object.—General M. I. Dragomirov
marysdad is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2008, 04:33 PM   #7
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 143
Default

we used m-14s in iraq as designated marksman rifles. they worked great for overwatch and ambushes. they did what our m-4s couldn't do when we needed somthing heavier. they are heavy and unwieldy, and the ammo weighs a bit too. looking back, a springfiel SOCOM II would have served us better for the terrain we were operating in. the areas around the tigris and euphrates river delta are not surrounded by desert. it is packed with muddy farmland and intricate canal systems with urban areas outside the farms. alot of tight manuevering.

__________________
coltm4 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2008, 03:54 PM   #8
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
matt g's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,885
Liked 7 Times on 5 Posts

Default

The M14 is a work of genius. This is being proved true by the resurgence of the weapon for use in anti-material, designated marksman and sniper roles by both the regular military and special operations community.

The M16 was unnecessary and marked a new era in military thinking. It gave the rifleman more ammo and allowed them to "spray and pray" rather than taking planned and well placed shots. It's also poorly designed and not well suited to a combat role.

__________________
matt g is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2008, 07:08 PM   #9
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 143
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matt g View Post
The M14 is a work of genius. This is being proved true by the resurgence of the weapon for use in anti-material, designated marksman and sniper roles by both the regular military and special operations community.

The M16 was unnecessary and marked a new era in military thinking. It gave the rifleman more ammo and allowed them to "spray and pray" rather than taking planned and well placed shots. It's also poorly designed and not well suited to a combat role.
the m-14s we had were a great addition to our arsenal (1 per squad) but they were not suited for urban operations. my m-4 performed flawlessly for the year i was deployed. modern assymetric warfare is characterized by high op-tempo based on real-time intel. the modern rendition of the M-16 is fulfilling it's role but barely. i say my M-4 performed flawlessly but there can always be improvement. i'd like to see a more robust operating system (gas piston?) and a better hitting round (6.8mm). a continous rail along the top of the rifle would also facilitate better interface with optics and IR. the new rail should be free floated as well. these problems seem to have been addressed with FN's Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle (light and heavy). We'll see what happens.
__________________
coltm4 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-04-2008, 09:24 PM   #10
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
matt g's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 3,885
Liked 7 Times on 5 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coltm4 View Post
the m-14s we had were a great addition to our arsenal (1 per squad) but they were not suited for urban operations. my m-4 performed flawlessly for the year i was deployed. modern assymetric warfare is characterized by high op-tempo based on real-time intel. the modern rendition of the M-16 is fulfilling it's role but barely. i say my M-4 performed flawlessly but there can always be improvement. i'd like to see a more robust operating system (gas piston?) and a better hitting round (6.8mm). a continous rail along the top of the rifle would also facilitate better interface with optics and IR. the new rail should be free floated as well. these problems seem to have been addressed with FN's Special Operations Combat Assault Rifle (light and heavy). We'll see what happens.
This is an 18" barreled M14 in an Vltor stock and rail system:



This is a 22" barreled Smith Enterprise Mk. 14 MOD 0, that was built for the US Navy:



Both would be well suited to high op-tempo, urban ass kicking. The USGI wood stocks do tend to be a bit unwieldy though. I do agree with you there. Time and time again though, commanders and soldiers alike have denounced the knockdown power of the 5.56 NATO, especially in high op-tempo, urban scenarios. You can read any number of books on TF Ranger in Mogadishu and almost every operator that was involved in the battle bitched about how he wished he was running something chambered in 7.62x51mm instead if the M4 or CAR-15.
__________________
matt g is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes