m14 unnecessary? - Page 2
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > Long Guns > General Rifle Discussion > m14 unnecessary?

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-04-2008, 09:45 PM   #11
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 143
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matt g View Post
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.
they actually started issueing the the EBR stocks to deploying units after we left. some units were buying them with battalion funds. the collapsible stock definitely would help with mounting and dismounting from vehicles. i think a switch to 6.8 SPC would put an end to the debate. for units that can get their hands on it, the 77gr sierra matchking is said to be working great but they're so hard to get.
i don't think the m-14 EBR would be a good replacement for the M-4. even with the shortened barrel and collapsible stock you're gonna have a problem in CQB scenarios. rapid follow up shots are also difficult with 7.62. the m-14 makes a great Designated Marksman's rifle especially with the new chasis. the problems with knockdown power (in reference to Mark Bowden's Blackhawk Down) are occurring with shots at 200m and beyond. this is associated with deceleration of the current issue NATO 62gr ball ammo. it fails to yaw and fragment. shooting that rd out of the 14.5 inch barrel of an M-4 excacerbates the issue. with that said, within CQB distances, no complaints have have been made regarding the AR platform. FBI HRT, Assymetric Warfare Group, and Combat Applications Group (Formerly Delta) are currently using the HK 416 platform, still in 5.56 NATO. I doubt however that they're using current issue 62gr FMJ ammo though.
__________________

Last edited by coltm4; 06-05-2008 at 12:21 AM.
coltm4 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2008, 02:55 AM   #12
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 51
Default

How about an M14 in 6.8 remington spc? This guy here seemed to be pretty effective with an M14 in CQB

__________________

Last edited by Ermac; 06-05-2008 at 02:59 AM.
Ermac is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2008, 12:09 PM   #13
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
they actually started issueing the the EBR stocks to deploying units after we left. some units were buying them with battalion funds. the collapsible stock definitely would help with mounting and dismounting from vehicles. i think a switch to 6.8 SPC would put an end to the debate. for units that can get their hands on it, the 77gr sierra matchking is said to be working great but they're so hard to get.
i don't think the m-14 EBR would be a good replacement for the M-4. even with the shortened barrel and collapsible stock you're gonna have a problem in CQB scenarios. rapid follow up shots are also difficult with 7.62. the m-14 makes a great Designated Marksman's rifle especially with the new chasis. the problems with knockdown power (in reference to Mark Bowden's Blackhawk Down) are occurring with shots at 200m and beyond. this is associated with deceleration of the current issue NATO 62gr ball ammo. it fails to yaw and fragment. shooting that rd out of the 14.5 inch barrel of an M-4 excacerbates the issue. with that said, within CQB distances, no complaints have have been made regarding the AR platform. FBI HRT, Assymetric Warfare Group, and Combat Applications Group (Formerly Delta) are currently using the HK 416 platform, still in 5.56 NATO. I doubt however that they're using current issue 62gr FMJ ammo though.
I'd have to sling some 6.8mm before making a judgment there, as I have zero experience with it. 7.62 NATO doesn't seem that difficult to control though for rapid follow up shots when fired from a semi-auto setting.
__________________
matt g is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-05-2008, 03:28 PM   #14
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 630
Liked 3 Times on 3 Posts

Default M-14, Unnecessary? Not in my View?

hello all

Ron L here = SERESURPLUS


As a Navy Retired vet of More thn 24 years and a good time of use with the M-14, I'd say it's not "Unnecessary"! We had M-60 Lite Machineguns on board most navy Destroyers and Cruisers and Yes we could have used M-16! I'd have to ask WHY? The 7.62X51 (308) was chambered in the M-60 and if we needed quick ammo for it or the M-14 we could share tat! It was smarter than a seperate caliber for the Lite machine Guna nd the Rifle? I saiw it as a reliable, functional rifle and as sailors only carried it on "Watch" or Sentery Duty, it beinf heavier than M-16 was a a moot point? As well, the fact that it was solid, was good for longer Ranges than the shotguns and handguns we sued, it was a good Pick! Heck I ever had a marine tell me the M-16 A2 was betetter, I asked for what? He said Longer range and Ammo, and weight? I asked him whats the M-16A2 weigh fully loaded? He got on a scale and we weighed him with M-14 fully loaded 20 round mag and a M16-A2 30 rnd mag fully loaed the difference was under 3 pounds! I'm not saying that the M-14 did FA as well as M-16 did, but thats a limited use we did not exploit a lot? To me, the M-14 was and still is a viable option for many Military units! While not Perfect, it is a good pick in many conditions! CNN, Fox News and many other 'Sources in the Filed" show Seal and Delta Units with M21 and M-14 with a lot of different options, seems to work for them? If it were that Bad, i'd not expect units like those to use it? Just my opinion, but one formed over 24 years of actual use and time in service!

__________________
RONSERESURPLUS is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2008, 05:14 AM   #15
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 143
Default

what i'm trying to say is that the answer lies somewhere between 5.56 and 7.62. that's why i was a big fan of the m-14 for certain uses and the m-4 for others. my designated marksman carried his m-4 during the assault phase of a raid. during that phase he would carry his m-14 on his back. once we secured the roof he'd switch. iraqis are smaller than americans. take your average sized door and make it narrower and shorter by 1/4. that's some tight manuevering. i've never shot 6.8 but it's a step in the right direction. it should at least be seriously looked at by the bean counters in the pentagon. but if they did we might not have anything to debate about. then i would have to spend time with my wife. LOL

__________________
coltm4 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2008, 04:57 PM   #16
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
what i'm trying to say is that the answer lies somewhere between 5.56 and 7.62. that's why i was a big fan of the m-14 for certain uses and the m-4 for others. my designated marksman carried his m-4 during the assault phase of a raid. during that phase he would carry his m-14 on his back. once we secured the roof he'd switch. iraqis are smaller than americans. take your average sized door and make it narrower and shorter by 1/4. that's some tight manuevering. i've never shot 6.8 but it's a step in the right direction. it should at least be seriously looked at by the bean counters in the pentagon. but if they did we might not have anything to debate about. then i would have to spend time with my wife. LOL
The 6.8 Rem is only lethal out to about 300m. This reinforces the need for longer range, SDM type weapons. It doesn't do away with them.
__________________
matt g is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2008, 05:34 PM   #17
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: I see you, and you will not know when I will strike
Posts: 24,301
Liked 3478 Times on 1609 Posts
Likes Given: 3590

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matt g View Post
The 6.8 Rem is only lethal out to about 300m.
Source?

From my understanding the 6.8 Remington SPC, which is what I believe coltm4 was talking about, fires a 115grain bullet at about 2650 fps from your standard 16.5 inch barrel and it delivers over 1700 foot pounds of energy if my math is correct. I have seen reports of the effective range being listed at from 500 to 650 meters, with a longer barrel version pushing that number higher than 700.

Ronnie Barrett - of Barrett Firearms Fame - Has produced a new 16.5" barrel AR assault platform ( The M468, or M-4 in 6.8 caliber for you clever folks out there ) in 6.8 Rem SPC and was tested on Future Weapons with some amazing results, in my opinion.


The real fun starts about 6:00 in....

JD
__________________
Dillinger is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2008, 06:24 PM   #18
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 Dillinger View Post
Source?

From my understanding the 6.8 Remington SPC, which is what I believe coltm4 was talking about, fires a 115grain bullet at about 2650 fps from your standard 16.5 inch barrel and it delivers over 1700 foot pounds of energy if my math is correct. I have seen reports of the effective range being listed at from 500 to 650 meters, with a longer barrel version pushing that number higher than 700.

Ronnie Barrett - of Barrett Firearms Fame - Has produced a new 16.5" barrel AR assault platform ( The M468, or M-4 in 6.8 caliber for you clever folks out there ) in 6.8 Rem SPC and was tested on Future Weapons with some amazing results, in my opinion.

Barrett M468 Tests

The real fun starts about 6:00 in....

JD
6.8 Rem, or 6.8 SPC and 6.8 SOCOM to the tactical crowd, was developed by Remington to replace the 7.62x51 and the 5.56x45 and be used as a heavy knockdown round for the typical engagement, that occurs within 300m. The 5.56x45 is too light and fast to do the job and the 7.62x51 is generally used in heavier rifles that are better used for support roles. It was designed so that a soldier can carry more ammo with a heavier knockdown potential within that magic 300m typical engagement range. After about 500m though, the round becomes useless just like the 5.56x45 that it is replacing.

When using the existing 7.62x51, the military can use "off the shelf" ammo and weapons systems that offer increased ranges over the new super round. By restricting the amount of ammo that is available in an engagement, the military can also get away from the 'spray and pray' techniques that are common in today's combat and return to a more fundamental marksmanship based training program.

The M16 platform and it's lighter ammunition marked the end of that marksmanship in combat era. This has been proved true in many studies.
__________________
matt g is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2008, 07:01 PM   #19
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: I see you, and you will not know when I will strike
Posts: 24,301
Liked 3478 Times on 1609 Posts
Likes Given: 3590

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by matt g View Post
6.8 Rem, or 6.8 SPC and 6.8 SOCOM to the tactical crowd, was developed by Remington to replace the 7.62x51 and the 5.56x45 and be used as a heavy knockdown round for the typical engagement, that occurs within 300m. The 5.56x45 is too light and fast to do the job and the 7.62x51 is generally used in heavier rifles that are better used for support roles. It was designed so that a soldier can carry more ammo with a heavier knockdown potential within that magic 300m typical engagement range. After about 500m though, the round becomes useless just like the 5.56x45 that it is replacing.

When using the existing 7.62x51, the military can use "off the shelf" ammo and weapons systems that offer increased ranges over the new super round. By restricting the amount of ammo that is available in an engagement, the military can also get away from the 'spray and pray' techniques that are common in today's combat and return to a more fundamental marksmanship based training program.

The M16 platform and it's lighter ammunition marked the end of that marksmanship in combat era. This has been proved true in many studies.
I would disagree that the round is "useless" beyond 500m/546 yards. Many ballistical studies have been performed on the round and it can easily cause terminal damage at that distance from a 16.25 in barrel. After all, we are basically talking about a .270, which has been a good whitetail round for years. But, since the average press is willing to guarantee knock down power out to 300, I can see where that belief would come in & I can agree to disagree on that fact. I like the round and know I could make it work for me in that situation. I have actually toyed with building a 6.8 SPC for about a year now on an AR platform, but other things have come up. Other people feel differently about the round and that is the great thing about America.

Now, the question of "off the shelf" is another whole different story. The US Military is NOT going to retool their entire operation for a completely different gun, different mags, different ammo, different size pouches on vest, if needed, not to mention different armorer's tools across the board. You can wipe that idea completely off the page as it will never happen in our lifetime. The monetary outlay is just too damn high.

But, it has been proven time and again that they can't stick with the .223 in the coming years either. Going back to the .308 isn't an option because of the "felt" need for hi capacity firepower, especially in the urban environment of room to room work. Couple that with the shear size of a good .308 spitting assault rifle in a tight urban environment and you just don't have a good match.

I agree that marksmanship has gone by the wayside, but that started with the environment of Vietnam, not with the invention of the M-16. The invention was to help assist in the problem of not being able to see your targets because of the terrain, so mass firepower was seen as a viable option. Send more ammo downrange and hope for the best.

The only people in Vietnam that were effective where the sniper's ( 1 Kill for every 1.7 rounds fired), but they started out using the true .30cal round in .30-06. The .308 came later on in the conflict and most snipers resented having to give up their -06 capabilities for the "new" wonder round.

Unfortunately our forces are at a point where what they have isn't enough, what they need they can't have, so any babysteps along the way are about the best they can hope for. The 6.8SPC isn't perfect, but it would be better than the .223 and would serve the same purposes, on the same familiar platforms which could result in decisive firefights for the good guys.

JD
__________________
Dillinger is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 06-06-2008, 11:38 PM   #20
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 143
Default

Individual marksmanship skills have been a major problem identified in the Army. recently the army changed their rifle qual and increased available range time and training. there are now Mobile Training Teams that circulate from unit to unit to specifically address this issue. i think this is one thing the marines do a whole lot better than the army. it's not just a training issue, it's a culture issue. the army needs to raise warriors, not bean counters.

__________________
coltm4 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes