m14 unnecessary?

Discussion in 'General Rifle Discussion' started by Ermac, Jun 1, 2008.

  1. Ermac

    Ermac New Member

    51
    0
    0
    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.
     
  2. Boris

    Boris New Member

    441
    0
    0
    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: Jun 1, 2008

  3. Recon 173

    Recon 173 New Member

    191
    0
    0
    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.
     
  4. c3shooter

    c3shooter Administrator Staff Member

    21,448
    564
    113
    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!
     
  5. Ermac

    Ermac New Member

    51
    0
    0
    I don't think the M14 would be a whole lot more accurate then a M1 garand.
     
  6. marysdad

    marysdad Member

    107
    0
    16
    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.
     
  7. coltm4

    coltm4 New Member

    143
    0
    0
    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.
     
  8. matt g

    matt g New Member Supporter

    3,865
    0
    0
    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.
     
  9. coltm4

    coltm4 New Member

    143
    0
    0
    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.
     
  10. matt g

    matt g New Member Supporter

    3,865
    0
    0
    This is an 18" barreled M14 in an Vltor stock and rail system:

    [​IMG]

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

    [​IMG]

    Both would be well suited to high op-tempo, urban *** 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 *****ed about how he wished he was running something chambered in 7.62x51mm instead if the M4 or CAR-15.
     
  11. coltm4

    coltm4 New Member

    143
    0
    0
    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: Jun 4, 2008
  12. Ermac

    Ermac New Member

    51
    0
    0
    How about an M14 in 6.8 remington spc? This guy here seemed to be pretty effective with an M14 in CQB [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-NiRzvtZ2Q[/ame]
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2008
  13. matt g

    matt g New Member Supporter

    3,865
    0
    0
    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.
     
  14. RONSERESURPLUS

    RONSERESURPLUS New Member

    662
    0
    0
    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!
     
  15. coltm4

    coltm4 New Member

    143
    0
    0
    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
     
  16. matt g

    matt g New Member Supporter

    3,865
    0
    0
    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.
     
  17. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    1
    0
    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 :cool: ) in 6.8 Rem SPC and was tested on Future Weapons with some amazing results, in my opinion.

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zMpN_-pcas]Barrett M468 Tests[/ame]

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

    JD
     
  18. matt g

    matt g New Member Supporter

    3,865
    0
    0
    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.
     
  19. Dillinger

    Dillinger New Member

    23,972
    1
    0
    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
     
  20. coltm4

    coltm4 New Member

    143
    0
    0
    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.