An interesting, and rather negative, look at the M-14 rifle

[Mike Irwin]

http://looserounds.com/2015/01/30/the-m14-not-much-for-fighting-a-case-against-the-m14-legend/

I knew that the M14 had had a lot of early production issues that took a number of years and design changes to sort out, but I didn't know about a lot of the other issues mentioned in this article.

I've often said that the M14 was the last gasp of the "every American is an ultra-deadly long-range sniper," and that it was the wrong rifle adopted at the wrong time to fight a kind of war that no longer existed...

 

[4thPoint]

I think we would have been better served by adopting the T48, especially considering how many countries adapted a version of the FAL compred to how many adopted the M14.

Still, either rifle was outclassed once the AR10 entered the picture.

 

[Dirty_Harry]

I have read this article and from accounts of actual veterans, it a lot of hogwash.

I might also ask how the AR10 outclasses the M1A? I can think of a few, but not every way. The AR10 is more accurate off the shelf, easier to mount optics on and has better ergos; that's all I can think of. I suppose it is based on your use for the rifle.

 

[wogpotter]

It seems to be a question of politics & generations rather than anything technical to me.

The M-14 was an improved Garand, probably equivalent to the FN49 which was a wood & steel first generation semi auto, more than the FAL or the AR-10, both of which were "second generation" semi-auto rifles.

The M-14 was going to win the trials no matter what.

 

[Dave P]

Not that I am biased, but when he said " grab it by the top hand guard ..." he lost me.

There is only one hand guard on a -14. A M1 Garand has a front and rear handguard.

 

[wojtekimbier]

I might also ask how the AR10 outclasses the M1A?

I'm not certain but after reading the article provided by OP one may assume that AR-10 was cheaper to manufacture, using alluminum and plastic in place of steel and wood furniture. It also required less maintenance.
Don't quote me on that.

 

[wogpotter]

Yup! cost efficient manufacturing.
We forget that we buy them one at a time, but the gubbermint buys in much larger contracts than that.

 

[4thPoint]

I might also ask how the AR10 outclasses the M1A? I can think of a few, but not every way. The AR10 is more accurate off the shelf, easier to mount optics on and has better ergos; that's all I can think of. I suppose it is based on your use for the rifle.

Well,,,
It's more accurate
It's easier to mount optics on
It has better ergonomics
It can't suffer from the wood warping due to varying levels of humidity

No one has said in 'every way' but even you admitted that it was better.

Is there some way that you believe the M14/M1A is superior to the AR10 (or for that matter to the T48/FAL)?

 

[musher]

Well,,,
It's more accurate
It's easier to mount optics on
It has better ergonomics
It can't suffer from the wood warping due to varying levels of humidity

Well, of course, ergonomics goes without saying.

..but aside from accuracy, optics, ergonomics, and no point of impact shifts due to humidity...name ONE thing that the AR10 has done for us.

 

[precision_shooter]

Gave birth to the AR15/M16...

 

[jmr40]

I've always felt the M-14 was a failed experiment. Not necessarily a bad rifle, it just didn't do the job needed.

 

[James K]

I have seen most of that "information" on the M14 before. Quite a bit of it was put out by Cooper-McDonald when they were promoting the (then) AR-15, with the help of many bought and paid for "expert opinions" on the M14. Of course, the AR-15 was eventually adopted as the M16 (the M15 was a bipod version of the M14). As we know, the M16 was a real disaster in the early days, with far more and greater problems than the M14 ever had. It is still not what a battle rifle should be, but it has been vastly improved, though at a cost of tens of millions of dollars.

The real killer of the M14 was the AK-47. The Russians had produced a medium power rifle/carbine with a selective fire capability that actually worked. In spite of claims by some who never fired one, the M14 simply could not be controlled in full auto fire; it is too powerful and its configuration is wrong. The smart thing for the U.S. to have done would have been to adopt the AK-47 and pay royalties to Kalashnikov, but that was not going to happen in the real world.

The U.S. needed to have a selective fire rifle, immediately, for prestige reasons, and the AR-15 was the only one in sight, so, for better or worse, it was accepted. It was helped a lot by JFK's impressions when he fired one and "suggested" that the Army "reconsider" its rejection of the "black rifle."

Jim

 

[reynolds357]

I love the Ak-47 but I am not convinced it is in any way superior to the vz.58.
The superior weapon would depend on the battlefield. In very few real world situations would the M14 be superior to the Ak or the VZ.

 

[Mobuck]

I carried an M-14 and liked everything except the weight of rifle and ammo load. My perception is that the M-14 is/was meant to provide AIMED FIRE not general direction bullet hosing. At the ranges I needed to use the M-14, it was far superior to anything in the field. Those FN FAL/AK 47 rattly-bang blasters are basically worthless at 400-800 yards. The M-14 was the spotter's weapon and complimented the bolt rifle by handling targets out to 600 yards and/or providing higher volume fire for closer ranges.

 

[ttarp]

I don't have much room to talk here as I haven't served or fired more than 3 bullets from an M1A, but I do take issue with his opening statement.

Go on to any gun forum, and it won’t take you long to find people willing to tell you how great the M14 is. How accurate,like a laser, tough as tool steel with no need to baby it or clean it.

Maybe a few years ago this might have been the case, but since I've starting hanging around forums folks are super quick to praise the M16/AR15 and hold just about anything else in contempt. Very little love for the M14/M1A these days, and for most folks the AR will be a better choice anyway, so I can't really blame them for that.

 

[reynolds357]

I like the M1 National Match better than I like the M1a, but thats just my 2 cents.

 

[Dirty_Harry]

4thpoint, in no way I admitted the Ar10 was better. Notice I left out the most important item in my AR10 praise, reliability. I would take the M1A/M14 all day long. Is the AR10 better setup off the shelf as a DMR, yup. But for a regular infantry rifle give me an M1A.

Wood warping? Really? How often does that actually happen? The M1A has a plethora of other stock options as well.

 

[dvdcrr]

To me it is apparent that those who developed the m14 were either commanded or held the firm belief that the M1 was nearly perfect and only needed minor tweaking. So the end result was pretty darned close to where they started. Nearly the same weight, power, length. Larger but heavy mags.

I have done rapid fire drills with my m1a, 308 based saiga, and PTR91. I find that the m1a can be very fast and effective.
I also feel that the Garand design is more efficient than the Stoner in that rifles of the same cartridge are nearly the same weight, but the Garand achieves this using none of the weight saving materials.

 

[henschman]

I think the FAL in the original chambering of .280 British, which was a good bit lighter than the 7.62x51 version, would have been really hard to beat as a fighting rifle.

 

[highpower3006]

I have no idea of why people still feel obliged to keep beating this dead horse. The M14 was largely superseded by the M16 in the early sixties. Whether the AR10 was a better rifle or not is really a moot point.

I have heard that the AR10 is not the best thing since sliced bread as some would have us believe. Where they are currently being used in combat situations they have the exact same issues that the M4's have ie. sensitivity to sandy environments.

It is very true though, that the M14 was going to win the trials no matter what and the 7.62X51 cartridge was jammed down NATO"s throat because there were generals that were focused on fighting the last war.

I happen to have both a M1A and a FAL. I like them both, but they are heavy and you have a reduced ammo load due to weight. However, I certainly would not feel under armed carrying either.