An interesting, and rather negative, look at the M-14 rifle
- Thread starter Mike Irwin
- Start date
We could trot out the litany of problems that the AR had during its early service life too. That proves...nothing, really. Likewise, any assumption of superiority due to length of service use is another red herring.
And, please note that current thinking is that .30 cal ammo in large cases is obsolete only for the basic infantryman's rifle.
It still seems to be the choice for machine guns, snipers, etc. and shows no sign of going away for those uses.
I won't try to argue that the new designs are not superior in some, if not all ways. They certainly ought to be!
The AR15 .223 platforms through 600 yards. The AR10 in .308 Win. and 7.62 M1 and M1A at longer ranges; the US Army got the NRA to allow them in service rifle matches because they didn't have any M14NM's to compete against the 7.62 M1 and M1A platforms shooting better scores than the 22 caliber semiautos at long range. Set a record in 2012 with those AR10's shooting Berger 185's in a four man team match at 1000 yards.
What civilian 3-gun matches are you talking about? Service, match and any? If so, see the above for service, for match rifles, its the bolt action tube guns. But for any rifle, any decent flat surfaced bolt action rifle receiver can be as accurate as any other bolt gun; semiautos are not cutting that jar of mustard.
Last edited:
Bart, thanks for the Voice of Reason.
The AR-10s are not service rifles regardless of what the NRA approved. You wont find them in the gun racks of any of our Maneuver Battalions.
That is why the CMP doesn't recognize them in their matches.
The AR's that dominate the 3-Gun matches aren't the ARs you find at the units.
I do take exception to the other post that say the older guns cant hang with the new stuff.
If you take guns our of the armories, using issue ball ammo, none can hang with the Springfield's, the Garand's and M14s are a close second.
The AR-10s are not service rifles regardless of what the NRA approved. You wont find them in the gun racks of any of our Maneuver Battalions.
That is why the CMP doesn't recognize them in their matches.
The AR's that dominate the 3-Gun matches aren't the ARs you find at the units.
I do take exception to the other post that say the older guns cant hang with the new stuff.
If you take guns our of the armories, using issue ball ammo, none can hang with the Springfield's, the Garand's and M14s are a close second.
Gats Italian
New member
What's funny about this debate, arguing that the m-14/M1A is ancient and obsolete, is that the AR-15 is also an ancient design that essentially hasn't been replaced due to institutional inertia.
The once revolutionary DI firing system is pretty much a small arms dead end that no one else has followed.
The AR is far too right handed ergonomically to be considered truly modern.
The ridiculous buffer tube design means that to shorten the rifle for confined spaces, the barrel has to be shortened instead of simply being able to fold away the stock.
Atop that, it's been pretty much conclusively proven by the Big Army itself that compared to today's generation of short stroke piston guns, even the much kludged latter day M4 or 16/AR DI whatever is not anywhere near the gold standard of reliability in 5.56mm rifles. They are just too cheap to replace the current service rifle.
AR fans can diss the m-14 as a dinosaur. It is especially funny as they wield the equivalent of the saber tooth tiger, merely a more recent fossil that's best days are way behind it.
The once revolutionary DI firing system is pretty much a small arms dead end that no one else has followed.
The AR is far too right handed ergonomically to be considered truly modern.
The ridiculous buffer tube design means that to shorten the rifle for confined spaces, the barrel has to be shortened instead of simply being able to fold away the stock.
Atop that, it's been pretty much conclusively proven by the Big Army itself that compared to today's generation of short stroke piston guns, even the much kludged latter day M4 or 16/AR DI whatever is not anywhere near the gold standard of reliability in 5.56mm rifles. They are just too cheap to replace the current service rifle.
AR fans can diss the m-14 as a dinosaur. It is especially funny as they wield the equivalent of the saber tooth tiger, merely a more recent fossil that's best days are way behind it.
The "every American is an ultra-deadly long-range sniper" is a myth. It was also a myth that the U.S. prior to W.W. II was a nation of riflemen. Most people never saw a real firearm.
The M-14 was adopted for political reasons, not anything the Ordnance Dept. had anything to do with. The M-16 was adopted for the same reason. Nobody wanted either.
"...What rifle dominates Service Rifle matches?..." Oddly it's the current Service Rifle.
"...civilian 3Gun matches..." Are IPSC/IDPA games.
The M-14 was adopted for political reasons, not anything the Ordnance Dept. had anything to do with. The M-16 was adopted for the same reason. Nobody wanted either.
"...What rifle dominates Service Rifle matches?..." Oddly it's the current Service Rifle.
"...civilian 3Gun matches..." Are IPSC/IDPA games.
I'm not a Veteran,I don't shoot competition.I don't claim "authority" on the subject.I enjoy shooting all of them.
An observation I have made about the M-14/M1A and those who own/shoot them:
Its a lot like folks who own/ride Harley Davidson motorcycles.
There is an intangible bond there that just can't be argued with.If somebody else likes a Yamaha,BMW,Honda,Kawasaki,Triumph,Ducati,Suzuki...OK.
But its just not likely an HD rider will be easily converted.
I just shrug.
I suspect "Which is better in battle?" would depend on which battle you are in.
How many rounds you can carry and how quickly you can engage multiple targets rates pretty high,IMO.
I suspect those who ran the Mogadishu Mile could attest to that.
Oh,and Mr OHeir,I have to disagree with you.I do not believe it is true most Americans "never saw a real firearm"
USA used to be more agricultural,more rural,and firearms were more a way of life.A Daisy BB gun as a very common start for a boy.And the DCM Program was quite successful and widespread.
As a kid,the local YMCA in Aurora,Ill(just outside Chicago) had an indoor smallbore range .When we moved to Colorado,the High School I graduated from had an indoor 50 ft 22 range and a rifle team.Colorado State University had an indoor ROTC rifle range on campus.In public school,my experience was ALL students,male and female,took Hunter Safety,which included a range fire.
My town of about 42,000 (back when I was a young man) had a mil-spec county rifle range,free,public,73 yd,77 yd,100 yd,50 yd,and 200 yd ranges,each about 6 lanes with benches.
There was a trap range on the SW side of town,another trap and skeet facility about 12 miles east.
That is just the little world I grew up in.Not unusual.
That does not make us all Alvin C York,but we did value Mr York as an icon.
Was it Yamamoto who said something about how invading USA would be crazy,a rifle behind every bush?
Mr OHeir,I,myself,would not be so presumptuous as to make blanket statements about Canada or Canadians....unless it would be to say we have stood together through a lot.
What is your preferred rifle Mr O?
An observation I have made about the M-14/M1A and those who own/shoot them:
Its a lot like folks who own/ride Harley Davidson motorcycles.
There is an intangible bond there that just can't be argued with.If somebody else likes a Yamaha,BMW,Honda,Kawasaki,Triumph,Ducati,Suzuki...OK.
But its just not likely an HD rider will be easily converted.
I just shrug.
I suspect "Which is better in battle?" would depend on which battle you are in.
How many rounds you can carry and how quickly you can engage multiple targets rates pretty high,IMO.
I suspect those who ran the Mogadishu Mile could attest to that.
Oh,and Mr OHeir,I have to disagree with you.I do not believe it is true most Americans "never saw a real firearm"
USA used to be more agricultural,more rural,and firearms were more a way of life.A Daisy BB gun as a very common start for a boy.And the DCM Program was quite successful and widespread.
As a kid,the local YMCA in Aurora,Ill(just outside Chicago) had an indoor smallbore range .When we moved to Colorado,the High School I graduated from had an indoor 50 ft 22 range and a rifle team.Colorado State University had an indoor ROTC rifle range on campus.In public school,my experience was ALL students,male and female,took Hunter Safety,which included a range fire.
My town of about 42,000 (back when I was a young man) had a mil-spec county rifle range,free,public,73 yd,77 yd,100 yd,50 yd,and 200 yd ranges,each about 6 lanes with benches.
There was a trap range on the SW side of town,another trap and skeet facility about 12 miles east.
That is just the little world I grew up in.Not unusual.
That does not make us all Alvin C York,but we did value Mr York as an icon.
Was it Yamamoto who said something about how invading USA would be crazy,a rifle behind every bush?
Mr OHeir,I,myself,would not be so presumptuous as to make blanket statements about Canada or Canadians....unless it would be to say we have stood together through a lot.
What is your preferred rifle Mr O?
Last edited:
Some have fallen into the spiral of comparing the M14 to modern designs and taking that as a basis for bashing the rifle.
Comparing the M14 to the M16 is not only chronologically incorrect, it is flawed on several other points.
The correct comparison is between concurrent designs like the M14, FAL, G3, FN49, AR10 etc. as they existed in the mid 50s.
Comparing the M14 to the M16 is not only chronologically incorrect, it is flawed on several other points.
The correct comparison is between concurrent designs like the M14, FAL, G3, FN49, AR10 etc. as they existed in the mid 50s.
bamaranger
New member
hero
HiBC, ...great post.
HiBC, ...great post.
SPEMack618
New member
I have nothing against 3-Gun, in fact there are several guys on the AMU's 3-Gun team I'd love to have in some of my platoons.
But 3-Gun has about as much relevance on what I carry as a foot soldier as what my fraternity brothers played paintball with.
To the post that said most soldiers never shoot past 176 meters; I suspect in the streets of Fallujah that's true.
But in the little section of war I fought, it wasn't uncommon for ISR assets to see bad guys on an adjacent mountain top from us, anywhere from 500 to 750 meters away.
Then the fellow lugging around the M-21 got real popular real quick.
Again, service rifles aren't a zero sum game.
But 3-Gun has about as much relevance on what I carry as a foot soldier as what my fraternity brothers played paintball with.
To the post that said most soldiers never shoot past 176 meters; I suspect in the streets of Fallujah that's true.
But in the little section of war I fought, it wasn't uncommon for ISR assets to see bad guys on an adjacent mountain top from us, anywhere from 500 to 750 meters away.
Then the fellow lugging around the M-21 got real popular real quick.
Again, service rifles aren't a zero sum game.
"The once revolutionary DI firing system is pretty much a small arms dead end that no one else has followed."
Are you attempting to say DI was a new development designed by Stoner?
If so, you don't have a clue...
"The first experimental rifle using a direct impingement system was the French ENT 1901 Rossignol B1 rifle..."
"The first successful production weapon was the MAS 40 rifle adopted in March 1940...
Don't forget the Swedish Ag m/42 or its copy, the Hakim...
Then the MAS 49...
ALL before Stoner developed the AR rifles...
For those that whine about the "crud" that is transferred into the rifles action and complain about the unreliability of the AR's...
"...the French MAS 44 and MAS 49 series of rifles was known to have been successfully operated for years with corrosive-primed ammunition using ordinary field cleaning expedients such as gasoline (as solvent) and straight-grade motor oil (as lubricant)."
These rifles were operated in ncluding some of the worst deserts and jungles including Indo-Chine (ie. Laos, Cambodia, N. Vietnam and South Vietnam).
I like both the M-14 and AR rifles...
T.
Are you attempting to say DI was a new development designed by Stoner?
If so, you don't have a clue...
"The first experimental rifle using a direct impingement system was the French ENT 1901 Rossignol B1 rifle..."
"The first successful production weapon was the MAS 40 rifle adopted in March 1940...
Don't forget the Swedish Ag m/42 or its copy, the Hakim...
Then the MAS 49...
ALL before Stoner developed the AR rifles...
For those that whine about the "crud" that is transferred into the rifles action and complain about the unreliability of the AR's...
"...the French MAS 44 and MAS 49 series of rifles was known to have been successfully operated for years with corrosive-primed ammunition using ordinary field cleaning expedients such as gasoline (as solvent) and straight-grade motor oil (as lubricant)."
These rifles were operated in ncluding some of the worst deserts and jungles including Indo-Chine (ie. Laos, Cambodia, N. Vietnam and South Vietnam).
I like both the M-14 and AR rifles...
T.
tirod said:
kraigwy said:
While perhaps a bit disjointed, Tirod makes a valid point....
The original design for the Garand was intended to use a 10-round en bloc clip of .276 Pederson. The U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Douglas MacArthur rejected the .276 Pedersen Garand in 1932 after verifying that a .30-06 version was feasible although at the cost of having 2 fewer rounds.
As much as the .276 Pedersen had going for it, the decision to use the .30-06 was probably the best thing. The amazing thing is that with money for the military so tight, that we got the Garand, at all. Adding the expense of a whole new caliber might have been enough to have the entire thing canceled. It was the Great Depression, and the warclouds over Europe and China had not noticeably gathered yet.
The M14 likely would have been the Garand of WWIII, if we were to fight WW III the way we fought WW II.
The AR-10 won't be the "Garand" of anybody's war, we don't fight that way anymore. And it doesn't look like will ever will again. While there will always be a place for long(er) range accuracy, the "300 meter submachine gun" in various forms (assault rifle) has proven adequate for general use, and superior for close combat.
Yeah, a lot of my odd posts are research and reading into unpopular things like Project Salvo and what the German Staff were studying in armaments.
And we adopted a large number of their advances - right down to the design of the Stahlhelm. Strange, that.
Why? Because it works better.
Asking "What 3Gun matches are you talking about?" isn't being honest with yourself. Type in "3Gun match" in a search engine and what images do you get?
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=3Gun+Match&FORM=HDRSC2
https://www.google.com/search?q=3Gu...a=X&ei=WNDYVMmcBoHfgwTxmoCQCQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ
https://images.search.yahoo.com/sea...yFXNyoA?p=3Gun+match&fr=yfp-t-591&fr2=piv-web
Old School large caliber battle rifles are the exception, not the rule. And you know it. They have been obsolete for over 35 years, and one of the reasons I found it nice to shoot .308 in those days. Cheap surplus ammo surfacing as the western world dumped their stocks of ammo to replace them with intermediate rounds for their new pattern combat rifles.
As for the choice of calibers, governments make decisions based on economics, not common sense or hard data based on objective testing by subject matter experts.
We kept the .30-06 simply because we had it and the production facilities during a severe economic recession. Our government certainly could have financed the change, they made a decision to put funding into economic relief in other ways. Consider the fact that the military-industrial complex wasn't as influential then.
The Germans made almost the exact same decision, design engineers didn't want a 8mm short cartridge. Another caliber was the first choice - but with a war on and production machinery turning out ammo at full capacity, it was judged best to use the production 8mm diameter.
That certainly does not justify them as being the best or most optimal choice. Just as the Army chose to use UCP for their basic camouflage, sometimes decisions aren't made on a most optimal basis. In point of fact it has yet to come out who or why that decision was made, and it's all the more an issue considering we are now implementing Scorpion, the predecessor to Multicam.
Don't dress up the poor choices of the day and embellish on them - a bad idea is still a bad idea. .30-06 was still too much cartridge and didn't reflect the realities of war, any more than 8mm. They were both obsolete and both countries moved to accept another round which was still proven to be too much cartridge - again ignoring the subject matter experts of that day.
The very relevant fact is that the .308 only lasted about 14 years in service, and the weapons that used it were plagued with production and operator use issues. Main battle rifles were out of date and falling behind even while being adopted.
The mindset that held they were superior was one I came of age in, and I certainly didn't question the wisdom of the day. Considering the recent track record in fielding the M16, it seemed that it was a given. That mindset existed right up thru the 1980's, where I attended an invitational match and saw competitors being eliminated from shooting by the expedient of simply refusing them to use a wildcatted AR15 in .30 x 5.56 - which become .300Whisper.
Got to listen to one guys tirade for ten minutes complaining about how the rules were being twisted to suit the match attendees and open competition was being denied.
Once that hurdle was overcome, what rifle become dominant in matches - in 5.56?
If you can't say "AR15," you are only fooling yourself.
And we adopted a large number of their advances - right down to the design of the Stahlhelm. Strange, that.
Why? Because it works better.
Asking "What 3Gun matches are you talking about?" isn't being honest with yourself. Type in "3Gun match" in a search engine and what images do you get?
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=3Gun+Match&FORM=HDRSC2
https://www.google.com/search?q=3Gu...a=X&ei=WNDYVMmcBoHfgwTxmoCQCQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ
https://images.search.yahoo.com/sea...yFXNyoA?p=3Gun+match&fr=yfp-t-591&fr2=piv-web
Old School large caliber battle rifles are the exception, not the rule. And you know it. They have been obsolete for over 35 years, and one of the reasons I found it nice to shoot .308 in those days. Cheap surplus ammo surfacing as the western world dumped their stocks of ammo to replace them with intermediate rounds for their new pattern combat rifles.
As for the choice of calibers, governments make decisions based on economics, not common sense or hard data based on objective testing by subject matter experts.
We kept the .30-06 simply because we had it and the production facilities during a severe economic recession. Our government certainly could have financed the change, they made a decision to put funding into economic relief in other ways. Consider the fact that the military-industrial complex wasn't as influential then.
The Germans made almost the exact same decision, design engineers didn't want a 8mm short cartridge. Another caliber was the first choice - but with a war on and production machinery turning out ammo at full capacity, it was judged best to use the production 8mm diameter.
That certainly does not justify them as being the best or most optimal choice. Just as the Army chose to use UCP for their basic camouflage, sometimes decisions aren't made on a most optimal basis. In point of fact it has yet to come out who or why that decision was made, and it's all the more an issue considering we are now implementing Scorpion, the predecessor to Multicam.
Don't dress up the poor choices of the day and embellish on them - a bad idea is still a bad idea. .30-06 was still too much cartridge and didn't reflect the realities of war, any more than 8mm. They were both obsolete and both countries moved to accept another round which was still proven to be too much cartridge - again ignoring the subject matter experts of that day.
The very relevant fact is that the .308 only lasted about 14 years in service, and the weapons that used it were plagued with production and operator use issues. Main battle rifles were out of date and falling behind even while being adopted.
The mindset that held they were superior was one I came of age in, and I certainly didn't question the wisdom of the day. Considering the recent track record in fielding the M16, it seemed that it was a given. That mindset existed right up thru the 1980's, where I attended an invitational match and saw competitors being eliminated from shooting by the expedient of simply refusing them to use a wildcatted AR15 in .30 x 5.56 - which become .300Whisper.
Got to listen to one guys tirade for ten minutes complaining about how the rules were being twisted to suit the match attendees and open competition was being denied.
Once that hurdle was overcome, what rifle become dominant in matches - in 5.56?
If you can't say "AR15," you are only fooling yourself.
Gats Italian
New member
Wasn't saying that at all. What I am saying is that DI has had a very brief period of actual service success compared to competing short stroke piston designs.
The only "real" widespread success story out there for DI is the AR and its descendants. What I was saying is that DI has not caught on generally in semi or full auto rifles since then. Evolutionarily speaking, it's family tree is short and mostly undistinguished.
The MAS-49 was such a success with DI that it was replaced by a rifle using lever delayed blowback operation.
[Snipped wikipedia blather]
DI has been used long before the AR's came about. The French M1949 and M1949/56 were DI systems as was the Swedish Ljngman AG42 we successful DI semi and automatic rifles.
The "piston" is a solution for a none existent problem. The Piston AR hasn't prove to be an advantage over the DI but it has shown to be less accurate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there are few here that will be called on to enter or re-enter combat so we use or guns for sporting purposes.
In shooting sports, the largest segment (and growing) is the CMP GSM matches. The '06 is still king in these matches.
Not to mention none of us will live long enough to see the '06 ceasing to be one of, if not the most popular hunting rounds in this country.
The AR is king in 3 gun matches, which requires fast shooting at multiple targets at relatively short ranges.
The AR is still king in Service Rifle matches up to 600 yards.
All these guns overlap. I shoot for fun, meaning I'll labile to show up with anything to a 3-gun match, Carbines, Garand's, Springfield's and even a Krag.
And, I just might have a bayonet for close targets.
---------------------------------------------------------------
As to the military, I don't see in my lifetime, or my kids life time getting rid of the M16/M4 series rifles. Faster twist and heavier bullets have extended the range and we'll keep match 'A2s and M14s for the Designated marksman program.
Sniper rifles are anyone's guess. Snipers have become more static then the days of Vietnam where sniper teams went out for days or weeks at a time, carrying everything they need.
Sniper rifles though "MAY" be more accurate, they are a lot heavier. And too dependent on batteries. We always prepare for the next year by what we learned from the last war.
I'm guessing it we go back to the jungles (such as Africa) or the Arctic, we'll be digging the old lighter rifles of the past, which arnt so dependent on batteries. But that's just a guess.
In short, there are and always will be different guns for different task. To say one is better then the other is silly. My Krag can hold its own in the Military Match of the CMP GSM games, but, though it's fun, it sucks in 3-gun competition.
The "piston" is a solution for a none existent problem. The Piston AR hasn't prove to be an advantage over the DI but it has shown to be less accurate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think there are few here that will be called on to enter or re-enter combat so we use or guns for sporting purposes.
In shooting sports, the largest segment (and growing) is the CMP GSM matches. The '06 is still king in these matches.
Not to mention none of us will live long enough to see the '06 ceasing to be one of, if not the most popular hunting rounds in this country.
The AR is king in 3 gun matches, which requires fast shooting at multiple targets at relatively short ranges.
The AR is still king in Service Rifle matches up to 600 yards.
All these guns overlap. I shoot for fun, meaning I'll labile to show up with anything to a 3-gun match, Carbines, Garand's, Springfield's and even a Krag.
And, I just might have a bayonet for close targets.
---------------------------------------------------------------
As to the military, I don't see in my lifetime, or my kids life time getting rid of the M16/M4 series rifles. Faster twist and heavier bullets have extended the range and we'll keep match 'A2s and M14s for the Designated marksman program.
Sniper rifles are anyone's guess. Snipers have become more static then the days of Vietnam where sniper teams went out for days or weeks at a time, carrying everything they need.
Sniper rifles though "MAY" be more accurate, they are a lot heavier. And too dependent on batteries. We always prepare for the next year by what we learned from the last war.
I'm guessing it we go back to the jungles (such as Africa) or the Arctic, we'll be digging the old lighter rifles of the past, which arnt so dependent on batteries. But that's just a guess.
In short, there are and always will be different guns for different task. To say one is better then the other is silly. My Krag can hold its own in the Military Match of the CMP GSM games, but, though it's fun, it sucks in 3-gun competition.