An interesting, and rather negative, look at the M-14 rifle
- Thread starter Mike Irwin
- Start date
Gats Italian
New member
My point is where has DI been used since the development of the AR? DI is a small arms dead end. It is highly unlikely in the future that another DI service rifle will ever be fielded by anyone not using hand me downs from Uncle Sugar.
A piston AR may be not meaningfully different in performance than a DI AR, but many piston rifles that aren't ARs have proven to be far more reliable than DI ARs.
What I want to know is, who are all these supposed old-timers saying the M14 is the best rifle around, or a better combat rifle than the M16?
I sure haven't met them.
I have talked to a lot of knowledgeable people who are up front about the M14's strengths and weaknesses.
A friend of mine, who was a former USMC machine gunner, couldn't put down my M1A scout when he came over for dinner. He loved that gun, and said that it still enjoys a big mystique in the Marine Corps. But even he said that you don't see them much around the Fleet anymore, as they are a maintenance-heavy design that's being phased out.
The M1A is the only centerfire rifle I own because of the fun of shooting it, and for sheer good looks. The feel of the action operating when you shoot it is like no other rifle. For any combat any of us are likely to encounter (i.e. NONE) it serves as well as an AR, AK, BB gun, or stapler for that matter. So that whole article seems to have been written to beat up a straw man.
I sure haven't met them.
I have talked to a lot of knowledgeable people who are up front about the M14's strengths and weaknesses.
A friend of mine, who was a former USMC machine gunner, couldn't put down my M1A scout when he came over for dinner. He loved that gun, and said that it still enjoys a big mystique in the Marine Corps. But even he said that you don't see them much around the Fleet anymore, as they are a maintenance-heavy design that's being phased out.
The M1A is the only centerfire rifle I own because of the fun of shooting it, and for sheer good looks. The feel of the action operating when you shoot it is like no other rifle. For any combat any of us are likely to encounter (i.e. NONE) it serves as well as an AR, AK, BB gun, or stapler for that matter. So that whole article seems to have been written to beat up a straw man.
There are several different things people consider when pondering "what is a good combat rifle". And what best serves the needs of the military is not necessarily what best serves the needs of the individual.
I'm one of those "old timers" now, and I can clearly remember how well I liked the M14, because I carried an M16!
Yes, I would have griped about the weight. But I would have felt better about the rifle. I had hunted deer with and shot the .308 quite a bit before going in the Army, and when they gave me a rifle that fired a .22 cal round that wasn't even legal to hunt deer with in my home state, I was ..less than impressed, shall we say?
Round count per kill, hit probabllity, and all that other stuff wasn't MY concern. MY concern was that they gave me a carbine in a varmint caliber, and not even the best varmint caliber, instead of a serious rifle. AND it wasn't even all that accurate!
The individual survival of each soldier isn't the military's priority. Mission success is the priority. The weapons don't need to be the best possible, only good enough. This is more than a bit different from MY priority, which is my individual survival, and because of that, I want the best weapons I can obtain.
The weapons today have to be the lightest practical, with all the other stuff we have loaded our troops down with these days. A 40lb load with a 9lb rifle is one thing. What are they packing today, 60? 80lbs? With a 7lb rifle that winds up at 9lbs with all the gadgets bolted on it?
If I were fighting, in the military today, I would choose the AR (as if I had a choice, which I wouldn't). If I were not fighting in the military, bound by their orders and forced to use their tactics, I would chose the M1A.
But that's just me.
I'm one of those "old timers" now, and I can clearly remember how well I liked the M14, because I carried an M16!
Yes, I would have griped about the weight. But I would have felt better about the rifle. I had hunted deer with and shot the .308 quite a bit before going in the Army, and when they gave me a rifle that fired a .22 cal round that wasn't even legal to hunt deer with in my home state, I was ..less than impressed, shall we say?
Round count per kill, hit probabllity, and all that other stuff wasn't MY concern. MY concern was that they gave me a carbine in a varmint caliber, and not even the best varmint caliber, instead of a serious rifle. AND it wasn't even all that accurate!
The individual survival of each soldier isn't the military's priority. Mission success is the priority. The weapons don't need to be the best possible, only good enough. This is more than a bit different from MY priority, which is my individual survival, and because of that, I want the best weapons I can obtain.
The weapons today have to be the lightest practical, with all the other stuff we have loaded our troops down with these days. A 40lb load with a 9lb rifle is one thing. What are they packing today, 60? 80lbs? With a 7lb rifle that winds up at 9lbs with all the gadgets bolted on it?
If I were fighting, in the military today, I would choose the AR (as if I had a choice, which I wouldn't). If I were not fighting in the military, bound by their orders and forced to use their tactics, I would chose the M1A.
But that's just me.
SPEMack618
New member
If I could explain one thing to the various internet commentators, gun counter jockeys, and my hunting club buddies; that there is no perfect rifle for the combat soldier.
In the space of one six hour patrol I could go from fighting from my Humvee, to clearing structures, to fighting in a mountain valley.
So in the space of six hours I'd need my M-4A1, a riot gun, and an M-21.
Obviously, that ain't happening.
In the space of one six hour patrol I could go from fighting from my Humvee, to clearing structures, to fighting in a mountain valley.
So in the space of six hours I'd need my M-4A1, a riot gun, and an M-21.
Obviously, that ain't happening.
Dirty_Harry
New member
Not to get off topic, but to comment on the last post I really think the perfect gun would be:
1. A bullpup design (CQB, getting out of vehicles, general handiness etc)
2. Have an intermediate cartridge for up to 600M engagements. (something like the 6.8(not necessarily saying 6.8 is best))
3. Have a 1-6 power optic, with backup iron sights.
This rifle could do all of the above.
I really think todays battles, and future ones demand something like the Tavor, MDR(not proven) or an updated AUG or FS2000. They have the accuracy of on M4, and are more handy. Couple that with a more effective cartridge and good optics....done.
JMHO take it for what its worth.
M1A is still my favorite rifle.
1. A bullpup design (CQB, getting out of vehicles, general handiness etc)
2. Have an intermediate cartridge for up to 600M engagements. (something like the 6.8(not necessarily saying 6.8 is best))
3. Have a 1-6 power optic, with backup iron sights.
This rifle could do all of the above.
I really think todays battles, and future ones demand something like the Tavor, MDR(not proven) or an updated AUG or FS2000. They have the accuracy of on M4, and are more handy. Couple that with a more effective cartridge and good optics....done.
JMHO take it for what its worth.
M1A is still my favorite rifle.
Look at the weapons mix in a WW II infantry squad (not just what TO&E calls for), but what was common in the field by the end of the war.
It was a generally a mixture of Garand, M1 Carbine, Tommygun, and BAR. And pistols. No one gun was expected to do it all well, nor was one soldier expected to do it all well by himself. The different arms supported each other, each one "taking point" when its strong suit was needed.
Today, we incorporate the carbine, and SMG into the assault rifle. Nearly everyone has what amounts to a LMG carbine. And still, dedicated long range rifles are needed, as well as GPMG support.
Keeping in mind the design limitations of the era, I think the M14 was an excellent rifle. It is not an excellent carbine, it is a miserable submachine gun, and its a poor LMG. But it's a good rifle.
Are there better rifles? Opinions vary, but I think a case can be made that there are better rifles for many applications than the M14. But there are also many which are worse, for those same uses.
Bullpups? They get the nod on overall length, and still having a decent barrel length, but bullpups have their own issues, and so far, no design has gotten past all of them.
They balance differently. They are not ambidexterous (and while some can be switched, it's an either, or, proposition. The long distance between the trigger and the action creates its own set of issues. Some designs manage this well enough, others...lets just say that it is a difficult thing to get, and keep a good trigger pull in a bullpup automatic. It can be done, but I don't see it being done for general issue rack grade guns.
Rifles in "standard" configurations are at least marginally usable by both right and left handed shooters without any modifications. Until someone comes up with a design that ejects out the bottom, bullpup autos must be either right or left "handed". (this issue also comes into play firing around barricades, although not just with the bullpup)
It was a generally a mixture of Garand, M1 Carbine, Tommygun, and BAR. And pistols. No one gun was expected to do it all well, nor was one soldier expected to do it all well by himself. The different arms supported each other, each one "taking point" when its strong suit was needed.
Today, we incorporate the carbine, and SMG into the assault rifle. Nearly everyone has what amounts to a LMG carbine. And still, dedicated long range rifles are needed, as well as GPMG support.
Keeping in mind the design limitations of the era, I think the M14 was an excellent rifle. It is not an excellent carbine, it is a miserable submachine gun, and its a poor LMG. But it's a good rifle.
Are there better rifles? Opinions vary, but I think a case can be made that there are better rifles for many applications than the M14. But there are also many which are worse, for those same uses.
Bullpups? They get the nod on overall length, and still having a decent barrel length, but bullpups have their own issues, and so far, no design has gotten past all of them.
They balance differently. They are not ambidexterous (and while some can be switched, it's an either, or, proposition. The long distance between the trigger and the action creates its own set of issues. Some designs manage this well enough, others...lets just say that it is a difficult thing to get, and keep a good trigger pull in a bullpup automatic. It can be done, but I don't see it being done for general issue rack grade guns.
Rifles in "standard" configurations are at least marginally usable by both right and left handed shooters without any modifications. Until someone comes up with a design that ejects out the bottom, bullpup autos must be either right or left "handed". (this issue also comes into play firing around barricades, although not just with the bullpup)
I have also noticed what appears to be a loosely organized effortto promote this negative look at the M14 on various websites lately.
The writer doubles down like Obama does.
http://looserounds.com/2015/02/04/more-thoughts-and-follow-ups-from-some-others-on-the-m14/
Last edited:
I initially misread the thread title, getting M4 instead of M14, and thought Mr. Irwin was referring to
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/gun-trouble/383508/.
Worth the time, it reinforces things I heard in the '60s. It hints at the failed selection process going back to the Civil War.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/01/gun-trouble/383508/.
Worth the time, it reinforces things I heard in the '60s. It hints at the failed selection process going back to the Civil War.
The fact that a particular firearm is or isn't highly suited to the modern battlefield shouldn't have much impact on the decision of whether or not to own one.
Some of the most fun guns I own have never and will never appear on any battlefield in any form or variant.
As far as the M14 goes, it may be a great rifle, but it wasn't better than the FAL. It would never have been selected if honest trials had been run by the U.S. military. What's particularly ironic is that if the trials been honest, there's a reasonable chance that we'd still be issuing a 7.62 service rifle. At the very least I think we would have stuck with 7.62 through most of the 20th century.
Tucker 1371
New member
In Afghanistan we were frequently engaged from 400+ meters out, usually by PKMs firing 7.62x54R. Would've traded my M16A4 for an M14 all day every day. I would say Afghanistan qualifies as a "modern" battlefield.
The truth of the M14 is that it worked when it was called upon, and we are damn lucky to have it available in large numbers.
The way I see it, the M14 will go back into storage at some point, only to be called upon once again in the future.
Also, I am of the opinion that if the SCAR H can replace the M14, it can also replace the M110 & other .308 AR variants.
Long live the M14.
The way I see it, the M14 will go back into storage at some point, only to be called upon once again in the future.
Also, I am of the opinion that if the SCAR H can replace the M14, it can also replace the M110 & other .308 AR variants.
Long live the M14.
IMHO --- Tavor's are way too loud for surrounding troops in most CQB OP's.
Try sitting next to a firing Tavor at a firing range --- as I have done --- and you'll usually have to double-up on muffs and earplugs.
I like to own pieces of history...and the M14/M1A is one of them --- though I can't --- because I did not purchase one prior to Maryland's Senate Bill #281 enforcement date.
Try sitting next to a firing Tavor at a firing range --- as I have done --- and you'll usually have to double-up on muffs and earplugs.
I like to own pieces of history...and the M14/M1A is one of them --- though I can't --- because I did not purchase one prior to Maryland's Senate Bill #281 enforcement date.
I wasn't actually commenting on the M14's suitability as a modern military issue firearm but rather on the logic of basing a buying decision on whether a firearm is or isn't suited to the modern battlefield.
The point being that I have a number of guns that I enjoy owning and shooting that would be very unsuited to the modern battlefield.
Tucker 1371
New member
Gotcha. I suppose it all depends on the buyer's intended purpose for the gun.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"The AR's that dominate the 3-Gun matches aren't the ARs you find at the units. "
You can say exactly the same thing about the M-14s/M1As that were used in National Match competition, as well.
You can say exactly the same thing about the M-14s/M1As that were used in National Match competition, as well.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"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."
There's a small problem with that...
Actually, a HUGE problem with that...
The National Rifle Association was formed in large part to promote marksmanship...
Because the VAST majority of recruits in the Civil War (remember, the US was a largely rural agrarian society at the time) couldn't shoot worth a damn.
So, the NRA made things better for military marksmanship?
Maybe not. When Teddy Roosevelt founded the DCM in 1903(?) he did so because...
The volunteers who answered the call during the Spanish American war largely couldn't shoot worth a damn.
Things didn't really get much better in the lead up to World Wars I or II, either.
The one thing that really changed then was that NRA instituted enormous, and largely successful, training programs during both wars. A significant majority of soldiers during World War II received their initial firearms training not from a grizzled lifer who would bring down the wrath of God upon the recruits because they were failing to live up to the myth of every American a long-range sniper, but from a civilian NRA instructor.
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."
There's a small problem with that...
Actually, a HUGE problem with that...
The National Rifle Association was formed in large part to promote marksmanship...
Because the VAST majority of recruits in the Civil War (remember, the US was a largely rural agrarian society at the time) couldn't shoot worth a damn.
So, the NRA made things better for military marksmanship?
Maybe not. When Teddy Roosevelt founded the DCM in 1903(?) he did so because...
The volunteers who answered the call during the Spanish American war largely couldn't shoot worth a damn.
Things didn't really get much better in the lead up to World Wars I or II, either.
The one thing that really changed then was that NRA instituted enormous, and largely successful, training programs during both wars. A significant majority of soldiers during World War II received their initial firearms training not from a grizzled lifer who would bring down the wrath of God upon the recruits because they were failing to live up to the myth of every American a long-range sniper, but from a civilian NRA instructor.