i grew up on a farm with a father and uncles who were combat veterans and when ever they came over to hunt small game or deer, us young boys got to shoot quite a bit after we got the long safety talks and showed we took the talks to heart. and there were firearms in the house and barn as far back as i can remember. my older brother and i would hitch hike with .410 shotguns to shoot water snakes at out favorite trout stream about 2 miles away with out any problems with the police or others. i had never heard of the NRA then and i don,t think my dad or uncles thought much about it either. damn i miss those times, but they are gone forever. eastbank.
An interesting, and rather negative, look at the M-14 rifle
- Thread starter Mike Irwin
- Start date
I think the "most Americans never saw a firearm" is a total bunch of carp!! (dead fish)
To the point I don't see how anyone could take it seriously. Now, "never used" or "weren't highly skilled", that one could make an argument over.
No, the recruits didn't shoot well, still don't. But they knew what guns were. Even today, they know what they are, even if they've never held a real one before.
There were shooting galleries downtown in major cities as public entertainment even past 1900. People had seen guns.
Now, a lot of farmboys were good shots, but a lot also only knew shotguns. The myth that every American is /was a deadly accurate long range shot has always been a myth. But Americans "never saw a firearm" is an even BIGGER MYTH.
To the point I don't see how anyone could take it seriously. Now, "never used" or "weren't highly skilled", that one could make an argument over.
No, the recruits didn't shoot well, still don't. But they knew what guns were. Even today, they know what they are, even if they've never held a real one before.
There were shooting galleries downtown in major cities as public entertainment even past 1900. People had seen guns.
Now, a lot of farmboys were good shots, but a lot also only knew shotguns. The myth that every American is /was a deadly accurate long range shot has always been a myth. But Americans "never saw a firearm" is an even BIGGER MYTH.
SPEMack618
New member
Tucker_1371 said:
This. A 1,000 times this.
Sort of aggravating when the "most modern military in the world" is outranged by illiterate goat farmers with PKMs and Mosin-Nagants. And Enfields.
Or when you were prohibited by the ROE from calling in arty on them. Our FISTer actually had some severe PTSD because of that.
Isn't this a classic case of "always having the best weapon for the last war"?
When an
I'd take the high cost (sic) of a .303 Mk7 round ($1.20 & dropping because of CTD's mini-glut) against a Hind (how much? about $2,500,000.00+ personnel training & accessories) I'll take my obsolete before the FIRST world war rifle & call it "current under some conditions" in the right hands.
When an
has you beat you may not be well prepared for the current conflict.
I'd take the high cost (sic) of a .303 Mk7 round ($1.20 & dropping because of CTD's mini-glut) against a Hind (how much? about $2,500,000.00+ personnel training & accessories) I'll take my obsolete before the FIRST world war rifle & call it "current under some conditions" in the right hands.
stagpanther
New member
Fascinating discussion fellas--keep it up. ; )
Just a quick side comment--It seems like a lot of big manufacturers are getting serious about developing a 7.62 carbine in a lightweight configuration--I'm assuming the MO these days is hope the military likes it--but if not the civilian market will be back-up. Maybe the day is not far off when that becomes at least an option to combat units?
Just a quick side comment--It seems like a lot of big manufacturers are getting serious about developing a 7.62 carbine in a lightweight configuration--I'm assuming the MO these days is hope the military likes it--but if not the civilian market will be back-up. Maybe the day is not far off when that becomes at least an option to combat units?
Tucker 1371
New member
Yup, thank God for the 240s. I'm an engineer but if my grunts had asked me to I would've carried that beast with a smile on my face. And extra belts too.
I'm not bashing the M-14 here,I'm reframing the question a bit.
IMO,at least part of the M-14 vs M-16/M-4 argument has been the 7.62 v 5.56 argument,rather than rifle design.
For this discussion,assume the Mini-14 was a true scaled down M-14.
Now the choice becomes Mini-14 vs M-4.
We can take it the other way,M-110/SR-25 vs M-14
even to the point of the decked out M-110 sniper system vs an EBR.
I'm sure folks will still disagree,but this does isolate the variables to a more focused discussion.
Not knocking any rifle's history,Rummy said"You go to war with what you've got"
Different topic,on "Americans were not riflemen,historically"
I was not there.
I have beside me a copy of "The JM Pyne Stories " by Lucian Cary.
I discovered these stories,based on Harry Pope,in the 1960's Gun Digests.But,in fact,at least some of these stories were reprinted from pre-WW2 Saturday Evening Post.
My readings of Ned Roberts"The Muzzle Loading Caplock Rifle" and "The Muzzle Loading Cartridge Rifle" ,along with traditions of Turkey Shoots,Rendevous,and other marksmanship events suggest ..back before the NFL,NHL,NBA,and television, shooting events had a little more participation and audience.
My studies of making a Muzzle Loader showed me folks like Hacker Martin and Herchel house,and their tradition of a backwood mountain boy forge welding a tube around a mandrel,reaming and rifling it with hand made tools,then shooting groups rivaling a good commercial modern bolt gun at 220 yds.
And lets not forget the match at Creedmore in 1897 or so.
Or the number of Depression era kids who we charged with bringing home one rabbit or squirrel for each .22 short Dad gave him.
Carnivals had shooting galleries to win the Cupie Doll...Who was Annie Oakley?
Sure,recruits needed training,and yes,some segments of America were city bound,but I do not believe competent shooters were uncommon.Look at a turn of the century(19th to 20th ) Sears catalogue.
Lots of Boys Rifles,huh?
How many young'ns started a shooting interest with a Daisy?
Agreed,we aren't all 1000 yd snipers,but....
IMO,at least part of the M-14 vs M-16/M-4 argument has been the 7.62 v 5.56 argument,rather than rifle design.
For this discussion,assume the Mini-14 was a true scaled down M-14.
Now the choice becomes Mini-14 vs M-4.
We can take it the other way,M-110/SR-25 vs M-14
even to the point of the decked out M-110 sniper system vs an EBR.
I'm sure folks will still disagree,but this does isolate the variables to a more focused discussion.
Not knocking any rifle's history,Rummy said"You go to war with what you've got"
Different topic,on "Americans were not riflemen,historically"
I was not there.
I have beside me a copy of "The JM Pyne Stories " by Lucian Cary.
I discovered these stories,based on Harry Pope,in the 1960's Gun Digests.But,in fact,at least some of these stories were reprinted from pre-WW2 Saturday Evening Post.
My readings of Ned Roberts"The Muzzle Loading Caplock Rifle" and "The Muzzle Loading Cartridge Rifle" ,along with traditions of Turkey Shoots,Rendevous,and other marksmanship events suggest ..back before the NFL,NHL,NBA,and television, shooting events had a little more participation and audience.
My studies of making a Muzzle Loader showed me folks like Hacker Martin and Herchel house,and their tradition of a backwood mountain boy forge welding a tube around a mandrel,reaming and rifling it with hand made tools,then shooting groups rivaling a good commercial modern bolt gun at 220 yds.
And lets not forget the match at Creedmore in 1897 or so.
Or the number of Depression era kids who we charged with bringing home one rabbit or squirrel for each .22 short Dad gave him.
Carnivals had shooting galleries to win the Cupie Doll...Who was Annie Oakley?
Sure,recruits needed training,and yes,some segments of America were city bound,but I do not believe competent shooters were uncommon.Look at a turn of the century(19th to 20th ) Sears catalogue.
Lots of Boys Rifles,huh?
How many young'ns started a shooting interest with a Daisy?
Agreed,we aren't all 1000 yd snipers,but....
Last edited:
Mike Irwin
Staff
"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."
And here we get to the one GREAT truism of combat...
No single weapon is perfect for every situation.
I'll say that again...
No single weapon is perfect for every situation.
That's the other great myth that the American military has been laboring to make true... that there is that ONE HOLY WEAPON SYSTEM that will be all things to all soldiers.
And here we get to the one GREAT truism of combat...
No single weapon is perfect for every situation.
I'll say that again...
No single weapon is perfect for every situation.
That's the other great myth that the American military has been laboring to make true... that there is that ONE HOLY WEAPON SYSTEM that will be all things to all soldiers.
Mike Irwin
Staff
HiBC,
Your last post shows only that the United States was a culture in which firearms were broadly distributed both as tools and as entertainment.
That's a far cry from proficiency.
Even proficient firearms users have to be taught how to use military style sights and how to properly hold a rifle to get decent, CONSISTENT groupings on targets at better than 100 yards.
It's true that competent shooters existed, people who are naturals with firearms, but they're a small portion of the population, always have been, and always will be.
There's a similar American mythos that grew up around cars. America was the first, and by far the biggest, car culture. The myth has always been that because of that, every American is a natural F1 or NASCAR driver just waiting to hop into the driver's seat of a massively powerful car.
Yeah. Right.
Your last post shows only that the United States was a culture in which firearms were broadly distributed both as tools and as entertainment.
That's a far cry from proficiency.
Even proficient firearms users have to be taught how to use military style sights and how to properly hold a rifle to get decent, CONSISTENT groupings on targets at better than 100 yards.
It's true that competent shooters existed, people who are naturals with firearms, but they're a small portion of the population, always have been, and always will be.
There's a similar American mythos that grew up around cars. America was the first, and by far the biggest, car culture. The myth has always been that because of that, every American is a natural F1 or NASCAR driver just waiting to hop into the driver's seat of a massively powerful car.
Yeah. Right.
growing up on a farm and being around farm boys in the late 40,s and early 50,s, most of my childhood friends were well versed in the safe handleing of firearms and very good shots to boot. we used to shoot soda bottle caps at 60 feet off hand with our .22 rifles with open sights for pratice. my arsenal was a stevens 12ga single shot, a marlin .22 bolt action clip fed and a converted 98 mauser in 7x57 at 12 years old. the first two were got at age nine and the mauser at age ten. i still have the 99 japanese rifle my uncle gave me that he brought back from the south pacific as he though i was a better shot than my brothers. i think the city boys missed out on the firearm thing, that the rural and farm boys had in their every day living and by the way the girls were aloud to shoot if they were interested. later in the service i shot good enough left handed that they left me alone and not shoot right handed and the only thing that bothered me was firing the m-60 prone as cases and links hit me in the face some times, but as it was a life threating time and it went with the job. eastbank.
Last edited:
I'll second the "at least discuss alternatives in the same caliber" train of thought. Lets face it 7.62 & 5.56 are very different & designed for different purposes.
Back when 7.62 was standard it had better long range performance than 5.52, true. But for up close & personal the 9mm subgun was still issued.
Back when 7.62 was standard it had better long range performance than 5.52, true. But for up close & personal the 9mm subgun was still issued.
SPEMack618
New member
Tucker_1371 said:
Always seem liked there were never enough -240 teams to go around. But when we did get the luxury of having one attached, everybody and his buddy humped extra ammo for it.
Well said, and quite true.
it is ...interesting, for lack of a better word, how the US military (and the included civilian bureaucracy cannot seem to realize that one cannot escape the laws of physics on their word alone.
Until we reach the next level of technology (phased plasma rifle in 40 watt range?) there is no getting around the physics. There is no free lunch.
One cannot make a weapon that is light, short, handy, low recoiling, easy to fire on automatic, AND is powerful and long ranged at the same time.
Look at what we came out of WWII with, and carried into Korea. The 1911A1 pistol, the .45acp SMG (tommygun or grease gun),the M1 carbine, the M1 Garand, the BAR, and the Browning .30 cal machinegun. Something for about every situation.
With modern assault rifles (AK and AR designs primarily) you cover the SMG and carbine slots pretty well. So that reduces the needed weapon types by one, and modern tactics have eliminated the long range rifle as general infantry issue, but it is still needed and useful on the battlefield, so it needs to stay. Newer designs of belt feds have essentially replaced both the BAR and the old GPMG in one weapon. So, another savings there.
We tried, for a while with a separate grenadier. Remember the M79? (blooper /thumper?). Then we went to the M203, mounted on the M16. Ok, better than the rifle grenades of WWII, but, at the cost of another weapon system, and all that goes with it.
The M14 was an attempt to reduce the number of needed weapon types. In that, it failed. Political reasons meant it never got the chance to have the "bugs" worked out, but it would likely have failed anyway, simply because it just wasn't the right platform to do a good job for ALL the things it was hoped to be.
I consider the M14 /M1A to be fine rifles. I will always have a special place in my heart for them. But they are part of the past. Outmoded?, sure. Obsolete? ok. But they still do work. And like the Mauser 98, or a vintage Winchester, they still do what they did then, and just as well.
Peter M. Eick
New member
M-14's ran about $105.15 (average of all 4 manufactures) and cost $50.52 per year to run an maintain in 1965.
reference "tech report 68-4, october 1968".
Note that in today's dollars that would be $790.25 which would make it about half the price of an M1A if I understand the current going prices for the M1A's.
reference "tech report 68-4, october 1968".
Note that in today's dollars that would be $790.25 which would make it about half the price of an M1A if I understand the current going prices for the M1A's.