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

[44 AMP]

The E2 stock also had a pivoting forward hand grip, called a "vertical stabilizer" IIRC.

I can see no point to choosing a BAR (no matter how improved) over the M14 as a rifle. Essentially, an 18lb (ish) vs. a 9lb(ish) rifle with the same general performance (7.62x51mm Nato vs GI M2 ball .30-06)

NOW, if you are looking for a LMG (an automatic rifle) that's the BAR, hands down.

I've fired the M14 on full auto. I was in the last class trained on the gun at the Small Arms School USAOC&S. While I don't know all the things to make it into a match rifle, I know the gun well mechanically.

All the M14s the govt bought came with the "happy switch". When they realized that if you give a troop a rifle with a full auto setting, that's where he leaves it. (and with even a good shooter, the M14 on full auto is difficult, and in the hands of a tyro (like most GIs) its mostly just a waste of ammo)

SO, what they did was remove the selector lever from most of the rifles, replacing it with the selector lock, a dummy piece that does nothing, rendering the rifle semi auto, but leaving all the full auto parts in place, except for one. Drive out one small pin, replace the selector lock (round knob) with the selector lever, put the pin back in, and you have a select fire weapon again.

Rifles designated as support weapons (squad or platoon) were left with the switch intact. This was the general policy, until the M14 was replaced, although I understand it varied considerably in some places and times.

 

[Erno86]

The HCAR {Heavy Combat Assault Rifle} --- Ohio Ordnance's new and improved version of the 1918A2 BAR weighs 12 pounds {semi-automatic only,} and the recoil looks certainly manageable; though they are considering a 7.62x51 NATO version {and other calibers as well} along with a charging handle. It has a Surefire muzzlebrake and a hydraulic buffer system --- but I have no idea how the rifle field strips --- though it looks like one tough mudder; that has the ability to reach out and touch someone.

 

[SPEMack618]

If I were Chief of Staff for a day, or may SecDef, or Chief of the Infantry branch, I would rewrite every Infantry, Stryker, and Armored Cavalry to give a designated marksman down to the at least squad/section or maybe even one per fire team.

 

[44 AMP]

That HCAR looks ...interesting. Looks like they put an M60 forend, AR pistol grip and stock on it, blending them all nicely together. Can't say I'm a fan of the color though.

I do have to wonder about the barrel, That's got to be more expensive to make than a regular barrel.

I imagine it would be controllable in semi auto, I can't think of a 12lb .308 or '06 that wouldn't be.

Is that some kind of coating or covering on the receiver? The pics I saw aren't real clear but there looks like a seam on the top. SO I'm wondering.

it's not a quick change barrel, is it? (I saw no mention of that).

Other than it has all the rails and stuff, as a semi auto, what is the benefit of the 12lb HCAR over a 9lb M14/M1A? As a auto rifle, the 12lb gun would be much superior over the M14, with the standard M14 cyclic rate.

As an actual LMG both have serious shortcomings. But, so did the original BAR. Of course, a design doesn't have to be the best at everything to be successful. Other factors determine that. Good enough is good enough.

 

[Jo6pak]

Interesting that the BAR came into the discussion, as I see similar stories in both the BAR and the M14.

1. Both rifles were good designs at the time of development but were outpaced by the time they were fielded in battle.

2. Both rifles have gained a reputation above and beyond there actual combat effectiveness, handling, and competing designs.

And, at least in my opinion, both are eclipsed by their British cousins. The Bren is a better automatic rifle than the BAR. And the FAL is a better rifle than the M14. (yes, I know the FAL is not a Brit design, but they adopted it.)

I'm not flaming either gun. But the reason that the M14 was brought back into service has less to do with the rifle and more to do with the cartridge. We would have been just as well served with a FAL, G3, or similar battle rifle.

 

[Buzzcook]

I'm not flaming either gun. But the reason that the M14 was brought back into service has less to do with the rifle and more to do with the cartridge. We would have been just as well served with a FAL, G3, or similar battle rifle.

Maybe the cartridge or maybe that the army had tons of M-14s in storage and they fit the assignment.

Although I think a long barreled M-16 with heavier bullets would do as well for a designated marksman.

 

[44 AMP]

Although I think a long barreled M-16 with heavier bullets would do as well for a designated marksman.

Possibly. In some situations, almost certainly. BUT, I hold to the opinion that when you actually need a .308, no .223 will do.

BAR vs BREN. Another classic debate. Not going to settle it here, for sure. BrEn does have features that make it a superior LMG over the BAR. However, is it truly an apples to apples comparison?

The BAR is just that, an automatic rifle. In gun making terms it was designed almost overnight, and has a special place in our history. Browning didn't try to get the best price for it, he literally gave the design to the govt for their first, lowball bid, with the proviso that the first guns go to his son's unit in France. Call it patriotism, or just family concern, it doesn't matter it was a rare thing in the arms business, and the BAR is "special" in history in part because of it.

Plenty of things in the BAR are done better by later designs. When you design a gun 10, 20, 30 years after, you have the luxury of seeing what the older design did, and did not do well. If your newer design isn't better, at least in some ways, you, as a designer, screwed up.

The BrEn was made at a time when what was good for an LMG was understood better than when the BAR was made. I don't think it is a proper apples to apples comparison.

Also, put me in the camp that does not see the FAL as a better rifle than the M14. Not a bad rifle, but different. I don't find the difference makes it better. Just different. And I think some things about the M14 are superior. My opinion, and we can discuss it, if you wish.

Likewise, the G3. Even more radically ...different. I have an M1A. I've had an H&K 91, and an FAL, and fired the military versions of all three.
I still have my M1A and its not going anywhere.

 

[Jo6pak]

44 AMP. I also own an M1A Scout and I like it. But, as a military rifles in original configurations, I think the FAL is a better rifle...if only by a hairs width. To me, the pistol grip makes it easier to handle; the mag release and charging handle are better placed, and it is a bit more controllable in rapid fire. (I have not had the occasion to fire either in full auto.)

Also, I understand the apples to oranges comparison between the Bren and BAR. But many folks base their opinions of the BAR in it's use in WW2 and seem to imbue a sort of aura around the weapon that may or may not be deserved. Sure it served well, but is that because it was "great", or was it because it was "good enough." Afterall, the 5 you have is better than the 10 you don't

Buzzcook Absolutely, the fact that we had them played a HUGE part. But, had those been FALs in the armories, we would have had the same advantages that the M14 gave.

 

[Erno86]

A trained shooter can fire the full automatic 1918A3 BAR in a semi-automatic mode, by a proper press of the trigger.

I do like pencil thin long barrels in my semi-automatic sniper rifles --- PSL, Tabuk RPK AK --- yet the trade-off is less accuracy when the barrel heats-up.

 

[kraigwy]

If I were Chief of Staff for a day, or may SecDef, or Chief of the Infantry branch, I would rewrite every Infantry, Stryker, and Armored Cavalry to give a designated marksman down to the at least squad/section or maybe even one per fire team

If I was boss, CoS or whatever, I'd make the CMPs Small Arms Firing School part of evey soldiers training.

Then you'd have every one as a designated marksman.

 

[SR420]

kraigwy


If I was boss, CoS or whatever, I'd make the CMPs Small Arms Firing School part of evey soldiers training.

Then you'd have every one as a designated marksman.

I like this!

 

[Erno86]

I heard on another forum: That if you single load an M1A --- while using soft primers --- ride the charging handle halfway closed, then let the recoil spring close the bolt fully into battery; in order to reduce the chance of a slamfire.

 

[kraigwy]

I heard on another forum: That if you single load an M1A --- while using soft primers --- ride the charging handle halfway closed, then let the recoil spring close the bolt fully into battery; in order to reduce the chance of a slamfire.

I've found Winchester Primers work best in my target 308 loads.

I've been shooting high power rifle using my M1A for nearly 40 years. In slow fire its my practice to push the round into the mag (while its in the rifle of course), wait tell the target comes up, pull the op rod back and let it pick up the round and slam it into the chamber.

This is the way I was taught, this is the way the did it in the NGMTU Coaches School, and its the way I coached my rifle teams.

I've never heard of a slam fire by letting the bolt slam home.

As I said before:

The M14/M1A bolt is basically the same as the Garand, but shorter.

To insure against premature discharge of the M1 rifle, the hammer is so constructed that it cannot strike the firing pin before the bolt is rotated into the fully locked position. To provide an added safety measure the firing pin is prevented from traveling forward until the same condition exists."

What can happen, is sometimes in reloading you end up with a oversize primer pocket. The primer can back out and be set off by the bolt itself as it strikes the primer. But that's the bolt, not the firing pin and it can occur regardless how hard the primer is.

 

[wogpotter]

Never heard of nor ever did such a thing when I had mine. Never had a problem either.

 

[tirod]

New old data from 1950: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/02/20/the-m1-garand-dust-mud-1950/

Against the FNFAL and others, the M1 has it's strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Erno86]

kraigwy --- Makes sense to single load from the magazine any semi auto with a free floating pin. I just ordered a single loading sled for my M1 Garand.

Yet soft primers can still be an issue with slam fires including one's with a shallow seated primer.

Google: M1A slam fires.

The op's case that I first referred to about the M1A slam fire...was over at the Curio/Relic section at Colorado AR15 Forum.

 

[44 AMP]

I use CCI 200 primers for standard rifle loads. If I extract a chambered round from my M1A (fed by the bolt from the mag), you can see a tiny dimple on the primer where the firing pin bounced off it. GI ammo sometimes shows a small mark, often none.

never had a slam fire, don't expect one. But I can see how an overly soft & sensitive primer could be fired. I don't see it as any kind of design flaw, you simply run the gun on what it was made for, and you won't have problems.

 

[wogpotter]

I use CCI 200 primers for standard rifle loads. If I extract a chambered round from my M1A (fed by the bolt from the mag), you can see a tiny dimple on the primer where the firing pin bounced off it. GI ammo sometimes shows a small mark, often none.

This exactly parallels my experience with both the M1a & the FAL. The FAL has a spring loaded safety & the M1a is internally blocked but free floating. Both leave an identical light dimple, neither have ever slam-fired because of it.