Can we have the M-14 back?

[HKuser]

OK, I admit it, I love the M-14, handy, powerful, reliable, and I saw this story today, let's open full scale production again :

Chief of staff: Army reviewing complaints over bullets

By JAY REEVES, Associated Press Writer 39 minutes ago

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. - The military is reviewing soldiers' complaints that their standard ammunition isn't powerful enough for the type of fighting required in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army's highest-ranking officer said Thursday.
ADVERTISEMENT

But Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army chief of staff, said it was too soon to say whether the Pentagon will switch.

Current and former soldiers interviewed by The Associated Press said the military's M855 rifle rounds are not powerful enough for close-in fighting in cities and towns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Speaking with reporters at a conference in Huntsville, Casey said leaders are constantly soliciting feedback from soldiers in the field and were aware of complaints about the M855 ammunition.

"To effectively prepare them we have to adapt as the enemy adapts, and that is some of the feedback we have gotten," Casey said. "We'll evaluate it quickly and then we'll decide how we want to proceed."

But Casey said it would be premature to say if the Pentagon will consider a different type of ammunition.

"I can't tell you exactly what we're going to do," he said.

The M855 rounds were designed decades ago to puncture the steel helmets of Soviet soldiers from hundreds of yards away. Some soldiers said that they are not large enough to stop an enemy immediately in close quarters.

Casey said the military has been evaluating its equipment and practices since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

"Technology is pulling us, and what we're learning on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan is pushing us," he said.

 

[SR420]

HKuser OK, I admit it, I love the M-14, handy, powerful, reliable, and I saw this story today, let's open full scale production again

If all goes as planned SEI will be able to assemble a semi-automatic M14 with 99% new
production parts including the receiver, barrel, bolt, op rod, trigger group, gas cylinder etc, etc, etc ...

All SEI parts will be forgings or machined from billet. They will meet or exceed USGI requirements.

Brand new M14s from scratch

 

[wingman]

Bullet placement very important in all calibers especially those of the 22 category. Personally I've always believed the 308 would be best in the hands of a soldier.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

I am a huge fan of the M14 as well, but realistically, the days of the battle rifle are over. Barring an extremely unlikely change in military doctrine, the emphasis will remain where it is currently--volume of fire, and the ability of the individual soldier to carry more ammunition.

The good news is that you are free to disregard the decisions of the military. An M14 can still hold your fort down, even if the military has went in another direction, and IMO does a pretty good job of it.

The 7.62 NATO, I feel, is a better choice than the current 5.56 NATO round, but I don't think it is ideal. I would like to see a happy medium struck--I thought the 6.8 SPC was a good idea. Anything in the 6.5 to 7mm range shooting a bullet of 115 to 125 gr at 2400 to 2600 fps. This would be practical on full auto, would allow more ammunition to be carried than the 7.62mm round, and would provide better terminal ballistics and barrier penetration than the 5.56 NATO round. In fact it would be on par in terms of energy and momentum (and recoil) with the 7.62x39 round with greater penetration and superior external ballistics due to a higher SD and BC.

 

[sholling]

I'm with the pack on this one. The M14 in one form or another is the perfect civilian stuff hits the fan rifle. It's got the range and the hitting power and most of us can't afford to play with full auto - if we could even get an M16.

I don't see the military going back to the M14 except for special units/circumstances. That's just too unlike them and contrary to doctrine. If it weren't for the cost and the vast amounts of 5.56 on hand, I could see them modifying M16s to something in the 6.5-6.8 range. I think that would be a great idea. But my guess is that it won't happen until the army is ready to replace the M16 with phasers or some such.

 

[SR420]

MTMilitiaman I am a huge fan of the M14 as well, but realistically, the days of the battle rifle are over.

Not so fast!

I see the M14 being viable right until the plasma rifle of the future is issued.

The M14 is alive and well

 

[wjkuleck]

There's another game in town: Fulton Armory. We still have a larger percentage of USGI content, and as time passes and new production of components is required, we'll be making them as good or better than USGI.

We currently have very high quality one-piece forged operating rods, flash suppressors, extractors, and so on. We'll even sell you the parts .

Regards,

Walt

 

[MTMilitiaman]

The M14 is alive and well

Yes, and the battle rifle will have a viable role on the battlefield for the foreseeable future. IMO, there will be a role for the battle rifle for at least as long as we continue to use this .22 caliber poodle shooter round, as increased range, penetration, and power will continue to be in demand.

But, if you'll allow me to re-phrase, the days of the full power battle rifle as a standard issue infantry weapon are long gone. They will continue to be used in specialized roles, such as DMRs, but I don't think we'll ever see another battle rifle as a standard issue rifle among our troops.

 

[SR420]

MTMilitiaman allow me to re-phrase, the days of the full power battle rifle as a standard issue infantry weapon are long gone.

Yes they are and that seems to be the problem.

 

[SR420]

wjkuleck

We currently have very high quality one-piece forged operating rods, flash suppressors, extractors, and so on.

Who makes the op rods you sell? What is the country of origin?
Who makes the other parts for you? Are the flash suppressors cast?

 

[Scorch]

The M14 rifle has the unique distinction of being the shortest-lived general issue service rifle in US military history (that's over 230 years of history to overcome). This is due to flaws that became evident after adoption of the platform that could not be corrected by modifying the design of the rifle. Thin barrels bent when used with mounted bayonets, the rifle is uncontrollable in full-auto fire, rifle is heavy, the ammo is heavy, the rifle was susceptible to damage from ammunition loaded for machine guns, etc. With current combat load-out the average foot soldier is already carrying 80 lbs of gear. Now you guys want to burden them with another 12 lbs rifle and ammo that weighs 5X as much per round in order to pursue questionable gains by moving backwards.

I used the M16 in combat (although President Reagan tried hard, he could only arrange a 1-week war for us, sorry) and it worked very well. If you want to move the military towards another round, it has to improve on all performance aspects of the current platform, not provide only some questionable benefits under certain circumstances. American fighting men deserve better than that.

I have an idea, let's issue them all 1873 Springfield rifles, everyone knows the 45-70 is superior to the 223 in knockdown power.

 

[SR420]

Scorch Thin barrels bent when used with mounted bayonets, the rifle is uncontrollable in full-auto fire, rifle is heavy, the ammo is heavy, the rifle was susceptible to damage from ammunition loaded for machine guns, etc.

The M14 is no heavier than the M1 Garand and those men didn't have a problem carrying it in WWII.
The other comments appear to be the same old cut-n-paste internet rubbish that circulate from time to time.

 

[Scorch]

The other comments appear to be the same old cut-n-paste internet rubbish that circulate from time to time.

Sorry, but I don't regurgitate recycled Internet garbage. If you've been there and done it, I'll listen to you, otherwise my experience counts for more than your dismissal of my opinion simply because it disagrees with your pre-concieved notions.

 

[SR420]

Thank you for your opinion.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

This is due to flaws that became evident after adoption of the platform that could not be corrected by modifying the design of the rifle.

And the military's unwillingness to bestow the same patience on it as it did the rifle that replaced it.

It is amazing how even spurred by interest primarily in the commercial sector, most of the problems with the rifle were solved by modifying it.

It is also amazing how people complained about weight when ditching a ~10 pound fully automatic 7.62mm for a ~17 pound 5.56mm rifle because, big surprise, it recoiled.

If the military had tried half as hard to resolve issues with the M14 as it did the rifle they shoved down people's throats to replace it, we might still be using it. In fact, in limited roles, we still are, despite how apparently archaic and flawed it is

It's amazing how my grandpa was able to hump a BAR around the hills of Korea, yet asking the next generation to pack a weapon of half the weight with similar firepower was somehow too much...

I've packed the SAW and the M16 with IBAs and full battle rattle. I am well disciplined in modern infantry tactics. I understand them, and am perfectly capable of applying them. I just don't happen to agree with them, and as a rifleman assigned to engage "specific targets with aimed fire," or however they termed it, I would much rather have an M14 than an M16.

Finally, it's amazing how all these fancy new poodle shooters and machine guns enter the battlefield, and the single most feared weapon is still the sniper. Volume is fine, accuracy is final.

 

[TheManHimself]

Uh... there's no M16 variant out there that weighs anywhere close to 17 lbs, except for maybe a few specialized competition guns.

 

[Yithian]

I love the M-14 as well.
It's about time the politicians and Egg-boards took the heads out of the sand.

The problem is the red tape.
It took them this long to realize it. How bloody long (literally) is it gonna take them to fix it?
It is idiotic to think that the tape trail is going to take longer than the duration of this war.

Who, in power, has the balls to stand up and authorize the funds without the proper bribery?

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Uh... there's no M16 variant out there that weighs anywhere close to 17 lbs, except for maybe a few specialized competition guns.

I am obviously talking about the SAW.

The military tried to make the M14 fit every role from sniper rifle to Squad Automatic Weapon. In the role of the SAW, the M14 proved to be too light and too powerful to be practical, so it was abandoned for the M16 under the pretense that the M16 would be more practical on fully automatic, and would provide a useful SAW version. No SAW version was ever adopted, however, and even full automatic fire capability was disregarded in later versions in favor of semi-automatic fire. This took away the two biggest advantages supposedly leading the the adoption of the M16 in the first place.

 

[TheManHimself]

Another thing I wonder: why is it that when one of our guys keeps fighting through multiple gunshot wounds we can accept that the human body can do some amazing things under stress, but when the enemy doesn't immediately fall over dead on the first shot it must be a failure of the weapon or ammunition?

 

[ISC]

take a M16a4 with 30 rd mag and add a Aimpoint, sure fire light, ANPEQ2 with pressure pad, forward pistol grip, and BUIS and the wieght starts to get up there.

I think every squad should have a M14 unless your primary AO is MOUT or jungle terrain. Mostly becaue of thr better range and ability to engage targets at higher elevations.

It's a real shame that Klinton ordered 600,000 M14s to be destroyed rather than take a chance that a future president might relase them into the
CMP program or sell them for parts kits to civiliians.