Can we have the M-14 back?

[TheManHimself]

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.

The Army's Squad Designated Marksman Rifle, which is an M16A4 optimized for long-range shots with a heavy barrel, free-float rail system, bipod, optics, and BUIS comes in at just over 10 lbs with a loaded mag. The standard M16A4 with its thinner barrel weighs a pound or so less fully loaded down with equipment.

A standard M14 weighs about 11 lbs. Strap on all the equipment used in modern warfare, and you're looking at a 13-14 lb. rifle, that's much less compact than the M4, with ammo that weighs twice as much, and much less controllable in full auto/burst fire as well.

An M4 carbine weights about 8 lbs. with optics and ammo, is more compact, and is much easier to handle when using full auto in MOUT situations like room clearing.

There's no arguing that an accurized M14 is superior in the DMR role (and that's what they're being pulled out of storage for), but for the way war is fought in Iraq, mainly close-in urban fighting with most shots being inside of a few hundred yards, and a lot of indoor work, the M4 is superior as a general-issue weapon.

Yep, weapons used in WWII were much heavier, and soldiers didn't complain, but then back then they didn't have all the NV gear, IR lasers, and other high-tech equipment that adds considerable weight to a soldier's loadout. We aren't fighting WWII anymore - times have changed and so have infantry tactics. Using M14s in Iraq as a standard-issue weapon would be just as bad an idea as using Civil War-era muskets in the First World War - and back then folks were complaining just the same way that those tiny .30-caliber smokeless powder cartridges would never be as effective a man-stopper as the old big-bore black powder rounds. People don't like change, that's just human nature.

 

[Dezynco]

Give me a rifle that can be dragged throught the dirt, rained on, neglected and never miss a beat. I'll take the M14/M1A.

 

[Dezynco]

.....even if I have to have wheels on it to tote it around.

 

[HorseSoldier]

The M14 is no heavier than the M1 Garand and those men didn't have a problem carrying it in WWII.

If I'm not mistaken, those guys also had a basic load of 80 rounds. Their body armor consisted of a tin hat. They did not have night vision goggles, much by way of portable radios, or any of a bunch of other stuff we never leave home without.

 

[Jermtheory]

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?

thats just way too much common sense for a gun board.

if we were using the .308,there would be clamoring for the .50...or something new to "bridge the gap".

 

[Dezynco]

Yep, weapons used in WWII were much heavier, and soldiers didn't complain, but then back then they didn't have all the NV gear, IR lasers, and other high-tech equipment that adds considerable weight to a soldier's loadout. We aren't fighting WWII anymore - times have changed and so have infantry tactics.

We won that war......

 

[MTMilitiaman]

We won that war......

That's just too much common sense for a gun board...

 

[FireMax]

Dezynco
Give me a rifle that can be dragged throught the dirt, rained on, neglected and never miss a beat. I'll take the M14/M1A.

.....even if I have to have wheels on it to tote it around.

 

[Arabia]

M14 is done as a infantry combat weapon. It was never considered to be a great rifle. That is why it was replaced so soon after being adopted. People were calling for it to be recalled form service even before the military even though about adopting the M16. Actually during the ARMY trials the FAL outperformed it in all respects. The FAL was clearly the superior rifle. The only reason the military chose it was because M1 tool was to be used to make many part of the M14 that never turned out to be the case. It might be used in specialized roles but even there it is being replace be the KAC M110. Sorry to say but today with so many women in the military they would not be able to handle such a weapon as the M14. Many shorter frame men could not even control it on full-auto. I would bet a good % of supporters of this rifle probably don't want women in the military either. In addition the M14 would not make a good CQB weapon. Too ungainly in tight quarters. Sorry but the M14 is never going to be returned as our main battle rifle. The M16 will solider on for sometime until its replaced. That is just the way it is.

 

[Deaf Smith]

Ok guys. What I want to know is how many of you are gonna carry that M-14, 100 rounds of ammo, armor vest, water, food, tools, ammo for morter/machinegun/grenade launcher, GPS designator, etc.... in the rain, in the mud, in the hot desert, in the snow, in the mountians, in the jungles, inside buildings, in caves, in.... well you get my drift.

You wonder why the M4 is so popular in Iraq? Size and weight.

If they do go to something different, they will go to a round that is more than the 5.56 but less than the 7.62x51. And the weapon will weigh between the M4 and M-16A2. I'd like to see a mini-FAL, now that would be something. Except with the AR's mag release system and abilty to take all kinds of gizmos on the receiver top.

It sure won't be a 9-10 lb 7.62 rifle.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

In addition the M14 would not make a good CQB weapon. Too ungainly in tight quarters.

The solution is, of course, to shorten the barrel. But failure to see obvious solutions to simple problems is what led to the abandonment of the M14 to begin with, so it doesn't surprise me that people are still too close minded to grasp the concept.

 

[Arabia]

No matter how much you complain on the net the military is never going to regress back to the M14. Just realize that the M14 was never considered a great rifle. It had major short comings that were never able to be fixed. The FAL was a superior military rifle to the M14. Even the G3 was considered a better rifle. I would take a FAL or AK-47 into combat before I took an M14. The only person here that is closed minded is the one still lives in the past. Its 2008 not 1965.

 

[Dezynco]

Ok, I'll watch this thread, but I won't respond to it any more. We've reached the limit of my knowledge.

 

[HKuser]

I would take a FAL or AK-47 into combat before I took an M14.

Two more of my favorites. Somebody put it out for bid.

People don't like change, that's just human nature.

Oh come on, the M16 family has been around for 40 years, those guys complaining in Iraq don't remember general issue battle rifles. They're begging for change.

 

[Dezynco]

OK. Just one more reply. Give me a good Red Ryder and I'll shoot their eyes out, that'll teach um'.

It's laser tag mentality! If you want firepower, by God, tote somethin' and hide behind a log if you have to. Counting on your "boolit pruf vest" and "batry powrd layser syght" will never get you out of a nasty situation.

The Germans hated the 1897 Winchester shotguns (The "Trench Brooms") during WWI that they tried to have them outlawed as a weapon of war.

Maybe for the next war we have (God forbid) we'll have a big pillow fight.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

It had major short comings that were never able to be fixed.

Like what?

The same could be said about the M16, but it has been with us for 40 years.

 

[Dezynco]

My oldest daughter's boyfriend is in Iraq even as we speak. He said he would rather have a good old Winchester 30-30 than a M16! At least he could count on it in a combat situation.

The M16 is still around because of politics.

 

[Dezynco]

Ok so I lied, I posted 3 replies after I said I would shut up!

 

[TheManHimself]

We won that war......

When we go back to fighting a uniformed enemy that doesn't hide among women and children, I'll get back to you on that one. The M14 would be a great standard issue weapon if urban warfare still involved artillery fire and massive aerial bombardment with no concern for civilian casualties (Which would be a great idea, by the way).

 

[Dezynco]

Good point! But I'm shutting up now!