Can we have the M-14 back?

[Forwardassist]

Too many arm chair Generals.

Haven't we beaten this horse to death. Its the same argument every time. It seems people have their preference for a rifle. Which is great but that does not mean it is the right choice. People actually believe they know better than the entire military staff at the DOD? No inflated egos here. As stated earlier the M14 had its detractors too. I bet their was a big uproar with soldiers who had to trade in their tried and true M1s for a weaker M14. I can hear them now complaining about the weaker round, and the need question the need have a 20rd mag when real men only need 8.

 

[GeorgeF]

Weight is an excellent point - WW2 soldiers didnt have flak vests - that alone is a HUGE difference. 80 rounds was a lot of ammo for an M1 Garand toting soldier - that's 10 reloads. The en bloc clip was negligible weight - you add a M14 magazine to the weight (and bulk) of extra ammo and its going to weigh more in the long run. Assuming we utilize 20 round magazines, figure 6 or 7 magazines for the soldier.

OK, back in WW2 we realized late that we required multiple tools to do multiple tasks - we werent fighting at range all the time. Hedgerows and urban fighting added to the mix. Urban fighting especially required in close full automatic fire - M3A1 and Thomspon filled those gaps.

Today we have tried to have one weapon system to do multiple tasks. As we all know, the tool that does multiple tasks usually is found lacking for specific tasks. M4 is a good all purpose weapon that can fire accurately at longer ranges, and is controllable for short range automatic fire. It is compact so that it can be quickly brought to point at a target - not as easy to do with a FAL. But the small 5.56 round is a detriment that is constantly receiving complaints.

So where does that leave us? Ideally one weapon system to do multiple tasks would be great (not squad support, but something that transitioned easily to close combat and range combat). A bullpup design would make the system compact yet allow a longer barrel for accuracy.

But which round? I believe in a heavier round, but I do not think we need a full size cartridge case like the 7.62 Nato. A round like the 7.62x39 or 8mm Kurz would deliver a heavy punch. matching those with a bullpup design would be ideal. Having the ability to swap out rifle barrels would allow multiple role specialties - a heavy barrel for long range work would allow some limited sniper work. I think we could design a weapon system as robust as the AK-47 with better accuracy and smaller size.

This is what I would rather have than the M14.

 

[Dezynco]

How about a Ruger Mini 30 with a short fat barrel? I think that was what Ruger was trying to accomplish in the first place, but was bumped for the M16.

 

[Forwardassist]

The Ruger Mini-30 was never considered a battle rifle. The mini never competed against the M16 in any military trials. It came out too late for it to compete since the M16 was already in service by that time.

 

[Dezynco]

You're right, but I think they had it in mind.

 

[Forwardassist]

Any proof of that or are you just making stuff up?

 

[wjkuleck]

I've had the opportunity to correspond with a fair number of our "warfighters" in-theatre on the subject of the M14. Frankly, opinions are divided. Troops who have to mount & dismount from their HMMWVs are less enthusiastic about a rifle with the length of the M14's standard barrel. Further, the nature of their work is such that when going from room to room, an M4 on burst or auto is quite a bit handier and more suitable. However, one of my correspondents in this camp managed to keep an M14 in the rack in the vehicle "just in case" they needed a longer shot, or to shoot through something.

Other troops, those who had more distance with which to deal, had greater appreciation for the M14 and its 7.62x51 round. Rightly or wrongly, they believed that the M14 had more "punch" out past 100 meters, and sure wanted some of their number to be equipped with the '14. Today, as I understand it, the primary weapons of the infantryman are a laser designator and a radio. The rifle, in more cases than you'd expect actually an M4, is more of a PDW than an offensive tool. Call in an airstrike, arty, an M240 or even a SAW.

The M14 was supposed to replace the M3, the M1, the M1918 (BAR), and the M1 Carbine. Not a great idea, it turned out. However, there is a niche for the 7.62x51mm rifle, whether an M14 or a SCAR-H or whatever. Ammo weight is less important if you don't have a go-fast switch, as you won't be using it as fast as the guy with the '16.

My final thought is that if I had my choice for a short-range rifle to carry in the back alleys of Baghdad, it might well be an AK-47. The Soviets may have been a bit more on-target with that concept than we with the '16.

Regards,

Walt

 

[Dezynco]

Well that was just a rumor, so I'm speaking outside of my knowledge.

 

[wjkuleck]

Well that was just a rumor, so I'm speaking outside of my knowledge

In RL Wilson's Ruger, the Man and His Guns, Bill Ruger Sr. is quoted (I'm paraphrasing) as wistfully wondering what would have happened if the Mini had come a little earlier or the AR-15 a little later.

Alas, his temporal consciousness had passed through a reality distortion field, as the ten or fifteen year gap made his longings, well, let's just say, unrealistic.

Regards,

Walt

 

[Dezynco]

I think that Ruger had in mind to compete for the "contract" for a battle rifle and birthed the Mini14 and Mini30. But politics kept them out of the game, and they offered it to the public instead. That's just what I've picked up from folks that have been "reading between the lines" for years.

Notice that the Mini's are a little crude, but because the demand for them is high enough they keep making them. They can be accurized easy enough but the cost......There's no reason for Ruger to keep them in their product listings. If you'll notice, the Ruger Mini's are almost exactly a duplicate of the M14's.

 

[HKuser]

and birthed the Mini14 and Mini30

As I recall, the Mini-30 came along way late, late '80's or so. It was never considered as an alternative. Back in the '80's I subscribed to National Defense and Armed Forces Journal and they reported on small arms from time to time. Though the Mini-14 had some international sales, it was considered less durable than the M-16 or the HK rifles and never made serious in-roads.

 

[SR420]

This thread has legs

wjkuleck Ammo weight is less important if you don't have a go-fast switch, as you won't be using it as fast as the guy with the '16.

My final thought is that if I had my choice for a short-range rifle to carry in the back alleys of Baghdad, it might well be an AK-47.
The Soviets may have been a bit more on-target with that concept than we with the '16.

Excellent post Walt!

I share your thoughts on the AK and feel it would also be great to have an M14 or two available if the need arose.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

There are approximately 40,000 mercenaries in Iraq with plenty of cash to buy what they want and no government restrictions. Very few are carrying M14s.
Many are carrying m16 derivatives.

A couple of thoughts though:
M16 on 3 round burst = 10 shots/ 30 round mag
M14 on single is still 20 shots with sufficient stopping power

I think when you take this into consideration the weight and 20 round capacity of the M14 are much more attractive than when comparing both rifles on single. It is my understanding that m16s are rarely used on single except in situations where the M14 is the standout winner between the tow(longer range). Not positive about that, but I do talk to quite a few guys who have been or are in Iraq.

Cost of the rifle and ammunition
The M16 is, from my understanding, cheaper on both accounts. Senators sons fly stealth bombers while farmers sons are ground pounders. It has always been that way always will. Think how much money was put into stealth skin long before infantry had side panels in their armor.

In World War Two about half the population was involved in agriculture. Most farm boys had spent some time hunting and showed up to basic with some idea of how to fire their weapons. Even most city kids went out to family farms on the weekend and summer and were taught basic marksmanship. Not anymore. I would guess at least half the people reporting to basic have fired less than 50 rounds out of any gun in their entire lives. A significant number have probably never held a gun before. Teaching to put a burst close is a lot easier than putting a single round with heavier recoil on target.

The M16 is obviously better for CQB, especially the M4 derivative, even considering the true 10 burst limitation.
Luckily, with all the money being pumped into batteries to improve electric cars,that laser rifle may not be as far off as it seemed a few years ago. I do think the m16 M4 is here until we go to energy weapons though.

As far as carrying all that armor, if anyone starts issuing the new AKs with the nearly instantaneous two round burst that hits the same spot on armor and shreds any reasonable system developed we won't have a use for that armor anymore.

Oh wait, the Chinese will probably upgrade to it soon.

 

[SR420]

johnwilliamson062 I do think the m16 M4 is here until we go to energy weapons though.

I feel both the M16 M4 and the different M14s are here until we go to energy weapons.
Both platforms can be refined and modernized even further to keep them viable.

 

[Eghad]

I have a M1 Garand, a match grade M1A, and a AR 15 based rifle, I sold My preban Colt AR-15 HB to get a flatop with scope as the eyes aint what they used to be. I was trained with the M-16. However I was lucky enough to shoot on a Reserve Rifle Team with M14s made to match grade from the motherland at Ft. Benning. You could dirve nails with these rifles with the match sights at 100 yards.

If I was called back up and had a choice between the M-16 and the M14 I would have to go with the M14 and let the other fellas tote the M4 Carbines.

Something about the thought of having a supply of M118 ammo, which I still have a box of courtesy of Uncle Sugar, and a M14.

 

[sholling]

After reading through these memories stirred. The curse of getting old. Ok question for the gurus... Exactly when did the US Army or the Marine Corps decide that they hated the M14 and wanted to replace it with the M16? My fuzzy still in school memory (and a ton of the History Channel) remembers that the Air Force wanted the M16 while the other services fought to keep the M14. Wasn't it that walking clusterflub McNamara that forced a kicking and screaming army and corps to adopt the M16 over strong objections?
http://www.ar15.com/content/articles/history/evolution.html

 

[Scorch]

Ok question for the gurus... Exactly when did the US Army or the Marine Corps decide that they hated the M14 and wanted to replace it with the M16?

Let's see if I can recall correctly: the M14 was adopted as the general issue service rifle in 1958 and began to be deployed in 1959. In 1957 trials, ArmaLite entered the AR10 in T48 (later known as 7.62X51mm), and it performed beautifully, but suffered repeated failures of its experimental steel-lined fiberglass barrel, which was installed to meet the US Army's stated weight goal of 10 lbs. It so impressed General Curtis LeMay that he pushed for design of a 22-caliber variant to weigh 6 lbs, Eugene Stoner downsized the AR10 and submitted it for testing, and it performed brilliantly, outperforming the M14 in several tests. Curtis LeMay ordered the first AR15 rifles for testing in 1960. Rifles were ordered for limited deployment in 1961. The US Air Force issued M16s to their special MP and air rescue units in 1963, the US Army started issuing the M16 (XM16E1) to Special Forces in 1964, accepted the rifle as the M16 in 1965, began replacing the M14 in combat units with the M16 in 1965. In 1966, following numerous battlefield failures, the M16 was redesigned and modified with new upper receivers and new bolts, designated as the M16A1. New rifles were coming into the supply chain as damaged ones were removed, so the delivery of weapons never stopped. The USMC accepted the M16A1 in 1967, and replaced a smorgsbord of ground troop weapons (BARs, Thompson M1s, M3 grease guns, M1 Carbines, M14s, etc) with them beginning that year. The US Navy did not accept the M16A1 until some time in the mid-1970s.

I think that Ruger had in mind to compete for the "contract" for a battle rifle and birthed the Mini14 and Mini30.

The Mini-14 was designed in the late 1970s for international police sales, and was never envisioned as a military weapon. It was designed to replace the M1 Carbines in use by police forces in many countries. The Mini-30 came along in the 1980s.

 

[Arabia]

Let's see if I can recall correctly: tthe M14 was adopted as the general issue service rifle in 1958 and began to be deployed in 1959. In 1957 trials, ArmaLite entered the AR10 in T48 (later known as 7.62X51mm), and it performed beautifully, but suffered repeated failures of its experimental steel-lined fiberglass barrel, which was installed to meet the US Army's stated weight goal of 10 lbs. It so impressed General Curtis LeMay that he ordered the first AR15 rifles for testing in 1960, and pushed for design of a 22-caliber variant to weigh 6 lbs. Eugene Stoner downsized the AR10 and submitted it for testing, and it performed brilliantly, outperforming the M14 in several tests. Rifles were ordered for limited deployment in 1961. The US Air Force issued M16s to their special MP and air rescue units in 1963, the US Army started issuing the M16 (XM16E1) to Special Forces in 1964, accepted the rifle as the M16 in 1965, began replacing the M14 in combat units with the M16 in 1965. In 1966, following reports of battlefield failures, the M16 was redesigned and modified with new upper receivers and new bolts, designated as the M16A1. New rifles were coming into the supply chain as damaged ones were removed, so the delivery of weapons never stopped. The USMC accepted the M16A1 in 1967, and replaced a smorgsbord of ground troop weapons with them beginning that year. The US Navy did not accept the M16A1 until some time in the mid-1970s.

That is pretty much correct but there are a few things that need to be addressed. First it was not Curtis LeMay that saw the results of the AR-10 trials, LeMay first saw the new Ar-15 at a picnic in 1961. That is when he ordered the rifle for the Airforce. It was a Army general, whose name I have forgotten that was impressed with the AR-10 at the 1955 trials. He tried in vain to get Springfield Armory to seriously consider the weapon. The head of the Springfield armory did everything in his power to kill the AR-10. Though in retrospect the AR-10 did have serious deficiencies but they could have been worked out during trials. But the Army failed the rifle and would not reconsider it even with design changes.
The AR-15 was created on behalf of a request by an Army General to have a lighter weapon for SF using the same technologies as seen in the AR-10. The M14 was considered too heavy and impractical for SF missions. Eugene came up with the AR-15. Which was a modified version of the AR-10. The Ar-15 met the same fate as the AR-10 during early trials. The military brass did not want to consider the weapon, nor did the Springfield armory want to use a design they did not create, in addition the M14 was in full production. It was not until SF units were issued some AR-15 rifles through back door channels in Vietnam to test that the military changed their tune. The soldiers opinion of the rifle was very positive. At that time the Kennedy administration came into office. They took to the AR-15 and in a controversial move forced the Army to test the rifle, then adopt the weapon to replace the M14. But some bean counting nitwits changed some important features to keep the cost down. These design changes made the rifle less the stellar reputation in combat. It was not until these design flaws were ironed out but by then the damage was already done to the rifle reputation. The M16A1 was a later version that came out in the late 1960s to further address issues with the rifle.

 

[rogertc1]

I used to drill with a garand and a M14. Heavy gun. Yes I have M1A however if I were in house to house combat situation I'd want a M4. The M14 is good at long distance.

 

[SR420]

Somebody better remind the Marines that they hate the M14 because they
recently started issuing the US Marine M39EMR ~ Enhanced Marksman Rifle.
The M39EMR is an full length M14 in a SAGE EBR stock.