M14 Re-issue?
- Thread starter SR420
- Start date
I'm in the 82nd and we've gotton M14's issued to us for the past 4 yrs. Just for deployments, we don't train with them in the rear like we should though. It's kinda sad. They only get issued to 1 or 2 guys per platoon. (the marksmen) I was lucky enough to carry one in Afghanistan in 2003.
Limeyfellow
New member
Thats correct, no selector switch. Quite a few Marine platoons have been issued M14s from what they could scrap together. They just don't have enough SAM-Rs for them though when they catch up or demand lowers its likely the M14 is going to be gone again. It seems to be just a stopgap method.
Updated information ~
I found this on another forum...
"This is an interesting thread as it points to a larger issue: the logistical supportability of the M14 in general. A factor in favor of the M14 is the fact that more than enough of these systems remain in the inventory to meet the 82nd's and XVIII's MTOE requirements.
Secondly, as long as the receiver, bolt, trigger assy, gas cylinder and op rod remain rebuildable -- you have the basis for a cost effective modernization program. With the advent of the MCS stock, you might not even need the rear sight assembly -- food for thought. I suspect other designs to follow.
I don't think I need to mention that a careful review of DIBBS's DLA contract awards over the past 24 months will reveal that several contractors have supplied new manufacture components who thus have the capability for other parts not required to date. I'm sure Different would support that view.
Additionally, manufacturers have developed subsystems on their own that have been adopted by various units without the holy water of Picatinny, Rock Island or Fort Benning. Believe me, several more products for the M14 of military signifigance are on the way. In the end, there is a robust industrial base for this "Legacy System" and a strong economic argument for the continued use of this weapon.
However, as it applies to airborne requirements, I'll be the first to admit I'm not in the direct loop, so I'll reserve comment there. However, I work directly with the big Army and the SOF community and there, the M14 has a growing following....much to the consternation of DA and many in TRADOC and in FORSCOM. Even in those activities, the M14 has it's advocates. Economic realities relating to defense spending are looming large with the new Congress and must be taken into consideration by defense planners. Translation: longer legs for Legacy Systems. In the end, SCAR-H, M110 SASS and others could very well be in for a rough ride.
Cynically, I will close by stating that if a modernized M14 program does not spend "enough" money (i.e. beget power power to aspiring PM's, GO's, SES's, politico's, etc.), it may never enjoy a significant redux in DoD and especially within the Army."
This post was posted here with the authors permission.
I found this on another forum...
"This is an interesting thread as it points to a larger issue: the logistical supportability of the M14 in general. A factor in favor of the M14 is the fact that more than enough of these systems remain in the inventory to meet the 82nd's and XVIII's MTOE requirements.
Secondly, as long as the receiver, bolt, trigger assy, gas cylinder and op rod remain rebuildable -- you have the basis for a cost effective modernization program. With the advent of the MCS stock, you might not even need the rear sight assembly -- food for thought. I suspect other designs to follow.
I don't think I need to mention that a careful review of DIBBS's DLA contract awards over the past 24 months will reveal that several contractors have supplied new manufacture components who thus have the capability for other parts not required to date. I'm sure Different would support that view.
Additionally, manufacturers have developed subsystems on their own that have been adopted by various units without the holy water of Picatinny, Rock Island or Fort Benning. Believe me, several more products for the M14 of military signifigance are on the way. In the end, there is a robust industrial base for this "Legacy System" and a strong economic argument for the continued use of this weapon.
However, as it applies to airborne requirements, I'll be the first to admit I'm not in the direct loop, so I'll reserve comment there. However, I work directly with the big Army and the SOF community and there, the M14 has a growing following....much to the consternation of DA and many in TRADOC and in FORSCOM. Even in those activities, the M14 has it's advocates. Economic realities relating to defense spending are looming large with the new Congress and must be taken into consideration by defense planners. Translation: longer legs for Legacy Systems. In the end, SCAR-H, M110 SASS and others could very well be in for a rough ride.
Cynically, I will close by stating that if a modernized M14 program does not spend "enough" money (i.e. beget power power to aspiring PM's, GO's, SES's, politico's, etc.), it may never enjoy a significant redux in DoD and especially within the Army."
This post was posted here with the authors permission.
Who told you that? That is totally false, the Marine Corps has not re-issuing M14s or DMRs on any large scale. Only the East Coast units got SAM-Rs, West coast unit didn't get them and has never requested them, their position has been the 4X ACOG equipped MWS more the fills the bill.