M1a vs ar10 historic vs present

[Mr.RevolverGuy]

I know one thing if it does not rain it is going back out to the range with me this weekend the M1A that is. There is just something phenomenal about firing this rifle.

Great educational thread from you guys.

 

[44 AMP]

Another point to consider is that the M14 rifle was the last rifle we issued with the traditional rifle profile. Other than the protruding box magazine the rifle has the same general shape and balance as every (breechloading) rifle we had previously used.

One needs to understand the prevailing as well as then entrenched culture of the time when it was designed. The M14 appeared during the era when the Army still taught hand to hand combat with the rifle (and bayonet) as part of the basic training.

I was NOT taught hand to hand fighting with the M16 or the bayonet in basic in the 70s. The rational we were given was that the Army, in its infinite wisdom, determined that should we encounter the enemy at hand to hand range, the odds were that ONE of us would have ammunition, and so training in how to fight with the rifle and bayonet were not needed.

Early AR designs were not as well suited to being used hand to hand, and less likely to survive such use than the M14, M1, Springfield, Enfield, or Krag. The straight line stock, pistol grip and deep receiver (and remember to include the height of the carry handle) makes the balance different from the conventional rifle shape. Alloy receivers and plastic stocks were deemed less durable (impact resistant) than steel and wood.

Don't confuse the gun you buy today, called AR 10 (or 15) with the early versions. They still mostly look similar but there are a host of differences.

 

[COSteve]

The primary reason the M14 was not retained in service was a "political" decision, and while the original rifle's failure to be the master of all trades its proponents envisioned it to be, it was a good RIFLE.

The underlying flaw in the idea of it being a select fire weapon was the (to me) unexplainable failure of anyone in design authority to recognize that while an 18lb BAR with a cyclic rate of 550rpm can be managed, a 9lb rifle with a cyclic rate of 750rpm is almost impossible to master.

The cyclic rate of the M14 empties the 20 rnd magazine in 1.6 second. Even experts have trouble getting more than a couple hits on a 25m target with that high a firing rate shooting 7.62x51mm NATO out of a 9lb rifle and the rest of us, don't do close to that well. I've shot the M14 on full auto. It was an educational experience.

The big reason the removed the selector switch from most M14s was to keep the troops from burning through all their ammo too fast (and hitting very little)

Anyway, while the M14 did not meet all the hopes, it really didn't FAIL at anything. The MacNamara defense dept decided the 5.56 and the AR would be superior (which is a whole story by itself) and so, despite objections, that where we went.

As to the M14 (at about 9lbs) being too much for the small Vietnamese soldiers, having personally seen them packing 18lb BARS and walking our butts into the ground while doing it, I take leave to doubt the statement a little bit.

I agree with what 44 AMP says above with a slight modification. Yes, the RVN troops could carry the larger and heavier M14, that's true, however, the military brass used their small size as an excuse to make the political and fiscal argument for the smaller, lighter, and cheaper M16.

In addition, as the M16's ammo is smaller, lighter, cheaper, and takes up much less room in a resupply ship, the bean counters fell in love with the numbers for fielding and supplying it notwithstanding whether the platform and caliber were as good as what it replaced.

Don't under estimate the power of the budget in weapons design for the armed forces.