M14 compared to M16

[Sturmgewehre]

You'll also note that the reality is that both the Army and Marines are ditching it in favor of other platforms because its real world performance is nowhere near what fans on the internet claim.

This is true, the M14 does need to be replaced with a more modern and versatile weapon system. The M14 does an "ok" job as it's currently deployed but a more modern system would do a much better job.

It will be interesting to see what they decide upon.

 

[Sturmgewehre]

Very often down through the years when ever the Army has wanted to “Reach out and touch someone” they have called up the M-14 as the weapon that is fundamentally up to the task.

Unfortunately the M14 doesn't lend itself to extreme accuracy. The rifle, by its very design, is kind of a poor platform for long range work. Scopes are something of an after thought, the gas system needs to be modified, a heavier match grade barrel added, the stock replaced and bedded. Even then, with heavy use, the rifle begins to rapidly loose accuracy and needs to be sent back to the armory for some TLC.

The M14 was pressed into the role of designated marksman because it was already in the armories. It's by no means the ideal solution to the needs of our military.

 

[FirstFreedom]

Imagine if the same effort had been used to improve the M14, instead.

OK, I imagined it. And it would still be obsolete from the get go, because it would STILL not be controllable in full auto, which is what the military wanted then and still wants now. Horsesoldier knows of what he speaks...

 

[MTMilitiaman]

So, the M14 was worthless from the beginning. That is (one of the reasons) why the M16 was eventually adopted. It worked well as a select fire weapon.

Only to have that capacity butchered.

The M14 was adopted in the hopes that an entire family of weapons could be derived from a single platform. The power and high cyclic rate of the round combined with a weight about half of the BAR's combined to make this unreasonable so the project was scrapped in favor of a lighter rifle and ammunition capable of automatic fire. This automatic fire capability proved to be an unnecessary waste of ammunition, at least according to the top military brass and politicians making the decisions. So it was scrapped in favor of a burst fire mechanism.

And nobody finds it ironic that the automatic fire capability that the M16 was adopted for in the first place wasn't kept in later models of the weapon, and is now absent, or that the M16 isn't capable of meeting the requirements the M14 was expected to meet to any substantially or appreciably higher degree than the M14, yet the M14, or rather its related politics, holds the M14 as a failure while the M16, and its related politics, establish it as a success? And nobody bothers to wonder what advancements could have been made to the evolution of the M14 if the military had bothered to invest as much in it as it did the M16? Even with the potential shown by the system with current chassis systems? No takers?

The M14 was scrapped because certain politicians were pissed that it took Springfield Armory 14 years to improve on the M1 Garand, yet the platform they replaced it with took over 20 years to develop into a really noteworthy combat rifle. The government invested millions more into adapting the M16 to its needs, but wasn't willing to do the same with the M14. Over 40 years later, the M16 has matured into a decent rifle. With a fraction of the effort, some companies take the M14 and modernize it, yet the M14 is hype?

HOLY DOUBLE STANDARD BATMAN

Whatever

So, the M14 was worthless from the beginning. That is (one of the reasons) why the M16 was eventually adopted. It worked well as a select fire weapon.

Which is why the M21s in Vietnam had less down time for repairs than the M40s, and most of that was because the scope it was employed with was complex and prone to breakage.

 

[FirstFreedom]

It's not "hype", and there may or may not have been politics in ditching the M14. But regardless, let me ask you a question, MT:

If you or a well-trained soldier shoot an M4 or M16 in burst mode at a man-sized target at say, 150 yards, how many shots will hit it? The answer is probably two, and possibly three.

If you shoot an M14 in burst mode (assuming they made this), at the same distance, how many rounds would hit the target? The answer is ONE.

The military wants an *effective* 3-rd burst mode in their standard issue rifles, for better or worse, for whatever reason. There is NOTHING you can do to improve the M14, to make it hit multiple shots on the same target, save making it nearly as heavy as a BAR, and then it's no longer a standard infantry rifle. Sure a 300-lb cornfed bubba with hands of steel can hold the gun tight enough to keep it on target in burst mode, but not the average soldier. That is apparently unacceptable to the military. Right?

End of story (until the .mil changes their doctrine on 3-round burst).

 

[Sturmgewehre]

And nobody finds it ironic that the automatic fire capability that the M16 was adopted for in the first place wasn't kept in later models of the weapon, and is now absent, or that the M16 isn't capable of meeting the requirements the M14 was expected to meet to any substantially or appreciably higher degree than the M14, yet the M14, or rather its related politics, holds the M14 as a failure while the M16, and its related politics, establish it as a success? And nobody bothers to wonder what advancements could have been made to the evolution of the M14 if the military had bothered to invest as much in it as it did the M16? Even with the potential shown by the system with current chassis systems? No takers?

Are you kidding?

First, every M16 produced for the US military is capable of "full auto" fire. I assume you're talking about the 3 round burst used with the M16A2. Psst, burst is full-auto fire, it's just mechanically controlled full-auto fire. You see, the military never wanted a rifle the troops could hold the trigger back on and dump a 30 round magazine. From the very beginning they taught (and still teach) fire discipline. Troops were taught to fire controlled bursts but many ignored this training in combat so they forced this on the troops mechanically.

Second, what in the world could they have done to the M14 to make it a workable assault rifle besides ditch the traditional stock in favor of a pistol grip stock, ditch the 7.62 round in favor of the 5.56, put a burst system in it and redesign the receiver to have a rail system incorporated. But try as they might they would never get the M14 into an in-line design without completely redesigning the rifle. They would have made it into a totally new weapon that would resemble the M16 or any other current military assault rifle. LOL

 

[MTMilitiaman]

If you or a well-trained soldier shoot an M4 or M16 in burst mode at a man-sized target at say, 150 yards, how many shots will hit it? The answer is probably two, and possibly three.

If you shoot an M14 in burst mode (assuming they made this), at the same distance, how many rounds would hit the target? The answer is ONE.

Except even the burst capability is almost never used. The infantry rifleman is told their mission is individually aimed rounds at identified targets. In this capacity, a trained soldier can put out aimed semi-automatic rounds from a 7.62mm rifle like the M14 as fast, or nearly so, as a 5.56mm rifle. Even against multiple targets when displacing, I always expected to operate in semi-automatic with the M16. The 3rd burst feature was somewhat of a curiosity to us, and never used unless we had lots of mags forced on us by Cpls and Sgts who didn't want to participate in a range exercise, and then it was just to get the rounds expended as fast as possible with little or no thought given to accuracy.

If accuracy is a consideration with volume of fire, most soldiers are going do better trained in hammer pairs with semi-automatic fire than with automatic fire, regardless of the caliber.

The civilian sector has shown us that the M14 can be made smaller and lighter in a carbine for CQB, that chassis systems can eliminate any accuracy/bedding problems that may exist while allowing for the same number of sights, white lights, lasers, and vertical foregrips as the M16, and that compensators can even largely eliminate the "excessive" recoil of the 7.62mm round.

And while we are on the subject, it has been shown that 7.62mm belt fed machine guns can be made small and manageable enough to question the validity of 5.56mm systems as well.

Psst, burst is full-auto fire,

Heh hehe...

If you say so...

 

[Sturmgewehre]

Being a former Infantry Marine, we were taught aimed fire as well. Full-auto was used to suppress the enemy during things like ambushes and during a fighting retreat. Here's a video that came to mind explaining how a military force uses full-auto to overwhelm an enemy and to suppress them using automatic fire.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1lsc_X7ls8o

But yes, 90% of the time semi-auto aimed fire is what is needed to win a fight. But there are those situations where tactics dictate a heavy volume of fire that can only be delivered through automatic fire.

I'm sure you were taught something similar in the Army although I don't know for certain as I never served in the Army.

 

[Sturmgewehre]

Heh hehe...

If you say so...

Wow.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

The M14 was scrapped because certain politicians were pissed that it took Springfield Armory 14 years to improve on the M1 Garand, yet the platform they replaced it with took over 20 years to develop into a really noteworthy combat rifle. The government invested millions more into adapting the M16 to its needs, but wasn't willing to do the same with the M14. Over 40 years later, the M16 has matured into a decent rifle. With a fraction of the effort, some companies take the M14 and modernize it, yet the M14 is hype?

One thing you fail to mention or maybe even realize is that the M14 is simply not a good select fire weapon. Yes, it is an improvement on the Garand, hands down IMO.

That said, it just doesn't fill the role it was asked to fill, and the main reason is the caliber. If the military simply wanted to switch platforms, they could have adopted the AR-10, but they wanted a smaller caliber that was controllable in full-auto (and as noted, they use mostly 3-shot burst now, which would still make the M14 just as useless).

The 7.62x51NATO is not going to be as effective for what the military wants across the board. The recoil is too harsh for select fire weapons like these, and even in semi-auto the 5.56 can be shot far faster and far more accurately at the ranges they were designed for.

I realize you have an inherent hatred for the .223 round in combat, but that is what the military wanted at the time.

 

[Neal in GA]

It's not "hype", and there may or may not have been politics in ditching the M14. But regardless, let me ask you a question, MT:

If you or a well-trained soldier shoot an M4 or M16 in burst mode at a man-sized target at say, 150 yards, how many shots will hit it? The answer is probably two, and possibly three.

If you shoot an M14 in burst mode (assuming they made this), at the same distance, how many rounds would hit the target? The answer is ONE.

The military wants an *effective* 3-rd burst mode in their standard issue rifles, for better or worse, for whatever reason. There is NOTHING you can do to improve the M14, to make it hit multiple shots on the same target, save making it nearly as heavy as a BAR, and then it's no longer a standard infantry rifle. Sure a 300-lb cornfed bubba with hands of steel can hold the gun tight enough to keep it on target in burst mode, but not the average soldier. That is apparently unacceptable to the military. Right?

End of story (until the .mil changes their doctrine on 3-round burst).

The Army would never use burst on a target at 150m. It's a moot point. Burst on M16s is only used when starting an ambush or to provide covering fire. Aimed fire at individual targets on select fire modes of operation is entirely irrelevant. The standard combat load (though most carry more) of an M16 is 7 magazines. How long do you think that'll last on burst? Even in MOUT (urban combat operations), we still use the semi-auto mode of fire. We have SAWs (and M240, M2 depending on mission) for the rock and roll stuff.

 

[Abndoc]

That said, it just doesn't fill the role it was asked to fill, and the main reason is the caliber.

Now, this is where you and I disagree. If an effort was made to build a rifle (not necessarily the M14) utilizing the 7.62 caliber and using modern technology to suppress recoil, the 7.62 is superior to the 5.56. I know that this opens up the old lighter, faster vs. slower, heavier thing and this debate is old and is open to personal opinion and this is mine. But that would be my preference.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

One thing you fail to mention or maybe even realize is that the M14 is simply not a good select fire weapon.

Fail to mention? You mean like this, in my first post on this topic:

The M14 was adopted in the hopes that an entire family of weapons could be derived from a single platform. The power and high cyclic rate of the round combined with a weight about half of the BAR's combined to make this unreasonable so the project was scrapped in favor of a lighter rifle and ammunition capable of automatic fire.

That said, it just doesn't fill the role it was asked to fill, and the main reason is the caliber.

Neither does the M16. That is the point. The military wasn't able to turn the M16 into an entire family of weapons, namely, a squad automatic weapon, which happens to be the same role the M14 failed so miserably at. Hence the adoption of the M249.

I realize you have an inherent hatred for the .223 round in combat, but that is what the military wanted at the time.

I realize that you have an inherent hatred for the M14 rifle in combat, but personal biases aside, you fail to address the majority of the points in favor of the M14. Even spending most of the last 40 years in mothballs as a combat rifle, it still has the ability to improve alongside the AR platform, and advancements in stock design and compensators can't be ruled out. If the rifle had been given as much a chance as the M16 to develop and mature, then no one can say how it might have turned out.

At any rate, forcing the 7.62x51 onto NATO wasn't any worse than forcing the 5.56x45 on them, and though of the two I prefer the 7.62mm, I would rather see a happy medium adopted.

 

[Crosshair]

I think the whole debate goes to show that the military always goes with what they want, not what they need.

Everyone who looked into the matter saw that the full power cartridge was obsolete. The Brits had their experimental 7mm round that would have worked very well in that role. The Swedes got it right from the start when they introduced the 6.5x55 back in 1891. The US wanted the impossible and the end result didn't work well for what they needed.

We have this modern infatuation with sending bullets downrange as fast as possible. In shorter barrels, that just doesn't work. Short barrels is where rounds like the 7.62x39, 6.5 Grendel, and the 6.5 MPC do well where the 5.56 just gives you a fireball. You are going to have to compensate for drop. A heavier slug is not as dependent on velocity.

 

[Abndoc]

I don't think they always get what they want, either. The procurement process is so wrapped up in politics, it's a wonder that they get anything they can use effectively.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

Fail to mention? You mean like this, in my first post on this topic:

Well, that's the whole point, the cartridge is too much for select fire... Why are you still debating if you claim that you agree with that fact?

You're trying to turn this argument into something else.

I realize that you have an inherent hatred for the M14 rifle in combat

This isn't true, I just believe it is outdated by today's standards.

If the rifle had been given as much a chance as the M16 to develop and mature, then no one can say how it might have turned out.

Like someone else said: "OK, I imagined it. And it would still be obsolete from the get go..."

 

[Tim R]

Good Grief....

The M-14 did have full auto. The idea was to replace the BAR but I don't think we will argue how effective that rifle was. The squad leader decided on who was going to have full auto on the M-14 and gave those people the "switch", normally 2 guys in a squad. The regular GI could not switch to full auto when he wanted to like on a 16.

So much for the M-1A is what the M-14 wa supposed to be.

I started shooting high power with a tuned M-14. Wore out 3 of them. I gave it up for 12 years and it was not until last year I finally beat my personnel best with my tuned AR using my dime. I found the AR is easier to shoot but I have not shot the AR at a 1,000 yards like I did with a 14.

The Army didn't want the 16, it was the Air Force who ordered them first for their Security Police. It went down hill from there.

We did knock the Russians on their backside when the 16 and 5.56 came out. The Russians thought we were on to something so they came out with their own version.

I believe those who bash the M-14 have not shot or have spent little time on the plateform to understand what a fine rifle it really is. So what if it kicks a little, man up. Could have been shooting a 03.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

Like someone else said: "OK, I imagined it. And it would still be obsolete from the get go..."

And judged by the same standards, so is the M16.

 

[HorseSoldier]

There is a small vocal group, but their arguments are hype because the M14 platform continues to be viable.

Small, vocal groups like the United States Marine Corps STA plstoons whose after action reviews of the M14 as a DMR are extremely negative?

Wait, that's right, this is the M14. Those enlisted Marines at the sharp end needing reliable kit that does the job, and finding that ain't the M14, must have a political agenda

The infantry rifleman is told their mission is individually aimed rounds at identified targets. In this capacity, a trained soldier can put out aimed semi-automatic rounds from a 7.62mm rifle like the M14 as fast, or nearly so, as a 5.56mm rifle.

No. Not really. Give the same shooter an M14 and an M16 (or better an M4) and put him on a pact timer doing controlled pairs, failure drills, and multiple target engagements and there is simply no comparison. The 5.56mm leaves the 7.62x51 weapon in the dust -- simple physics. Add in the M14's poor control placement (safety, mag changes) and the more involved your speed test becomes the less well the M14 performs.

 

[SR420]

I believe those who bash the M-14 have not shot or have spent
little time on the platform to understand what a fine rifle it really is.
So what if it kicks a little, man up. Could have been shooting a 03.

+1

I also believe the 14 bashers don't know anything about how accurate and reliable a modernized M14 can be.
Modern technology and good old American ingenuity properly applied to the 50 year old platform yields awesome results.

Small, vocal groups like the United States Marine Corps STA plstoons whose after action reviews of the M14 as a DMR are extremely negative?

I guess your not up to speed on the new USMC M39EMR (Enhanced Marksman Rifle)
It's a modernized M14 in a SAGE stock. They love it!