M14 Forum banner

A Little More History On The M14E2

1666 46
ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF RIFLE, 7.62MM, M14E2. (18 DECEMBER 1963)

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Scope

Current information is presented on the design characteristics of Rifle, 7.62mm, M14E2.

B. Engineering Development of Rifle, 7 .62mm, M14E2.

1. Rifle, 7.62mm, M14 and Rifle, 7.62mm, M15 were classified standard on 23 May 1957. The M15 Rifle was the heavy barrel model of the M14 Rifle intended to be used for automatic fire. Tests by the Army and the Marine Corps led to the adoption of the M14 Rifle ·with the M2 Bipod and to the obsolescence of the M15 Rifle on 17 December 1959.

2. The User [United States Army Infantry Board] was dissatisfied with the automatic fire accuracy of the M14 Rifle with the M2 Bipod and, in early 1962, the United States Army Infantry Board (USAIB), Fort Benning, Georgia, with the assistance of the Army Marksmanship Unit fabricated and tested a modified M14 Rifle which became known unofficially as the M14 (USAIB) Rifle.

3. The M14 (USAIB) Rifle demonstrated that the automatic fire accuracy requirements (i.e., 80 per cent of the shots must fall within a 40-inch diameter circle at a range of 200 meters when fired in 2- to 3-round bursts) could be met consistently with this configuration. More M14 (USAIB) Rifles were fabricated and tested extensively.

4. Headquarters, U. S. Army Weapons Command instructed [Springfield] Armory on 7 August 1963 to prepare a technical data package for manufacture of the M14 (USAIB) Rifle and to adhere to the original configuration to the greatest extent practicable. Since there were no drawings or design data for the M14 (USAIB) Rifle, the Armory analyzed the USAIB and prepared preliminary design data and sketches. These sketches and data provided the basis for the engineering of a comparable design which would meet not only the operational requirements but also the quantity production requirements. This technical data package was completed 1 October 1963.

5. On 2 October 1963, Headquarters, U.S. Army Weapons Command, instructed [Springfield] Armory to completely redesign the front handgrip so that it would fold to the rear, present a small silhouette in the closed position, and provide greater comfort when the weapon is carried at sling arms. The Armory was instructed that this handgrip should also be adjustable longitudinally to accommodate the gunner’s arm length. In addition, a butt swivel should be provided which would pivot to the left side of the stock to permit side slinging of the weapon. The Armory was also requested to fabricate four rifles for confirmation of design by testing.

6. The handgrip assembly, stock assembly, and sling were redesigned and product engineered and four rifles were fabricated and tested by the Armory. On 29 October 1963, the design was confirmed by higher authority, and four weapons were shipped to the test agencies on 4 November 1963.

7. The new weapon was designated Rifle, 7.62mm, M14E2 (photograph below)

Air gun Trigger Machine gun Wood Shotgun


[TO BE CONTINUED]
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,204 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
8. Listed below are the significant differences between the M14 (USAIB) and the M14A2 Rifles resulting from redesign to meet requirements and engineering for quantity production.

a. The stock for the M14 (USAIB) was fabricated from several pieces of wood cemented together to meet the new configuration of the butt and the new rear handgrip. The front end of the stock was identical with the standard M14 rifle except for two holes to permit mounting of the front handgrip. The M14E2 stock is fabricated from the standard stock blank except for the rear handgrip which is doweled and cemented in place. The front end and the and the sides of the stock have been strengthened to withstand the heat and stress of automatic fire. The butt end and the rear handgrip have been reshaped to provide greater accuracy and comfort ln firing.

b. The recoil pad for the M14 (USAIB) was of commercial design and manufacture which had to be modified to accommodate the shoulder rest and individually fitted to the stock. The pad had open ribbing on the sides which allowed foreign matter to accumulate, and the rubber bad poor resistance to oil, abrasion, and cold cracking which resulted in a high replacement factor. The M14A2 recoil pad is molded from rubber with excellent resistance to oil, abrasion, and cold cracking. Thera are no exposed cavities to accumulate foreign matter. The pad has an integral steel shoe for strength and a tight fit with the stock; the pad is interchangeable from rifle to rifle.

c. The shoulder rest assembly for the Ml4 (USAIB) Rifle consisted of the standard M14 Rifle shoulder rest plate mounted on a block and a stop plate screwed to the top of the block. This stop plate projected above the top and the side surfaces of the stock. A detent was provided to hold the rest in the open or closed position. The shoulder rest assembly for the M14E2 is a completely new design with only one moving part, the shoulder rest. This design provides detent action for both open and closed positions and eliminates projections beyond the contour of the stock.

Scale Font Office supplies Tool Auto part

Font Illustration Musical instrument accessory Handwriting


d. The muzzle stabilizer for the M14 (USAIB) consisted of a perforated steel sleeve welded to the flash suppressor. Replacement of the flash suppressor with the muzzle stabilizer was required when the M14 Rifle was converted to the M14 (USAIB) configuration. The stabilizer for the M14E2 is a separate unit which fits over the flash suppressor and is fastened to the bayonet lug. The rifle combination tool is used for assembly and disassembly.

Air gun Trigger Machine gun Shotgun Gun barrel


e. The front handgrip assembly for the M14 (USAIB) was made of wood, folded forward only, and was not adjustable longitudinally. The silhouette of the handgrip in the folded position was high and awkward. The handgrip was held in the closed position by friction. The handgrip assembly for the Ml4E2 is a completely new design incorporating all the features requested by higher authority. The handgrip folds to the rear and fits close to the stock in the closed position to provide a low silhouette and greater comfort for carrying the weapon at sling arms. The handgrip assembly can be moved five inches longitudinally to accommodate the gunner's arm length. The handgrip is made of aluminum and is rubber-coated to insulate against heat or cold. The handgrip assembly incorporates a positives stop in the closed position. The latch mechanism in the handgrip is large and can be operated with winter mittens.

Air gun Trigger Shotgun Gun barrel Gun accessory

Font Parallel Rectangle Art Handwriting


f. The sling used for the M14 (USAIB) was the standard M1-M14 rifle sling and was too short to carry the rifle at sling arms. The sling used for the M14E2 is 20 inches longer and has an extra hook assembly to permit the sling to be connected and disconnected quickly from the front handgrip and bipod.

g. The butt swivel on the M14 (USAIB) was stationary as on the M1 and M14 Rifles. The but swivel on the M14E2 pivots 90 degrees to the left side of the stock to permit side slinging of the weapon.

[TO BE CONTINUED]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,204 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
C. General Data

1. The M14E2 Rifle differs slightly from the standard M14 Rifle and is designed to deliver accurate automatic fire in the role of the Infantry Squad automatic rifle. The standard M14 Rifle is used primarily to deliver accurate semiautomatic fire by the Infantry Squad.

2. Both models are 7.62mm, magazine-fed, gas-operated, shoulder type weapons, and both use the same sight system.

3. The M14E2 Rifle incorporates a "straight line" stock assembly, muzzle stabilizer, modified M2 bipod, and a long sling. The barrel and receiver group, and the firing mechanism are the same rugged, reliable, M14 Rifle mechanisms and are completely interchangeable between the two weapons.

D. Physical Characteristics of Rifle 7.62mm. M14E2

Weight of weapon, complete with empty magazine . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 lb, 12 oz approx.
Weight of weapon, complete with full magazine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13 lb, 12 oz approx.
Length of weapon, overall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.3 in.
Ammunition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7.62mm NATO
Muzzle Velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2800 fps avg

Air gun Trigger Shotgun Table Gun barrel


II. GENERAL DESCRIPTION

A. Stock Assembly

1. The stock assembly of the M14E2 Rifle is of the "straight line" type with a fixed rear pistol grip and a folding front handgrip which lies flat along the bottom of the stock when not in use. The location of the handgrip assembly can be adjusted longitudinally for five inches in one-inch increments to accommodate all gunners. The handgrip assembly also has a sling swivel for use when the bipod is removed from the weapon.

2. The stock assembly also incorporates a rubber recoil pad to reduce fatigue resulting from continuous automatic fire. The folding shoulder rest provides vertical control of the butt end of the rifle and is especially useful when the weapon is fired from the prone position

3. The butt swivel pivots 90 degrees to the left side of the stock and allows the weapon to be aide slung for carrying.

B. Muzzle Stabilizer

The muzzle stabilizer slides over the flash suppressor and is fastened to the suppressor by a screw and a lock nut. The rifle combination tool is used to tighten the screw and the nut. The stabilizer provides muzzle compensation, recoil-braking, and flash suppression. It is compensated for right-handed gunners.

C. Bipod, M2 (Modified)

The M2 bipod is modified by the addition of a sling swivel and a longer pivot pin in lieu of the current pivot pin to accommodate the swivel. The swivel provides the mounting point for the sling for both firing and carrying.

D. Sling, Gun

The sling used on the M14E2 is the long Browning Automatic Rifle sling with extra hook assembly. The portion of the sling between the handgrip and the bipod provides additional muzzle control when the weapon is fired. When the weapon is carried, the sling is disconnected from the handgrip assembly.

[TO BE CONTINUED]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,204 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 · (Edited)
III. CONVERSION OF M14 RIFLE TO M14E2 RlFLE

A. The conversion of the standard M14 Rifle to the M14E2 configuration is accomplished in the following manner:

1. Break the M14 Rifle down into the three main groups, i.e., the barrel and receiver group, the firing mechanism, and the stock assembly.

2. Replace the M14 Stock Assembly, F7790702, with M14E2 Stock Assembly, F7791671.

3. Reassemble the three main groups.

4. Slide the muzzle stabilizer over the flash suppressor, swing the yoke over the bayonet lug, and tighten the screw with the combination tool. Slide the combination tool over the head of the screw and tighten the nut securely.

5. Modify the M2 bipod by removing the cotter pin from pivot pin in the head assembly. Hold the jaws in place with fingers, and remove the pivot pin, B7791104. Insert pivot pin, B7791669, into swivel, C7791670, so that the loop of the swivel projects forward of the head of the pivot pin. Insert the pivot pin into the bipod head and through the jaws, and reassemble the cotter pin to the pivot pin.

6. Assemble the modified bipod to the rifle gas cylinder and tighten with the rifle combination tool.

7. Attach the sling hook assemblies to the bipod swivel and to the handgrip pin, pass the trailing end of the sling through the butt swivel and back through the keeper assembly.

B. If the standard M14 Rifle is equipped with a selector lock, installation of the selector and the selector spring should be accomplished by the company armorer or ordnance personnel.

IV. ADJUSTMENT OF SLING FOR FIRING

Proper adjustment of .the portion of the sling between the handgrip and the bipod swivel is necessary to achieve maximum accuracy of automatic fire. The sling should be adjusted so that the portion between the handgrip and the bipod is taut when the handgrip is pulled rearward against the stop position. This should be accomplished without undue strain on the gunner. This adjustment will maintain proper tension in the sling section when the weapon is being fired and will minimize variations in the size of the shot group.

Trigger Air gun Gun barrel Gun accessory Parallel
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,204 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
Thanks, one or two questions about the M2 bipod. The earlier bipod was part #7790833 (it lacked a front sling swivel), and the later bipod 7790688 had the front sling swivel installed. Do you know what years the earlier vs. later M2 bipods (or drawings) were completed? I ask b/c the two part numbers would appear to be "out of sequence" with the lower number supposedly the "later" version, and the higher part/drawing number being the "earlier" version. From Frank Iannamico’s book (page 144):
View attachment 497793

Thanks again for the info. Per Iannamico's book, "During 1966, after extensive testing in the field, the M14E2 was formally adopted as the U.S. Rifle M14A1, 7.62mm (the A1 suffix represents Alteration 1)."

So the nomenclature changed after about 2.5 yrs of testing, and today folks on this forum seem to refer to both "E2" vs "M14A1" interchangeably, although the reference to an "E2 stock" seems slightly more common that referring to an"M14A1 stock." Just a random observation.

BTW, if possible, can you also confirm if the “M14 M (modified)” was just a standard M14 but with the early M2 bipod?

As noted in Frank Iannamico's book; U.S. Rifle M14: The Last Steel Warrior, 2018 (page 145):
1) Bipod:

As you can see for Springfield Armory's report, shown in part above, the sling swivel on the bipod could be on both part numbers as it was a field conversion.

The assembly drawing for the Rifle, 7.62mm, M14A1, with a 7 Jan 1964 date, shows the Bipod, M2, P/N 7790668. As to the apparent out of sequence part numbers, this may not be the case. How the Ordnance and later ARRADCOM numbering practices work, I have no idea, but the M249 part number sequence is largely in the 9348XXX range, well below the M1 rear sights, M14 firing pins, entire M14A1 drawing numbers.

2) Nomenclature:

The M14E2 and the M14A1 are the same thing. For the most part they were the same weapons. The time delay from fielding to standardization lagged in the 1960s, the XM16E1 waited over three years and the XM21, four?

3) M14 (Modified)

There are a few reports, mostly from USAIB, that refer to an "M14 Modified for the BAR Role", or M14 (Modified), almost immediately followed by: "hereafter referred to as the Test Rifle . . ." or something similar. So, it would appear that the working designation for an M14 with some form of bipod (not necessarily and M2) being used and a replacement for the M15 was known as a "Modified M14" or an "M14 (Modified)". There were at least four type of bipod tested prior to the adoption of the shoulder rest butt plate and M2 bipod in 1959.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,204 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Not really sure why they thought it was a good idea going to be a machinegun for suppressive fire w/ that iddy-biddy skinny barrel. 😁 They wanted something that can hold its own be the Lewis gun - that is rifle! WW1 issue and it is still kicking today. There is nothing to really break from that rifle.

Machineguns are usually built like a bulldozer - that can go day and nite laying down suppressive fire.
Well, they were totally alone in that field with skinny barrels on "support weapons".

The Germans and British had adopted "dual-role" weapons with serious weigh limitations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,204 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 · (Edited)
Thanks for the that info. So is there a date attached to drawing P/N 7790833 from 1959? I read in Iannamico's book "An Army Maintence Work Order was issued with instructions to refit the older model bipods by installing a sling swivel and longer yoke pin." I am wondering if the 7790833 might have a 1959-1960 drawing assembly date? Again turning to Frank's book, he alludes to the "M14 (M)" on pages 127-129, and the early M2 bipod without the sling swivel is clearly seen in an undated picture:
View attachment 497816
This below diagram is also undated, but what is really interesting to me is that the mythical “M14 modified” or “M14 M” is shown with a very early M14 with M1 Garand buttplate and wooden handguard (circa 1959-1960), and the “M14 modified for BAR role” is shown with the flipper buttplate, a ventilated handguard, and the early bipod that lacks a swivel…(price list also refers to an almost mythical aluminum magazine as well, perhaps a spin-off part from the T44E6 program). I just wish the date was shown:
View attachment 497817
…hence my belief that bipod p/n 7790833 is indeed a bit earlier design than the 1964 version of the M2 bipod, chronologically speaking. What can be inferred is that SA felt the flipper buttplate would be needed on the “M14 (M)” stock for enhanced controllability in full-auto. I guess shortly thereafter a decision was made to just install the new “flipper” buttplate on all M14s circa 1961, and the whole “M14 M/modified” concept was scrapped, with Captain Gosney instead developing a prototype “pistol grip” stock circa 1962 (aka M14 USAIB rifle).
"
5. Modify the M2 bipod by removing the cotter pin from pivot pin in the head assembly. Hold the jaws in place with fingers, and remove the pivot pin, B7791104. Insert pivot pin, B7791669, into swivel, C7791670, so that the loop of the swivel projects forward of the head of the pivot pin. Insert the pivot pin into the bipod head and through the jaws, and reassemble the cotter pin to the pivot pin."
This passage was written in Nov or Dec 1963, indicating that the drawings for the 7790833 bipod existed, as they are reference, and 7790688 bipod drawings were available, or at least in draft form, as in Jan 1964 they put it on the M14E2 drawing. As to the exact date for the 7790833 bipod, it has to be after Oct 1959, as that is when that style bipod was recommended for adoption. Barring new evidence, I can't close the window down any better. But very late 1959 (Dec most likely) or early 1960 is the date for the "official" M2 bipod.

It is obvious from reading the service test report on the "modified" M14 for the BAR role, that the intent was that standard M14s should be able to be modified to the BAR role by the unit armorer, therefore all M14 had to have the shoulder rest, as that require a bit of wood working outside on the armorer's skill set. The bipods originally studied were all clipped to the bayonet lug, however these all were deem fragile and/or poor support, so much so that they looked at modifying the M15 bipod to slip over the flash hider or some other quick attachment method. The "other quick attachment method", became the type III bipod which fixed to the gas cylinder and became the M2. This happened in October 1959.

Trigger Air gun Gun barrel Font Parallel


I think you might have to branch off and read the 1962 comparison trials between the M14 and AR-15 to find out why the USAIB reversed course from the 1959 idea that the "M14 does everything", with just a bipod, for the 1963 specialized M14 (USAIB) with semi-permanent modifications.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,204 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Fwiw, the reason I am asking about drawing dates is that I just purchased this early version of the M2, and I am trying to date it. Hence the curiosity about this particular part number drawing date.
View attachment 497824
That pin may or may not be original, but the old DAS stamp is original.
View attachment 497825

Fwiw, there was a flaw with the design of the E2 stock - the soldiers would often crack the forend of the stock when pulling down/back with the front foregrip. In 1968 a Work Order and update kit was made available to add much needed strength that area - via a steel mounting plate:
View attachment 497827
My early SA vintage E2 stock that I got from Ted Brown had an arsenal repair/wood splice at the forend, presumably due to the tendency to crack from pressure of the foregrip. My theory is this stock was likely one of the 8350 M14A1s delivered to the US Army in 1964, and this rifle was subsequently fielded, where it acquired a lot of patina/character- along with some arsenal-based repairs.
View attachment 497828
...and here's the stock channel with the 1968 update kit (see rigid steel mounting plate):
View attachment 497829
Also, the M2 bipods have a tendency to ding-up the stock pretty good when in the folded position, and my old E2 stock has 4 wood plugs in the areas where the M2 bipod had dinged it up. Lastly, and perhaps most interesting, while it has no cracks or damage to this area of the stock - it has 5 brass pins to reinforce the sidewalls of the stock. There are 4 on top, and 1 from the bottom. I guess these rifles when used in full-auto were hard on the wood E2 stocks, and I presume this ad-hoc strengthening measure done when an armorer repaired the front forend of this old stock:
View attachment 497830
Just an random pics/observations to add to the M14A1/E2 history.
The original (liner-less) stock is drawing F7791671.

The stock with the steel foregrip liner is drawing F11686526, dated 8 April 1966.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,204 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 ·
The reason why the M14 failed as a squad automatic rifle is NOT because of the cartridge being "too powerful," the weapon being "too light," or the barrel being "too skinny."

The German FG-42 is about the same weight, shoots a full power cartridge, and has a barrel profile similar to the M14.

The problem is the bolt throw of an M14 is about 3-3/8 inches, and after that small amount of travel everything comes to a sudden stop when the operating rod hits the front of the receiver in a solid steel-to-solid steel crash. The jolt of that impact travels, unmitigated through the receiver and stock right into the shooter's shoulder. 80 milliseconds later that shock repeats for as long as you hold back the trigger.

The FG-42, on the other hand, has a slightly longer bolt throw, about 4 inches, but more importantly, has a buffer spring that absorbs the shock of stopping the recoiling bolt/op-rod mass over a distance of about 1/16 inch, Further, the butt stock is not hard mounted to the receiver. but also sprung off the other end of the buffer unit. This make the felt recoil rather mild for a full power cartridge, and coupled with a straight-line stock a very controllable weapon. And off a sand bag, at 100 and 200 meters it is slightly more accurate in full automatic fire than an M16 . . .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,204 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 ·
. (The quick change barrel capability in the field was a key benefit of the M60, and a 200-rd belt fed system, was simply a much better general purpose machine gun, even if it was a heavy "Pig").
Little niggle.

The M60 standard load was a 100 round belt in a cloth bandoleer/box that looped to the side of the MG. Two bandoleers were supplied in an M19A1 ammo box. Generally speaking, if you wanted a belt longer than 100 rounds you would have to pull the ammo completely out of the boxes and link them together. Supply did have a 220 round belt in an M19 box as well as a 750 round box, but the most common is A124 - 4-1 linked M80-M62, 100 round belts in bandoleers, two to a ammunition can, 4 cans to a wirebound, 36 wirebounds to a pallet.

I am pretty sure the box on the hanger was not popular, because the few times we had blanks for the M60 and had to move around on foot, that box on the side made the MG hard the carry. But just transporting the ammunition was much easier in the bandoleer than Rambo style.





Camouflage Military camouflage Ballistic vest Cargo pants Squad
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,204 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 ·
I am afraid that is not a tool room example of an M14E2 stock . . .

That appears to be one of the Ft Benning produced M14 (USAIB) stocks from 1962, a year before Springfield got a look at it. Not the best picture, but you can tell from the outline of the grips and the swoop of the butt,

Music Font Parallel Musical instrument accessory Auto part
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,204 Posts
Discussion Starter · #29 · (Edited)
Lysander I have one more question, what are the dates of these reports? (Month and year). I assume 1960 or 1961, but was curious when the so-called M14 Modified was specifically tested and ultimately rejected. (I don’t have access to such reports and it’s not in my reference books, hence the question):
"SERVICE TEST OF RIFLE, 7.62MM, M14 MODIFIED FOR THE BAR ROLE," 12 May 1959, (Corporate author - USAIB). Abstract- In the summer of 1958 someone floated the idea that the M14 with a bipod could do the job of the M15 so why have the M15. This report investigates two types of bipod (Type I and II, both bayonet lug mounted), three types of plastic handguard, and a new aluminum butt plate with a hinged shoulder rest, as well as the general suitability of the M14 to fill the BAR role. The answer is 'yes', but a better bipod is needed.

“EVALUATION OF M15 BIPOD MODIFIED FOR USE WITH THE M14 RIFLE," 8 June 1959, (USAIB). Abstract- Documents the development and testing of the modifying the M15 bipod to fit on the M14 Rifle. This bipod is referred to as the Type III, and fitted to the gas cylinder.

"COMFIRMATORY TEST OF PRODUCTION MODEL RIFLE, 7.62MM, M14," 23 October 1959, (USAIB). See excerpt in next post.

“REPORT OF COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF BIPODS FOR THE M14 RIFLE IN THE AUTOMATIC RIFLE ROLE,” 29 October 1959, (USAIB). Abstract- compares the Type II bipod (bayonet lug mounted, the best candidate from the first report) with the Type III bipod (gas cylinder mounted). It also tests the suitability of the plastic handguards and hinged buttplate, both modified to correct deficiencies identified in SERVICE TEST OF RIFLE, 7.62MM, M14 MODIFIED FOR THE BAR ROLE. The handguard, now stiffened by longitudinal and radial ribs, the aluminum buttplate with steel shoulder support flap, and the Type III bipod are all approved as suitable for Army use.

“M14 RIFLE WITH FOLDING STOCK (M14E1); FINAL REPORT,” 13 June 1962, (USMC), and "EVALUATION OF RIFLE 7.62MM, M14, MODIFIED FOR THE SUBMACHINE GUN ROLE,” 25 July 1962, (USAIB).
These two reports are on the M14E1, and its suitability for armored vehicle crew and M3 SMG replacement. Recommended for further study, apparently no action taken.

“COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF AR-15 AND M14,” December 1962, (USAIB). This is the first appearance of the M14 (USAIB). Accuracy is still marginal, especially when compared against the AR-15 with a bipod.

“ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF RIFLE, 7.62MM, M14E2,” 18 December 1963, (Springfield Armory). Abstract- Details the modifications to the M14 (USAIB) design in order to make a producible weapon.

“SERVICE TEST OF RIFLE, 7.62MM, M14E2,” 31 December 1963, (USAIB). Abstract- Infantry Board evaluation of Springfield’s modifications to their idea.

“FINAL REPORT ON ENGINEERING TEST OF RIFLE, 7.62MM, M14E2,” May 1964, (Development and Proof Services, Aberdeen Proving Grounds). Abstract- APG’s evaluation of M14E2 after Springfield addressed deficiencies noted in USAIB service test.

“FINAL REPORT OF SERVICE TEST OF RIFLE, 7.62MM, M14E2, UNDER ARCTIC CONDITIONS,” 10 April 1965, (CONARC). Abstract- Arctic test of M14E2 with all modifications. Recommends additional studies for suitable arctic lubricants.

So, now you see why it took until 1966 to formally approve the M14E2 to Standard A as the M14A1.

Oh, and one other thing, calendar November 1959, is Fiscal 1960. In my earlier post in another thread where I listed contract and delivery numbers, the year listed is the fiscal year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,204 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 · (Edited)
3. (U) DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL.

a. Test Items.

(1) The Production Model Rifle, 7.62mm, M14, hereinafter referred to as the test rifle, is similar in weight, design, and appearance to the T44E4 rifle reported in references 2 and 3, Annex D, but incorporates minor modifications designed to eliminate previously reported deficiencies and to facilitate production. The most noticeable changes are as follows:

(a) Modification of the trigger group to permit the use of existing stocks of M1 rifle hammers and safeties.

(b) Calibration of the elevation knob in meters instead of yards,

(c) Provision for attaching a telescopic sight on the left side of the receiver.

(d) Modification to the floor plate of the magazine (Annex C-l).

(2) The Bayonet-Knife, T12, hereinafter referred to as the test bayonet, is essentially the same bayonet as the present standard M5E1 bayonet-knife modified to fit the M14 rifle (Annex C-2).

(3) The Bayonet-Knife Scabbard, M8A1, hereinafter referred to as the test scabbard is the present standard bayonet-knife scabbard for the M5E1 bayonet-knife (Annex C-2).

(4) The maintenance equipment for the Rifle, 7.62mm, M14, hereinafter referred to as the test maintenance equipment, consists of the following items: combination tool, chamber cleaning brash, oil case, grease container, cleaning rod case with spacer, four-section cleaning rod, cleaning patch holder, and cleaning brush. This is prototype maintenance equipment developed by Springfield Armory for use with the test rifle (Annex C-3).

b. Control Items. None. Results obtained in this project were compared with results obtained in references 2 and 3, Annex D.

4. (U) BACKGROUND.

a. Evaluation and service tests of a number of different type rifles including the Rifles, 7.62mm, T44E4, and T44E5 were conducted by this Board in 1956 (ref 2 and 3, Annex D). These tests revealed that in general the T44 rifle system was more suitable for Army use than the other types tested. In May 1957 the T44E4 and T44E5 rifles were adopted by DA as the standard, rifle and automatic rifle respectively. The T44 was standardized as the M14 and the T44E5 was standardized as the M15 rifle. The test rifle is the production model M14 rifle modified to correct previously reported deficiencies. In 1959 this Board determined that the M14 rifle with a hinged butt plate, slotted handguard, and detachable bipod was suitable as an automatic rifle and recommended that it replace the M15 rifle (ref 6, Annex D).

b. The test bayonet was first fabricated for the T44E4 rifle but received only limited testing with that rifle. The same type bayonet was furnished this Board for test with the production model M14 Rifle.

c. A need for maintenance equipment for the test rifle was determined during the evaluation and service test of the T4AE4 rifle (ref 2 and 3, Annex D). The test maintenance equipment was fabricated by Springfield Armory to satisfy this need.

d. The test weapon is within the Tripartite Standardization program and is entered on Category List T-7-105-l.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

This passage, written in October of 1959, indicates that by October 1959, the slotted plastic handguards and the shoulder rest buttplate were in production, or at least were installed on the six weapons tested.

Other things to note in this report:

"Elimination of the bolt disassembly capability in the test maintenance equipment [is desired]."

" One flash suppressor was broken . . . at the brazed joint. (Springfield Armory Technical Representative stated that this method of fabrication of flash suppressor will not be used in future production . . . )."

"Elevation knob does not have distinctive mark for 250 meter battle sight."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,204 Posts
Discussion Starter · #33 ·
Forgot that report . . . .

"SERVICE TEST REPORT FOR CARRIER, COMBINATION TOOL AND CLEANING MATERIAL FOR RIFLE, 7.62MM, M14E2," 29 July 1966 (USAIB).

1.1 BACKGROUND

1.1.1 In November 1964, after receiving inquiries from the field pertaining to the method of carrying the cleaning materials and combination tool for the M14E2 rifle, the US Army Weapons Command recommended to the US Army Combat Developments Command that consideration be given to development of a small canvas bag or envelope that could be carried on the belt or in the pocket to permit consolidation of cleaning material and combination tool for the M14E2 rifle.

1.1.2 In May 1965, the US Army Natick Laboratories (USANLABS) was assigned the task of developing a container/carrier for the basic items of issue for cleaning and disassembly of the M14E2 rifle.

1.1.3 In January 1966, USANLABS requested the US Army Test and Evaluation Command (USATECOM) to conduct engineering and service-type tests of the Carrier, Combination Tool and Cleaning Material for Rifle, 7.62-mm, M14E2.

1.1.4 One hundred of the Carrier, Combination Tool and Cleaning Material for Rifle, 7.62-mm, M14E2, were made available to the US Army Infantry Board (USAIB) for conduct of this service test. Testing began on 21 March 1966.

1.2 DESCRIPTION OF MATERIEL

1.2.1 The Carrier, Combination Tool and Cleaning Material for Rifle, 7.62-mm, M14E2 (fig 1, App I), hereinafter referred to as the test carrier, is a small envelope-type carrier for carrying the combination tool and cleaning materials, hereinafter collectively referred to as cleaning materials, for the M14E2 rifle. (NOTE: The cleaning materials, including combination tool, four small arms cleaning rod sections, small arms cleaning rod swab holder section, small arms bore cleaning brush, small arms chamber cleaning brush, and lubricant case, used with the M14E2 rifle are the same materials as are used with the M14 rifle.) The test carrier is made of 4-ounce nylon cloth and is approximately 6 inches long and 4 inches wide when closed. Two 8-inch tie cords are attached to the top of the front flap of the test carrier to provide a tie-down closure. A metal keeper is provided for attachment to other items of equipment. When opened, the test carrier has four stitched rectangular pockets and a plastic tube, 2 3/4 inches in length and 3/8 inch in diameter, which is provided as a holder for the small, arms bore cleaning brush.

1.2.2 The Carrier, Combination Tool and Cleaning Material for Rifle, 7.62-mm, M14E2, was modified by USANLABS to correct deficiencies related to durability of the metal keeper holder and the tie cords, These modifications included making the metal keeper holder out of a stronger material, increasing the length of the metal keeper holder, strengthening the stitching that secures the metal keeper holder to the carrier, and replacing the cloth tie cords with a 1-piece nylon cord that was stitched across the front flap of the carrier. The modified carrier will hereinafter be called the test carrier (mod). (Fig 2, App I) In May 1966, four of the test carriers (mod) were provided USAIB for additional testing.

Arm Sleeve Font Pattern Waist


Font Rectangle Monochrome Monochrome photography Graphics


Photograph White Sleeve Military person Font


Yeah, early 2000s digitization quality sucks, but it beats the earlier xerox copies that were digitized.

These are not as nice as the ones made for the M16 . . .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,204 Posts
Discussion Starter · #34 ·
3. (U) DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL.

a. Test Items.

(1) The Production Model Rifle, 7.62mm, M14, hereinafter referred to as the test rifle, is similar in weight, design, and appearance to the T44E4 rifle reported in references 2 and 3, Annex D, but incorporates minor modifications designed to eliminate previously reported deficiencies and to facilitate production. The most noticeable changes are as follows:

(a) Modification of the trigger group to permit the use of existing stocks of M1 rifle hammers and safeties.

(b) Calibration of the elevation knob in meters instead of yards,

(c) Provision for attaching a telescopic sight on the left side of the receiver.

(d) Modification to the floor plate of the magazine (Annex C-l).

(2) The Bayonet-Knife, T12, hereinafter referred to as the test bayonet, is essentially the same bayonet as the present standard M5E1 bayonet-knife modified to fit the M14 rifle (Annex C-2).

(3) The Bayonet-Knife Scabbard, M8A1, hereinafter referred to as the test scabbard is the present standard bayonet-knife scabbard for the M5E1 bayonet-knife (Annex C-2).

(4) The maintenance equipment for the Rifle, 7.62mm, M14, hereinafter referred to as the test maintenance equipment, consists of the following items: combination tool, chamber cleaning brash, oil case, grease container, cleaning rod case with spacer, four-section cleaning rod, cleaning patch holder, and cleaning brush. This is prototype maintenance equipment developed by Springfield Armory for use with the test rifle (Annex C-3).

b. Control Items. None. Results obtained in this project were compared with results obtained in references 2 and 3, Annex D.

4. (U) BACKGROUND.

a. Evaluation and service tests of a number of different type rifles including the Rifles, 7.62mm, T44E4, and T44E5 were conducted by this Board in 1956 (ref 2 and 3, Annex D). These tests revealed that in general the T44 rifle system was more suitable for Army use than the other types tested. In May 1957 the T44E4 and T44E5 rifles were adopted by DA as the standard, rifle and automatic rifle respectively. The T44 was standardized as the M14 and the T44E5 was standardized as the M15 rifle. The test rifle is the production model M14 rifle modified to correct previously reported deficiencies. In 1959 this Board determined that the M14 rifle with a hinged butt plate, slotted handguard, and detachable bipod was suitable as an automatic rifle and recommended that it replace the M15 rifle (ref 6, Annex D).

b. The test bayonet was first fabricated for the T44E4 rifle but received only limited testing with that rifle. The same type bayonet was furnished this Board for test with the production model M14 Rifle.

c. A need for maintenance equipment for the test rifle was determined during the evaluation and service test of the T4AE4 rifle (ref 2 and 3, Annex D). The test maintenance equipment was fabricated by Springfield Armory to satisfy this need.

d. The test weapon is within the Tripartite Standardization program and is entered on Category List T-7-105-l.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

This passage, written in October of 1959, indicates that by October 1959, the slotted plastic handguards and the shoulder rest buttplate were in production, or at least were install on the six weapons tested.

Other things to note in this report:

"Elimination of the bolt disassembly capability in the test maintenance equipment [is desired]."

" One flash suppressor was broken . . . at the brazed joint. (Springfield Armory Technical Representative stated that this method of fabrication of flash suppressor will not be use in future production . . . )."

"Elevation knob does not have distinctive mark for 250 meter battel sight."
"(a) Modification of the trigger group to permit the use of existing stocks of M1 rifle hammers and safeties. "

This is an interesting statement.

1) It indicates that any M1 Garand parts that were interchangeable with the M14 were planned to be consumed during production.

2) It indicates the T44 hammers were sufficiently different from the M1 hammer to make them non-interchangeable. However, we have parts lists dating back to 1955 that show the part number for the hammer used in the T44 is D5546008. Since the parts number remained the same, it meant that whatever alterations made to the hammer (by rolling the revision letter) would be backwards compatible with the M1, i.e., the new hammer works on the M1 and T44, but the old hammer will not work on the T44.

This raises the question - Why?

The only thing I can think of it is a hold-over from when they were going to fit a cyclic rate reducer, and the hammer for the rate reducers was modified. Then when the rate reducer was dropped the need for a different hammer disappeared. However, if you look at the later hammer drawings, there are a few rather noticeable dimension differences from the WW2 hammer drawings.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top