M14 Forum banner

A Little More History On The M14E2

1184 42
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]
21 - 40 of 43 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,161 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
·
6,161 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
·
9,988 Posts
I do appreciate all the info you have provided Lysander. , there's not much out there.
I would like to add my 2 cents My E2 was made & purchased by me in 1988
It was sold as SAI model # 9108 it came with a complete new beech stock but without the muzzle stabilizer or a bipod .
 
  • Like
Reactions: nf1e and unkola

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,869 Posts
Yes Ted, I have two relatives both officers who did a tour in Vietnam and neither had seen an M14 E2. When I showed them my E2 they thought the stock was aftermarket!

And yet we have one person on this forum who was in Vietnam and has seen and shot all the variations….if you can believe that! Not me…no.

First hand knowledge my arse!

I had an uncle on my mothers side who was awarded the bronze star, but I can’t ask him, he’s dead.

MORE THAN A HOBBY, A PASSION,
REN
Now that you have apparently put both feet in you mouth again Ren, I would suggest you knock off blathering about something of which you have no knowledge whatsoever about.
The Marine Corps has an age old tradition that you would probably not understand. Ask any Marine that has been there and done that. We had a chance to train with and fire all sorts of weapons. That was where I spoke of our instructor calling the E2 a canoe paddle and we all got a good laugh from that.
Marines conduct weapon familiarization training

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,076 Posts
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):

“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)".
Fwiw, last night I reviewed some of R. Blake Stevens excellent book on the M14, and figured out the chronology of the original M2 bipod. As you noted the design was likely finalized in late (Oct?) 1959, and was ordered for mass production in November 1959, and presumably manufactured during 1960 or so (here’s the overall chronology in Stevens book):
Font Publication Paper Paper product Document
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,161 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
·
6,161 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
·
5,076 Posts
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.
Thanks, that's good information re the ‘M14 (M)’ - and it shows that it took quite a while before the flipper buttplates were introduced, reportedly late 1960. I think the slotted handguards appeared by the spring or summer of 1960. (I've read that the steel strike of 1959 might have postponed deliveries of steel material needed for certain M14 parts, including the flipper buttplate).

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.
Speaking of cleaning/maintenance equipment circa 1959, and the much later M14E2/M14A1 program, here's a random pic showing the two kits for those respective eras:

At the top is a black 'short' tube at top is the original issued M14 cleaning kit circa 1959-1960. Garden Valley (RIP) called this the early "short tube" (its about 6 3/4" long) and contains the little gas cylinder wrench. I think the "long tube" cleaning kit was introduced circa 1961, which had the much improved M3 multi-tool, and the tube was about 7 3/4 to 8" long to accommodate the new M3 tool, per Bert.

Lastly, since the M14E2/M14A1 lacked any storage compartment area in the buttstock, a special belt-mounted vinyl pouch was developed and issued with the M14A1s. My two cleaning kits have a 1970 contract date, and carry basically the same items used in the buttstock of a standard M14.
Sleeve Font Rectangle Pattern Fashion accessory

Just random fyi pic for anyone interested.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,161 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
·
6,161 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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,076 Posts
I think Hytekternek has the only original T44E4 trigger group that I have seen. Can’t recall the one pic I saw, but I think the hammer might have an odd ball drawing number. (On edit) I found the pic of his legit T44E4 trigger group - note the unique center channel milled into that hammer...that's definitely not an M1 hammer (part number is unclear):
Finger Wrist Auto part Bumper Fashion accessory

Here's the T44E4 housing drawing number, along with the unique safety profile.
Revolver Bicycle part Tool Personal protective equipment Machine
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
Video from January 1966, Ho Bo woods, several M14A1s in use (by both left-handed and right handed US Army soldiers). I would consider the 1965-66 era as 'early Vietnam war' era, more or less. (Note: an M60 barrel change is shown at 2:30 into the video, it had become 'burned out')

One of the rare pics/videos of the M14A1 muzzle stabilizer used in Vietnam:
View attachment 497840
I have read reports about them being used some in 1967 as well. However, my guess is the M60 general purpose machine gun was seen as superior to the M14A1, despite weighing much more. (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"). Barrel changes mainly required an insulated glove:
View attachment 497838
As for recollection of Vietnam vets, it should also be noted that the height of the Vietnam war from a US troop level was 1968-1969, and perhaps by 1968 many M14A1s had been replaced by the M60s w/ infantry units? If that assumption is true, that may explain why so few Vietnam vets recall seeing them. (SA made only 8350 M14A1s in 1964, so it's not a huge number to begin with, compared with other infantry rifles). Not sure how that compares with M60 production levels in the 1960s.

Lastly, the M14A1 was formally declared obsolete in November 1970, so it had a very short service life...it just doesn't do well as a squad automatic rifle with only 20 rd mags. In a fire fight I suspect 200 rds in a belt fed machine gun is a better system. Tons of pictures from the Vietnam era show troops with M60s walking through the rice paddies and elsewhere in that war.

"The M60 later served in the Vietnam War as a squad automatic weapon with many United States units. Every soldier in the rifle squad would carry an additional 200 linked rounds of ammunition for the M60, a spare barrel, or both."
An actual asbestos glove! We used a doubled over GI T shirt for barrel changes in my peacetime service. Gun crews usually wore the black glove shell too. I think all the Asbestos gloves went home for who knows what. Try doing a barrel change without the gun on the tripod while laying down! :ROFLMAO:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
236 Posts
I was exhibiting an E2 at a local gun show this last weekend. Of all the Vietnam veterans who looked at it, only one told me he actually carried an E2 during the Vietnam war. Most of the others had never seen one before, or maybe they just forgot.
Quite a few migrated to be training weapons at US Army Ranger school. Most in the Mountain phase but some in the Florida phase as well. Carried them with blank adaptors in the summer of 74.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
95 Posts
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.

View attachment 497807
What an ugly creature this M14E2 turned out to be. A Frankenrifle!
 
21 - 40 of 43 Posts
Top