M14 Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
838 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I was going through some of the 60s dated Army & Marine corp. training photo albums the other day and thought I would throw up a couple of shots out of the Fort Ord graduating class in the Automatic Rifle section, a relatively rare occurrence of the M14A1 being pictured in training albums. SIX60
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
838 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Interesting that they are equipped with solid hand guards. Many M14A1 rifles had the earlier slotted guard.
I'm assuming they had already experienced the lack of durability in the adopted design, I think a heavy gauge stamped aluminum in a design that doubled as a heat sync could have been an option.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,550 Posts
You have to wonder when grasping the front "grip" and pulling back with sling pressure against the bipod what kind of distortion must be going on with the barrel and stock.

Bruce
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
838 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I would think just the opposite. By the time the M14A1 came along the issue with the slotted handguards had been identified and addressed.
Agreed

You have to wonder when grasping the front "grip" and pulling back with sling pressure against the bipod what kind of distortion must be going on with the barrel and stock.

Bruce
Agreed, for sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
38 Posts
This is purely from a novice as I never served, but as an outsider, looking in, I have to say that the rifle in this configuration just doesn't look robust enough to be a squad automatic and keep up a covering fire.

Was it wishful thinking?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
838 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
This is purely from a novice as I never served, but as an outsider, looking in, I have to say that the rifle in this configuration just doesn't look robust enough to be a squad automatic and keep up a covering fire.

Was it wishful thinking? No more so than to think of the M16 as a battle rifle.LOL1
I have to agree with you, even with adoption of the heaver barreled M15, which was never put into production, sustained fire with out a quick change barrel would have been no better than the BAR in my opinion.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,936 Posts
You have to wonder when grasping the front "grip" and pulling back with sling pressure against the bipod what kind of distortion must be going on with the barrel and stock.

Bruce
Which may by design, with a machine gun you want a beaten zone. 20 rounds thru the same hole won't decimate an enemy squad.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
809 Posts
I have to agree with you, even with adoption of the heaver barreled M15, which was never put into production, sustained fire with out a quick change barrel would have been no better than the BAR in my opinion.


Due to the closed bolt VS open bolt design, the M14E2/M14A1 would have a hard time keeping up with an M1918A2 BAR in a SAW role much less a sustained fire role. But look at the difference is weight you would be lugging around; almost double with the M1918A2 BAR. For those not familiar, the WW2 M1918A2 BAR is a MASSIVE hunk of steel especially as compared to the relatively petite but equally powerful M14E2/M14A1. That is the very reason you rarely see an M1918A2 BAR in an actual WW2 combat photo with the bipod attached. Yeah, Yeah: I hear you: FACT: .30 CAL is a bit more powerful than the 7.62MM NATO. But taking into consideraton the higher cyclic rate of the M14E2 gives it a firepower advantage over the M1918A2 BAR IMO. That is, if you can deliver said higher cyclic rate into the beaten zone with an effective cone of fire. If the front handgrip design on the M14E2/M14A1 would have been developed just a bit further, I would think the weapon would have been much more effective/durable. And S.A. Govt. Arsenal experimented with muzzle brakes on the original select fire M1918 BMR/BAR going all the way back to the post WW1 era. S.A. long ago realized that an automatic rifle needed all the help it can get to be combat effective. The M14E2 stabilizer works OK but I would think much better designs could have been developed with a serious look at brake technology on smaller field pieces/AT (Anti Tank) rifles/Nazi German FG 42 (Paratroop Rifle 1942). I noticed a brake on the end of one of Art's M14 rifles; I very much doubt Art put that brake on his rifle without good reason. And why the M14E2/M14A1 rate of fire (ROF) was not slowed down slightly is also still an unanswered question mark in my mind. Several of us, pretty sure "Different" is one, have experimented with slowing automatic ROF down to the 600RPM range. The technology for that was developed for the M1918A2 BAR prior to WW2; they added a small orifice in the end of the then-standard non-vented gas cylinder body accomplishing (2) things: Slowing ROF slightly and allowing at least some of the carbon to be expelled from the gas system. If that sounds familiar, that is pretty much the same mod. some perform on their M14 gas plug. Whoever came up with that M14 gas plug mod. may well have had experience with the BAR.

L-R: Early WW1 M1918 BMR (Browning Machine Rifle) to Post Korean War M1918A2 BAR (Browning Automatic rifle) Gas Regulator Assemblies with Colt's original WW1 non-vented & NESA's WW2 vented design on left. SA Govt. Arsenal developed this design for the M1918 BAR. This simple mod. could possibly have been adapted to the M14E2/M14A1 gas plug to slow ROF & help control carbon buildup in the gas system. As seen below, the technology was definitely known at SA as far back as pre-WW2.



Edit: Given the (2) machine screws attaching the M14E2 front handgrip assembly thru deeply countersunk attachment points in the barrel channel of the original walnut E2 stock without the added reinforcement of the E2 metal front handgrip stock liner (E2 liner), it is amazing to me that the original walnut stocked M14E2/M14A1 could endure 12-13 rounds per second of automatic fire for any length of time. Properly installed on the M2 bipod sling swivel & front handgrip hanger pin, the M14E2 sling definitely added substantial support to an otherwise substandard design.

Early S.A. marked walnut M14E2 stock: Unserviceable due to the (2) 10-32 slotted pan head machine screws with external tooth lock washer pulling completely thru forend NOT reinforced with E2 liner:


CAL (Canadian Arsenals Limited, Long Branch Canada) birch M14E2 forend with E2 liner attached by (2) 10-32 slotted flat head machine screws with external tooth lock washer. The stock itself is specifically inletted for the E2 liner. The early SA walnut stocks were not originally inletted for the E2 liner for the simple reason that the liners had not been designed yet. But I have seen several early SA walnut E2 stock with the E2 liner installed as an ADD-ON. The E2 liner is VERY stiff & affords a vast improvement in stock strength over the original walnut E2 stock forend design. Unfortunately, this did not address the relatively weak front handgrip assembly design itself. Treeline took care of that just recently with the introduction of their E2 front rail.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Phinehas

·
Registered
Joined
·
838 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
I was going through some of the 60s dated Army & Marine corpS. training photo albums the other day and thought I would throw up a couple of shots out of the Fort Ord graduating class in the Automatic Rifle section, a relatively rare occurrence of the M14A1 being pictured in training albums. SIX60
Sorry Jason0839, Corps., and I should know better since etymologically it is rooted in the word corpse, for a very good reason.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top