M14 Forum banner

21 - 40 of 57 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
246 Posts
I know many folks like the simplicity associated with changing M16/M4 magazines but I have had more than a few issues inserting full 30 rd. magazines in a closed bolt. I have never had an issue inserting a full M14 magazine on a closed bolt. The rocking motion takes advantage of mechanical leverage.
Mini-14 and AK's still use it. The AK is probably the most produced battle gun in the world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,867 Posts
Why not just bring the M1 Garand back or the M1 Thompson. SMG , KurtC laid it down , its all about logistics , my having a couple of 308AR's & M1A & M14 type semi auto , I like them all & can see ,with the AR platform why its where it is . Nothing wrong with the M14 variants or the M1 Garand & I believe the Modular Rifle system is here to stay , like it or not .

One can say the M110/SR 25 have their issues in the Field , but all these platforms do ,as does the M14 , its just the way with combat Rifles . Yes it may take more training to master the M14 with a wood stock & the Pistol griped Variants are also having issues . I remember one thread here that had some of EBR's ready to go over seas & none of them shot MOA , some not even close to it , because they were not fitted properly , so its just the way it is . I would say cost was part of it & it may be , but anyone price an M110 package lately .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,121 Posts
I am no expert but I moved my M4 back to the safe and my SOCOM 16 to be my main go to rifle in the secret closet. I have a red dot on the SOCOM 16. It makes one great fighting gun. I do not have an AR 10 yet. Thanks for all the comments guys I love these discussions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
In another century the M14 or AR10 or any number of full sized rifles would have been workable. This is 2021 and 20% or so of our military is by their God given nature unable to swing a 10 pound weapon in addition to humping the mags and ammo load. I can just see that certain group of white attired congress persons going ape if someone suggested a heavier weapon .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
199 Posts
In another century the M14 or AR10 or any number of full sized rifles would have been workable. This is 2021 and 20% or so of our military is by their God given nature unable to swing a 10 pound weapon in addition to humping the mags and ammo load. I can just see that certain group of white attired congress persons going ape if someone suggested a heavier weapon .
My uncle Sammy was all of 5' 6 and humped BAR through Europe for 2.5 years

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,824 Posts
I totally agree with the initial posting about so called "hatred" expressed by some for the M14 for I own and shoot an LRB NM version of the M14 and enjoy it immensely, great rifle in all respects. However, I well remember when the first AR's showed up on the firing lines much criticism towards that rifle until the scores started showing up at the end of the day.
The AR we all have today are a product of engineering, design, etc. to mass produce a rifle that is not only economical, simple to build, service, etc. and without question superbly accurate with the right ammunition. Could well be that because of the design in simplicity is the reason there is reported to be something in excess of 150 million of them in the hands of civilians. I have some AR's and one M14 and the rifle I tend to take to the range is my LRB for it fascinates me each time I shoot it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
392 Posts
Why not just bring the M1 Garand back or the M1 Thompson. SMG , KurtC laid it down , its all about logistics , my having a couple of 308AR's & M1A & M14 type semi auto , I like them all & can see ,with the AR platform why its where it is . Nothing wrong with the M14 variants or the M1 Garand & I believe the Modular Rifle system is here to stay , like it or not .

One can say the M110/SR 25 have their issues in the Field , but all these platforms do ,as does the M14 , its just the way with combat Rifles . Yes it may take more training to master the M14 with a wood stock & the Pistol griped Variants are also having issues . I remember one thread here that had some of EBR's ready to go over seas & none of them shot MOA , some not even close to it , because they were not fitted properly , so its just the way it is . I would say cost was part of it & it may be , but anyone price an M110 package lately .
I don’t really get M16 variant vs M14 argument - the practical choice is obviously the M16... I assembled them from their basic components on my living room carpet using a barrel wrench and my foot and body weight. I don’t recommend it, but it can be done! Those rifles worked great, and were unbelievably easy to maintain, switch parts, etc...

Now here’s my thought - if basic practicality, novice armorers instead of qualified gunsmiths needed, and easily replaceable parts are the only metric you care about go forth and get an AR15. I’ve had over twenty-six M14 type rifles over the years, and over 30 AR types. I don’t miss a single AR (currently own none) while I have really fond memories and badly regret selling each M14 and wish I had them back.

Would you drive a new model Toyota Camry in beige, or opt for the restored ‘67 mustang in cherry red. I know what I would drive, and pass down to my kids, and create permanent lasting memories for them, and wash and wax with love... and it’s not the Toyota.

Get it? The M14 is awesome, but not for people who’s only metric is practicality. Life based solely on what makes bean counters and logistics experts happy wouldn’t be worth living IMHO.

Em14 out!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,955 Posts
Being aluminum, the AR 10 platform is too large. If you make it out of steel, it will be too heavy.

DI rifles crap where they eat. The 7.62 craps twice as much as the 5.56, especially if you are burning ball powder. That means it would have be piston driven
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,514 Posts
A few M1As, a few AR15s, some AKs and a FAL. They are all sitting there. No arguments, squabbles or one upping another. Not a single shot fired. 😀

447574
 
  • Like
Reactions: Brian74 and Em14

·
Registered
Joined
·
733 Posts
Agree with KurtC. If a manufacturer were 100% dedicated to M14 production, it would be much less of a logistical nightmare. Ideally, there would be QC procedures from forge to phosphate to end state function firing. But currently, no manufacturers are 100% dedicated. Forge and machine shops have other lines of business and obligations that take priority over small orders of M14 parts. Factor in turnover, training and timeframes between M14 parts going into production, the M14 platform becomes even less of a priority. Then it becomes a huge thorn.
No commercial manufacturer will ever take on a government contract for full scale M14 production either. The amount of QC that is required for each part, down to how it's packaged, will break the bank in labor alone. Just look at what the Kimber 82G did to old school Kimber.
Then there is the fact that the tricked out, scoped AR dominates the matches. It's no longer about scores and X counts. It's about perfect scores and the highest X counts. And it's substantially more cost effective.
It's pretty simple. If the M14 platform is going to survive, it's up to us to pass it on. I also think there will be less M14 parts manufacturers, so buy parts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,540 Posts
Personally, I'd like to see a run of Bula mil spec rifles for reissue to the troops that need M-14's. Upgrade the optics and we'd be good to go. A Bula M-14 with an ACOG would be sweet to say the least.

I do not advocate the general issue of AR-10 type rifles to the troops.
Well, to make a long story short, the US Army realized in the mid-200Xs that it needed a standardized Squad Designated Marksman (SDM) rifle capable of accurately engaging enemies out to 600 meters (the M4 Carbine and M16 rifle were considered 300 meter rifles w/ M855 ammo, more or less). Rather than spend 2 or 3 years developing and releasing a contract for a new rifle, Rock Island Arsenal got funding to pull 6200 "condition A" M14s out of storage and make EBR-RIs circa 2008-2011 to equip every US Army Squad with a 7.62mm SDM rifle. Pictanney Arsenal apparently purchased another 3k SAGE chassis but I don't know what happened to them. Regarding the EBR-RI, it was a cheap and effective SDM, but its heavy, and old technology with some key parts that have not been made in roughly 50 years. (Note: The Mk 11 Mod 0/M110 was - and is - a very expensive sound suppressed 1-MOA capable semi-auto sniper rifle and it doesn't belong in the same conversation as an EBR-RI).

Now that the wars have wound down the US Army procurement folks did a big open competition for a modular 7.62mm rifle to replace the 6,200 EBR-RIs on a one-for-one basis. After a competition of various rifles, the H&K G28E type rifle won the contract as the US Army's official new SDMR rifle. It's nomenclature is M110A1. What it provides is a high level of modularity and light weight, and the US Army now thinks is a good idea for even SDM soldiers to have a sound suppressed rifle (not just the formal Snipers who go thru sniper school). It has advanced ergonomics, and its made of materials that won’t rust (unlike the carbon steel M14 and its steel magazines). Optic is a 1-6X SigSauer scope - as its designed to be effective out to 600 meters, just like the M14 EBR-RI. Here's what the US Army started getting in 2019-20, and I think orders are for 6,000 of them to be delivered by mid-2021, one for each US Army Squad, and a one-for-one replacement for the retired EBR-RIs.

447580



How modular is this rifle? Well, the US Army also had requirements for a compact semi-automatic sniper system (CSASS contract). This version is for the school trained snipers, and H&K won that contract too with their entry. As far as I can tell - there are only 3 parts that are different on the SDMR vs CSASS sniper rifles, the later of which is designed to have an effective range out to 900 or 1,000 meters. Here's the 3 differences I’ve noted:

1. Much more powerful S&B 3-20x scope to allow snipers to have a precise 1000 meter optic system.
2. Slower twist rate barrel for M118LR or Mk 316 Mod 0 ammo w/ 175 grain bullets (I think it's 1:10 twist, but can't recall)
3. Stock has an adjustable cheek rest to allow better ergonomics and adjustment capability to accommodate current and future NightVision (NV) gear/optics, which snipers obviously employ.

That's it. Changing three parts and a rifle can be converted from SDMR to a compact sniper rifle. Logistics is much easier for the field, as is training - since rifles’s overall configuration is similar to an M4/M16A2. The gas piston design is easy to suppress and quite durable. (I won't even go into the issues of suppressing a gas-port actuated M14 that relies on the proper port pressure to reliably function). Here's the CSASS version, I think over 3500 have been ordered for the US Army, probably replacing many (or most?) of the M110s that have been in service for over a decade. You can see the big scope and adj cheek rest that gives it away as the sniper version:
447582


Bottom-line: The M14 is a historic and nostalgic rifle designed in the mid-20th century, but the US military has moved on. They are now using a much more modular rifle that is similar to those used by the German Army, but of course built to US Army specifications. I don't see much point in pontificating (or fantasizing) about Bula or some other M1A manufacture making inroads within the US military in the 21st century. In fact, we appear to be disposing the M14s at this point. I heard that a small number of M14 EBR-RI rifles are now being sold off via the Foreign Military Sales to allies in Europe (I suspect to some Eastern European states that were once part of USSR, but I'm not sure).

Obviously I like the M1 and M14 platforms, and have invested a lot in my little collection, but after roughly 60 years of on-and-off service within the US Military from the early 1960s to the late 201Xs, it's considered an obsolete weapon system from Big Army’s perspective and it doesn't meet today's military requirements like these lightweight, suppressed, modular rifles do (and they also don't rust). So let's enjoy M1As for what they are, interesting pieces of history, but technology marches on...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
The current crop of AR10s aren't even arguable. Its an all around better platform for war fighting and long range engagements.

I think the bigger topic here is why the development of the M14 basically stalled completely after very little evolution. Anyone who disagrees there's room for improvement hasn't seen the various stickies and picture threads of customized rifles with adjustable gas blocks, unitized cylinders, lighter weight parts, nicer scope mounts, or thick barrels.

To get back on topic, OP seems to be pissy about the possibility of improving on a classic. It is certainly a classic that needs to continue existing, but there's not a single good reason some manufacturer can't capitalize on the mile wide room for improvement.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,540 Posts
HK makes some fine equipment but that just looks like a jazzed up AR-10. Not cheap at $12,200 each.
I don't think the unit cost is that high for the M110A1 SDMR, it's possibly closer to your earlier estimate of maybe $8k or so, as perhaps 20 to 25% of the cost of such a large Army contract is the vendor supplied training, spares and operational support footprint, as noted in the article:

Heckler & Koch will also provide spare parts, support and training, the company said.
So it's more expensive than the old EBR-RIs, but likely somewhat less expensive that the KAC M110s. (Note: Civilian price for this whole deployment kit is now I think $22k(!), but not sure what Uncle Sam's price is these days, but I think it was about $12k back in 2006-7 era.)
447599



***
RG, I agree with all you stated except for the comment about the M14 being obsolete. It isn’t as modern as the M110A1 nor does is it as easily suppressed but it is still a deadly and effective small arm. It simply isn’t the best choice for modern applications.
Rick, I was speaking of 'obsolete' more in the technical sense from Big Army's perspective. For the past 50 plus years the M14 has been type classified as 'Post Deployment - Not procurable.' (Presumably the M21 reached that status in 1988 when it was declared an end-of-life platform). In other words, the U.S. Army can't order/procure new USGI spec M14 rifles, or some key components like receivers, bolts, etc, and has been using a lot of 20th century spare parts to keep them in the field. So like a 1960s-era F4 Phantom jet or M60 main battle tank of the Vietnam era, the M14 is a 'non-procurable' item and thus not-sustainable. Hence its 'obsolete' in that technical sense. That said, I agree that it is still a capable system and 'procurable' for us civilians (in semi-auto of course). Anyhow, I know what you meant.
 
21 - 40 of 57 Posts
Top