[TB]

Was reading about the Army’s new SDM over on arf.com and one of the posters had this to say:

Hope this clarifies and shed light on the current SDM rifle. As mentioned earlier, there have been various effort to get some sort of SDM Rifle into various units and as such M14's are being pulled out of the woodwork. Like LTC Liwanag said – the M14 is not supportable and is not the answer in line units - SOF yes, but not across the board. 2 of my good friends were up at Ft Drum TDY - bulding M14's for the 10th Mtn. The headaches and frustrations to get part, fixtures and qualified people to help build them was a nightmare. OBTW - those M14's were equipped with 10X Super Sniper scopes on ARMS mounts and GI barrels. Definitely a stop gap effort.

It’s neat to see the M14 in action, but I fear that this is probably true.

 

[Jack Orr]

JMO, but the Army shot itself in the foot in the late sixties and decided now to put a band aid on it. The DoD was so pumped about improving the M16, they just chucked the M14 to Capitan Crunch or moth balled some for thirty + years. Just look around for USGI parts now compared to a year or two ago. Yea, they could start new production on new parts or whole rifles, but they probably won't. Some whiz will come up with a cheaper alternative. Just my thoughts one the matter, no inside scoop.

 

[cabinetman]

Yesterday I took two friends to my range. One of them was a Viet Nam Vet (aircraft carrier deployed) and his son who had never fired a rifle.

I had an assortment of rifles including an AR15 built with an original Colt SP1 slab side upper and my Polytech, newly rearsenaled M14s. I let them both shoot at small wood blocks at 100 yards with both rifles. Then I told them about what our troops are using in Iraq and asked them which rifle they think they'd prefer. There was no question that they loved the M14s. Even with no previous experience, they were both on target at 100 yards with open sites, whacking those 2 x 6 x 14" blocks with reckless abandon and loving it!

I, too, think that there is a place for the M16 but for sniping, that M14 is the rifle to have and this seems to be what our troops feel since they are scrounging rifle together for that purpose. And, we've all seen the many photos of the M14/M21 in the field on a regular basis. What a mess!

Rome

 

[Chuck S]

The M14 is always preferred by folks who don't have to carry it and 440 rounds of ammunition! And who don't have to do fire and maneuver!

-- Chuck

 

[cabinetman]

Chuck, you trumped my enthusiasum.

I'm going to agree with you that the M14 is a really heavy rifle, especially with the bipod and scope added. I lugged mine for only a short time when I took it hunting for the first time this Fall, and I only had a couple of mags. It's much heavier than the venerable Garand, that's for sure.

I guess that the troops who are using it in Iraq are accepting the weight issue when you compare the performance it provides. Not having served, however, I'm talking strictly as a civilian and not anyone with experience as you sound like you have.

It's also interesting that there seems to be a "gulf" of performance between the M16 and the M14 which still may need addressing. I'd imagine, however, that any larger caliber "light arm" will be heavier that the M16 and the 223 it normally fires.

Rome

 

[TEA]

FWIW, the weight of a standard M14 is less than an M1 Garand, and the weight of a match tuned M14 is comparable to a match tuned M16. Put optics on any of the above and you're facing the same increase in weight. The main reason for adopting the M14 as a DMR are the piss poor terminal ballistics of the 5.56 past 300yds and marginal terminal ballistics past 200yds compared to the 7.62, and the reliability problems with AR based .308s. Lighter weight ammo doesn't do much good if you have to use 2x to 3x as much to do the job. Hence the development of the 6.8mm SPC as a compromise between the two rounds.

The main problem with the M14 as a widely deployed DMR is, as LTC Liwanag stated, that their is a dirth of spare parts, knowledge and experience amongst the Army's armorers. The guys I've talked to from the SDM program at Ft Hood would love to have every SDM equiped with an accurized M14, but there just aren't enough to go around, so they train with whatever they have available be it M16, M4 or M14.

The M14 DMR may just be a stop gap measure, but for now they don't have anything better and its unclear whehter the light at the end of the tunnel is just an oncoming train or not. In the meantime, I think they should start training their armorers better to accurize and maintain the M14s that they have, and start putting bids out for contracts on spare parts. JMVHO

 

[Chuck S]

300 meters is well beyond normal combat ranges (and has been forever). Consequently the need for a rifle to shoot at this range is quite specialized. The M14 can fill this niche quite well and is doing so at present. But it's still not the rifle needed for general infantry operations.

I guess the BAR is too far gone to bring back...

-- Chuck

 

[TEA]

300 meters is well beyond normal combat ranges (and has been forever). Consequently the need for a rifle to shoot at this range is quite specialized. The M14 can fill this niche quite well and is doing so at present. But it's still not the rifle needed for general infantry operations.
-- Chuck

That is why its being used as a designated marksman rifle by the squad designated marksman. The mission of the SDM is to engage targets from 300 to 800yds, outside the normal range of the squad's riflemen.

 

[H2O MAN]

The M14 is always preferred by folks who don't have to carry it and 440 rounds of ammunition! And who don't have to do fire and maneuver!

-- Chuck

Are Americans getting weaker or lazier?

"Seeking a lightweight replacement for the M1 Garand and the M1918A2 BAR, the Army selected the M14 rifle in 1957."

All those that carried, fired and maneuvered the Garand and BAR must have been huge, muscular athletic types

 

[Steve Marshall]

Please forgive my ignorance, but my Bushmaster feels about the same weight as my M1A. Having never weighed them and recalling that the M-16 issued in basic weighed maybe 6 #, it seems that for about the same weight I get a cartridge that is in fact more powerful. We can discuss this apparently into the next millenia but the fact is, that given a choice, I'd rather not get hit by 7.62.

 

[Kobra1]

"Having never weighed them and recalling that the M-16 issued in basic weighed maybe 6 #..."

Having carried a M-16A2 in the Corps, every Marine has it engrained in their brain housing unit (head) that the weight of a M-16A2 rifle with a full 30 round magazine is 8.79 lbs. There's my $.02 on the weight issue.

 

[Quagmire]

My only input on the weight issue is that to me, two fully loaded 30 round AR mags weighs as much as 1 loaded M14 mag. A lot of that is the mag body itself, but there it is -- 3X the fire power at ~ the same weight. Whether or not that equates to 3X the number of dead enemies, I dunno.

I think I'd rather have the M14 though. :lol:

 

[Tactical1]

My only input on the weight issue is that to me, two fully loaded 30 round AR mags weighs as much as 1 loaded M14 mag. A lot of that is the mag body itself, but there it is -- 3X the fire power at ~ the same weight. Whether or not that equates to 3X the number of dead enemies, I dunno.

I think I'd rather have the M14 though. :lol:

I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[huntinghawk]

The M14 has not been in mothballs for 30 years. The Navy has continually used them for the range of the 308.
Also, the M14 is the standard training rifle for Navy SEALs as it will work in all terrains.

So that's my two cents twice.
Can I have the change from my nickel???
HH

 

[target4fun]

my .22 rifle is really really light and I can carry a whole bunch of ammo for it why not just use that? :lol:

Lets be serious now I would rather carry 1 round that will be capable of taking a person down with one shot rather than 4 rounds that will take some one down. Ill take the .308 and hump the extra weight yeah it weighs about 1/3 more with ammo but its 2/3 more effective. The thing of it is the military has turned to more ammo more firepower rather than good ol accuracy.

 

[Juster]

I can see the support problem of issuing two completely different rifles to a squad, especially when one had been mostly mothballed for 2 generations, the expertise isn't there. So it may not be sensible to bet you life on something the armourer isn't familiar with. But the situation should improve, especially since the civillian expertise and enthusiasm is there.
The British don't have anybody making L1A1 parts, gun control killed that, and put them at an operational disadvantage.
As far as the ammo goes, you need full auto on most of your rifles, not great with 7.62 NATO.

 

[Evy]

The M14 is always preferred by folks who don't have to carry it and 440 rounds of ammunition! And who don't have to do fire and maneuver!

-- Chuck

Are Americans getting weaker or lazier?

"Seeking a lightweight replacement for the M1 Garand and the M1918A2 BAR, the Army selected the M14 rifle in 1957."

All those that carried, fired and maneuvered the Garand and BAR must have been huge, muscular athletic types

I'd say WW2 vets were on average, smaller stature, shorter, and less muscular than serviceman today. They carried heavier weapons, and fount a two front war with more challenging opponents. Yes, I'd say our serviceman today are turnig weaker and/ or lazier. I know I bitched and moaned in the marines about my gear, untill I talked to my grandfather about what he had to go through in WW2. What those guys went through in WW1 & WW2 really do make our guys look like [email protected]#$y's.

 

[Citadel99]

I'd say WW2 vets were on average, smaller stature, shorter, and less muscular than serviceman today. They carried heavier weapons, and fount a two front war with more challenging opponents. Yes, I'd say our serviceman today are turnig weaker and/ or lazier. I know I bitched and moaned in the marines about my gear, untill I talked to my grandfather about what he had to go through in WW2. What those guys went through in WW1 & WW2 really do make our guys look like [email protected]#$y's.

I'm not going to glorify this with a detailed response. But walk a mile in our shoes before you speak of more challenging opponents and weak and lazy soldiers. And I'd caution you before you mention that to one of my soldiers.

Yeah, I'm new to the forum--but you got a lot of gall to throw out those statements.

Mark

 

[Spartacus2002]

my .22 rifle is really really light and I can carry a whole bunch of ammo for it why not just use that?

Well, with the M16, that's exactly what we're doing :lol:

 

[Jack Orr]

The issue of weight has been beat to death. Yes M16 ammo is lighter than M14 ammo. Still I don't think the load has changed much if any at all. There are still a lot of other things to carry; extra ammo for the SAW, mortars, claymores, ect.. . In times of battle, everyone carries as much firepower, food and equipment as possible. Their lives and the lives of those in their unit depend on it. It is not always possible to have a motorized division or get an air drop whenever you need it. You do with what you can carry, period.