Some will contest the accusation that the M14 actually did fail as a service weapon, serving in a variety of secondary roles well into the 21st Century, but it did have a very short life as the primary infantry rifle in the modern era. Although, not the officially the shortest, that dubious honor goes to the Krag-Jørgensen. The Krag was officially adopted in 1892 and officially superseded in 1903, eleven years. The M14 was officially adopted as the primary infantry rifle in 1957 and officially superseded by the M16 in that role in 1969, twelve years. However, the M14 was very late getting into the hands of troops, first issued in late 1960 and largely phased out of service in Vietnam by 1967. This fact usually results in many people saying the M14 had the shortest active life, even though the M14 was still the primary infantry rifle issued to troops in Europe into the 1970s.[1]
40 years between 1966 and 2006, and the rifle has not changed.
The T44 never was intended to be the primary candidate for the US Lightweight Rifle Program, in fact it never was intended to exist. After WW2 Springfield began work on replacing the M1, and Earl Harvey’s T25 was the result. Then the idea of a common cartridge for NATO came into being, and since the ammunition was to common, why not the rifle as well? So, in 1950 a comparative trial between the T25 and the British EM-2 was arranged. FN was also allowed to participate as sort of a consolation for the loss to the EM-2 in British trials a year ago. The result of this trial was none were deemed acceptable, but the FAL came out best, with the T25 and EM-2 with serious deficiencies in different areas. In light of this test, Britain reversed its decision to adopt the EM-2 in favor of the FAL and the US began work to try and fix the T25 (so great were the changes the T25 was redesignated the T47). As a back-up the T36, a lightened M1 in the T65 cartridge and with the T25 gas cut-off operating system was injected into the test as the T44.
Again, none were acceptable as they were, but also, again the FAL was the best. Work on the T47 was halted. In 1953, the FAL proved sufficiently superior that it was recommended that the T44 also be dropped, if the artic test of the FAL went as well as the tests at Fort Benning. According to the Officer in charge of R&D at Springfield the only reason the T44 was included was to provide a baseline to show the FAL’s general superiority. Springfield, no doubt upset by the poor showing several years in a row set out to provide the best T44 possible for the arctic test.[2] At least as good as they could get it in six months.
The winter tests of 1953-4 upset everything. The FAL was grossly under powered in the cold temperatures and when that was corrected by enlarging the gas port, introduced an increased number of parts breakage. Again, nobody “won” neither being “acceptable”. So, the testers handed out lists of faults to be corrected and invited back to Benning, but, this time, both were given time to run a limited production batch of 500 rifles. The next test would be in the summer of 1955.
Certain aspects of the T44 were preferred, such as the slightly lighter weight and the fact that nothing needed be done to adjust the gas system, greatly simplifying training. The time allowed to work up a product batch of 500 rifles gave Springfield time to not only fix the major faults, but make the T44 what it should have been from the start. First off, the receiver was shortened, as the T44 was derived from the T36, T37 and the M1, nobody ever bothered to shorten the receiver for the new shorter T65, (now 7.62mm NATO) cartridge, just inserting spacer blocks that had a habit of working loose. Persistent problems with the magazine were ironed out by making most of the round controlling geometry part of the receiver rather than the magazine lips. [3] Also, the Army had finally accepted that no gas operated weapon could launch grenades without damage without some form of gas cut-off, so the not very reliable gas relief valve was replaced by a simple manual cut-off valve. Other changes to the operating rod and flash hider were made to correct weaknesses in these parts.
The temperate test at Fort Benning and the winter tests in Alaska in 1955-56, were a success for both the T44 and T48, both were regarded as acceptable. The decision on which to adopt was now a political one, but either way the Army would finally get a worthy successor to the M1.
40 years between 1966 and 2006, and the rifle has not changed.
The T44 never was intended to be the primary candidate for the US Lightweight Rifle Program, in fact it never was intended to exist. After WW2 Springfield began work on replacing the M1, and Earl Harvey’s T25 was the result. Then the idea of a common cartridge for NATO came into being, and since the ammunition was to common, why not the rifle as well? So, in 1950 a comparative trial between the T25 and the British EM-2 was arranged. FN was also allowed to participate as sort of a consolation for the loss to the EM-2 in British trials a year ago. The result of this trial was none were deemed acceptable, but the FAL came out best, with the T25 and EM-2 with serious deficiencies in different areas. In light of this test, Britain reversed its decision to adopt the EM-2 in favor of the FAL and the US began work to try and fix the T25 (so great were the changes the T25 was redesignated the T47). As a back-up the T36, a lightened M1 in the T65 cartridge and with the T25 gas cut-off operating system was injected into the test as the T44.
Again, none were acceptable as they were, but also, again the FAL was the best. Work on the T47 was halted. In 1953, the FAL proved sufficiently superior that it was recommended that the T44 also be dropped, if the artic test of the FAL went as well as the tests at Fort Benning. According to the Officer in charge of R&D at Springfield the only reason the T44 was included was to provide a baseline to show the FAL’s general superiority. Springfield, no doubt upset by the poor showing several years in a row set out to provide the best T44 possible for the arctic test.[2] At least as good as they could get it in six months.
The winter tests of 1953-4 upset everything. The FAL was grossly under powered in the cold temperatures and when that was corrected by enlarging the gas port, introduced an increased number of parts breakage. Again, nobody “won” neither being “acceptable”. So, the testers handed out lists of faults to be corrected and invited back to Benning, but, this time, both were given time to run a limited production batch of 500 rifles. The next test would be in the summer of 1955.
Certain aspects of the T44 were preferred, such as the slightly lighter weight and the fact that nothing needed be done to adjust the gas system, greatly simplifying training. The time allowed to work up a product batch of 500 rifles gave Springfield time to not only fix the major faults, but make the T44 what it should have been from the start. First off, the receiver was shortened, as the T44 was derived from the T36, T37 and the M1, nobody ever bothered to shorten the receiver for the new shorter T65, (now 7.62mm NATO) cartridge, just inserting spacer blocks that had a habit of working loose. Persistent problems with the magazine were ironed out by making most of the round controlling geometry part of the receiver rather than the magazine lips. [3] Also, the Army had finally accepted that no gas operated weapon could launch grenades without damage without some form of gas cut-off, so the not very reliable gas relief valve was replaced by a simple manual cut-off valve. Other changes to the operating rod and flash hider were made to correct weaknesses in these parts.
The temperate test at Fort Benning and the winter tests in Alaska in 1955-56, were a success for both the T44 and T48, both were regarded as acceptable. The decision on which to adopt was now a political one, but either way the Army would finally get a worthy successor to the M1.