I have been a M-14 fan from the first time I ever touched one.. If I had to choose one rifle I'd take the M14.. that being said, why did the development and ultimate failure of the M-14 program..happen.. the basic platform was a operational evolution of the M1 Garand, shorter, select fire and lighter.. with a detachable magazine.. the M-14 was to replace the M1 Garand, M1 carbine, M3 greese gun, BAR,and tompson SMG..in service.. at the end of the day it suffered from too many problems in development and cost overruns to justify the small Advantages over the M-1 Garand. That is the official story.. so what are the real world advantages of the M-14 over the M1 rifle.. after all the M1 rifle was the best rifle hands down of any rifle ever developed to date..and the trial by fire during WW-II proved it would work in any conditions.. So why fix it if it ain't broke?? or was it broken.. M1's Op rod was prone to breakage and or damage.. The 8 round Clip is a real disadvantage, reloading a partially empty clip is not possible nor is loading fresh ammo when a round is chambered, but the BAR was already in service why not slim the bar down and product improve the bar?? Why redesign the whole receiver of the M-1 to save 1/2 pound? Why engineer the full automatic system, and not use it, why was heat treating M-14 bolts any different (more difficult) than heat treating M1 Garand bolt, was it all political..?? The Fal basically won the weapons testing trials, until the cold weather tests put it behind the M14 at the last min... 20 years 100 million for a rifle one pound lighter unloaded.. with a slightly better gas system and select fire controls..that were not used by policy.. sounds expensive.. to me.. one more question if the FN-FAl T48 had won and was adopted, would it have been replaced by the M-16 just as soon?? ?? thoughts.. B2B
Bolt2bounce
Why the M-14 program failed...
1 reading
Robert McNamara and his whiz kids wanted something new and modern, and decided the ol' Springfield Armory and anything produced by that grand ol' place had to go.
I think it was driven by politics, and the idea that something new just had to be better. McNamara had no military background and niether did his close circle of advisers.
I do not believe from everything I have read that there was anything to point to the M14 as not being up to snuff, quite the opposite in fact.
I think it was driven by politics, and the idea that something new just had to be better. McNamara had no military background and niether did his close circle of advisers.
I do not believe from everything I have read that there was anything to point to the M14 as not being up to snuff, quite the opposite in fact.
We could armchair general this thing for years, but I'll try to give an opinion:
The BAR was replaced by the M60, belt fed and more useful.
There was still no Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW). So the requirement was to produce a weapon that could do all the missions, and that wasn't realistic. The 7.62 was forced to be the round of choice by NATO, negating a more effective .280 or .250 round the Army wanted. Had sombody pushed back at that point the development of a different round and weapons might have solved the issue and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The development went through with the full auto requirements despite it's effectiveness because it was a requirement. Even though not accurate, it was determined that in many fights gaining volume of fire over the enemy was key to success. The M14 could be built with the same machinery that build M1's. In all it was an effective volume of fire sniper weapon compared to the M1. All the changes were required to get the weight down and make it durable under full auto fire, something the M1 wasn't subject too. Thus the changes in bolt and other hardness etc.
The FN FAL proved to be a super effective weapon throught the world, and would have been relatively easy to produce compared, reducing the cost. The voume of fire issue would have still been an issue though with the 7.62 round. Had it been selected however I believe it would have been difficult for the idiot whiz kids to kill it.
The progression to the M16 however probably wouldn't have been stopped. The USAF wanted it, and the Special Forces units operating in South East Asia as early as 1962 were singing it's praises. 7th Cav took order of it because they wanted a high volume of fire weapon with lots of ammo that was light. Since they were the first real air cavalry to be deployed it was a chance to test it, as it was the first real force on force battle with a large organized Communist Vietnam Army. When General Moore returned, he said that the M16 was one of the top 5 things that kept a Batallion sized force from being destroyed by a Regiment sized enemy. The die was cast in my opinion at that point.
I believe that the M14 should have been kept at the platoon level for long range shooting. If the FAL was the weapon then the situation might have been different. It was durable under extreme conditions and accurate enough. The cost would have been less presumably so it would have been difficult to get around that. But the trade off was for volume of fire under small unit attacks that we wanted to achieve. The M60 couldn't fill the SAW void. So the average rifleman was expected to do it with his M16, and in that regard it was a toss up as to what you wanted; more volume of fire, or more fire power(This is detailed by several Army studies done in the post Vietnam era).
Today we still make the trade off for volume of fire over firepower in the 5.56 round. the 62gr bullet has helped things, and the SAW has been an effective weapon (I have been in combat and seen the SAW in action so this is my opinion). So there are times that we would like to have more firepower for sure, given that the 5.56 does have it's failings at ranges outside 200m. That is the reason that the M14 has been re-introduced to the infantry in the GWOT. I don't think that it would have been the best rifle for all rifleman, as most would rather have an M4 durning urban combat and given that we are in vehicles so much, and large weapons are difficult to manipulate. But the M16A4 is a good compromise, and the ACOG has made it much more effective (personal combat observations and opinion of me).
I could ramble on but I would like to see what you all have to say.
Cheers,
Francis
The BAR was replaced by the M60, belt fed and more useful.
There was still no Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW). So the requirement was to produce a weapon that could do all the missions, and that wasn't realistic. The 7.62 was forced to be the round of choice by NATO, negating a more effective .280 or .250 round the Army wanted. Had sombody pushed back at that point the development of a different round and weapons might have solved the issue and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The development went through with the full auto requirements despite it's effectiveness because it was a requirement. Even though not accurate, it was determined that in many fights gaining volume of fire over the enemy was key to success. The M14 could be built with the same machinery that build M1's. In all it was an effective volume of fire sniper weapon compared to the M1. All the changes were required to get the weight down and make it durable under full auto fire, something the M1 wasn't subject too. Thus the changes in bolt and other hardness etc.
The FN FAL proved to be a super effective weapon throught the world, and would have been relatively easy to produce compared, reducing the cost. The voume of fire issue would have still been an issue though with the 7.62 round. Had it been selected however I believe it would have been difficult for the idiot whiz kids to kill it.
The progression to the M16 however probably wouldn't have been stopped. The USAF wanted it, and the Special Forces units operating in South East Asia as early as 1962 were singing it's praises. 7th Cav took order of it because they wanted a high volume of fire weapon with lots of ammo that was light. Since they were the first real air cavalry to be deployed it was a chance to test it, as it was the first real force on force battle with a large organized Communist Vietnam Army. When General Moore returned, he said that the M16 was one of the top 5 things that kept a Batallion sized force from being destroyed by a Regiment sized enemy. The die was cast in my opinion at that point.
I believe that the M14 should have been kept at the platoon level for long range shooting. If the FAL was the weapon then the situation might have been different. It was durable under extreme conditions and accurate enough. The cost would have been less presumably so it would have been difficult to get around that. But the trade off was for volume of fire under small unit attacks that we wanted to achieve. The M60 couldn't fill the SAW void. So the average rifleman was expected to do it with his M16, and in that regard it was a toss up as to what you wanted; more volume of fire, or more fire power(This is detailed by several Army studies done in the post Vietnam era).
Today we still make the trade off for volume of fire over firepower in the 5.56 round. the 62gr bullet has helped things, and the SAW has been an effective weapon (I have been in combat and seen the SAW in action so this is my opinion). So there are times that we would like to have more firepower for sure, given that the 5.56 does have it's failings at ranges outside 200m. That is the reason that the M14 has been re-introduced to the infantry in the GWOT. I don't think that it would have been the best rifle for all rifleman, as most would rather have an M4 durning urban combat and given that we are in vehicles so much, and large weapons are difficult to manipulate. But the M16A4 is a good compromise, and the ACOG has made it much more effective (personal combat observations and opinion of me).
I could ramble on but I would like to see what you all have to say.
Cheers,
Francis
So far...I don't think anybody's 'wrong' on this...
GI7
I entered the Army in 1966...
Trained on the M14 in Basic Training at Fort Bliss in late '66...
Then on to Fort Polk where the 'conversion' to M16 was in full swing...
My personal perspective...The Whole Army Was EXPERIMENTAL at that time!
Col. Moore and the 7th Cav(whole First Cavalry Division!) was "Experimental'!
In Basic we had 'Cardboard' Sleeping Bags...I Kid You Not!!! GI8
In Vietnam...A whole bunch of gear we were issued was...yep, Experimental!
I was given a 'Squad Radio' which had a Receiver(shaped like a Human Ear! Wait A Minute! How DUMB Did They Think We Were !? GITEN)and A Transmitter Pinned to your fatigue shirt collar...
Wow! I wonder why none of those made it to "Surplus"? GI6
My Point.......It Was The '60's! Everything Was Experimental! INCLUDING the U.S. Military!
GI9
CAVman in WYoming
GI7
I entered the Army in 1966...
Trained on the M14 in Basic Training at Fort Bliss in late '66...
Then on to Fort Polk where the 'conversion' to M16 was in full swing...
My personal perspective...The Whole Army Was EXPERIMENTAL at that time!
Col. Moore and the 7th Cav(whole First Cavalry Division!) was "Experimental'!
In Basic we had 'Cardboard' Sleeping Bags...I Kid You Not!!! GI8
In Vietnam...A whole bunch of gear we were issued was...yep, Experimental!
I was given a 'Squad Radio' which had a Receiver(shaped like a Human Ear! Wait A Minute! How DUMB Did They Think We Were !? GITEN)and A Transmitter Pinned to your fatigue shirt collar...
Wow! I wonder why none of those made it to "Surplus"? GI6
My Point.......It Was The '60's! Everything Was Experimental! INCLUDING the U.S. Military!
GI9
CAVman in WYoming
Heck, even McNamara's graduated response was experimental. And we know how effective that was!
Great perspective CAVman. Lots of experimental stuff is still floating around these days as well. But it sounds like most of these are more effective.
Cardboard sleeping bag? I'll take my gor-tex bivvy cover thanks.
Great perspective CAVman. Lots of experimental stuff is still floating around these days as well. But it sounds like most of these are more effective.
Cardboard sleeping bag? I'll take my gor-tex bivvy cover thanks.
This is absolutely not correct. They determined the exact opposite, which is why later generations of guns were limited to 3 round bursts. Guys panicking and holding the triggers dropped their efficiency to quickly approaching zero as they tried to shoot holes in the clouds.
I have an original 1965 Army handbook on the M14 and it states repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly that automatic fire should not be used except with a bi-pod and prone or otherwise rested. I think the number of soldiers who adhered to that was scant to say the least. And of course you can understand why.
But a 7.62 on full auto, just carrying it around, is not effective. So when they crunched numbers of how many rounds were thrown out there and how well they did, from a purely statistical standpoint, it was probably pretty lousy. If even the 5.56 was forced into burst mode to increase accuracy, the 7.62 would have benefited that much more.
Other than that, the weapon is fairly heavy, forged, expensive (compared to stamped metal), with heavy ammo, and a wood pieces that can suffer from extreme changes in environment. But my personal opinion was selective fire. If it had been a purely semi-auto weapon, I think it would have appeared to those looking at data at whatever lofty, air-conditioned HQ, as a much more cost effective piece of hardware.
I think it failed largely because of the conflict it was first deployed in (vietnam) with its close engagements and guerilla type fighting. a heavy, large rifle with heavy ammo that was effective well past the distance that engagements were occuring at wasnt the most practical for the "average" soldier. I do think if it were developed later on during the most recent conflicts with much greater engagement distances than vietnam top brass would have seen the value of the rifle and would have kept the tooling and developement around for much longer.
Some good points so far, as reasons other than the political reasons, I know the firepower issue is a valid point during jungle warfare.. but firepower can also result in waste as far as killing the enemy.. "average expenditure of 1.34 rounds per kill by 9th division snipers using the M21 as compared to an average expenditure of over 31,900 POUNDS of ammunition per enemy casualty in Vietnam. I believe full auto is very much over rated in war, semi auto fire is much more effective.. for the trained soldier.. my original question was also, why was the manufacturing process such a Cluster Bus after the smooth production of the M1 rifle.. when the guns are basically the same.. B2B
I don't know that the M-14 program failed, because it was an outstanding weapons system designed to replace the aging Garand, era of weapons, which it did admirably.
It was more a victim of the changing times of the 1960s. There was a new breed in power in DC and they meant to do things the modern way, using modern materials and manufacturing processes.
That's where Eugene Stoner's ill conceived baby came onto the scene and a group of political appointees in high places, forced the M16 on the US military, mainly due to the US Air Force and General Curtis Lemay, who wanted to use them for the AF's base defence forces. Because after all, everybody knows that the Air Force is not actually a military organisation and did not really need real rifles in the first place and the plastic and alloy wonder weapon would do just fine. If only the AF had been the only one to adopt the things, all would've been ok, because the rest of the military could've kept their M-14's
My first tour of duty to the Western Pacific and the Gulf of Tonkin started in October 1962 on board an ancient WW2 ammo ship where I served as an Radioman Petty Officer, and that first tour really didn't amount to much.
However in August 1964 we were anchored way out in Subic Bay PI. This was because they wouldn't let us tie up to the piers, because if our ammo ship blew up, it would be an instant replay of the Port Chicago explosion during WW2 when two ammo ships exploded killing hundreds of mainly black naval stevedores, which resulted in the great Port Chicago Mutiny, and the surviving blacks were court martialed for failing to follow order to to go back to loading ammo for the war then raging in the Pacific.
http://www.usmm.org/portchicago.html
The ship sent the Shore Patrol around to the bars to round up the liberty sections of our ship because, we'd just received an emergency sortie message to get under way immediately for the Tonkin Gulf. Because the USS Maddox and USS Turner Joy had just been attacked by North Vietnamese PT boats.
That's what actually started the Vietnam War because up until that time the USA had only a few Special Forces advisors in country. POTUS Johnson went to Congress, who passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution which set the world on fire, until we with drew with our tails between our legs, when we fled Saigon from the roof of the American Embassy, ending our involvement in SE Asia.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcQoQDkhbYw[/ame]
Well any way, after 1964 I started noticing more and more Secret Noforn dissemination messages (Secret No Foreign Dissemination) and that meant not even to our allies, messages, coming across our Teletype machines from the brass hats at MACV (Military Assistance Command Vietnam) to the brass hats in the Pentagon. These secret messages described the severe problems with the then still new M-16 rifles, being tried out in combat for the first time. Our troop were being killed when their M-16's jammed beyond being cleared on the battle field. Some guys were even found dead with jammed M-16s in their hands.
My early exposure back then to the M16 and it's horrible early history, adversely colored my perceptions about the M-16 and for years afterward I hated the things. I'm still not too fond of them to this day. Even though I own six variants of the beasts, I still don't trust the things and I guess this is where my love for the M-14 comes from. Back during my time over there my ship still had M-1 Garands, BAR's, Thompsons and such in our ships armoury. The only M-14's I saw were in the hands of Marines standing pier watch at the Naval ammo depots back here in the states or in the hands of Marines that rode with us out to the Gulf of Tonkin.
7th
It was more a victim of the changing times of the 1960s. There was a new breed in power in DC and they meant to do things the modern way, using modern materials and manufacturing processes.
That's where Eugene Stoner's ill conceived baby came onto the scene and a group of political appointees in high places, forced the M16 on the US military, mainly due to the US Air Force and General Curtis Lemay, who wanted to use them for the AF's base defence forces. Because after all, everybody knows that the Air Force is not actually a military organisation and did not really need real rifles in the first place and the plastic and alloy wonder weapon would do just fine. If only the AF had been the only one to adopt the things, all would've been ok, because the rest of the military could've kept their M-14's
My first tour of duty to the Western Pacific and the Gulf of Tonkin started in October 1962 on board an ancient WW2 ammo ship where I served as an Radioman Petty Officer, and that first tour really didn't amount to much.
However in August 1964 we were anchored way out in Subic Bay PI. This was because they wouldn't let us tie up to the piers, because if our ammo ship blew up, it would be an instant replay of the Port Chicago explosion during WW2 when two ammo ships exploded killing hundreds of mainly black naval stevedores, which resulted in the great Port Chicago Mutiny, and the surviving blacks were court martialed for failing to follow order to to go back to loading ammo for the war then raging in the Pacific.
http://www.usmm.org/portchicago.html
The ship sent the Shore Patrol around to the bars to round up the liberty sections of our ship because, we'd just received an emergency sortie message to get under way immediately for the Tonkin Gulf. Because the USS Maddox and USS Turner Joy had just been attacked by North Vietnamese PT boats.
That's what actually started the Vietnam War because up until that time the USA had only a few Special Forces advisors in country. POTUS Johnson went to Congress, who passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution which set the world on fire, until we with drew with our tails between our legs, when we fled Saigon from the roof of the American Embassy, ending our involvement in SE Asia.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcQoQDkhbYw[/ame]
Well any way, after 1964 I started noticing more and more Secret Noforn dissemination messages (Secret No Foreign Dissemination) and that meant not even to our allies, messages, coming across our Teletype machines from the brass hats at MACV (Military Assistance Command Vietnam) to the brass hats in the Pentagon. These secret messages described the severe problems with the then still new M-16 rifles, being tried out in combat for the first time. Our troop were being killed when their M-16's jammed beyond being cleared on the battle field. Some guys were even found dead with jammed M-16s in their hands.
My early exposure back then to the M16 and it's horrible early history, adversely colored my perceptions about the M-16 and for years afterward I hated the things. I'm still not too fond of them to this day. Even though I own six variants of the beasts, I still don't trust the things and I guess this is where my love for the M-14 comes from. Back during my time over there my ship still had M-1 Garands, BAR's, Thompsons and such in our ships armoury. The only M-14's I saw were in the hands of Marines standing pier watch at the Naval ammo depots back here in the states or in the hands of Marines that rode with us out to the Gulf of Tonkin.
7th
From what I've read over the years the full auto was a huge problem. To get it to be reliable and durable the gas system and parts had to have much different specifications to meet the requirement.
I agree for the average rifleman it's a waste and I can't tell you a single guy I know that ever fired his M4 or M16A4 in burst or Auto. But the M249 SAW was always there when we needed it as was the M209 grenade launcher. Both effective fire superiority weapons that would have been useful in any conflict.
I agree for the average rifleman it's a waste and I can't tell you a single guy I know that ever fired his M4 or M16A4 in burst or Auto. But the M249 SAW was always there when we needed it as was the M209 grenade launcher. Both effective fire superiority weapons that would have been useful in any conflict.
To find the rest of the story B2B, the real story, one must search archives, if they exist, to the wall street bunch that owned controlling interest (majority of shares of stock) in the then, newly formed company that would later become Armalite. It was, and always will be, about money. Same as the Viet Nam conflict, regardless of events that set it off, it was about sugar cane and money, as much as anything. Sad but true....I do not know who owned the most stock, but I would make a bet it was Mc"Nam"Starter and his cronies, heavily vested in it....up to their eyes.
This may not go over well and my apologies in advance if I hurt any feelings. And, I love the M1A and the M1 rifle but facts is facts. The M1 was obsolete when the M14 was adopted and the M14 was obsolete on that same day. Whatever McNamara and his whiz kids had to do with the decision aside, the M14 could not have lasted long. As it was, the M1 / M14 (they are essentially the same design) lasted a good long time but all things come to and end and the M1 / M14 was no exception.
What do you mean by obsolete? Do they not send rounds down range with the same authority? Is it because of the wood stocks? Lets hear it! GI5
I saw on History Channel recently a review of M16 jamming. They maintained a large part of that had been because they made the mistake of saying the gun was "self-cleaning." And thus no one cleaned it. This led to what you might you expect putting a zillion rounds through a gun in the jungle. Then they edited the manual and put a few other things in like the forward assist.
Funny enough, I recently saw the Marine manual for their Benelli semi-auto shotguns and they made the same claim. And while a shotgun isn't going to foul so bad (esp. the Benelli) those are given to spec ops guys who are doing all kinds of crazy dirty stuff to them. When are these guys going to learn not to take Marketing stuff at face value?
Weight is a great example. In the mass engagements of WWII where you had a gigantic supply line behind you and/or beachheads, it was a whole different scenario. But the ability to turn soldiers into pack mules is really attractive to military planners as a platoon can be made its own little mobile base.
The fact that M14s are still in use, at least as designated marksman capacity, shows there's still a lot of viability in the weapon system. But it also shows it's a very specific one. If you had the best modern M14 platform available today or the best AR platform available today and you could ship either back in time to Vietnam, I think the AR would still be the more viable option for that conflict. And I frankly am not fond of the AR, but I appreciate what its purpose is.
Funny enough, I recently saw the Marine manual for their Benelli semi-auto shotguns and they made the same claim. And while a shotgun isn't going to foul so bad (esp. the Benelli) those are given to spec ops guys who are doing all kinds of crazy dirty stuff to them. When are these guys going to learn not to take Marketing stuff at face value?
Weight is a great example. In the mass engagements of WWII where you had a gigantic supply line behind you and/or beachheads, it was a whole different scenario. But the ability to turn soldiers into pack mules is really attractive to military planners as a platoon can be made its own little mobile base.
The fact that M14s are still in use, at least as designated marksman capacity, shows there's still a lot of viability in the weapon system. But it also shows it's a very specific one. If you had the best modern M14 platform available today or the best AR platform available today and you could ship either back in time to Vietnam, I think the AR would still be the more viable option for that conflict. And I frankly am not fond of the AR, but I appreciate what its purpose is.
I would have to disagree, I believe the modern infantry platoon COULD be as effective caring the M-14 as they could with the M-16. extra ammo is useless if it is dumped and doesn't hit a target.. W/ No full auto fire for the rifleman, the M-14 and M-249 saw W/ M-240/M60 and we'd Kick some serious A... The simple NM modified Front end and a synthetic stock maybe even a M-14 shortened to 18" would be a 100% better.. The only Flaw I can see in the M-14 rifle (may be) Unitized gas system and Flash suppressor opened up to NM specs.. both easy to retrofit..Optics mounting has been solved, mags being a little slower to replace than the Ar system..but only a few seconds slower.. I may hurt a few feeling here also, but the M-4 carbine is a huge mistake.. in Somolia the SF had problems killing the enemy even with multiple hits with the M-4 and the SS109 green tip 62gr ball.. The guy who was using a M-14 smacked targets dead... yes the M-16 is a very accurate weapon and is easy to hit targets maybe easier than the M-14 but if the ammo on target is not effective.. it doesn't work.. I know the M-4 is easier to get into houses and in and out of transport, but again out modern wars in deserts guess what, the enemy is engaging our troops at 6-800 meters because they know the effective range is to their advantage... The are using the 303 British bolt guns and 762X54R rifles to keep a distance.. War is always about money and or resources of some kind.. I wish it wasn't but as the movie says "If I'm gonna get killed for a word, my word is ________ " ya know the rest.. B2B
The M-14 never went "away". Right now the hottest thing going in both "litter boxes" (I know cause I've been to both, and am in Iraq right now) is the EBR M-14. Units can't get enough of them. I'm in ARSOF (Army Special Operations Forces) so the M-14 NEVER went away. Quite the opposite. Funny how the M-14 is out shooting, out performing the weapon that replaced it 40+ years ago! The M-16/M-4 after 40 years of tweaking is still tempermental, and the 5.56 is not effective on most soft targets (minus headshots of course). I used my EBR M-14 in Iraq and The Stan. Yeah she's heavy, but she packs a punch. No ever continued to fight when the 7.62's went downrange and found their targets. It was comforting when the AK rounds were kicking up dirt (short) while the 7.62 M-14's where busting their mellons!
I've enjoyed reading posts in this thread, and thought I would give my opinions too. The M14 rifle program was really a day late and a dollar short. The military's "Light Weight Rifle Program" had begun in the latter days of WW2, as there were complaints about the weight of the M1 rifle.
15 years later deliveries of the new M14 rifle began.... It took that long because the US Congress dragged their feet in providing the necessary funding for R&D.
When the M14 Rifle was adopted as our new service rifle, it took about 2 years for the first deliveries. The gov't wanted commercial manufacturers to provide the bulk of these rifles, so Springfield Armory was by far the smallest producer of the rifle they designed. It took time to get the other manufacturers up to speed, for various reasons, such as more modern machinery that would speed production, once begun, vs. M1 production, and there were long delays in getting this machinery. And then there was a steel shortage that affected production, and there was wrong steels provided by steel mills that caused bolt failures, so production was halted to figure out why the bolts failed,so basically, whatever could go wrong, did go wrong.
The M14 was designed to replace several weapons, but in reality, only replaced the M1, as the M14 was too light to fire on full auto to replace the BAR, and too big and heavy to replace the tiny M1 carbine.
The war in Vietnam really didn't cause the M14 program to be canceled because we didn't have a large troop build up until 1965, but the M14 program was canceled two years prior to that.
It really was a political decision by McNamara and his futuristic whiz kids. The Air Force wanted a rifle with more power and range than their M1 carbines for base security, and wanted the AR-15. Again, politics forced the military to adopt the AR-15, and the government wanted all branches to use the same weapons. It does make some sense to keep as much equipment the same between all branches of service, such as boots, uniforms, weapons, etc. Much easier on the supply system. The government wanted one weapon to do it all, and the M14 rifle failed in that respect. But in all fairness, there likely is no weapon that can "do it all" as we have the M16A4, M4 carbine, and now we are dusting off the old M14's to issue our troops for longer ranges and superior knock down power.
15 years later deliveries of the new M14 rifle began.... It took that long because the US Congress dragged their feet in providing the necessary funding for R&D.
When the M14 Rifle was adopted as our new service rifle, it took about 2 years for the first deliveries. The gov't wanted commercial manufacturers to provide the bulk of these rifles, so Springfield Armory was by far the smallest producer of the rifle they designed. It took time to get the other manufacturers up to speed, for various reasons, such as more modern machinery that would speed production, once begun, vs. M1 production, and there were long delays in getting this machinery. And then there was a steel shortage that affected production, and there was wrong steels provided by steel mills that caused bolt failures, so production was halted to figure out why the bolts failed,so basically, whatever could go wrong, did go wrong.
The M14 was designed to replace several weapons, but in reality, only replaced the M1, as the M14 was too light to fire on full auto to replace the BAR, and too big and heavy to replace the tiny M1 carbine.
The war in Vietnam really didn't cause the M14 program to be canceled because we didn't have a large troop build up until 1965, but the M14 program was canceled two years prior to that.
It really was a political decision by McNamara and his futuristic whiz kids. The Air Force wanted a rifle with more power and range than their M1 carbines for base security, and wanted the AR-15. Again, politics forced the military to adopt the AR-15, and the government wanted all branches to use the same weapons. It does make some sense to keep as much equipment the same between all branches of service, such as boots, uniforms, weapons, etc. Much easier on the supply system. The government wanted one weapon to do it all, and the M14 rifle failed in that respect. But in all fairness, there likely is no weapon that can "do it all" as we have the M16A4, M4 carbine, and now we are dusting off the old M14's to issue our troops for longer ranges and superior knock down power.
I was born in 1966 therefore i could not serve at the time but, for some reason my love for the M14 was unexplainable since i laid eyes on one for the first time yet at the same time a very strong dislike for the M16 platform, don't know why but that's how it is for me, maybe i did serve in my past life and died with an M16 in my hands can't say for sure. my upmost respect and gratitude for those who served and died serving our nation. god blessGI7
It seems to me that technological advancement and military doctrine killed the M14. Lighter weapons better suit the military's doctrine of fire and maneuver, that was developed as far back as WWII or before. Units with lighter rifles and smaller rounds can carry more and thus shoot more. An army also wants to field as few calibers as possible to streamline logistics and the 5.56 rounds fits that frame of thinking as well.
While I don't personally agree with everything that was done and think some of the reasoning was flawed, I do see some reasons why they would do such.
While I don't personally agree with everything that was done and think some of the reasoning was flawed, I do see some reasons why they would do such.
What?
To the best of my knowledge, The M14 NEVER FAILED... It was killed. Then it revived when no other weapon system was found to be as effective. They are still looking... Stupid commanders can't see a good thing right in front of them.
To the best of my knowledge, The M14 NEVER FAILED... It was killed. Then it revived when no other weapon system was found to be as effective. They are still looking... Stupid commanders can't see a good thing right in front of them.
Robert McNamara was not at fault for the issue with the M-16 or the failure of the M-14, it was the U.S. Ordnance Department that was entrenched in the idea of the lone rifleman. The M-14 is a great rifle, but it was not a replacement for the Garand, the submachinegun, and the light machinegun. It was only a replacement for the Garand. Niether was the FN/FAL. The average soldier cannot handle a 7.62X51 on full auto when fired from a battle rifle. The Germans figured that out in the 1940's, hence the STG 44.
In addtion, Robert McNamara ordered the Ordnace Department to get the M-16 ready for use as a Military rifle, but the Ordnance Department did everthing they could to undermind that order. So in reality, it was our own Ordance Department that was responsible for the poor showing of the M-16 in the early part of the war.
I still believe that any squad of soldiers should have at least two different calibers. 7.62X51 for long range or for penetrating hard targets. Than a lighter caliber for general use.
In addtion, Robert McNamara ordered the Ordnace Department to get the M-16 ready for use as a Military rifle, but the Ordnance Department did everthing they could to undermind that order. So in reality, it was our own Ordance Department that was responsible for the poor showing of the M-16 in the early part of the war.
I still believe that any squad of soldiers should have at least two different calibers. 7.62X51 for long range or for penetrating hard targets. Than a lighter caliber for general use.
I guess I take exception to the idea that the M14 program or rifle failed. If it had been created prior to WWII or Korea it would have been The Battle Rifle. It wasn't and the type weapon required for Viet Nam was different, if only, in the Average Range. In 1968 I was trained on the M14, not the m16, and all the DI's that had seen action extolled the benefits of the m14 over the m16. "You can tell it's swell, it's made by Mattel."
It seems to me that with the change in weapons 11Bravo went from a "rifleman" to something else. It appears that spraying ammo all over the place became the norm rather than what had been taught in the past. Then again fighting in the Jungle is not like fighting in the fields of Europe. If the M14 was such a failure why is it being used in the sand box? The power of the round and it's ability to "reach out and touch someone" are indicative of the fact that the M14 is well suited for the type of action taking place now.
It seems to me that with the change in weapons 11Bravo went from a "rifleman" to something else. It appears that spraying ammo all over the place became the norm rather than what had been taught in the past. Then again fighting in the Jungle is not like fighting in the fields of Europe. If the M14 was such a failure why is it being used in the sand box? The power of the round and it's ability to "reach out and touch someone" are indicative of the fact that the M14 is well suited for the type of action taking place now.
The M-14 needs to be in the hands of every infantryman. Not just the DM's. Especially in Afghanistan where engamenents take place at much greater distances.
We have some tough infantryman that can hack the 14. And the 14 would weed out the non hackers too. If a couple of extra pounds of man-rifle is going to bother them, they should probably be manning a computer mouse anyways.
Whatever reason they decided to do away with the M-14, it was a horrible decision. We need to get out of the business of wounding america's enemies with millions of rounds and get back to killing with well Placed shots.
It was a sad day when "one shot one kill" became the sniper's moto and no the regular infantryman's.
We have some tough infantryman that can hack the 14. And the 14 would weed out the non hackers too. If a couple of extra pounds of man-rifle is going to bother them, they should probably be manning a computer mouse anyways.
Whatever reason they decided to do away with the M-14, it was a horrible decision. We need to get out of the business of wounding america's enemies with millions of rounds and get back to killing with well Placed shots.
It was a sad day when "one shot one kill" became the sniper's moto and no the regular infantryman's.
Yeah, that's what we need. Less people in the military.
We'll fight our wars with a third the current troops carrying M14s and the rest using computer mice.
We'll fight our wars with a third the current troops carrying M14s and the rest using computer mice.
M14 or AR 10?
One thought to consider ...
AFTER
the M14 beat out the AR 10 and the FN in the US Military Rifle replacement trials,
AND BEFORE
the AR 15 was adopted,
If LeMay and Stoner had ever got together and decided to go with an AR 10 IN .243 Winchester, instead of the scaled down AR 15 in 5.56 Poodle Stopper, think about how different the history of military Small Arms and military small group tactics might have been.
As a former Canadian licensed gun smith and fire arms dealer, I've personally owned, repaired, disemboweled, rebuilt, customised, and mostly chopped into 18.5" barreled shorties, well over 100 of the M14 type rifles. This includes four dozen GENUINE US GI M14s, five Springfield M1as [ including SA's best, a SS SUPERMATCH ] and then dozens and dozens of the Chinese M14 clones This includes the old pre-ban Norincos and Polytechs, and lately many of the new improved Canadian imported Norcs and Polys. And then, several dozen more of the M14 rifle's little brothers, the Ruger Mini 14s and Mini 30s
So obviously, I like the M14 platform.
BUT,
the M14 is not and never has been my FAVORITE battle rifle.
Before I got my first genuine M14 rifle, I had owned dozens of the GENUINE Dutch built military issue AR 10 rifles, Sudanese and Portuguese variations.
AND,
I quite simply like the AR 10 platform better than the M14, or any thing else I've tried ... including my Canadian issue FN C1A1 or C2, which I carried as a Canadian Infantryman.
Blasphemy I know,
BUT,
my experience with these platforms has shown me that:
1.] The AR 10 rifles are MORE ACCURATE out of the box, and MUCH EASIER to keep accurate than an M14.
2.] The AR 10, with straight line stock and greatly improved ergonomics, is much faster at CQB scenarios.
Why else have so many people [ including ,myself ] spent so much time and effort trying to make their M14 hasve the look and feel of an AR 10??
3.] Judging by the three dozen AR 10 samples I completely disassembled and rebuilt, the AR 10s are just as durable and robust a platform as the M14. The AR 10 samples I worked on had seen HARD use, in horrible Tropical [ African Congo ] conditions, used by mostly ill trained "soldiers", with zero or minimal maintenance. "Just piss down the barrel every month or so to keep the Gun God happy".
All of the AR 10s I rebuilt were fully functional MECHANICALLY, with several of them suffering from broken plastic stocks and hand guards. One had a beat up mag well/hold open device, where some ignorant SOB had dry fired the rifle over and over again WITHOUT a bolt. That was welded and filed back into shape, and I turned that lower into my personal Practical Rifle Match competitor.
4.] Judging by the thousands of rounds, 7.62 NATO, Win .308 Factory. and my own reloads, that I put through testing and competing with them, the AR 10 is every bit as functionally reliable as an M14. The only weak spot of the original AR 10 design was the soft lipped aluminum waffle magazines, which originally were intended to be ONE USE/Disposable in the field.
5.]The AR 10 is incredibly accurate and functions reliably with a much broader range of ammunition than does an M14. I've shot AR 10 rifles with the factory Remington "Acellerator" .223 Sabot carried superlight/superfast bullets, and all the way up to Winchester 200 Gr Silvertip SP "bear and moose " hunting ammo. As a matter of fact, all three of the above loads, as well as the usual 168 Gr HPBT loads, shot SUB-moa for me out of various AR 10s. Can't do that with an M14.
So,
even though I am personally involved in a project to make an M14 into an AR 10 lookyloo, and still have a fond spot in my heart [ and gun cabinet ] for the M14, my primary semi auto gas gun battle rifle wannabee, is an AR 10. These days, I like the Remington R25 AR15/AR10 HYBRIDS as the best AR 10 VALUE of any of the many other AR10/AR15 HYBRIDs currently available. I have had three of the R25s, and am currently optimising one of these into a CQB shorty ... for those occassions when my 11.5" AR 15 won't do the job.
Aka ... "when the ZOMBI's are riding Moose instead of Poodles."
As always with any opinions expressed on the internet,
YPMMV
One thought to consider ...
AFTER
the M14 beat out the AR 10 and the FN in the US Military Rifle replacement trials,
AND BEFORE
the AR 15 was adopted,
If LeMay and Stoner had ever got together and decided to go with an AR 10 IN .243 Winchester, instead of the scaled down AR 15 in 5.56 Poodle Stopper, think about how different the history of military Small Arms and military small group tactics might have been.
As a former Canadian licensed gun smith and fire arms dealer, I've personally owned, repaired, disemboweled, rebuilt, customised, and mostly chopped into 18.5" barreled shorties, well over 100 of the M14 type rifles. This includes four dozen GENUINE US GI M14s, five Springfield M1as [ including SA's best, a SS SUPERMATCH ] and then dozens and dozens of the Chinese M14 clones This includes the old pre-ban Norincos and Polytechs, and lately many of the new improved Canadian imported Norcs and Polys. And then, several dozen more of the M14 rifle's little brothers, the Ruger Mini 14s and Mini 30s
So obviously, I like the M14 platform.
BUT,
the M14 is not and never has been my FAVORITE battle rifle.
Before I got my first genuine M14 rifle, I had owned dozens of the GENUINE Dutch built military issue AR 10 rifles, Sudanese and Portuguese variations.
AND,
I quite simply like the AR 10 platform better than the M14, or any thing else I've tried ... including my Canadian issue FN C1A1 or C2, which I carried as a Canadian Infantryman.
Blasphemy I know,
BUT,
my experience with these platforms has shown me that:
1.] The AR 10 rifles are MORE ACCURATE out of the box, and MUCH EASIER to keep accurate than an M14.
2.] The AR 10, with straight line stock and greatly improved ergonomics, is much faster at CQB scenarios.
Why else have so many people [ including ,myself ] spent so much time and effort trying to make their M14 hasve the look and feel of an AR 10??
3.] Judging by the three dozen AR 10 samples I completely disassembled and rebuilt, the AR 10s are just as durable and robust a platform as the M14. The AR 10 samples I worked on had seen HARD use, in horrible Tropical [ African Congo ] conditions, used by mostly ill trained "soldiers", with zero or minimal maintenance. "Just piss down the barrel every month or so to keep the Gun God happy".
All of the AR 10s I rebuilt were fully functional MECHANICALLY, with several of them suffering from broken plastic stocks and hand guards. One had a beat up mag well/hold open device, where some ignorant SOB had dry fired the rifle over and over again WITHOUT a bolt. That was welded and filed back into shape, and I turned that lower into my personal Practical Rifle Match competitor.
4.] Judging by the thousands of rounds, 7.62 NATO, Win .308 Factory. and my own reloads, that I put through testing and competing with them, the AR 10 is every bit as functionally reliable as an M14. The only weak spot of the original AR 10 design was the soft lipped aluminum waffle magazines, which originally were intended to be ONE USE/Disposable in the field.
5.]The AR 10 is incredibly accurate and functions reliably with a much broader range of ammunition than does an M14. I've shot AR 10 rifles with the factory Remington "Acellerator" .223 Sabot carried superlight/superfast bullets, and all the way up to Winchester 200 Gr Silvertip SP "bear and moose " hunting ammo. As a matter of fact, all three of the above loads, as well as the usual 168 Gr HPBT loads, shot SUB-moa for me out of various AR 10s. Can't do that with an M14.
So,
even though I am personally involved in a project to make an M14 into an AR 10 lookyloo, and still have a fond spot in my heart [ and gun cabinet ] for the M14, my primary semi auto gas gun battle rifle wannabee, is an AR 10. These days, I like the Remington R25 AR15/AR10 HYBRIDS as the best AR 10 VALUE of any of the many other AR10/AR15 HYBRIDs currently available. I have had three of the R25s, and am currently optimising one of these into a CQB shorty ... for those occassions when my 11.5" AR 15 won't do the job.
Aka ... "when the ZOMBI's are riding Moose instead of Poodles."
As always with any opinions expressed on the internet,
YPMMV
You'all have nailed the politics of it pretty thoroughly, at least as I understand the LeMay-McNamara-Stoner fix that was put in. Practically speaking, most of us will never own/possess a genuine M14 rifle or M249 SAW. But lemons to lemonade, if we Americans ever come to our senses enough to become that well-armed citizenry the Framers of the Constitution visualized, we do have proven and cost-effective rifle choices for personal and community defense thanks to the old DCM now CMP, the M14 clone industry, a bunch of civilians who figured out how to turn the AR into a respectable stick, and the combloc imports. Shooters understand better than most folks in the govt how to get the most out of what they have. Nobody gets to turn the clocks back.
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
