[JohnKSa]

I posted this elsewhere, but thought it was worthy of its own thread.

Had the military mafia not had a stranglehold on the weapon selection process in the U.S. the FAL would almost certainly have been selected instead of the M14. Given the long and successful worldwide service history of the FAL (as opposed to the VERY short and local service history of the M14), it's very probable that the adoption of the FAL would have prevented the U.S. from switching to .223 and the M16. A move which was prompted by reports of various alleged shortcomings of the M14.

Kind of interesting train of thought, huh? Follow it to its conclusion and it becomes apparent that the adoption of the M14 was very probably one of the major steps leading to the rapid demise of 30 Caliber as a standard issue U.S. military cartridge.

[bad_dad_brad]

JohnKSa,

An interesting point.

I think a .243 caliber military cartridge might have been the ultimate combat round in an FAL type rifle, that is one without having to adjust the gas pressure, and in that light, perhaps the AR-15 was the ultimate platform for the .243.

Interestingly enough, Armalite offers a .243 in an AR-15 rifle. Perhaps I should pursue such an upper.

The right thing, the most logical, often never becomes the choice of beaurocrats (sp?). I think the .223 vis-a-vis the .308 is an example of this kind of thinking, when something in between would have been ideal.

[Sir Galahad]

Go get your welding gloves on to handle your keyboard and an arc welder's hood on to view it.:D Wait til the M1A aficianados get a load of this! I predict a four pager at least! Anyone care to make a friendly wager?:D

[dude]

nice try!!!



...but the 5.56 NATO round was chosen as a weight/firepower concept and the US Military would have never adopted the FAL SLR.

[JohnKSa]

but the 5.56 NATO round was chosen as a weight/firepower concept and the US Military would have never adopted the FAL SLR.
Mixing things up a bit.

The selection process which resulted in the adoption of the M14 over the FAL happened quite a bit before the the selection of the .223 which wasn't a NATO cartridge for quite some time after that.

There was a very good chance the FAL could have been selected (it and the M14 were the two front-runners), and the reasons it wasn't had a lot more to do with policy than performance.

Regardless of the reasons GIVEN for the adoption of a .223 rifle, if the current service rifle of the era had been perfectly satisfactory, it would have been nearly impossible to justify the hassle & cost of introducing a new service rifle, let alone a new caliber too.

[boing]

I was thinking about your other post today. I'm glad you made a thread of it.

...reports of various alleged shortcomings of the M14.

What were these alleged shortcomings?

[Daniel]

The Aus army used both the 7.62mm Fal and the 5.56mm M16 at the same time (Vietnam war) ... the army is still using the M16 (variant of ... M4).

Just a thought. :)

[SodaPop]

For what the M14 was originally designed for ( standard issue select fire rifle) it was a complete and total failure.

I've compared the FAL to the M1A a few times now, and the FAL is the better standard-issue, select-fire rifle. Remember, I'm saying STANDARD ISSUE. Nothing wrong with sending an M14 into combat, but its not a very practical F/A gun.

Semi-auto to semi-auto I don't think there is a hoots worth of difference, but try and lean into an M14 when its F/A and your going to need a bottle of aspirin when your mag is empty.

The M16 was a whole new design compared to the M1A and the US miltitary could just as easily designed a .223 M14 or FAL version of they wanted to. I don't see any real reason they had to go with the M16 design.

NONE!

[Badger Arms]

What were these alleged shortcomings?

As a military arm in its own right, the M-14 is an outstanding weapon. For its intended role and era in which it was adopted, it was a dismal failure and shortcomings were glaring.

- The M-14 was intended to replace the BAR, M-1 Rifle (Garand), M-1 Carbine, and various Submachine Guns most notably the Grease Gun and Thompson. In replacing the Garand, it did an outstanding job. It was superior in accuracy and capacity while being as reliable and nearly as durable. Being lighter and magazine fed, it offered the infantryman a significant increase in combat effectiveness.

- Replacing the BAR was no easy task and neither the M-14 nor the ill-fated M-15 could come close to this mark. Converting the BAR to 7.62x51 would have been easier, cheaper, and more effective. Many other armies did this but our Army works in mysterious ways. The M-14 was completely uncontrollable in full-auto for 90% of shooters. It was only marginal in experienced hands. One could not expect to utilize the M-14 for sustained fire as the barrel would heat up too fast.

- Replacing the carbine was also difficult. The M-14 is light, but not THAT light and handy, but not THAT handy. In jungle, thick forest, or urban settings, the M-14 is just NOT the weapon of choice.

John: you seem to imply that the .223 is not a competent military round. I'm going to disagree with you on that point. In its initial configuration, it was highly competent. With 55gr FMJ thin jacketed bullets fired at 3250fps from a 20" 1-in-12" twist barrel, this round was deadly, accurate, and had enough range to engage anything out to and beyond 300 yards. It was highly controllable in full-auto and the minimal recoil made training easier. It was equal to and sometimes superior to the M-14 in terms of terminal effects and incapacitation. It was lighter and allowed more rounds to be carried. In replacing the SMG and Carbine, it did an outstanding job. In replacing the Garand, it also did an admirable job. You have to factor range into this. Most M-16's were capable of match accuracy as they were issued. A hit, even at 600 yards, with an M-16 is better than a miss by a Garand. Where the .223 and the M-16 fail is in replacing the squad automatic weapon. Weight of the weapon is a significant factor and no gun truly replaced the BAR in this manner until the MINIMI came online. Even still, the M249 lacks in long-range penetration and only an M-60, M-2, or M-240 can truly hope to accomplish this task these days.

Today, the 5.56x45mm has been neutered. Gone are its terminal effectiveness and its hydrostatic shock effects. In the M-4 Carbine, it is arguably less effective than an M-1 Carbine. A significant effort should be made to redesign the cartridge to fire a lighter, thinner jacketed, VLD (very low drag) bullet at higher velocity.

[AZRickD]

I think part of the reason the M14 was selected over the FN-FAL was that the M14 had an army of technicians massaging it through each of trials whereas the FAL folks were in short supply on this side of the globe and were often playing catch up.

Sand cuts and different lubes for cold climes are just two examples.

BTW, the prototype FAL used in the trials is not the same FAL we see today. A much better rifle we have now.

Rick

[russlate]

The first FAL was designed for an intermediate power round like the German, Russian, and British 280 cartridges. They had to redesign the gun to fit the 7.62x51 short version of the 30-06. The ball versions of the 308 and 30-06 were ballistically identical, with the same bullet at the same velocity.

Interesting to me is that the 7.62x39 about equals the 30-30. Given the loss in stopping power, it keeps occurring to me they could have increased the bullet diameted to 9mm and given it a spitzer shape like the 150 grain 35 Remington. One must wonder, given the reports of ineffectiveness of the i50 gr. Remington soft point if there'd have been much difference. Perhaps with a semi-spitzer ball with fairly wide meplat?

What if can be a fun game to play, sometimes, but it remains a game.

[dfariswheel]

The "military Mafia" played a part in not adopting the FAL, but the major reason was that it was politically impossible for the US to adopt a foreign service rifle. This is common in MOST major nations, which will often adopt a lesser weapon to maintain national pride. (The current British problems with their new Enfield bullpup is a case in point). The majority of the Brit military wanted to just adopt the proven and already limited issue M16.

The FAL never stood a chance because NOBODY, military or civilian would tolerate buying the FAL. Few people liked the design, and it simply didn't meet American ideas of what our next service rifle should be. From what I've read, the enlisted soldiers who fired the FAL, just plain didn't like it, compared to the M14, so it wasn't all just politics.

As to the reason we adopted the M16, it comes down to the simple fact that the AR15/M16 design was a ready, viable design. We needed a "jungle" capable weapon NOW, not 5 years later. The M16 had it's famous problems, but the basic design was "good to go" when we needed it.

I've often had the thought that if Ruger had the Mini-14 up and running, it might have been either the next rifle or served as the developmental basis for it.

[MarineTech]

I think part of the reason the M14 was selected over the FN-FAL was that the M14 had an army of technicians massaging it through each of trials whereas the FAL folks were in short supply on this side of the globe and were often playing catch up.

Actually, a big part of the reason that the M14 was chosen over the FAL was the fact that it was so similar to the existing M1 Garand. The 2 rifles are very similar in function, operation, and parts. This severely eased the transition in training from the Garand to the M14. There is also some commonality to parts with other parts being similar thus easing the transition in manufacture from the Garand to the M14.

Another factor behind the M16 being adopted in place of the M14 was the fact that McNamara and his "Whiz Kids" felt they knew more about ordnance and armaments than the military did and ramrodded the rifle down the military's throats. When reports of failures started coming back to McNamara, he refused to heed the suggestions by the military that the chambers needed to be chrome lined. He though it was too costly. It took a Congressional investigation into the matter for McNamara to admit there was a mistake made and for a redisign of the rifle to include a chrome lined chamber and to change the cartridge powder back to the orginal powder intended for the cartridge.

[George Hill]

russlate, I think the Russians did do that - or something like that - for use in suppressed weapons.

[Delmar]

As to a select fire weapon to replace the M-1 Garand, BAR, M-3 Subgun and the M-1 Carbine, neither rifle was a success. In full auto, the FAL did not do much that the M-14 did not do-mainly, after the first couple of shots, the rest of the burst was headed straight for the moon!

The lack of a quick change barrel guarranteed that neither would be truly effective, just as the BAR was not effective-its advantage being that it fired from an open bolt. Bad for accuracy and good for the fact that you would not cook off rounds in the chamber.

Both the M-14 and the FAL were easier to manufacture than the BAR. Recall that FN actually made a quick change barrel option in their BAR model D, but was even more expensive, and just coming out of WWII, there was plenty of surplus laying around to be bought up for pennies on the dollar.

The argument on the 308 vs 223 is about range. The original M198 load was effective at close to medium range, but the 308 could and did penetrate better on the average, and was a better long range weapon. Not really needed in the jungle.

The other argument was about weight-ammo and weapon. The ammo for the 223 is still lighter and takes up less space, but the M16A2 weighs nearly as much as the M-14 does, not to mention the A2 does not go full auto anymore, but has the 3 round burst selector. It makes me wonder how the M-14 with a similar burst limiter would do.

Having fired both the M-14 and M-16A1 in their military configuration, the M-16 seems to be a bit more accurate in autoloading mode, and a lot more accurate in full auto.

[Ranger Rich]

Ultimately, the military would have adopted .223 (or some other inferior cartrdge) whether we adopted the M14 or not. Its not the M14s fault. The M14 (in its basic format) was, and IS, an excellent weapon

[Destructo6]

In the transition from the M14 to the M16, the military adopted both a new configuration and a new caliber.

If the FAL had been in service, I believe that the military would have been reluctant to adopt a new weapon that was of a similar configuration, only adding a new caliber to the mix. Especially when the rilfe in hand (FAL) had the advantage of being in service with several other NATO countries.

7.62x51 has bush penetration as an advantage in the jungle.

So, I think that if the US had adopted the FAL in 1958, the M16 would not have been adopted in the 1960s, and perhaps would have seen the adoption of an intermediate caliber assault rifle adoptedd/tested in the 1980s, during the Reagan years.

Of course, it's all speculation, but it's fun.

[Powderman]

Interesting thread.

A question for those in the know:

Since the Army wanted to adopt a .308 weapon, what happened to the original Armalite AR-10 in .308? From what I have seen of the firearm, it would have been an outstanding choice. Quickly changeable from magazine to belt fed, and very tough, it would have been the logical choice for me. What happened?

[Bruce H]

If you are cynical enough you automatically know that weapons systems start with a payoff to a congresscritter. The next step is promotion threats to the military procurment officers. Function, reliability, ease of maintainance, and all the other things that make a weapon work are secondary.

[Rosco Benson]

No, MacNamara was the reason we use .223

Rosco

[Bostonterrier97]

I think an M1 Garand in 270 or an M14 in 260 Remington would be the ultimate rifle/cartridge combination

[Mannlicher]

I don't find much merit in your assumption John. Not much at all.

[JohnKSa]

MacNamara was the reason we use .223
True, but it's also true that if the M14 had done all it was supposed to do, the issue would have never come up.
Ultimately, the military would have adopted .223
Agree, but I still think it happened faster than it would have otherwise. Other than in the countries which were pressured hard by the U.S. to conform, the switchover took much longer.
The FAL never stood a chance because NOBODY, military or civilian would tolerate buying the FAL. Few people liked the design, and it simply didn't meet American ideas of what our next service rifle should be. From what I've read, the enlisted soldiers who fired the FAL, just plain didn't like it, compared to the M14, so it wasn't all just politics.
If the selection process isn't based purely on performance then there's lots of room to say that it's based on politics/policy.
you seem to imply that the .223 is not a competent military round.
Not at all! I was just commenting on the irony of the train of thought and its conclusions.
What were these alleged shortcomings?
It's been covered pretty well. The biggest was it was pretty useless in full-auto fire.

[telewinz]

The M14 seems to have been a failure, it was always intended as a selective fire weapon, it failed thus the M15 came along(why not the BAR in 308?). The M16 was going to happen no matter what the M14 could or could not do, as stated before because of MacNamara. MacNamara also shares the blame for why the early M16's failed, he refused to let the army to run field tests once he had issued his orders because he felt the Army was sandbagging him (with some justification). MacNamara was of the first Secretaries of Defense that was willing to buck the Army's leadership, something he shares with our current Sec. of Defense.

[ACP230]

I have sometimes wondered what an M14 in a lighter caliber, say .250 Savage, would have done. It would have had a bit lighter and shorter ammo, and less recoil. The .250 is quite accurate too, at least as accurate as the 7.62 NATO (.308). I don't know if it would have been more controllable in FA fire, but I've met a couple of guys who used the M14 in Vietnam and said they had no problems with it on auto.

[Andrew Wyatt]

THe FAL is in anferior weapon to the m-14, because it has a worse trigger, and sights. I dislike the adjustable gas system, because it's always on the wrong setting.

The safety is okay, but i don't find it as good as the m-14.

[JohnKSa]

I think if you compare apples to apples, you will find the trigger on a mil-spec M14 is very comparable to the trigger on a mil-spec FAL.

A lot of people compare a parts kit FAL with a dolled up National Match M1A that cost three times as much and then draw the conclusion that the M14 is a much smoother weapon than the FAL.

The M14 has better sights--not much question there.

Your argument regarding the gas adjustment doesn't hold water. If the gas adjustment is set wrong, it's only because the operator set it wrong. The same could be said of any adjustable item on the gun, like sights, for example. On the contrary, the gas adjustment on the FAL means that you can tailor the gas system to a particular cartridge. On a non-adjustable system, the gas system must be designed to operate the bolt reliably in all conditions. That means that in most cases, the bolt is being operated much more violently than is really necessary. That's going to mean more felt recoil and will cause increased wear and tear.

[esldude]

Well how about the fact the M14 wouldn't work in full auto.

Then how about the fact the current rifle is 3 round burst.

Wonder how the M14 would have fared in 3 round burst dress?

I also agree with the poster who thought the .243 would have been
one of the better possible choices. I think it in 3 round burst mode
in a M16 guise would be tough to beat all around.

In regard to the idea if the FAL had been chosen over the M14 it
would have prevented adoption of the .223, well I think it not much
of an idea. I also don't concede the FAL is better than the M14.
You must be kidding or deluded....HEHEHEHEHE!

[seeker_two]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the AR-10 debacle...

The AR-10 was the predecessor to the AR-15, but in .308. It was in the service rifle trials at the same time as the FAL & the M-14. It was well-made, but the Army inspectors did everything to sabotage it--including making Fairchild & Stoner install aluminum barrels in it (:what: ) & critizing the design for blowing up!! :cuss:

A few countries did adopt it, but it never made a big hit in the American market until recently.

If the AR-10 had been adopted, the US military may still be using .308 (or .243) today... :D

[Badger Arms]

You bring up an interesting point with the AR-10. While it was and is a superior weapon to the M-14 or FAL, it WASN'T a superior weapon at the time it was tested. The M-14 had years of development under its belt while the AR-10 had just cracked through its shell. The FAL had years of development behind it also but all of this development was with smaller calibers. The Army altered the Garand rifle to make the M-14 while the FAL had to be scaled up. The AR-10 was designed from the ground up to fire the 7.62x51 round.

Hindsight says that had the Army lavished the development effort it put into the M-1 Garand on selecting its replacement, we would have probably gotten the AR-10. Fortunately, that didn't happen. While better than either of the other two competitors, the AR-10 was still difficult to control on full-auto. We would have STILL entered Vietnam armed with an inadequate jungle rifle. There would have STILL been efforts aimed at replacing it. It was the cartridge, silly, not the gun. The M-14 was NOT the reason we now use the .223, but rather Army Ordnance's insistance and browbeating on adopting the overpowered 7.62x51.

[Andrew Wyatt]

Personally, I think that full auto has no place on a weapon that is not 1. belt fed or 2. in a pistol caliber. taken in that light, the m-14's shortcomings don't really mean that much.


Once you show me an ar-10 that doesn't have a problem with light primer strikes on milsurp ammo, and has a trigger as good as an m-1a, i'll agree that it's a serviceable battle rifle.

[Kaylee]

I don't know about that.. I kinda doubt that we would have stayed with the .308 anyhow, what with all the consideration given to weight and such.. Heck -- how many of the nations that adopted the FAL in the first place still issue it?

Now.. I recall a discusion on here about "what if" they'd stayed with the original chambering of the M1.. that would have a more dramatic effect I think..

All that said.. despite the fact that I love the M14 rifle as a CIVILIAN multi-purpose rifle, I'll wholeheartedly agree that it wasn't the best solution to the problem in SE Asia, isn't the best solution now as an issue rifle, and mechanically does seem to leave a lot to the FAL, both in terms of operation and ESPECIALLY in ease of manufacture.

Besides, the full-auto design is just plain silly. An exposed reciprocating connecting rod? Yeesh... I take back my previous nomination for the Colt rebound lever/bolt interface as "the most Mickey Mouse contraption I ever saw inside a gun." But then again.. given that all the silly parts are on the *outside* of the M14, maybe I don't need to. :p

synopsis.. nah, I don't think our adoption of the M14 led to the demise of the .308 in service rifles... but I could be convinced that BOTH the M14 and the .308 cartridge itself were the product of trying to design for the future while retaining too much of the past.. the effort spent in "upgrading" the M1 and .30-06 might well have been better spent designing a new system from scratch.

Of course.. one could say the same thing about the M4 carbine if one were in a fighting mood. ;)

-K

[Destructo6]

I also don't concede the FAL is better than the M14.
You must be kidding or deluded....HEHEHEHEHE!
Let's see, the M14 was adopted in ~1957 and the M16 entered service in 1964 (USAF)/1966(USA), some 9 years later. Did any other country buy M14s?

The FAL entered service at about the same time, adopted by 60+ countries and is still in service with some.

The M14 appears to have failed the test of modernity.

[esldude]

Have owned them and fail to see the advantage of the FAL.

Other than it should be cheaper to make.

[Powderman]

As for the recoil problem, one word applies--compensator.

As far as the M16 being the superior rifle, I will agree--IF someone could install a system that keeps the innards as clean as the Garand/M14 system does. That direct gas impingement really stinks.

[max popenker]

i think that US then should adopt not the FAL, but its cartridge, a British/Belgian .280.

It had 140 grain spitzer bullet at 2400 fps, this gives about ~1800 ft/lbs of muzzle energy (compared to ~2600 Ft/lbs for .308 and ~1250 ft/lbs for .223)

at the 500 yds the .280 retained velocity of ~1450 fps, with the energy of ~670 ft/lbs (compared to ~220 ft/lbs of .223 and ~950 ft/lbs of .308).

this gave the penetration commparable to .308, with recoil close to 7.62x39.

Eiher M14, FAL or british EM2 bullpup could be quite controolable in full auto, being chambered for .280, and easily outclassed the AK-47.

and then - imagine the BAR in .280...

[JPM70535]

Having used both the M-14 and the AR-15, I can honestly say that both are quality weapons and both are far more accurate than the average grunt will ever be. For extremely long range shots I would take the M-14 any day, but if I had to choose between them for all day every day carry with a full complement of spare mags, The AR-15/M-16 has to get the nod. Also for jungle warfare the black rifle can't be beat, IMO. I wound feel well armed with either, of course, the same can be said of the FAL.

[Ekie]

“I think part of the reason the M14 was selected over the FN-FAL was that the M14 had an army of technicians massaging it through each of trials whereas the FAL folks were in short supply on this side of the globe and were often playing catch up.”

So the T44 had an advantage over the T48 even though the FN design was older? And gee, did FN have something better to do then send techs over here to get their rifle up to speed? Oh yeah, and if the Army had a “army of technicians massaging it” then why where they using 30-06 length receivers, and had to farm out the development of a shorter version to a small tool company?

“Sand cuts and different lubes for cold climes are just two examples.”

Sand cuts were never standard on the FN product. Different lubes?

“BTW, the prototype FAL used in the trials is not the same FAL we see today. A much better rifle we have now.”

How so?

“The AR-10 was the predecessor to the AR-15, but in .308. It was in the service rifle trials at the same time as the FAL & the M-14. It was well-made, but the Army inspectors did everything to sabotage it--including making Fairchild & Stoner install aluminum barrels in it & critizing the design for blowing up!! “

That was Sullivan’s (of ArmaLite) idea to use a SS barrel liner with an aluminum jacket. The US Army recommended ArmaLite use a barrel made of 4140, and they did just that, after that one blew up.

“Well how about the fact the M14 wouldn't work in full auto.”

It will function on full auto, do you mean it is not controllable?

“I also agree with the poster who thought the .243 would have been one of the better possible choices.”

The .243 is over bore, not acceptable as a military cartridge.

“I think if you compare apples to apples, you will find the trigger on a mil-spec M14 is very comparable to the trigger on a mil-spec FAL.”

Humor?

“If the gas adjustment is set wrong, it's only because the operator set it wrong. The same could be said of any adjustable item on the gun, like sights, for example. On the contrary, the gas adjustment on the FAL means that you can tailor the gas system to a particular cartridge. On a non-adjustable system, the gas system must be designed to operate the bolt reliably in all conditions. That means that in most cases, the bolt is being operated much more violently than is really necessary. That's going to mean more felt recoil and will cause increased wear and tear.”

Most prefer that the rifle just worked, rather then it being adjustable and have multiple no function settings. All the line infantry needs is another knob to turn right?

“Let's see, the M14 was adopted in ~1957 and the M16 entered service in 1964 (USAF)/1966(USA), some 9 years later. Did any other country buy M14s?”

Well gee, whom was offered the M14? You may remember that the M14 was not marketed to other countries. It was only offered after it was not longer needed here, and at that point the 7.62 NATO rifle was no longer a hot ticket item on the international arms market.

“The FAL entered service at about the same time, adopted by 60+ countries and is still in service with some. “

The Ford Escort and the VW Beetle were manufactured in greater numbers then any other cars, and some still run, heck the VW Beetle is still in production. Does that make a VW Beetle better then a Porsche 911?

“The M14 appears to have failed the test of modernity.”

Hmm, you mean like who still uses the M14, well here are some modern examples, like in the last few months, and like with a modern army:

http://www.gunsnet.net/album/data/500/2297M14_in_Ghan-med.jpg
http://www.gunsnet.net/album/data/500/2297afghanm14.jpg
http://www.gunsnet.net/album/data/500/2297fc24f666.jpg

Lets see some pictures of the more “modern” FAL in action with a “modern” army.


Edited to remove the M21 pic.

[Bostonterrier97]

Both Taiwan and South Korea briefly used the M14 before switching to the M16.

South Korea ended up dumping the M16 for a more reliable rifle produced by Daewoo.

Singapore took a hard look at the AR15/M16 and decided that they preferred the AR180 design and ended up with their own Assault Rifle based on Stoner's later work.

Not everyone went "gaga" over the M16 or the FAL (or the AK for that matter).

For many countries it was a matter of Cost, and if Uncle Sam decided to imitate the Soviet Union by giving away Assault Rifles..well the price is right...RIGHT?

As for Cartridges..one of the critical factors which is often overlooked and which can have an effect on a weapon's reliability is the degree of taper in the cartridge Case.

Cartridge Cases with a larger degree of taper have fewer extraction problems.

If a case has little taper than it is going to be harder to extract a round from a dirty and hot chamber.

Another consideration overlooked is the use of spitzer vs round nose bullets.

Round Nose bullets penetrate better than Spitzers. For the AVERAGE grunt, since ranges aren't going to be more than about 300-500 yards, a Round Nose Bullet makes more sense.

(Snipers: whose mission is different, will use FMJBT's)

Which brings us to the 6.5mm caliber...consider a 160 grain FMJRN, in 6.5mm. such a round would offer better penetration through cover than either the 308 or the .223

Or if you want something a little lighter, consider the 257 Roberts.

I think the Swedes had it right with the 6.5x55 cartridge.

[355sigfan]

Interestingly enough, Armalite offers a .243 in an AR-15 rifle. Perhaps I should pursue such an upper.

END

Actually there is no AR15 in 243. There is a AR10 a 308 sized rifle in 243. As to 3 round burst it sucks on a 223 and it would suck on a M14. It gives you two trigger pulls when your firing in semi auto. Training will accomplish anything the 3 rnd burst mechanism was meant to accomplish.
PAT

[Destructo6]

Well gee, whom was offered the M14? You may remember that the M14 was not marketed to other countries. It was only offered after it was not longer needed here, and at that point the 7.62 NATO rifle was no longer a hot ticket item on the international arms market.
Do you honestly believe that had Britain, or any other similarly friendly country, wanted it it would have been refused?

Oh, and the DMR rifles aren't any more run of the mill M14s than PSGs are run of the mill G3s. Let's compare apples to apples.

[Gerald McDonald]

A quick question, how many posters here used both in combat, an which did you prefer. I have a brother in law who was (or should I say is, as once a marine always a marine) a marine in Vietnam, and a good freind who was an army ranger in Vietnam. Both served during the transition period between M-14 and M-16. Actually my bro-in-law wasnt issued an M-16 as the marines kept the 14 in service longer and he was an Ontos driver so they got the grease gun (which he ditched to aquire a m-14) and a 1911. The friend was issued a 14 then switched to a 16, then did an unauthorized switch back to 14. They both think very highly of the 14 and show not a little contempt for the 16, which I have heard my bro-in-law call the "mighty Mattel". I realize the 16 has come a long way since then but why would two combat veterans think so highly of a rifle such as the 14 that is being deemed a failure.

[Andrew Wyatt]

The m-14 was NOT OFFERED FOR SALE TO ANYONE. Saying the m-14 was a failure because only the americans used it is like saying the enfield was a failure because only the brits used it.


afaik, those m-14's are run of the mill m-14s with naught but a scope mount and an acog on them.

[JohnKSa]

Ekie,

Which mil-spec FAL trigger have you tried? Parts kit guns don't count.

Which mil-spec M14 trigger have you tried? NM triggers, or specially tuned triggers don't count. I'm talking a trigger the way it would have come off the rack on an issue weapon.

I don't buy your argument regarding the gas adjustment. By that argument, the sights shouldn't be adjustable except at the factory. Or at least, it should require special tools...

As for the comparison between a Porsche and a VW, come on. They're not even remotely in the same category! If you want a more valid comparison, compare a VW to a Corvair. Given roughly similar designs, roughly similar cost and roughly similar target markets, then, yes, it does follow that the one that stays in production longest and is most widely distributed must have some significant advantage(s).

Your pictures don't prove anything. You could have just as easily posted a bunch of pics of snipers using bolt rifles in modern conflicts and then claimed that was proof that the bolt rifle is a viable military issue weapon. There are always special purpose troops that have special purpose weapons. If the FAL had ever been a general issue weapon for the U.S. you can bet that there would be some special ops guys carrying FALs along with the guys using M14s.

I think everyone realizes that the M14 would reliably function in full-auto. However, not even the most diehard spray and pray advocate is going to be happy putting one round on target and then spraying the rest at the clouds.

Destructo6,

I believe it was 90+ countries that adopted the FAL, not 60+.

esldude,

The current rifle is 3 round burst because anything longer than that will ruin the barrel in as long as it takes to empty the magazine. Not because the gun was uncontrollable.

Besides, 3 round burst does nothing for controllability. If the gun is uncontrollable in FA, then all 3 round burst does is keep you from wasting more than two rounds each time you pull the trigger.



Ok, this wasn't meant to be an FAL vs M14 thread but that's where it's ended up. So, here goes...

Advantages of the FAL over the M14.

Clean from the breech
Top cover keeps dirt out of the mechanism
Adjustable gas system allows wide latitude in ammo choice
Lighter
Easier to scope
Simpler sights. No windage knobs to screw up.
Modern stock design (This is where a lot of the controllability comes from)

I'd list the M14 advantages over the FAL (there are several), but I think someone else will save me the time. ;)

[Ekie]

"Do you honestly believe that had Britain, or any other similarly friendly country, wanted it would have been refused?"

Ah, well, history did not work out that way, the UK adopted the FAL at a point were the T44 was just a simple prototype, and in such a form Springfield would not have given them a single one. There was no internationally available rifle in T65 to compete against the FAL in 1954, so a no brainer on which rifle to replace their turn bolts with. Look back at history, remember the congressional investigation into the infantry troops carrying M1 Garands in Berlin? Six years after the UK adoption of the FAL Springfield could not manufacture enough M14s for USGIs, let alone set up another program some where else. Or how about this, name one single country that field tested the M14 against other rifles in a competition and selected another rifle for standard, just one. Did you like that bit about the VW Beetle, I did, hehe.

"Oh, and the DMR rifles aren't any more run of the mill M14s than PSGs are run of the mill G3s. Let's compare apples to apples."

You like apples, me like apples to, like Andrew wyatt said:

"afaik, those m-14's are run of the mill m-14s with naught but a scope mount and an acog on them."

Well, one is a M21, could remove that picture if it offends? The others are "non-modern" rack grade M14s. So, how about them apples, and where are your "run of the mill" "modern" FAL apples to compare with since we are comparing apples to apples?

BTW, the DMR is a Marine Corp rifle, those M14s pictured are US Army.

“Which mil-spec FAL trigger have you tried? Parts kit guns don't count.”

Well, this example of a BSA trigger just happens to come to mind:

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78865

”Which mil-spec M14 trigger have you tried? NM triggers, or specially tuned triggers don't count. I'm talking a trigger the way it would have come off the rack on an issue weapon.”

This here rack grade TRW trigger is the first that I thought of as an example:

http://www.gunsnet.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=124890

“I don't buy your argument regarding the gas adjustment. By that argument, the sights shouldn't be adjustable except at the factory. Or at least, it should require special tools...”

Like an AK? Go to the Bulgarian Arsenal factory firing range and tell them you need a sight adjustment tool, hehe.

”As for the comparison between a Porsche and a VW, come on. They're not even remotely in the same category! If you want a more valid comparison, compare a VW to a Corvair. Given roughly similar designs, roughly similar cost and roughly similar target markets, then, yes, it does follow that the one that stays in production longest and is most widely distributed must have some significant advantage(s).”

So a FAL is a VW Beetle, and a M14 is a Corvair? Some one made a point that greater production and adoption had something to say about the viability of a product, and I made a counter point.

”Your pictures don't prove anything. You could have just as easily posted a bunch of pics of snipers using bolt rifles in modern conflicts and then claimed that was proof that the bolt rifle is a viable military issue weapon. There are always special purpose troops that have special purpose weapons.”

Take a closer look, those are airborne infantry with M14 rifles, not sniper qualified individuals with $5,000 turn bolts (with the one exception of the M21). Again, this was posted in response to an individual who pointed out that the FAL “is still in service with some.” My response was the M14 is still in use by some, and none other then US Army Airborne. While the FAL is “is still in service with some”, like India, hehe.

“If the FAL had ever been a general issue weapon for the U.S. you can bet that there would be some special ops guys carrying FALs along with the guys using M14s.”

Yep.

”I'd list the M14 advantages over the FAL (there are several), but I think someone else will save me the time.”

Hehe, probably so. And you left out quite a few advantages of the FAL over the M14.

[JohnKSa]

Ok, I'll bite...if I were a cat, my curiosity would have killed me by now. ;)

Give us your take on the trigger differences.

BTW, those guys in the pics may not be special ops types, but they're not run of the mill ground pounders either. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to picture what would happen if Private Joe Average Grunt went to the armorer and tried to swap his M16 for an M14. :D

I dunno about all the ins and outs of who did and didn't get offered the M14s for sale. Still, I gotta believe that any government who figured that the M14 was the cat's pajamas would have been able to convince some gunmaker somewhere to crank out a few thousand. Wasn't Springfield looking for a customer pretty hard right about that time? ;)

[Destructo6]

enfield was a failure because only the brits used it.
Only that Brits, Canucks, Aussies, Indians, USA, ... used it.

The US didn't need to make them (M14s) for Britain, et al. They were capable of manufacturing them themselves.

How can you tell they're rack grade from those images? How can you tell the users haven't been to sniper school?

[Ekie]

“Give us your take on the trigger differences.”

You want my opinion? Who the heck cares what one guys opinion is? I do note that it is rare indeed for an individual to claim the FAL trigger pull is superior too much other then say a AUG, a G3, or a 10 pound squirt gun trigger.

“BTW, those guys in the pics may not be special ops types, but they're not run of the mill ground pounders either. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to picture what would happen if Private Joe Average Grunt went to the armorer and tried to swap his M16 for an M14.”

True.

“I dunno about all the ins and outs of who did and didn't get offered the M14s for sale.”

You have plenty of company on that one.

“Wasn't Springfield looking for a customer pretty hard right about that time?”

They had only one customer, that being the US, and did not have the option of seeking others.

I will take these two following quotes together since they are both the same subject.

“Still, I gotta believe that any government who figured that the M14 was the cat's pajamas would have been able to convince some gunmaker somewhere to crank out a few thousand.”

“The US didn't need to make them (M14s) for Britain, et al. They were capable of manufacturing them themselves.”

In the case of the UK in 1953 they were still armed with turn bolts, and the Cold War was starting to get “heavy”. So they were at the point of needing to make a decision. They only had three options, that being the M1 Garand, the EM2, and the FN-FAL. The T44 was not an option, it was merely a prototype and one that did not perform as well as the FN rifle at the time. The EM2 would put the UK in the position of having a non standard caliber (a serious issue after WWII), and it was quite clear the US was going with the T65, and that Canada was following that lead. The Garand was passed over for many reasons, the Canadian Korean experience being the foremost strike against it. The Canadians (who had ordered a few thousand FALs at this point), the US, and their own tests showed the FN rifle to be a superior rifle and the US had all ready placed an order for over 3,000 FN rifles, so the best option was taken, and the FAL was adopted (made official in January 1954).

The whole standardized cartridge thing in the 1950’s was a total cluster, with the US pushing the T65. To cap it off the US dumped the T65 (then 7.62 NATO) as the standard A infantry rifle cartridge just a touch over 10 years after it was NATO standard.

“How can you tell they're rack grade from those images? How can you tell the users haven't been to sniper school?”

Well, I could say that I have the inside scoop, and am in the know, but the best in print info on the current status of the M14 can be found in the June 2003 issue of the American Rifleman. It is covered purdy well in the article, and you should have a copy, in that the NRA mails it out every month. Fred also covered the subject in the SGNs a few issues back, but his write up was flawed in the statements of some facts.

You can also come to the conclusion that these are M14s and not M21s just looking at the numbers. Notice the top picture of an 82nd Airborne squad, there in is two M14s. Since when do you have two equipped snipers in a single 82nd squad? I mean, how many M21s are left, and how many are still maintained, and who may I asked is trained to up keep the M21? Also note that one of the M14s does not even have an optic. So yes, these are run of the mill “apples”, and not fancy “oranges”. Could post some fancy M14 “oranges” pictures too, but am still waiting for the FAL apple pictures.

[SodaPop]

If the Yankees have been digging up the M14 in Iraq.....

Have the Brits been digging up the FALS?

[JohnMc]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and point to the concept of modern military doctrine, rather than a specific rifle that caused the adoption of the .223 (and a rifle that shoots it.)

I think the Sturmgewehr MP43/StG44 (7.92x33mm) was the first of this type of rifle.

By this doctrine, individual soldiers don't shoot at more than 400 meters (give or take), rather the squad and company machine guns handle that.

By switching to a rifle with smaller cartridges, the individual could carry more rounds per given weight & the gubmint can save on cost of ammo.

There's more to it than that, I'm sure, but that's what I remember.

JohnMc

PS I heard once that the switch to 3 round burst was because of wasted ammo in full auto. That true?

[Destructo6]

SodaPop, I don't think they have any to dig up.

[Grump]

Okay, who has done side-by-side comparisons with the fiddleforever FAL fartsystem, and the M14 SELF-REGULATING gas system?

Quote:
Advantages of the FAL over the M14.

[snip]
Adjustable gas system allows wide latitude in ammo choice
[snip]

M14s will cycle with ammo that's down to 1700 fps. NO gas adjustment on the FAL (L1A1 inch pattern, okay) would work below 1900 fps. Both guns were well-broken in and passed the tilt 30 degrees test for smoothly opening and closing the bolt.:neener: :neener: :neener:

Some things should be adjustable by the grunt--windage on the sights for any shot beyond 200 yards, because the wind blows!!! Let's not saddle the poor grunt with other futzing to keep himself ALIVE with a rifle that goes bang instead of click.

FAL was first, but the M14 was better with the sole exception of the stock. I know a guy who trained for his entire military/security career, starting with the M1 and ending with the M16A2. He reports that each successor was more reliable than the previous, but that was in a desert climate with relatively little dust. The biggest improvement was from M1 to M14.

All the recent variations on the M16 platform lead me to believe that the M16A1 was a failure. The non-PIP'd M16 certainly was. Both the M16 series and the FAL can jam with empty cases in odd little locations inside the receiver which are far more difficult to clear than the jams possible with either the M1 or the M14.

The ideal would have been a cartridge on the head size of the 7.62 x 39, but maybe 48mm long, in 6mm or 6.5mm, shooting a very high-BC bullet at close to 3,000 fps (3200 is probably not needed). The weapon should have been shorter than the M14 by 4 inches, using a 25- or 30-round mag made of steel, and as close to 7 to 7-1/2 pounds as possible. It could have resembled an AR18 system on a bullpup stock using synthetics and an M16A2-style front sight out on the end of the barrel and a nice adjustable sight. Optics mount capability would be mandatory. This could have replaced the M1 and the BAR and the carbine. BAR is a limited-purpose item. The SMG and the GPGM would remain needed as separate items.

The full-power 7.62 NATO, combined with some late doctrine changes and an over-reaching into the nirvana of "light weight" is why we adopted the M16 series, which works amazingly well despite the funky gas system.

[SodaPop]

SodaPop, I don't think they have any to dig up.


They gotta have a ton of them in storage somewhere.:barf:

They dumped the FAL not that long ago.

[kotengu]

"Have the Brits been digging up the FALS?"

Yes - except they call them L1A1's :D

Not to mention our very own special forces have been known to carry a FAL or two.

Pics pop up on the FAL Files every so often of a current conflict in which FALs are still in use. Of course I don't have any at my fingertips, but IIRC we've seen USA, Israel, India, Britain, several African countries, some South American countries, and I think Singapore. Hell, it seems like we even saw one of those crazy Canucks with one awhile ago!

Needless to say, the FAL is still very much in use (I'd hazard a guess at much more so than the M14), and and excellent weapon. However, that doesn't mean that the M14 is a pile of dog $hit - what was it the wise man said?

"Just because you're right doesn't mean I'm wrong." :cool:

[Destructo6]

While it doesn't seem that long ago to me, maybe age catching up with me, the L85 is closing in on 20 years of service (1985).
The ideal would have been a cartridge on the head size of the 7.62 x 39, but maybe 48mm long, in 6mm or 6.5mm,
Maybe something along the lines of the Czech 7.62x45?

[amprecon]

I thought the Brits were working on a .260 caliber not a .280 caliber for the FAL but I don't remember. I think this might have been a promising development. If only the U.S. had developed the AK in .260 caliber we might of had a nice compromise, accuracy with an American barrel and bolt/carrier assembly, and the range and energy of a .260 caliber bullet.
From the little I've seen or read of the Daewoo it appears they might be on to something, a piston/carrier/bolt assembly in a rifle utilizing M-16 bullets and magazines. Now, just convert it to the .260 caliber and the S. Koreans might have a winner.
I agree with what someone else stated here about relegating full-auto to the belt-feds and pistol caliber carbines where they can be controlled properly.
The pistol caliber sub-guns have their place, longer range than a shotgun and alot of firepower available. Maybe the idea of the assault rifle has come and gone and we don't even realize it yet. Maybe the semi-auto is the best thing going in standard longarms.
The one-size-fits-all or jack-of-all-trades usually turn out to be duds.

[esldude]

Amprecon,

You might be on to something I believe. One of the best posts in this thread. The age of the assault rifle may have passed.

So at say 50 yards and closer, would a full auto pistol caliber carbine with big magazines be better than a semi-auto .223 or similar?

[Andrew Wyatt]

no. a .223 semi auto would be better than a subgun.


subguns have very specific uses, and they're best used indoors.

[Grump]

Well, IMNSHAndBloviatedOpinion:) , the desireability/utility of a subgun vs. a .223 for targets inside 100 yards is mission-specific. Soft targets, subgun's okay, although the MAC-types could be called machine pistols which are best for inside 50 yards, max. Harder targets, definitely GO with the .223.

We could close the gap a bit by using steel core (not mild-steel jacket) ammo in the subguns. Or maybe loading them in threes--AP, tracer/incendiary and Black Talons. Best of all worlds and luck of the draw on whether your hit is the best bullet..

Have we once again followed the pattern of preparing for the last war instead of the next one? For post-battle occupation like this week's Iraq, caliber and weapon platform seem to make little difference. For moderate-intensity search and destroy like last year's Afghanistan, the longer-range intermediate round and, I say, gas piston rifle seems better than A2s and especially M4s. Inside caves, it appears we use the M4 a lot but a mix of 3 subguns to one rifle/carbine might be a bit better.

One thing we're getting right--OPTICS!

[Ekie]

Here are some more:


http://m14.freeservers.com/images/m14_iraq.jpg

http://m14.freeservers.com/images/1apr0382nd4.jpg

http://m14.freeservers.com/images/1apr0382nd6.jpg

[kotengu]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1280000/images/_1281881_untroops300ap.jpg
UN troops - all with the FAL, in Uruguay, I believe.

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/south/12/11/kashmir.attack/story.soldier.afp.jpg
India

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=489084
Venezuela

[kotengu]

Sorry - it seem like most of the other links to FAL pics are dead now (no longer CURRENT events). This last one is admittedly a bit old, but still one of my favorites - how can you go wrong with weapons like these?

[Ekie]

Oh, Third World pictures. Well heck, you can find any rifle in Third World use, including the Garand. Here are some examples:

http://www.photobucket.com/albums/0603/Ekie12091941/fe7b4c81.jpg
http://www.photobucket.com/albums/0603/Ekie12091941/700449c4.jpg
http://www.photobucket.com/albums/0603/Ekie12091941/469e7c21.jpg
http://www.photobucket.com/albums/0603/Ekie12091941/82781735.jpg
http://www.photobucket.com/albums/0603/Ekie12091941/dbdd40e4.jpg
http://www.photobucket.com/albums/0603/Ekie12091941/8ee72e29.jpg

[Ekie]

Great blast from the past Khukuri picture, that is one of my favorites, here is another blast from the past:

http://www.photobucket.com/albums/0603/Ekie12091941/4a2826cd.jpg

[Ekie]

Just for good measure here are some current pictures of both the DMR, and the M21, but those are "oranges".

http://www.photobucket.com/albums/0603/Ekie12091941/ab090413.jpg
ttp://www.photobucket.com/albums/0603/Ekie12091941/87322ac2.jpg
http://www.photobucket.com/albums/0603/Ekie12091941/64fe6c3f.jpg
http://www.photobucket.com/albums/0603/Ekie12091941/60f10bcb.jpg
http://www.gunsnet.net/album/data/500/2297ussf3434.jpg

[Ekie]

Got to thinking, maybe a better title for this thread would be:

The weak sister M4/A1 Carbine is the reason why the M14 is back!

http://www.troyind.com/images/SOPMOD%20cqb.jpg

[kotengu]

Well, as long as we're wasting bandwidth.......

http://fototime.com/4197C84AE729244/standard.jpg
US Army Captain in Iraq with para-FAL


http://fototime.com/F1695403EFE8AC2/standard.jpg
Somali Trooper (or African trooper in Somalia) with para


http://fototime.com/261C10C53B531AB/standard.jpg
Dutch Marines coming ashore


http://www.falfiles.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=661537
OK - not an "army", but a great showing of a "homeland defense" rifle!

[kotengu]

Brits in Desert Storm
http://fototime.com/74297D7169E5E60/standard.jpg

http://fototime.com/96608B77CE698E3/standard.jpg

[wjkuleck]

May I suggest that those interested in the "whys" of the M14 vs. FAL and M16 reread "The FAL Story," "The Black Rifle" and "The M14 Rifle: From John Garand to the M21."

Or, for the Readers' Digest version, chapter two, "Genesis," of "The AR-15 Complete Owner's Guide."

There's no need for speculation, as we have ample recorded history. It's late, so I'm not going to drag out the books one more time, but I will make a few points.

The 6.5-7mm caliber has, since the Pattern 13 of 1913, continued to surface as the "ideal" caliber for infantry rifles. It's big enough to do damage, yet small enough to have a high MV and BC, giving a flat trajectory. Thus, the 280 Enfield and 260 FN of the late '40's.

And trajectory, friends, is what is all about, it you believe the Hall and Hitchman Reports. Based on input from SLAM Marshall, the Ops Research folks determined in the early '50's that since troops couldn't/wouldn't estimate range, you needed a "set and forget" caliber, one with a battle zero of 300 meters or so, which was as far as the eye could see on the battlefiled, or so the thinking went.

The upshot of this analysis was the SCHV (Small Caliber High Velocity) concept that had its culmination in the SPIW (Special Purpose Individual Weapon). The SPIW was to fire flechettes three at a time (generally consecutively, with a very high cyclic rate), so that their natural dispersion would compensate for the trooper's aiming errors. These little arrows came out at 4,000 fps or so and were dead flat out to 300 (think of what the BC must have been!).

In conjuction with this "point fire" capability, the SPIW was also to have an autoloading grenade launcher. The 40mm Hi/Lo round was developed for this launcher. So you could stick 'em with a needle and thump 'em with a grenade.

The SPIW foundered on the problem of stripping the sabot from the flechette, and the cost of the flechette rounds. However, the grenade launcher evolved into the M203, which was the only result of the millions of dollars expended on this abortive project.

However, the M16 was seen to have SCHV possibilities, and as a bonus, worked well in the VN boonies and with our small-statured ARVIN co-belligerents. The M16 was seen as a stopgap until the SPIW was perfected. The M16 has been a stopgap for thirty-five years or so now. Don't despair, the SPIW has finally been perfected; we call it the OICW: point & area fire, only now with laser ranging and computerize fuzing.

Deja vu all over again.

As for the ideal caliber... the latest is a 6.8 mm confection that's the cat's meow. Watch for it soon at your local arms room.

So the story is really a lot more involved than the "let's ape the Germans with their 7.92 Kurtz and the Russkies with their 7.62 M43." Yes, the "assault rifle" concept was a part of the equation, but after 1950 far from the biggest part. The AW merged into the SCHV to give us the M16.

Thanks for bearing with me.

Regards,

Walt Kuleck

[Grump]

The OICW's $25.00 grenade cartridges are reputed to be "up to" 300% more effective in hit probability than the M16A2 system.

Now, I calculate that cost per round as compared to a 25-cent M855 5.56mm round as abo--- scratch that--precisely 10,000% more expensive (or 100 times the cost). So, we can spend 75 cents and fire three times and be almost guaranteed, statistically, to have the same hit probability. And save $24.25!

This is progress?

Unless the USA hits some sort of public funds jackpot on a scale similar to Kuwait's per capita wealth, the future of the OICW and its spendy, small, explosive grenades as quite limited. One per squad...'cause when you need that air-burst HE, you need it BAD.

[Gewehr98]

But first, a welcome to Dr. Walt Kuleck! Took ya long enough to visit over here at THR...

And, if I'm not mistaken, that emaciated-looking farmer from Zimbabwe, sporting the fashionable bandolier, could be mistaken for Skunkabilly's lost twin brother. I think, if you put both of them on a scale with ammo and guns, they *might* add up to 200 pounds. :D

In the last several months, I saw a bunch of plain-vanilla M14's on a couple USNS ships (white hulls). Marines were the users in the detail. Part of their anti-piracy protection suite. Gotta love it.

[wjkuleck]

Thanks...I think!

Actually I'm spread so thin you can shine a TACM-III thru me; but this looks like a great group, so I'll have to stop by now and then.

Very best regards,

Walt

[Fatelvis]

As a military arm, I dont think the AR and M14 are in the same league. I think the M14 is vastly superior in almost every aspect, (except weight), and think it was a mistake that the US went to the AR.

[wjkuleck]

Issues of "superiority" are dependent on one's criteria.

The 5.56-MM met the requirements of flat trajectory and low recoil (permitting burst fire). These requirements were intended to reduce the skill level necessary to inflict casualites on the enemy. Consequently, the 5.56-MM and the M16 are superior to the M14 according to these criteria!

I suspect your criteria differ from those used to determine the superiority of the 5.56-MM and the M16.

Regards,

Walt

[tex_n_cal]

I thought part of the reasoning (though few will admit it) for the 5.56mm was that it was better at wounding than the bigger 7.62mm. Some smarty-pants realized that wounded soldiers take up three or four times the resources that DRT victims of war use up.

Of course, this works fine when going against civilized armed forces like our guys. Something tells me that wounded, unsuccessful would-be martyrs do not get much consideration in the third world, let alone enjoy a life full of the honey and limitless virgins they were promised.:D

[wjkuleck]

...I've never seen any mention of this—differential wounding, and the three to carry one hypothesis—in source documents, narratives or contemporary histories.

I suspect it's an urban military gun myth.

Regards,

Walt Kuleck

[Art Eatman]

I'd bet the differential wounding bit came from the "more civilized" era of WW I warfare. (If it did indeed exist even then.) Odds are that benefits would accrue more to the enemies of the U.S. and its European allies.

Art

[Andrew Wyatt]

that wounding taking up resources is nonsense, since there is a medical corps already formed to support them.


A dead man is out of the fight permanently.

[wjkuleck]

Andrew is correct.

Further, you think that the Taliban or al-Queda care for their wounded?

Remember that dying a martyr in the faith is a very good thing.

Regards,

Walt

[wjkuleck]

...and another thing.

Those bullets that require breaking at the cannelure or turning left at the sternum are confounded by really skinny targets. We've found that the bullets don't have enough target to work with; they're out the back before they have time to do their little dances.

I've some great shots of gelatin superimposed on the typical Somalian. The expansion of the wound cavity takes place after complete penetration.

Regards,

Walt

[Art Eatman]

Andrew, there must be miles of Vietnam-era TV footage showing non-Medics taking guys to some form of aid station. Sometimes this was during active combat, not in the aftermath.

Art

[EchoSixMike]

The wounding being preferential to killing thing was developed by the same "Whiz kid" book-smart morons that gave us the SPIW. Along with all the other "pie in the sky" money wasting projects that any 22YO grunt could tell you wouldn't work. Now don't get me wrong, they are useful as development and "push the enevelope" technology, but wasting time and money pushing them towards fielding is insane. The current project is OICW, which would be great as a R&D project, but the concept of fielding is crazy at this time.

Wounding is better than killing only for Western military units that care about their troops, and only when the enemy is not in close combat. For situations where those conditions are not met, I want to blow the BG into bits and pieces. When I shoot him, I want it to act like hitting a Ziploc bag of strawberry jam with a mallet.

5.56x45 is preferable to 7.62x51 because you can shoot it faster, more acccurately, increasing the chance that one or more of your shots will actually hit the BG. M80 and M855 have similar enough performance on "skinny people" so that achieving the hit is the most critical concern, not terminal performance. When Joe sees Mr BG, he can get off twice the accurate shots with a 5.56 vice a 7.62, increasing the chance that Mr BG starts bleeding, which is one of the combat life taking steps (Stop the breathing, start the bleeding, inflict wounds, cause shock;)

Joe can carry twice the ammo in 5.56 vice 7.62, which is important when your supply folks are busy getting lost and shot up and not getting the grunts their supplies. Yes, that's a cheap shot at the combat mentality lacking pogues. TGDB.

The M14 was reissued out of old stocks due to the US military bureaucracy being the way it is. It is easier to issue M14's with scopes, than it is to issue Mk262 Mod 0 or Mod 1 to the riflemen in place of M855. Which would be the preferable step for so many reasons, not the least of which would be better all around effectiveness and commonality of ammo within the squad.

The FAL is a decent weapon, but it's trigger and sights in no way compare to a M14(not an M1A either, but we're talking issue GI rifles). Issueing PIP'd M14's that incorporate a lot of the NM stuff would be fairly easy considering that the issue 1903 was basically a match rifle that went to war. The fiberglass M14 stock does not need glass bedding to be extremely accurate. I have shot into the mid-460's with a issue M14 and M852 ammo back when M14's/M1A's were the standard for NRA HP shooting.

The M14 is more than durable and reliable enough for combat use, relative to the FAL. One is not superior enough to the other to merit switching from one to the other unless you like wasting money. Semper Fidelis....Ken M

[Ekie]

kotengu

Thanks for the pictures, I saved em all. Bunch of great old shots. Oh, and the Captain with the Para, figure that is a battlefield pick up? Like this one:

http://www.photobucket.com/albums/0603/Ekie12091941/2281f7d9.jpg

Dr. Walt Kuleck

Good to see you drop by.

EchoSixMike

"The M14 is more than durable and reliable enough for combat use, relative to the FAL. One is not superior enough to the other to merit switching from one to the other unless you like wasting money. Semper Fidelis....Ken M"

Well stated.

[kotengu]

Nice AK pic - I'd guess it was a "pickup", but there have also been all sorts of "halfway" confirmed rumors about DSA supplying some FALs for our boys. I don't know why the .gov would buy from DSA when I'm sure they could get the real thing elsewhere (FA and such), but it keeps on surfacing........

[Ekie]

Have also seen the DSA rumor pop up many times at falfiles, and I have the same doubts, but if true we will find out.

[wjkuleck]

Thanks for the kind words, EchoSixMike!

Now, to the question at hand:

The wounding being preferential to killing thing was developed by the same "Whiz kid" book-smart morons that gave us the SPIW.

I'm still unaware of any original source material that would confirm this as an operations research or etc. conclusion or even postulate.

I'd sure like to find some, if anyone has it!!

Thanks.

Best regards,

Walt Kuleck
Fulton Armory

[wjkuleck]

Nice AK pic - I'd guess it was a "pickup",

Note that in his right hand you'll see an M9. From the reports I've seen, if all I had was an M9 I'd sure keep my eyes peeled for an AK!

Regards,

Walt Kuleck
Fulton Armory

[Ekie]

"I'm still unaware of any original source material that would confirm this as an operations research or etc. conclusion or even postulate.

I'd sure like to find some, if anyone has it!!"

Walt, you know good and well that this is merely urban myth.

[Futo Inu]

This is the most interesting thread I've read in months, maybe ever.

Grump: "The ideal would have been a cartridge on the head size of the 7.62 x 39, but maybe 48mm long, in 6mm or 6.5mm, shooting a very high-BC bullet at close to 3,000 fps (3200 is probably not needed). The weapon should have been shorter than the M14 by 4 inches, using a 25- or 30-round mag made of steel, and as close to 7 to 7-1/2 pounds as possible. It could have resembled an AR18 system on a bullpup stock using synthetics and an M16A2-style front sight out on the end of the barrel and a nice adjustable sight. Optics mount capability would be mandatory. This could have replaced the M1 and the BAR and the carbine. BAR is a limited-purpose item. The SMG and the GPGM would remain needed as separate items."

I think you're onto something there. Which of any rifle in the world today, in any configuration, most closely matches that description? :)

Ekie: 1. What is that a picture of? 2. What do you mean the .243 is "over bore?"

And what is yours and others opinions of the 280 Brit/Belgian cartridge mentioned as a theoretical choice? Does it simply have a shorter case than the 308/243?

[Art Eatman]

The wounding/medics/killing thing has been around to my knowledge since before the Korean conflict...

Art

[Caseless]

Great topic. Lots of great info and neat pics.
However, I still think the U.S. military will win any current conflict regardless of what rifle/caliber they are equipped with. Heck, with our air superiority, and precision heavy artillery, the army can probably take out any opposing force armed with 22 LR rifles.;)

[Powderman]

Grump: "The ideal would have been a cartridge on the head size of the 7.62 x 39, but maybe 48mm long, in 6mm or 6.5mm, shooting a very high-BC bullet at close to 3,000 fps (3200 is probably not needed). The weapon should have been shorter than the M14 by 4 inches, using a 25- or 30-round mag made of steel, and as close to 7 to 7-1/2 pounds as possible. It could have resembled an AR18 system on a bullpup stock using synthetics and an M16A2-style front sight out on the end of the barrel and a nice adjustable sight. Optics mount capability would be mandatory. This could have replaced the M1 and the BAR and the carbine. BAR is a limited-purpose item. The SMG and the GPGM would remain needed as separate items."

Something, perhaps, like a lightened and shortened M14, in .22 or 6mm PPC?

[Ekie]

"1. What is that a picture of?"

I posted well over 10 pictures, you will have to be more specific.

"2. What do you mean the .243 is "over bore?""

In short, to much powder down to small a hole. A over bore cartridge is not acceptable for military use in that barrel life is to short (among other problems).

"And what is yours and others opinions of the 280 Brit/Belgian cartridge mentioned as a theoretical choice? Does it simply have a shorter case than the 308/243?"

I personally am found of the concept of the .280 UK round. I don't think it would find much favor for use in a modern assault rifle in that the recoil generated is excessive for full auto use. There was also a manufacturing problem involving the accuracy of the round. The new Chi-Com round is looking to be quite a performer, by modern standards.

[wjkuleck]

It appears that the leading candidate is the 6.8x43mm SPC, 110-120 gr @ 2500-2700 fps.

The current RFP mandates M16 basic ergonomics, with certain enhancements, e.g., with respect to the buttstock comb height. We might wish for a return to the Garand "lock, stock 'n barrel" type rifle, but it ain't gonna happen.

For a candidate, see below.

Regards,

Walt Kuleck

http://www.fulton-armory.com/RAV02.jpg

Test Fire: 1.5MB mpeg (http://www.fulton-armory.com/BJFullAuto2.mpg)

[Bostonterrier97]

The 6mm PPC while a very efficient cartridge, it is a poor choice for a combat rifle because of the lack of taper in the cartridge case.

In order to insure extraction, automatic and semi-automatic rifles need to have a cartridge case which has some taper to it. The more taper, the easier it is to extract a empty case from a hot and dirty chamber.

I think either a 257 Roberts or a 6.5x55mm cartridge would be idea.
Both cartridges have a good amount of taper in the case, both have enough case capacity to drive a bullet close to 3000 fps.

The Ballistic Coefficient and Sectional Density of both calibers is a very good compromise.

[Futo Inu]

ACP230: Hey the 250 Savage might indeed be an excellent cartridge. It's smack in between 6mm and 6.5mm, has a short case, good ballistics, etc. The 250 also has a very tapered case..hmmm. The 6mm Remington also has a tapered case and wouldn't be "overbore", would it, for a military cartridge? Well, maybe it would - it's more of a full-length cartridge. 6.5mm-08 or .260 Rem seem like a good choice as well for an all-purpose M14/FAL/AR10 cartridge, for military issue, in theory anyway. Seems like the 257 Roberts and 6.5x55 might suffer from this overbore issue, no? Whereas the 250 Savage, or 6.5-08 would not.

Dumb question: Hey guys, if it's the stock that makes the M14 uncontrollabe in FA, then why didn't they/don't they simply put a different stock on the m14? Say, one with a pistol grip, and perhaps a front pistol grip, if needed? Higher butt end / otherwise change the geometry...?? What am I missing? Also, do those modern US military guys who carry the M14 use it in select fire, or semi-auto only?

Ekie, I meant the pic under your post of:

"Got to thinking, maybe a better title for this thread would be:

The weak sister M4/A1 Carbine is the reason why the M14 is back!"

[kotengu]

They did - and it failed too. They also did it with the FAL (HB versions, flip up buttplate, etc.), but a mag-fed MG with no change barrel just isn't all that helpful. It really needs to be something belt AND mag fed, with a quick-change barrel to be capable of any quantity of auto fire.

AFAIK, the M14 is used in Semi-auto.

[Futo Inu]

kotengu, point taken about the FA controllability issue. Sounds like NONE of the above are really very controllable in .308, with the M14 just being the worst of the bad - with controllable here meaning staying close to the target throughout the mag.

But I think we're talking about 2 different "it"s. You said "it" needs to be belt fed and bbl-change-capable. I guess the it you're referring to is a .308 light MG/GPMG, whereas I'm referring to the (more) major topic of the thread (admittedly there are many), that being what is in theory the ideal battle rifle, both design and cartridge, to replace, or have replaced the BAR, Garand, M1, and SMGs? Obviously, we have the m16 and it's "weak sister" the m4. But if an FAL or M14 for example would have been adopted in a smaller caliber, such as 250 Savage (or hey, what about a "6.5 Savage"?), then:

a) Would it be controllable in full-auto, if a proper stock were selected (and would your answer change for differing designs - M15, FAL, AR10, etc.???

b) Would the bbl stay cool enough to so employ the rifle, such as on an M16/M4? In other words, at what point does the bore size/cartridge selection affect the cumulative barrel heating enough to make it cool enough to be indefinitely useable as a line grunt-carried mag-fed select-fire?

Walt. SPC? RFP? Cool video, but please tell us about that gun/cartridge more, if you know? :) Looks like the Robinson Expedionary rifle, but for the banana mag. Thanks.

[wjkuleck]

...it's the Robinson adapted to the 6.8x43mm...

You can see it on their web site, marked "not for civilian sale."

Regards,

Walt
Fulton Armory

[wjkuleck]

...was called the "M14A1." There was a HB version of the M14, the M15, which was "delisted" about a day after it was "standardized" with the M14.

The stock is sometimes called the "E2" stock.

AFAIK the two were never put together.

See the pic of my "M14A1" semiauto on a very early Norinco receiver.

Very best regards,

Walt Kuleck
Fulton Armory


http://www.fulton-armory.com/M14E2_50.jpg

[Art Eatman]

Re controllability: A number of years back, SOF magazine did a comparison of an M14, an FAL and a G3--all against an old BAR.

The target was a one-meter diameter rock, out at about 500 meters. On full auto, only the BAR could be held on target throughout a full magazine. It's a weight thing, more than a stock-shape thing.

If you play John Wayne and fire a Browning air-cooled MG from the hip, as you tell yourself, "Fire a burst of six," you'll be vibrated backwards about six inches to one foot, per burst. :)

Art

[wjkuleck]

I'm hoping to do a "test" with an area PD that has recently acquired M14s from the DROS program. They've gotton the go-fast switches from Fulton Armory.

I'm going to take along my E2 stock to see if it makes any difference!

Regards,

Walt Kuleck
Fulton Armory

[Grump]

Walt, could you please arrange to have that test done in Las Vegas? There's gotta be some LE-type-related convention coming along in late Sept/end of Oct which would justify such a trip.

Then I could tag along.:) :) :)

[wjkuleck]

I don't think the Boardman, OH PD would be all that interested in your offer, unless you can come up with the funding!!

Very best regards,

Walt Kuleck

[Amish]

The US should have gone with the .280 round, which the British tests showed was a great round. Then we wouldn't be having this stupid argument all the time about the .223 vs. .308.

Personally I would pick up my AK before I pick up my DSA FAL. The FAL is too heavy, carrys less rounds, ammo costs more, which means I have less of it, and I don't need that much power most of the time.

[Grump]

ANyone have dimensions and other stats on the Brit .280 round?

If the head diameter is somewhere between the 7.62x39 and the .40 S&W, it would be worth another look.

Edit--maybe not--that's about 7mm, which would require a bullet of more than 110 gr to get decent downrange ballistics. My ideal round would need to use less brass/lead/steel to be worth looking at.

What about a Brit .280 necked down to 6.5mm? I want something flatter-shooting than the 80-gr long-loaded .223s...

[Glock Glockler]

Grump,

There exist 6mm bullets with a bc of well over.500 that weigh in at around 100grs. I've run some numbers, and if we got one of them going at around 3000fps it would have a little over 2000 ftlbs at the muzzle with well over 1200 at 500 yds downrange (perhaps more if my memory's off).

Initially I was thinking about using the short Russian case that, but I don't know if you could get quite that much power out of that case. Perhaps the Brit case is the answer, or maybe lengthening the Russian case a bit.

Either way, we'd end up with a roun that would be controllable in the right package and would even fit the role that the 308s play for longer range work and barrier penetration.

[Grump]

I was looking at the 7.62x39 round two days ago, and it looks like you could have all the neck you need if it were lengthened to 45mm and the shoulder were taken forward appropriately and maybe even made sharper.

The case wall taper could be reduced a bit as well, without losing the purported extraction benefits.

The Soviet-era 5.45x39 won't make it necked up, because they reduced the casehead diameter to almost the same as the .223. The mags work because they intruded on the interior space with deep ridges.

[wjkuleck]

Hmmm...

7.62 M43: 11,35mm

5.45 M74: 9,97mm

5.56x45mm: 9,60mm (0.378")

FYI.

Regards,

Walt

[Gewehr98]

Same head diameter as the Soviet 7.62x39, but 6mm longer. I make a bunch of it for VZ-52 shooters from 6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schonauer brass, or if need be, .220 Swift brass. ;)

[bukijin]

My first post in this forum after lurking awhile, but couldn't resist this topic. When I was in the Australian Army about 12 years ago, we used both the FAL and M-16. I have also shot but not owned a M 14.
As far as infantry tactics goes, I always thought that the point of riflemen was to protect the gun. ie the machine gun had about the same firepower as the rest of the squad combined. Since we used the M60, the great advantage of the FAL was that it used the same ammunition - a very important consideration in my opinion. The FAL was a beast of a firearm, very heavy and solid but it was the kind of rifle that you felt confident in ! Running with it wasn't fun, but shooting it was. Fully automatic - no - not in the Australian Army :)
Of course, this is all out of date now since we changed to the 5.56mm steyr and 5.56 machine gun, which are extremely popular with people I've talked to. (much lighter) Nevertheless, people mourn the M60.

[Art Eatman]

Hey, welcome to the party, bukijin! Always good to see another guy from Down Under!

:), Art

[Legionnaire]

Wow! Great thread! I've nothing to add at all, except to say thanks for all the excellent info ... and I still want an M1A.

[wjkuleck]

:what:

Fulton Armory is now manufacturing its own semiauto M14s with our own receiver, marked:

US Rifle
7.62-MM M14
Fulton Armory

--see the web site (http://www.fulton-armory.com/) for details.

Thanks for your kind attention, and apologies for the commercial content, but I couldn't help it.

[Grump]

Yay, Walt!!

The commercial warning is a nice touch.

Having just missed the $149.99 price point on the Geneseo, Ill Springfield Armory receivers a few too many years ago, I'm sure that I will totally resent the price of your company's offerings. Nothing personal. I'm just a dinosaur.

So, whas'itgunnacost? And what are parts kits going for these days? AND, has anyone cooked up a mod for FN Mags to be retrofitted to work in the M14 Pattern rifle? Oversized at the front so the barrel can be fitted? A 10-oz steel thingy at the front for quick-changed barrels for a product-improved M15? (Yeah the kids on my block called the FA M14 with E2 stock M15s...)

[wjkuleck]

The price will be competitive, no fear. I will be a while before we can rest easy that each one is right and begin to ship bare receivers. Clint is very jealous of Fulton Armory's reputation for quality & service, and will not jeapordize that repuation through carelessness nor sloth.

Parts kits, as you knew them, have been gone from the market since the late '80's.

As for the enhancements you suggest, the demand now is for an M14-type rifle that is as close to the VietNam-era M14 as possible. The WWII vets that wanted a Garand, Carbine and/or M1911 'cause that's what they carried during their war are now leaving the scene. Coming on to the scene are those VietNam vets who want an M16 or M14 as they had during their war. That, by the way, is why we've introduced an M16 clone: slick side upper (no forward assist nor case deflector), pencil barrel, prong flashhider (dummy for post-ban rifles), triangular handguards, no-trap butt, the lot.

We're very mindful of the desirability of FAL mags; if & when we introduce our FAR-10, it will be designed to take FAL mags. I've not studied the matter, but I suspect adapting the FAL mag to the M14 would require signficant changes to the trigger housing as well as possibly to the receiver and other components. Likewise for a switch barrel.

If anyone is interested in fronting the engineering effort & tooling costs, we'd be glad to share in the revenues of the resulting product!

Finally, we can provide you with an M15. Just get one of our Service Grade M14s with the Medium Weight barrel upgrade!

Very best regards,

Walt

[Ekie]

Futo Inu

That is a Troy built M14.