M14 with 3 round burst

Do you mean would we be using it?
I doubt it. That concept wasn't a thing back when the M16 replaced the M14.

Not really. The rifle and it's ammo are too heavy and soldiers are burdened with so much equipment as it is. I am a veteran but not a combat veteran, however I have talked quite a bit with veterans that are. I've not heard any of them, Viet Nam or sandbox vets, complain about the M16/M4. The early M16 rifles did have some reliability problems but the cause was identified and fixed. Most of them were quite pleased with the performance of these rifles.

No. It would change nothing. Last I heard the AR platform had the 3 round burst deleted. It screwed up the trigger pull.

George Dickel said:

The rifle and it's ammo are too heavy and soldiers are burdened with so much equipment as it is.

Click to expand...

And now the brass is all fired up over a magnumized 6.8mm.

Whatever happened to the "intermediate" caliber rifle?

earplug said:

No. It would change nothing. Last I heard the AR platform had the 3 round burst deleted. It screwed up the trigger pull.

Click to expand...

I don't know about screwing up the trigger pull, but when I was in the service I shot M16s models with full auto and others with 3 round burst. As far as I remember (we're talking over 30 years now so bear with me), 3 round burst accuracy was abysmal. Most people I trained with couldn't keep burst on target any better than they could full auto and it was less effective as suppressing fire. Yes, full auto has an inherent fun factor, but if I wanted to hit what I was aiming at I'd much rather choose semi-auto. I have two M16A4 lowers with 3 round burst and I rarely use it unless a guest shooter wants to for the novelty.

The three round burst with an M-14 would show the same problem as the fully automatic version. First round on target, the rest are anti-aircraft. I fired the full automatic M-14 quite a bit and never succeeded in placing more than two rounds on a full silhouette target, and this was training, not combat. Even the E-2 version tended toward rounds going skyward. The M-16A1 was MUCH better in full automatic.

Did the double bullet ammo ever get deployed?

Terry G said:

The three round burst with an M-14 would show the same problem as the fully automatic version. First round on target, the rest are anti-aircraft. I fired the full automatic M-14 quite a bit and never succeeded in placing more than two rounds on a full silhouette target, and this was training, not combat. Even the E-2 version tended toward rounds going skyward. The M-16A1 was MUCH better in full automatic.

Click to expand...

My experience as well.

Jim Watson said:

Did the double bullet ammo ever get deployed?

Click to expand...

Yes, green tipped as I recall. I thought it had potential with the two bullet's striking about six inches apart at 150 meters.

Airborne77 said:

Does anyone think we may still be using the m14 as a main assault rifle if it was configured as a springfield c.q.b. with 3 round burst ?

Click to expand...

The answer is no. It just wasn't suitable for any kind of automatic fire.

Airborne77 said:

Does anyone think we may still be using the m14 as a main assault rifle if it was configured as a springfield c.q.b. with 3 round burst ?

Click to expand...

No.

The M14 in any configuration is not very controllable in automatic- with a burst feature, a shooter could potentially place the first round in the target and the rest way north of it. I say potentially, because the shooter would need to really brace up to exert any control of the rifle in any burst/auto mode- such positioning typically isn't helpful in delivering any type of accurate fire from most any field position. Full auto is largely wasted in any weapon not designed to fire in this mode- such weapons are generally belt fed, fire from an open bolt, and have the ability to quickly change the barrel. The M14 was pressed into service/called from retirement to address a role in during the late unpleasantness. They were retrieved out of mothballs and entered a "marriage of convenience" because they were available. IMO, they didn't do very well in that role either. Attempts with various styles of chassis and other mods in the hopes of transforming those dinosaurs into something more effective on a modern battlefield largely "fell flat". The only things the M14 were designed to mount were a sling and bayonet. Our forces had much more success with the 7.62 versions of the FN SCAR (only available in the SOF community) and much later (and still) with carbine versions of the AR10/SR25, which I understand have filtered down into conventional units. As far as the burst trigger on the M16 family of rifles, it is awful- even if the shooter doesn't use the burst feature, the design of it does no favors to the trigger when the weapon is used in the semi auto mode. I have heard that the conventional side modified their burst M4's to this configuration later on. SOF M4's from the outset were and are designed with the unrestricted FA feature- a myth was so that we could have the FA capability VS burst, The truth is, it was to prevent having a crappy trigger in semi mode. In fact, prior to the M4 being adopted and standardized, our carbines (versions like the M727 and others) were custom built at Anniston, using vintage A1 lowers with the "old" FA feature for this reason. Just my 2 cents- if it was up to me, every M4/M16 based weapon in the US mil would have only had the options of semi and safe. This would have given much more capabilities to options of replacing triggers in certain units with commercial off the shelf trigger of higher quality, like Geiselle or Larue.

JShirley said:

@Airborne77, the M14 isn't an assault rifle. American brass who believed the Myth of the American Rifleman insisted NATO adopt a full-power cartridge while NATO was trying to adopt a modern one.

After the M14's abject failure as a general issue rifle, it was replaced by the M16- which has, in some form, been the general issue rifle for over 50 years now (the M14 was for 5). The new .270 magnum will demonstrate most of the same issues the 7.62x51 weapons had, being too heavy, not being able to carry enough ammo, and not being controllable for most when shoulder-fired on FA. It will then be relegated to a few elite operators, and will be used by most of the Army as a SDM rifle (probably with longer barrel) and machine gun.

I like Sig a lot, but the X5 will not be a good general issue arm, though it will make a better accurized rifle than any M14.

John

Click to expand...

I am interested to see how long they stick with the 80K pressure full power rounds from a recoil/cost perspective versus the 60K(?) pressure practice rounds. It would not surprise me to see them relegate the 80K rounds to machine gun only use as a practical matter. Guess we will see.

absolutely not

JShirley said:

I wouldn't be surprised if we see some amount of ".40 Smith&Wessoning" to the Sig Fury, especially after a few catastrophic failures badly injure service members in the field. I don't think this will happen immediately, but I think a super pressure round + field dirt makes this inevitable.

John

Click to expand...

I swear that I had read somewhere that Sig was providing a significant amount of normal brass cased (60K or so pressure) 6.8x51 practice loads along with the 80K hybrid cased ammo. Maybe it was a fever dream. But I think your comments about them eventually downloading the rounds might be prescient. Short barrel + high pressure + heavy rifle + Sig first gen products = fill in the blank.

citizenconn said:

I am interested to see how long they stick with the 80K pressure full power rounds from a recoil/cost perspective versus the 60K(?) pressure practice rounds. It would not surprise me to see them relegate the 80K rounds to machine gun only use as a practical matter. Guess we will see.

Click to expand...

Yeah, at 80K PSI that round is going to be one major eardrum-buster for sure.

I really wish I knew what the idea behind this really was, with my limited knowledge of the whole thing it sure looks like an expensive boondoggle in the making.

Stay safe.,

Terry G said:

The three round burst with an M-14 would show the same problem as the fully automatic version. First round on target, the rest are anti-aircraft. ...

Click to expand...

This. ^^^^^^^^

With a seriously tuned compensator they may have gotten close to a usable 3rd burst configuration ... but with the lightweight M16 & its lightweight ammo coming up, the M14 was doomed to be sidelined.

The reason for my compensator comment ...

20+ years ago I was entertaining myself by developing what I found out later was referred to as a Bump Stock. For a semi-auto, wide-trunnion AK-47.

In the early phase I determined that it was aggressively uncontrollable, even with a 2rd burst. After studying what was available in the market, I found what I thought would do the job (made by Smith Enterprises); it sports an array of top vents. Adding that and what I called my trigger finger rest (to keep the finger from moving too far back under recoil) I was quickly able to put ad hoc 3rd bursts accurately on target repeatedly.

But, I digress ... Sorry.

EDIT: Added the Smith Enterprises detail ... finally remembered.

Three round burst is a waste. Its simply a bean counter trying to buy something that is easily taught, but requires some training and practice expenditures on their part, and we cant have that.

If they would just teach people how to properly shoot in FA, it would be a whole different thing, but thats just how the government works.

Riomouse911 said:

I really wish I knew what the idea behind this really was...

Click to expand...

There's always the possibility of someone having lobbied for it as a means to leech away taxpayer money...

The vast majority of M14's were issued with the selector lock. As a follow-on to the semiautomatic M1 Garand, the M14 wasn't bad. That's really how it should be looked at -- as an improved Garand.

The BAR was similarly miscast. With its lack of a quick-change barrel (inability to handle overheating) and limited magazine capacity, it made a lousy machine gun. At least the WW1 configuration had a semiautomatic setting so that single shots could be fired. (There was even a post-WW1 proposal within the army to issue it in semiautomatic only. This was made moot by the development of the Garand.) But the WW2 "fast" and "slow" rates were a step in the wrong direction. The Marines kept the semi feature.