Army sees urgent need for M14s in Iraq & Afghanistan

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rugerlvr

Member
Joined
May 1, 2006
Messages
1,145
Location
Utah
Article from Jane's:

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/land/jdw/jdw080801_1_n.shtml

US Army sees urgent need for 'longer-range' infantry weapon

By Nathan Hodge

01 August 2008

The US Army is requesting more funds to buy modified M14 rifles to meet an urgent operational need.

According to a Department of Defense reprogramming request, units in theatre want an infantry weapon that can engage targets at longer ranges than the standard 5.56 x 45 mm Colt M4 carbine and M16 rifle.

"Without this additional funding, units in the fight will not receive the long-range engagement capability they urgently need to engage improvised explosive device (IED) teams at long range and immediately respond to attacks from rocket-propelled grenades and crew-served weapon emplacements outside the range of the M4/M16 rifle," the request states. "The infantry rifle squad does not have an integrated 800 m weapon."

Funding will pay for bipods, scopes and stocks to modify the M14 rifles, which fire the more powerful NATO 7.62 x 51 mm rifle round. The M14 was phased out of service in the mid-1960s as a standard-issue rifle, but the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have seen a limited return of the M14 as a designated marksman rifle.
Click to expand...
 
Interesting.

I'd love to say, "I told you so," but I am sure RMT or Horsesoldier will have something to say about how the M16 is fine and nothing short of a shoulder launched photon torpedo will ever do anything better than it, so I'll just sit back and watch.
 
One size fits all (or not)

I'm not sure why the military can't go back to the philosophy it seemed to have in WWII, and forget once and for all the philosophy it seemed to take when it introduced the M16. One size does not fit all.

Think about it, even us civilians for personal defense may have multiple weapons for different roles. At home I carry a pistol when conducting my day to day business around the apartment. If someone breaks in with no warning and I'm in the living room it gives the advantage that it is available now. If I have time to get to my bedroom, or I'm there to begin with, I have my much more powerful shotgun. For those who can CCW you may have different sized CCW pistols for different needs.

The military in the sniper role realizes that one size doesn't fit all and has different caliber sniper rifles available for different needs.

In WWII, not counting crew served weapons or specialty weapons, there were different personal arms issued to the troops. Some had submachine guns, which due to their relative lightweight and compact size, were ideal for house clearing in urban combat and personal defense use elsewhere. Non-combat troops and those in roles where they needed a compact personal defensive weapon (tank and artillery crews for instance) got the M1 Carbine. Combat infantry were to be issued the M1 Garand for hard hitting power and longer distance offensive combat.

So why today (and for the past generation) has the military assumed that one rifle, the M16 and its derivatives can do it all? Why do some people outside the military think they should all have the M14 (or another .308 battle rifle) and it can do it all. There is sometimes a need for troops who aren't snipers to take a mid to long range shot where the 5.56 just isn't well suited. There is sometimes a need for a more lightweight and compact weapon. Why can't the military issue both, either some troops get one and some the other, or everyone is trained on both and what is issued depends upon the mission of the day?

With the desire to add more M14s to those they have in order to suppliment the M16/M4 it seems the Army may finally be learning.
 
Chaim hit it right on the head. Our military needs options available to it in the field in combat. One rifle will NEVER do the job right ALL the time. To have options, our military personnel need different rifles and calibers available to them to use at the squad level.
 
Warning! What follows is opinion:

One of the problems with 5.56 is in that intermediate range where your personal infantry weapon has to hit the enemy hard enough to keep his head down and where you're outside the casualty radius of artillery and air support. When a 2,000 lb. bomb is being used, I'd prefer to keep the enemy a bit farther away than 300 meters. I'm just sayin'.....
 
M14: poor choice for jungle warfare in SE Asia...

Pretty good option most other places.
Click to expand...

YES

Chaim hit it right on the head. Our military needs options available to it in the field in combat. One rifle will NEVER do the job right ALL the time.
Click to expand...

+1
 
I'm not sure why the military can't go back to the philosophy it seemed to have in WWII
Click to expand...

Wasn't that to arm the majority of troops, including a large portion of frontline troops with the M1 Carbine because it was cheaper and quicker to make? Not sure thats quite the philosophy we want, but it was far more issued than the M1 Garand was. The Thompson was a small issue weapon that weighed more than the Garand and obsolete with current technology. The BAR was outdated and extremely heavy though there is a replacement for it. It is not like we are not sending them all in with AR15s. There is the Minimi, grenade launchers and a variety of heavy weapons that can be used.

That saying I am not sure that a 7.62mm NATO would be that much more an advantage in taking out IEDs. I would instead call in an M2 .50 to take care of the job. That seems to be the round of choice for this job.

The M14 has some very specific roles that they can be okay for when accurised for but it is no holy grail and this has more to do with getting more money for the budget than anything else.
 
If the US military wanted to field more M14's... Are there enough old M14's in the US inventory, or will there be a need for new-build M14's to be made?

I was under the impression that we have relatively few old M14's, because the Clinton administration ordered tons of supposedly "outdated" weapons removed from inventory and destroyed.
 
...because the Clinton administration ordered tons of supposedly "outdated" weapons removed from inventory and destroyed.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that most were donated or sold to guerrilla upstarts de jour that happened to have a common enemy with the U.S. that week.

Jason
 
Wasn't that to arm the majority of troops, including a large portion of frontline troops with the M1 Carbine because it was cheaper and quicker to make? Not sure thats quite the philosophy we want, but it was far more issued than the M1 Garand was.
Click to expand...

Actually, the philosophy, was that the Garand was the infantry rifle and the Carbine was for the troops behind the lines or those in crew served weapons where the Carbine was just for personal defense. Since the majority of soliders are support soldiers the Carbine was more common. Because there were more of them, yes sometimes they got issued out of practical reality (not combat philosophy) to front line troops. They were also issued to Airborne troops due to their being lighter weight and some frontline infantry chose them for that reason as well.

The Thompson was a small issue weapon that weighed more than the Garand and obsolete with current technology.
Click to expand...
Yes, going into WWII the Thompson was already obsolete. However, since the Garand wasn't full-auto it had that advantage, and it was one of the lighter full-auto weapons we had.

Due to its heavy weight, and high cost, only a year into US involvement in the war we began issuing the stamped metal, lighter weight, M3 submachine gun (the "grease gun"). The Marines also made use of the lighter weight M50 Reising submachine gun at times.

It is not like we are not sending them all in with AR15s. There is the Minimi, grenade launchers and a variety of heavy weapons that can be used.
Click to expand...
Most of those don't have the precision of a rifle.

And none of that changes the fact that it is smart to have more than one option depending upon needs. In an urban setting mostly M16s/M4s with maybe one M14 per squad for longer shots is fine. In the deserts of Iraq or mountains of Afganistan more M14s for longer range shots with some M16s/M4s for more controllable auto (supression) fire may be the way to go. They shouldn't tie their hands by only having one main rifle. Adding the M14 (or another .308 MBR) is just one more tool in the toolbox that makes our forces more ready to deal with whatever is in front of them.
 
I'm not sure why the military can't go back to the philosophy it seemed to have in WWII, and forget once and for all the philosophy it seemed to take when it introduced the M16. One size does not fit all.

Think about it, even us civilians for personal defense may have multiple weapons for different roles. At home I carry a pistol when conducting my day to day business around the apartment. If someone breaks in with no warning and I'm in the living room it gives the advantage that it is available now. If I have time to get to my bedroom, or I'm there to begin with, I have my much more powerful shotgun. For those who can CCW you may have different sized CCW pistols for different needs.

The military in the sniper role realizes that one size doesn't fit all and has different caliber sniper rifles available for different needs.

In WWII, not counting crew served weapons or specialty weapons, there were different personal arms issued to the troops. Some had submachine guns, which due to their relative lightweight and compact size, were ideal for house clearing in urban combat and personal defense use elsewhere. Non-combat troops and those in roles where they needed a compact personal defensive weapon (tank and artillery crews for instance) got the M1 Carbine. Combat infantry were to be issued the M1 Garand for hard hitting power and longer distance offensive combat.

So why today (and for the past generation) has the military assumed that one rifle, the M16 and its derivatives can do it all? Why do some people outside the military think they should all have the M14 (or another .308 battle rifle) and it can do it all. There is sometimes a need for troops who aren't snipers to take a mid to long range shot where the 5.56 just isn't well suited. There is sometimes a need for a more lightweight and compact weapon. Why can't the military issue both, either some troops get one and some the other, or everyone is trained on both and what is issued depends upon the mission of the day?

With the desire to add more M14s to those they have in order to suppliment the M16/M4 it seems the Army may finally be learning.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I believe that one round (and thus, one system designed to fire it) can do it all, and do it all as well or better than a myriad of rounds.
Unfortunately, the Army (not about any other military) has not found the round/rifle combination yet.
Weapons like the SCAR and the XCR have shown that it's not all that difficult to make a weapon that can fulfill multiple requirements on one chassis, and so now the question becomes "can one round do all the jobs that are needed?"
I think the answer is yes:
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=379903
This thread illustrates the concept I am currently pushing for a do-it-all round.
Here's the excerpt that is most important:
If you had to ask me right now what thought the US armed forces should be using on the battlefield today, I would answer you with this:
This is a family of 5.85mm (.236") cartridges that, I believe, provide the answer to a long-attacked problem: logistics.
In the 1950s, the United States Army attempted to solve the problem of logistics in the military, as the post-WWII Army had, in service, 3 cartridges and four rifles, which greatly complicated getting ammunition to those who need it most.
What the US Army came up with was the 7.62 NATO, but as a universal round, it was a failure. It was heavy to carry for machine gunners, and was too powerful for lighter rifles and carbines to fire on full-auto.
In reaction, the Army later adopted to ultra-light 5.56x45mm NATO, also known as .223 Remington, which they continue to use today.
In the wake of the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, small lots of 5.56 were being delivered to special purpose rifleman in the field that could potentially change the way people think about small arms in particular.
This round was the Mk. 262 Mod. 0.
It featured the heaviest bullet the 5.56 could accommodate, a 77-grain open-tip match bullet with a super-thin jacket, and fired it at speeds matching that of the 7.62 NATO (which is slower than the previous 5.56x45 rounds). It was formerly believed that fragmentation could not occur for a military round at under about 2500 fps, which, for a round that relies heavily on fragmentation, as opposed to sheer bullet diameter, means that the round has to either have an enormous ballistic coefficient to hang on to every last foot-per-second of speed, or be going extremely fast to make sure that it has speed to burn. The Mk. 262 Mod. 0 changed that thinking.
The Mk. 262 showed that a bullet could be designed to fragment at velocities as low as 2000 feet per second, which meant that, with a properly designed bullet, the cartridge could be lightened, since the race-car like ballistics were not really needed anymore. Now, the 77-grain OTM bullet that the Mk. 262 fired did indeed have a superior ballistic coefficient, the best that an operational 5.56 can have. However, the ballistic coefficient, from a design perspective, is low, constrained by the overall length of the magwell of the AR-15 and the magnum-style case of the 5.56.
Using the lessons learned from the Mk. 262 Mod. 0 and discarding the 5.56 round entirely, I have come up with a cartridge system that effectively solved the logistics problem, increases terminal and other performance in nearly all areas, and reduces weight from other 5.56 replacement proposals by anywhere from 20-30%.
The cartridge comes in four "flavors":
M950 Ball: This is heavily based off of the Mk. 262 discoveries. Designed to perform against human targets, but also with barrier and vehicle penetration in mind, the M950 shoots a 105-grain, .236-caliber bullet at 2550 feet per second, using a modest pressure of 50KPSI, thanks to slow-burning powders. Ballistics are very similar to the larger 6.5 Grendel cartridge.
M955 Light Armor-Penetrating: This round is designed with barriers in mind. It fires a 97-grain, steel-cored projectile at 2600 feet per second. It mimics the capabilities of the M855 Green Tip round (while unconstrained by European preferences for "non-nasty" ammuntion), and it well-suited to SAW use due to its light weight and long range.
M956 LAP-Tracer: Similar to the M955, the M956 is a tracer round in addition to having some limited penetrating capability. Based on technology developed during the 6mm SAW ammunition program, its tracer can be seen out to 900 yards, further than both the 5.56 and 7.62 tracers.
M957 Dedicated DMR-Sniper; AP: The oddball of the M950 series, the M957 has a slightly elongated case (by 1mm) in order to prevent it from feeding into standard assault rifles and machine guns. In addition, it will not fit into the standard STANAG magazines of assault rifles, preventing cases of mistaken identity that could lead to possible deadly jams on the battlefield. For further safety, the round has a bright red band around the case neck, as well as a crimping in the neck, should the band wear off.
Why? The M957, due to its dedicated sniper role, operates at 10KPSI higher (60KPSI) than its standard companions. This allows it to send its 105-grain bullet--essentially a match version of the bullet used in the standard ball loading, with the addition of a tungsten penetrator--at up to 2750 f/s, giving it a range unequaled by rounds in the same class.
Sniper rifles that will feed M957 will also feed the other typed of ammunition as well, as it poses no long-term threat to the rifle's health. In addition, standard rifles and MGs will be proofed to withstand the pressures of this round, in the event that such a round does actually manage to be fed into one of them.
However, such pressures do no good for the standard action, and would wear them out quickly (especially MGs) if fed a steady diet of high-pressure ammunition.

In my opinion and research, a set of cartridges comparable to these would provide a true optimum for the modern warfighter, and would serve well in many respects for many years. Other cartridges that have been suggested for a full-out rifle replacement include essentially "Grendel-Magnums" that exceed the performance of that cartridge by usually less than 200 fps (and exceeding the OAL of the M16 by several millimeters). However, the Achilles heel of those rounds is that they weigh far more than the 5.56 NATO and even the 7.62x39mm, which is no lightweight. The M950 series of cartridges stay much closer to the 5.56 in terms of weight, being only slightly heavier. This cartridge accomplishes all the tasks that a modern military requires, all in the same four types of cartridge that have been with us for many, many years.
The decision to make the Sniper/DMR round a slightly different one originated with the realization that, due to special requirements by snipers, a single TYPE of cartridge could not possibly replace the standard set of four (ball, AP, tracer, match). The four types could possibly be reduced to three, but no less than that, as snipers have to have match ammunition and it is just not feasible from a production standpoint to issue every soldier match ammunition. In addition, the requirements for the sniper cartridge are the most onerous, requiring more range than is needed by any stretch of the imagination for an infantry rifle, and even a squad-level MG or SAW. Thus, since the sniper ammunition must be distinct anyway, I decided that a small augmentation of performance was in order, and that, as long as the high-pressure cartridges could not be used in the basic grunt's rifle, the Sniper/DMR load could be made to utilize higher pressures. Now, the STANAG magazines and infantry ammunition can all be used in the envisioned sniper rifle; the design would be such that they would be compatible. However, the dedicated sniper magazine, which is the only one capable of holding the M957 ammunition, could not be used in the standard rifle.
It is my hope that the ammunition types could be reduced to three: ball, AP/tracer and match, but I am just not certain that a 105-grain bullet could fit all of the components necessary to make it effective as both an AP an tracer round inside of it. Therefore, I created the M855 act-alike, the M955.
Click to expand...
 
I told you so!

The US Army is requesting more funds to buy modified M14 rifles to meet an urgent operational need.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've been telling you that the .308 AR (SR-25 & M110) have not lived up to their hype and that the modernized
Smith Enterprise, Inc. M14s are the hot ticket, but others kept posting baseless negative crap about the modernized M14 rifle.

This Smith Enterprise, Inc. M21A5 was tested at Ft. Benning in March of 2008.
The modernized SEI M14 fired groups under 1 MOA at 1000 yards with M118LR ammo.

M21A5-benning.jpg
 
Oh I see, they're asking for a marksman rifle that shoots a round bigger than 5.56mm.

Hmmmm.......

How about an M110/sr25/m14 or 2 in every squad?

Why is it that we never hear about long range issues with eastern forces? Oh that's right it's because they've always put a Dragunov in every squad. The US military should have been doing this FULL SCALE since the 60's but for some odd reason they didn't until now.
 
you have the enemy, the pencils, and the warriors...take one look at the killing field..and its reality. For the Army pencils to "just see" this NOW...is criminal !!! (I have earned the right, to use these words)
 
holy crap! that must explain why we keep losing all those battles with insurgents!



a better title for that article would be "Irrelevant Press Sees Urgent Need for Controversy, Ratings"
 
We are winning, yes. But, sometimes the warriors' job could be made easier with different tools. Hunters use different rifles, calibers and loads for different area even on the same animal. You think the military should be any different.
Yes, I know, the fewer types of guns and ammo. make supply come though. But One size don't fit all needs.
 
A flathead screwdriver is a very useful tool. It can do many, many thing including tighten a screw. It is not, however, a hammer.

The point is, the AR class of weapons is fine for the doctrine we have followed since the revolution. Prior to us, there were only two steps, make ready and fire. We added "aim".

Every weapon we have ever made including the M16 is a precision weapon. This is where the AR/AK argument starts.

The AR was also a leap in technology no different than the musket to the self contained cartridge.

The M14 was a stop gap. The Army had always used large caliber rounds. They also (more or less) won two wars with the Garand. It's easier to modify existing technology thats proven than start from scratch down a different path.

The AR class of weapons has served this country well. It had its growing pains at the expense of early soldiers lives, but it has since proved itself.

It was designed to be an intermediate range weapon with a high degree of accuracy and also functioned well in close contact. It is a flathead screwdriver.

When needed, the M14 can still be used as a hammer but the screwdriver will always be more useful in more situations.

Didn't think I could tie in my opening statement, did you?:p
 
Dinosaur vote here

I date back to M1 Grand, carbine, Thompson, and BAR, (loved shooting it but carrying it was a pain in the ...), Seen the M14 come and go way to fast and the M16 come on and hang on like a woodtick ever since. I thought it was a mistake in the 60's and think it is a mistake now. If the desk soldiers wanted to reduce the load they could have done it with a 7 or 6.5 but nope and the spray and pray school was born. I am the first to admit I am not up on modern tactics or strategy, come to think of it neither is the White house or pentagon but I believe as a squad leader I don't see how you could improve on a squad of M14 users, a couple of shot gunners and a sniper. I keep up on all the so called wonder calibers and wonder bullets fired in the wonder guns, I saw the same thing with the gyro jet and the M16. I am to old to swallow the hype as easily today as I was back then. You still can't beat a bigger hole, a heavier bullet and marksmanship. I point to the 45 ACP as a prime example of an obsolete caliber with a fairly low ME that still stomps the booger man to the ground with fewer shots needed than the 9MM can no matter what kind of bullet you put in it.
 
Re: I told you so!

Exclamation I told you so!
Quote:
The US Army is requesting more funds to buy modified M14 rifles to meet an urgent operational need.
Yeah, I've been telling you that the .308 AR (SR-25 & M110) have not lived up to their hype and that the modernized
Smith Enterprise, Inc. M14s are the hot ticket, but others kept posting baseless negative crap about the modernized M14 rifle.

This Smith Enterprise, Inc. M21A5 was tested at Ft. Benning in March of 2008.
The modernized SEI M14 fired groups under 1 MOA at 1000 yards with M118LR ammo.
Click to expand...

The SR25 worked well for me in combat. What is your experience with it, H20 Man?
 
That saying I am not sure that a 7.62mm NATO would be that much more an advantage in taking out IEDs. I would instead call in an M2 .50 to take care of the job. That seems to be the round of choice for this job.
Click to expand...

I think they are talking about shooting insurgents who are placing the IED's, not shooting the device (IED) itself. And it's far more likely to carry an 11lb M14 in each squad, with that soldier being able to carry >100 rds of ammo, than to carry a 30lb barrett with maybe 30rds, or a 110lb M2 with someone else carrying the tripod and a third person carrying the belt.
 
dispatch55126

The M14 was a stop gap. The Army had always used large caliber rounds. They also (more or less) won two wars with the Garand.
It's easier to modify existing technology thats proven than start from scratch down a different path.
Click to expand...

The stop gap label can be officially removed. The M14 is no longer just a stop gap.

With just a little help and enhanced technology the private sector will be able to produce brand new lighter weight M14s from scratch
at a lower cost than any of the new and improved flat head screwdrivers currently available and those not quite ready for prime time.

Even without a change from the top, the private sector will soon be making brand new M14s from scratch.
The private sector embraced the M14 years ago because it's a money maker and the US military keeps using
the M14 because the old ones are paid for, it works and it responds extremely well to low cost modernization techniques.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
So what rifles are being used in Iraq and Afghanistan?
2 3
Replies
67
Views
5K
Tezza
T
C
  • Locked
Army Report: GIs Outgunned in Afghanistan
2 3 4
Replies
85
Views
4K
X-Rap
X-Rap
B
  • Locked
Army Times: M4 to be tested against other rifles including XM8
Replies
3
Views
707
Kaylee
K
B
  • Locked
Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer: A critique.
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
7K
d2wing
d2wing
C
  • Locked
Taking Back The Infantry Half-km: Britain’s L129A1
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
JShirley
JShirley
Back
Top