I don't get it. How stupid do we really think armorers and our soldiers really are? I met some pretty dumb ones, but none of them could shoot well enough to be given either an SR-25 or an M14 DMR. They all have high school diplomas or equivalent, most have been in shop class, and the procedures we are talking about here are not difficult. Springfield Armory puts out a small operators manual, and it is all that is needed to explain how to disassembled and maintain the M1A. I never had any experience with the design when I got mine, either. It's not difficult.
And while the AR may be easier to take apart for cleaning, it is more difficult to clean and requires more of it than the M14. An operator can fire hundreds of rounds through an M14 without cleaning and still be able to wipe his finger along the inside of the receiver with very little carbon fouling. The M14 doesn't have that star chamber to clean either, and for normal maintenance, there are far fewer small parts to be lost or damaged. The M14 actually has to be taken apart for cleaning relatively rarely. You can lock the bolt back, wipe out the receiver, run a Bore Snake or the cable of your Otis kit through the bore a couple times, apply a couple drops of CLP to the inside rails, and be good to go for a long time before the gas system has to be taken apart and cleaned. And even then, the rifle has to actually be taken out of its stock even more rarely. It's all much ado about nothing, IMO.
We aren't issued SAWs in boot camp, yet somehow some of us miraculously learn how to operate and maintain it in addition to our M16 service rifles. We then learn basic maintence, and immediate and remedial action drills for the M240 and M2 as well. And most of us have no problems with this despite it being an afternoon period of instruction and then never mentioned again. Asking our troops to maintain the level of training needed to actually keep the M14 up and running isn't much compared to what we already ask of them, and assuming that it is too much for them to handle is insulting. Or it is to me.
The real problem lies in the Hague Convention. The 5.56 is quite effective against humans when expanding tip bullets are used. The US should push for an amendment to the treaty. With modern urban warfare, the use of an expanding 5.56 bullet is much better than a FMJ 7.62 for several reasons. The treaty is outdated and needs to be fixed.
For one, the US was never a signatory member of the Hague Accords. It honors the language of the Accords to gain world favor. Two, the Hague Conventions only dictated rules of war among signatory members and those who abided by its terms, and then, only for as long as the terms of the Accords was abided by. This would obviously exclude Al Qaeda and the Taliban. So in truth, we could use whatever we wanted.
Plus, the language of the Accords has allowed us to put ammunition that does reliably expand into service simply by calling it Open Tip Match instead of Hollow Point Boat Tail, and convincing military courts that the design of the bullet is oriented towards accuracy, and the effect it has on terminal performance is secondary to this goal. That is why the current M118LR round used in the 7.62x51 is loaded with a 175 gr Sierra Matchking, and why the 5.56 Mk 262 can be loaded with a 77 gr Matchking.
And any increase in performance this ammunition gives to the 5.56 can also be noted in the 7.62, so even if we abandoned the provisions of the Hague Accords and used whatever ammunition we pleased, public opinion be damned, the 5.56 would still never be as effective as the 7.62.
