Historians and gun designers: a question about the M14

[lysanderxiii]

Mr Humphrey's comments remind me of the various newsreel video of troopers holding M16's over the log they're crouching behind and doing a mag-dump toward the VC. Have read many accounts from the VC on the receiving end of this fire and it seemed to actually HELP give them confidence rather than surpress or break their will to fight. Agree totally that unless rounds are striking very closely they in no way surpress and when they're all going into or over the trees well above you...the natural reaction is that 'these guys can't shoot!'

You are 'suppressed" if you cannot, or will not, return fire in a manner described by Mr Humphrey

that is, shooting at and around a known or suspected enemy locations

.

 

[Acera]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the BAR weighs about twice as much. Also believe that some of them had a rate of fire option to slow them down.

HB

Yeah, I know. But some of the discussions negative comments would be relative to it as well. ijs.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the BAR weighs about twice as much. Also believe that some of them had a rate of fire option to slow them down.

Yup. The BAR on low, solidly mounted on a bipod was a fairly effective weapon. The M14 at twice the cyclic rate and half the weight, was a different matter entirely.

 

[Gordon]

I once had a talk with a chief ATF agent while we were waiting in the witness area. We were on opposite sides of the case (not my case) . He said "why do you want to have a full auto weapon so bad ?" I said: " I don't ! everr since my tours in Nam 15 years ago I am not interested in any full auto weapon unless it is on a tripod or a pintle mount. Infact I wish any one who attacks me has a Mac 10 (the subject of the case) as I will quickly stop them spraying and praying at any distance other than in a phone booth " He grinned and said "yeah, well then see ya"

 

[barnbwt]

Proper reply is;

"Because you know there is only a single hole's difference & your say-so between my owning a legal semi-auto and prison...for now"

We need full-autos as a buffer if wish to ultimately protect our access to semi-autos (and further, guns in general), because the tech simply overlaps too much between them. Semi-auto M76 FCG is indistinguishable from an AK47, and all semi-autos with safety sears (SKS) operate identically to machine gun auto sears.

But you make a good point The MAC does have a stupidly high ROF & awful sights, although I can attest the LAGE slow-fire uppers are pretty awesome if you have a stock; full-size Uzi-like controllability. I believe this is why Snake Plissken used a suppressed MAC; he was no longer capable of using iron sights or seeing the target with that eye missing, so there was no drawback.

TCB

 

[grampajack]

I think a good brake would certainly help. You would still have to be prone to do any good, but if I had to fire a full auto M14, then yes I would want a brake on it. With that said, I have a SOCOM 16, and the factory brake doesn't seem to do much for recoil. Not really sure about muzzle rise, I haven't shot it that much. ETA, it's really more of a comp than a brake.

As for machine guns, they have their place for CQB work. A high quality submachinegun might be the most effective self defense weapon ever devised. That or a 14'' shotgun. Think full sized Uzi or MP5. I for one certainly wouldn't mind having a Kriss Vector next to my night stand, that's for sure. And I would love to have my PS90 converted. That thing with T6B and a fun switch would absolutely dominate a CQB kerfluffle inside my house.

What gets me about the whole machinegun debate is this. The liberals tell us we don't need them for home defense. That means us, by ourselves in our underwear half awake, against an unknown number of intruders who might be armed and even wearing body armor. Yet, they're absolutely required for someone with an entire SWAT team backing him up, even in situations where there's only one occupant. And this is the big one; they have the element of surprise, whereas you're the one caught offguard in a home defense scenario. These are mutually exclusive ideas. Either submachineguns are needed for self defense in close quarters or they're not. They can't keep having it both ways. If you can make the argument that an SMG is good for LE or military, then you've just made a better argument that they're good for home defense.

 

[james layman]

If interested in prototype military weapons, go to VMI Military Academy in Lexington Va. The M16 has a gas cut off piston. Many of the parts are interchangeable with the M1. The B.A.R. relies on a very complicate buffer system. The least of felt recoil. The M60 has a buffer. Still waiting for a shoulder fired full auto rifle that is easier to control. Believe an adjustable gas cylinder plug may help on recoil. Jim

 

[barnbwt]

Still waiting for a shoulder fired full auto rifle that is easier to control.

30 Carbine and weaker rounds, and you're golden . Supposedly the Ultimax is pretty awesome, but it's also an LMG & not really meant for standing fire.

At some point, the question becomes "how much opposing force can a soldier absorb while standing/etc and still do anything effectively?" The fact the force of firearms is intermittent makes it even more difficult.

TCB