Quantcast

Urban settings: M14, M1 underappreciated?

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by mshootnit, Mar 31, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bassjam

    bassjam Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2014
    Messages:
    1,510
    Location:
    Cincinnati
    Unfriendly neighborhoods are just neighborhoods full of innocent's that have some unfriendly people hiding in them.
     
    Duster340 likes this.
  2. JShirley

    JShirley Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    21,822
    Location:
    Atlanta
    OP, a round that punches right through the target doesn't automatically equal a one shot instant stop- in fact, the reason the M16 was so much more destructive than the AK47 family was the tendency for 5.56x45mm rounds to tumble and at least partially fragment. (This lead to the Soviets designing a round specifically to mimic 5.56mm performance, and it has been the standard round for USSR/Russia since 1974.) The standard 7.62x39 round usually just drilled through, causing little more damage than the lowly .32 ACP, so long as it didn't hit bone.

    The original US report after the M16's first use in Vietnam spoke glowingly of the "killing power" of the M16 compared of the M14. This was the common Soldier perception.

    Level 3 plate will stop 5.56 AND standard .30 rounds. Level 4 is rated to stop AP .30 rounds- be aware that level 4 is too cumbersome to run around a battlespace wearing.

    The US Army had a publication out years ago, listing various projectile performance vs building materials. The 5.56x45 is a GREAT home defense round, partially because it has a low chance of penetrating brick and cinder block, while being extremely effective against humans at close range.

    John
     
  3. Mosin77

    Mosin77 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2019
    Messages:
    110
    Soldiers understandably loved the Garand. When you’ve got 8 rounds as quick as you can pull the trigger, and the guy shooting at you has 5 rounds from a bolt action, it’s a significant advantage. And in a war zone in 1944, overpenetration was not a serious concern. Both armies were Western, in uniform, fighting a declared war, and anxious to protect civilians when they could, meaning they let them run, kicked them out, or told them to get into the cellar, instead of using them as human shields or attempting to hide among them as apparent non-combatants.

    But if the Garand was great, an M4 would be dramatically better. Wood and steel and a round capable of stopping a charging horse is nice, but a lightweight rifle equipped with a mag holding dozens of rounds, and optimized for stopping men, is better.
     
    theotherwaldo and FL-NC like this.
  4. briansmithwins

    briansmithwins Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,312
    After having run an AK and Vz58 at my local shoot and move rifle match, you’re way better off with an AR.

    Silly easy to make accurate, flat shooting, much easier to run optics & lights, faster follow up shots because of low recoil.

    I don’t particularly like ARs but I acknowledge that they are hard to beat.

    BSW
     
  5. JShirley

    JShirley Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    21,822
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Well, first, "AK-47"s haven't been made in many years. Typically seen are AKMs (stamped receiver).

    Secondly, the Soviets tried to clone 5.56x45mm performance over 46 years ago...since the 5.56x45mm was more effective. Now, you can be a fanboi, or maybe just realize that, if the country who designed and produced a cartridge- and millions of rifles in that cartridge caliber- thinks the competing country's cartridge is better- maybe it is. o_O

    John
     
  6. marksman13

    marksman13 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Messages:
    2,022
    Location:
    Mississippi
    Seconded. With the caveat that I love ARs.
     
  7. JShirley

    JShirley Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    21,822
    Location:
    Atlanta
    I didn't love AR-15s in concept...then I enlisted into the infantry, and fired thousands of rounds a month preparing to deploy. Turns out I now have more training on an M4 than all other firearms combined, and I use it well... which is fine, since 5.56 and other cartridges that fit into the platform work great at stopping human threats at reasonable range.
     
  8. chicharrones

    chicharrones needs more ammo

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Messages:
    6,860
    Location:
    Galveston Bay is an Hour Away ©
    I took that as comic relief. Good one. :D
     
  9. dickydalton

    dickydalton Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2012
    Messages:
    1,477
    Location:
    New Mexico
    I have an M1 Carbine that spends a lot of time next to the bed.
     
  10. DocRock

    DocRock Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2019
    Messages:
    1,342
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    I don't mean to take the thread off track, but this seems to be the raison d'etre for the bullpup design. Handy, without needing a barrel length that significantly diminishes velocity and range when outside the CQB environment. Some of those dissatisfied with 5.56 performance would be less so with heavier bullets operating ar 20" barrle velocities, for example.
     
    briansmithwins likes this.
  11. 1942bull
    • Contributing Member

    1942bull Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2020
    Messages:
    171
    Location:
    Southeast PA
    During my ten years in the Corps I was issued a M1, M14, and M16. Never used the M1 in combat, but did use the M14 and M16. The wallop of the M14 was probably about the same as an M1 considering the similarity in size and ammo compared to the M1. The M16 was less powerful but easier to handle in CQB not to mention lighter and allowed carrying more ammo. The M1 was the best of the bunch for open field combat. The M16 was the best for CQB. The M14 was an interloper that did not have the service life of the M1 or the M16. I always say it this way. it was a camel designed by a committee that wanted to design a

    I spent 10 days clearing buildings in Hue. My MOS came with the M1911 as my primary. I started clearing with the M16 and soon slung it cars my back and used the 1911. It offered the greatest versatility. However, the m16 was better suited to that work that was the M14.

    The Army is designing a new rifle. The Marines has swathed to the M27 (H&K) for all infantry. It fires a hotter 5,56 round. But I always say the best gun to have in a firefight is the one in your hand(s).
     
    d2wing and Mr. Mosin like this.
  12. briansmithwins

    briansmithwins Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,312
    Or like the IDF did use a bullpup with a short barrel to get a assault rifle that’s shorter than many SMGs.

    BSW
     
    benEzra likes this.
  13. JShirley

    JShirley Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    21,822
    Location:
    Atlanta
    I'm not sure what you mean. The M27 is 5.56mm NATO.
     
  14. 1942bull
    • Contributing Member

    1942bull Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2020
    Messages:
    171
    Location:
    Southeast PA
    I probably should not write while sipping scotch. The M27 does use 5.56 NATO. The Corps is experimenting with a hotter round. It has not adopted it yet. Thanks for waking me up.
     
    DocRock likes this.
  15. MarshallDodge

    MarshallDodge Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,704
    Location:
    Utah, USA
    Maybe you are thinking of the M855A1 which is a hotter 5.56 round?
     
  16. JShirley

    JShirley Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    21,822
    Location:
    Atlanta
    It is desired that the M27 have the capacity to be adapted to another round (such as 6.8mm) if desired.
     
  17. mustanger98

    mustanger98 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Messages:
    4,041
    Location:
    GA, CSA
    The Japanese fought differently to Americans and Germans... fanaticism... Bushido... Granddaddy told me about the japs... pull the pin on a grenade, run up on an American and grab a handful of shirt... blow 'em both up. I haven't heard that they treated civilians in occupied territories so great either.

    Still good to have a .30cal... maybe you got a harder target farther out... M4 has its place, but each rifle has strengths and weaknesses. Something about the right tool for the job.
     
  18. C-grunt

    C-grunt Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,027
    Location:
    Phoenix Az
    It seems most of the combat vets here agree that the lighter more compact rifle is the better option. I'd bet that the older Vietnam vets would have a much better opinion of the M16 if it had not been sabotaged by the US government prior to initial deployment.

    One thing that often gets overlooked by people who havent been in combat is how much time is spent in combat not actually shooting. Effective movement is a huge factor in winning battles/gunfights. Heavier equipment hinders movement and tires you out more. When we were doing the "Thunder Runs" into Baghdad we spent hours upon hours, clearing block after block, mile after mile. Then all of a sudden you needed to shoot some dudes. There was no ominous music to let you know it was about to go down. It was hour number 5 street number 11 moving to house number 65 then all of a sudden 4 Republican Guard soldiers were on the roof 150 meters to your right shooting AKs at you. In that situation how tired you are makes a big difference between fast hits or slow misses. How tired you are means more time in the open while you are running to cover. How much your equipment weighs means it takes longer to jump that wall or crawl into that window.

    Then factor in the fact that 5.56 does a good amount of damage. Does 7.62 Nato do more? Yeah... but it wont make up for bad shot placement. Even with good shot placement don't expect dudes to fall with a single round. The human body can be amazingly resilient and a determined enemy can still be up and mobile for a bit after a fatal hit. Does the 5.56 do as well at range than 7.62 Nato? No... but our biggest issues at range is actually hitting the bad guys. In that regard an easier shooting rifle with faster follow up shots is a better option. Also If I drill a dude through the chest at 300 meters with a 5.56 Im okay if he crawls behind a tree and bleeds out for the next few minutes. He aint doing what caused me to shoot him in the first place and he's a 1/4 mile away from me.
     
    d2wing, JShirley, boom boom and 3 others like this.
  19. herrwalther

    herrwalther Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    5,464
    Not really. The 855A1 is a slightly longer lead free version of the SS109 used in M855. Velocity wise I haven't seen any tests where A1 was going over 50FPS faster. It doesn't do as well on hard penetration tests. A1 was just being issued as I was leaving and I didn't shoot it as much as I wanted. POI seemed the same.
     
  20. MarshallDodge

    MarshallDodge Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,704
    Location:
    Utah, USA
    I am going off of what I read in this article

     
  21. herrwalther

    herrwalther Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    5,464
    Thanks for the link. I'm out but I still like to read about what "my boys" get. Looks like A1 MV is still an apple to apples comparison. Even in 2014-2015 time frame we knew the A1 bullet was to appease environmentalists with a lead free "green bullet." Army and USMC both have bases in California to appease. First time I saw M855A1 I was wiping the rounds with the rag because I thought they were dirty M855. I do give DOD acquisition credit. They wanted a bullet really close to M855 and slightly better but didn't want to affect "Joe's" zero. They did a good job on the research.
     
    entropy likes this.
  22. MarshallDodge

    MarshallDodge Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    3,704
    Location:
    Utah, USA
    I agree, and wondered years ago why they didn't adopt a heavier bullet with a higher BC. They have the MK262 but that is for a specific/limited application.
     
  23. herrwalther

    herrwalther Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2013
    Messages:
    5,464
    Mk262 costs more. Murphy's laws of combat: weapons are made by the lowest bidder.
     
    MarshallDodge likes this.
  24. mjsdwash

    mjsdwash Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Messages:
    1,353
    for what its worth, tens of millions of dollars in theory and tens of billions in practice have proven the system works as is. Yea, I bet a guy who kicks in a door in Damascus and finds a guy with plate armor and an AK-74 wishes he had an M-14 at the moment. But give him one, and see how much he likes walking the desert with an extra 5lb or rifle, and 15lb of ammunition. Recoil is still an issue. The M16 and AKM were designed to fill a roll in the worst case scenario where resupply was impossible, weapons had to be all purpose, interchangable parts, and light ammunition. Think of walking a jungle, or forrest, desert, or city for hours with a loaded 11lb M-14, or Garand, shouldered with 1/3 the weight sticking out passed your supporting hand, how tiring is that going to get?
     
    benEzra, boom boom and herrwalther like this.
  25. C-grunt

    C-grunt Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2005
    Messages:
    4,027
    Location:
    Phoenix Az
    The A1 definitely isn't a leaf free SS109. Completely different design. It does significantly better than M855 against hard barriers. It also fragments much more reliably that M855.
     
    Gordon and herrwalther like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice