Why did the U.S. Military give up on the M-14 so quickly?

[buzz_knox]

So why didn't Congress refuse to fund the Garand and just stick with the 1903 and the Enfield? Because maybe someone convinced them that the changing techonologies made it necessary to go with an autoloader, and that it was better to do it now than later? People were going to bat for the .276 in the same way, but MacArthur got in the way.

Besides, the change to the .30-06 came after the rifle had made it through most of the adoption process. The Garand was tested, ordered reconfigured in .30-06, tested to confirm the changes, and adopted. Pretty much all the approvals had already been put in place before MacArthure countermanded the Army's recommendations.

 

[Art Eatman]

Lotsa stuff was changing in the 1950s besides the main infantry weapon.

Commuications gear was improving. And, we had "toys" like the 8" "atomic cannon". (I saw one of those monsters when I was stationed at Fort Sill in 1956.)

The doctrine had become focussed on a European locale for fighting the USSR. Certain observations had carried over from Korea, as well. Fighting in the jungles of southeast Asia wasn't part of the weapons planning, looks like to me.

The M1 didn't have the rapid fire capability of the "burp guns" of the Chinese, for one thing. But, control of full-auto fire with the M14 was (unexpectedly?) difficult.

When the idea came about that an infantry group should be able to control an area around itself out to some 200 meters while calling in artillery and air, something of the M16 sort became attractive.

Concepts which look good on paper aren't necessarily properly functional in the early stages of development...

Add that all up and it's maybe easier to see the "why" of the M16.

Art

 

[AZ Jeff]

Tony Williams summed up the reason behind the M16 usurping the M14 fairly quickly.

For more details, there are two VERY GOOD books on the topic that spell out the facts in gory, boring detail, and you can draw your own conclusions as to what part McNamara played in the debacle. They are:

"The Black Rifle" by Ezell and Stevens
and
"The Great Rifle Controversy" by Ezell

The second book is out of print and hence hard to find, but it elaborates how the production of the M14 was bungled from the day the rifle was accepted as "standard" in 1957. That bungling gave McNamara the reason to go after Springfield Armory and eventually shut them down in 1968.

BTW, the Edsel as a car was technically a fine automobile, in so far as it was competitive in features, cost, and quality to it's peers of the day. It failed because Ford's timing of it's introduction, as it could not have been worse. With the economy heading down, introducing a higher priced upper-mid tier full sized car in 1958 was a certain recipe for marketing disaster.

 

[BigG]

Why not change 30/06 to 276?

I believe the cost of changing over ammo dwarfs the cost of the hardware itself. It's not something I dwell a lot on but when you run an army the cost of ammo becomes a significant part of your thinking.

I believe Julian Hatcher covered that in his notebook, although I will defer to those of you who have studied up on the 276 Pedersen, which I admit interests me about as much as the "9mm is as good as 45" arguments often seen here. I remember only the interesting fact that the toggle locked Pedersen rifle ejected the empties so hard they would stick in wooden doors, tables, and such. One of the reasons his rifle was rejected, much to the relief of nearby shooters, I'm sure.

Think if you pay $1,000 for a gun. The ammo costs $150 for 1,000 rounds. By the time you hit 10,000 rounds you've paid for the gun by 1 1/2 times.

 

[rabbit]

If I had to choose between "one-shot-one-kill-dont waste-ammo-everyman an expert", and "spray and pray", I think I will have to go with spray and pray.
It's nice to have a few guys that can hit something but training up everyone to be an expert is not the way to go. For one thing, alot of people just dont shoot well. For another, how are you going to predict exactly who is going to be doing the precision shooting? You cant, so you have to expend alot of time and energy trying to keep everyone up to par. Spray and pray is easier and will make most of them effective if they find themselves in combat. It makes more sense to put them on a range for a day shooting full auto and learning basic tactics than trying to make snipers out of them shooting semi-auto. Just my opinion.

 

[Tony Williams]

But, control of full-auto fire with the M14 was (unexpectedly?) difficult.

Why should it be unexpected? They had played with full-auto Garand developments during the war, they must have known what the problems would be. I mean, anyone with the barest knowledge of ballistics and recoil calculations can understand the problem - why not the US Army?

This is an extract from 'Assault Rifle', by Max Popenker and myself:

"Towards the end of World War 2 the USA had also begun thinking about replacing the .30-06 cartridge and associated weaponry, and had developed the concept of a selective-fire 'Lightweight Rifle'. What they really wanted was the selective-fire .30 M2 Carbine but with the hitting power of the .30 Garand, at a weight of 3.2 kg (7 lbs). It was rather ambitiously hoped that this one weapon would replace the M1 Garand and the .30 Browning Automatic Rifle (both in 7.62 x 63), the M1/2 Carbine in 7.62 x 33, and the M3 SMG in .45 calibre (11.5 x 23). The Lightweight Rifle was intended to chamber a shorter cartridge than the 7.62 x 63, but still with a reasonable long-range performance so it could entirely replace the older round; it was required to have "a stopping and wounding power which shall not be less than that of the standard calibre .30 ammunition [7.62 x 63] fired from the M1 at ranges of 400, 800, 1,200 and 2,000 yards [up to 1,830 m]". Many experiments followed but, contrary to all of the logic of ammunition design, the US Ordnance Department decided that they wanted to retain the .30 inch calibre. The Americans accordingly ended up with what was simply the .30-06 case shortened from 63 to 51 mm, but with a very similar performance at around 3,500 j (2,600 ft lbs) muzzle energy (made possible by improvements in propellant technology) and therefore very similar recoil. Inevitably, this meant that the planned new selective-fire rifle would prove uncontrollable in fully-automatic fire, and so it proved years before the M14 (based on the old .30-06 M1 Garand) finally entered service."

and:

"Even worse for the Ordnance Department were the results of testing its treasured .30 cal Lightweight Rifle prototypes, duly reported by ORO. The tests involved firing controlled five-round bursts at silhouette targets contained within a frame six feet (1.8 metres) square. In repeated tests fired at a distance of just 100 yards (90 metres), no more than one bullet from each burst even hit the frame, let alone the target. Even at 50 yards (45 metres) not more than one bullet per burst hit the target. It was the first bullet which hit; the remainder went over the target as the muzzle rose under recoil."

Note that these tests took place five years before the M14 was formally adopted by the US Army...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Jeff White]

rabbit,
We're you ever an Infantryman?

Jeff

 

[Cpl Punishment]

Blackhawk Down also makes abundantly clear that the 7.62 wasn't doing a good job of putting people down either. One M60 gunner put a burst into a Somali who kept going.

Funny thing is, that wasn't a failure of the 7.62. The rounds used were SLAP (Saboted Light Armor Piercing), not standard FMJ rounds. So what you had was the failure of guess what? A .22 caliber, high-velocity, armor-piercing projectile. Sounds like the SS109 failures.

 

[rabbit]

rabbit,
We're you ever an Infantryman?

That's classified, Jeff (I dont like people collecting on me).

 

[Derek Zeanah]

I played infantry. And I use my real name on the board.

Why the hesitation?

 

[spartacus2002]

dont feed the troll

 

[rabbit]

I played infantry. And I use my real name on the board.
Why the hesitation?

Did a tour in 80-83. Was commo in a cav unit, then worked on the first M-1 tanks. Got out, joined a different service. That's all you get. Satisfied?

No, I was not an eleven bang bang. But I qualified with them at the range and was always amazed at what crummy shots most of them were. Hence, my leaning toward the spray and pray philosophy.

 

[Gunpacker]

Spray and Pray

Well, the Marines don't allow spray and pray today. Only 3 round bursts are possilble. Not sure about army units. However, we evidently needed a lot of spraying and praying in Nam, since an average of over 200,000 rounds had to be fired to produce each enemy casualty. I suspect that unaimed FA shot the tops out of a lot of trees. It is my observation that few clips of combat in Iraq show FA being used. Much more likely to get a hit with 1/3 the number of semi fire IMO, and ammo will last much longer too. FA is very effective in the movies, but for most combat, aimed semi auto is far more effective. Of course, with the .223, multiple hits are to be desired with some of the ammo.

 

[Dienekes]

Ezell's books bring out something fairly disconcerting. For the most part US weapons design and procurement was an awfully hit-and-miss (bad pun?) affair. The Army's reluctance to adopt the Spencer in the Civil War and the haste with which the Army dumped it (Fetterman and Custer could have used them in the moment of need) as only one example. That the Garand was in the wings and could evolve into a practical weapon in time for WWII was not due to any brilliant foresight at Springfield Armory--Pedersen, not Garand, was considered the resident genius in the 1920s and 30s.

If you want to read really scary stuff get into John Boyd and how the F-16 came to be. ...Pogo was right--"We have found the enemy and he is us".

All I know is that when I go out to play in the sagebrush today I am better armed than when I guarded top secret aircraft and nuclear weapons.

As to M14/M1A weight--"He ain't heavy, he's my brother".

 

[gbran]

Ah, the memories........

I went thru basic training with the M-14 (1969), but trained with the M-16 in AIT. I really liked that big gun. The M-16 seemed flimsy by comparison.

 

[Exposure]

HOLY CRAP! I thought this might be an interesting conversation point. I had no idea it would evoke so many responses in such a short time! 24 Hours later I find a 3 page monster. Everyone has been so civil though, I like that.

It is intersting to read all the responses concerning what is the "real" reason why the M-14 was dropped as the main battle rifle for the troops.

Having never carried either an M-14 or M-16 in a life threatening situation I find this topic VERY interesting to say the least. Lots of great real world answers here to be sure!

As far as my personal preference goes, having fired many, many rounds through my M1 and my AR15 I would be hard pressed to pick one "do it all" rifle.

Having said that, my next big gun purchase will be an M1A simply because the thousands of rounds I have put through my M1 have been so enjoyable. Again, I have never had to defend my life with ANY of them and for that I am thankful, but I personally feel that John Garand had it right waaaayyyy back in the 1930's with his design.

The M1A better be one hell of a rifle to sway me from my opinion of the M1 being the finest battle rifle ever produced!

 

[Tony Williams]

I personally feel that John Garand had it right waaaayyyy back in the 1930's with his design. The M1A better be one hell of a rifle to sway me from my opinion of the M1 being the finest battle rifle ever produced!

You may be interested to learn that John Garand designed a new military rifle in the late 1940s. This was an unsuccessful competitor for the T37 rifle (which evolved into the M14). It was designated the T31, and it was a bullpup with an unusual gas action. The best of the new US rifles being tried then was probably the T25 which was designed to be made on standard production machinery, but the T37 (after being further developed into the T44) was adopted because it used the same specialised machinery as the M1. There was also the T28, based on the Mauser StG 45 (which gave birth to the CETME/HK G3).

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[artherd]

Forget just humping a gun that weighs nearly 2x, and ammo that's 3x heavier.

I'm 6'2" 185lbs, and *I* can't hold an M14 on target offhand for any more than a minuite or so tops.

Wheras I can shoulder and fire an AR while advancing on a target all day long with ease. Carrying 200 rounds instead of 40.

I've got everything up to a .50cal 35lb Barrett. But if I had to go into an adverse situation, I'd want a 16-18" AR with an ACOG and 77gr loads.

 

[miko]

I'm 6'2" 185lbs, and *I* can't hold an M14 on target offhand for any more than a minuite or so tops.

Wheras I can shoulder and fire an AR while advancing on a target all day long with ease. Carrying 200 rounds instead of 40.

Outside of movies, I cannot conceive of a combat situation where one would have to either shoot off-hand for a minute or advance on target shooting all day long - unless suicide was the main objective.
You would be shooting from some support way before fatigue became an issue. In which case you would be glad for a weapon capable of shooting through a brick wall or a tree trunk.

miko

 

[Derek Zeanah]

Yeah.

My thinking is I want the lightest rifle possible for stupid patrols and general carry.

When it comes time to use it, however, 14lbs doesn't seem that overwhelming, assuming it's firing a real cartridge...

 

[odysseus]

I am not ex-military; my experience with these weapons is all on civilian models.

I love them both. The m14 is a great rifle, and the scout model is well managable. The penetration and distance of the 7.62 is a great strength of this platform. The m4 ar15 variants I shoot are also my favorites. Both have their place and are on my top 5 favorite weapons to shoot list.

Saying this I can see how heavy an m14 can be carrying this and say 150 rounds in 20 round magazines would be like. Doing this with the m16 variant is a lot easier, and I have done training requiring me to run up hills and terrain with it. I can see it's advantages and disadvantages.

I can see one other advantage of the m16, field expediency wise. Breakdown and cleaning to the bolt is simple and basically can be done blindfolded. It is very field managable; while the m14 is to a degree - but not as easily.

For those who say the m16 seems flimsy - I can never understand this. I guess some must have had plain bad experiences with the ones they had or they are just biased against new materials on firearms for no logical reason.

Also - as to spray-and-pray; I can't understand why one would take that over controlled and aimed shots. I can see where places like supression can work for this, but take just a couple of gunners aiming at the same place and firing controlled aimed shots and you have one hell of a impact.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

My thinking is I want the lightest rifle possible for stupid patrols and general carry.

Combat operations are not a place where you want to adopt a "carry a lot and shoot a little" philosophy. There is a reason why guns like the BAR and M1 rifle were well-liked by men who had to carry them day in and day out.

 

[mustanger98]

Combat operations are not a place where you want to adopt a "carry a lot and shoot a little" philosophy.

Ammo's cheap; life's expensive. We can always get more ammo; we may not be able to get more men.

There is a reason why guns like the BAR and M1 rifle were well-liked by men who had to carry them day in and day out.

My Granddaddy was a BARman in WW2 (US Army, Pacific Theater). He said when he got the chance to put the BAR down, he picked up an M1 Garand and always told me what a good rifle it is. That figured heavily into why I aquired one.

When it comes time to use it, however, 14lbs doesn't seem that overwhelming, assuming it's firing a real cartridge...

Right on. Only the M1 weighs 10lbs and I'm not sure what 80rds of '06 weighs.

My other grandfather was also US Army (European Theater), but he was a truck driver and had a M1 Carbine and as many mags as he could get. Since it rode in the truck with him, he didn't have to worry about what it all weighed. That's kinda how I am about my Garand 60 years later.

According to Maj. Dick Culver (USMC Ret.), the 7.62NATO round can punch through 3' of oak at 500yds. 5.56mm can't.

 

[buzz_knox]

According to Maj. Dick Culver (USMC Ret.), the 7.62NATO round can punch through 3' of oak at 500yds. 5.56mm can't.

If you are engaging the enemy at 500 yards, I would suggest artillery or air support would penetrate far better than 7.62.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

If you are engaging the enemy at 500 yards, I would suggest artillery or air support would penetrate far better than 7.62.

At all ranges 7.62 will penetrate material barriers better than 5.56. And in combat, people WILL hide behind things.