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

[buzz_knox]

Absolutely correct. And many of those things will easily withstand 7.62. Thus, my statement about artillery and air support. The fact is that one of the reasons we went away from the 7.62 as an individual weapon was the growing reliance on those factors.

We've regretted that to an extent in Afghanistan, but that's due in no insignificant part to the refusal to allow artillery greater than 120mm mortars to be deployed to the battlefield, and the reliance on smart weapons.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The VC and NVA adopted close-range tactics as a protection against artillery and air strikes. There are lots of situations where you need rifle power, and only rifle power will do the job.

 

[buzz_knox]

True. So what does that have to do with penetration at 500 yards?

 

[miko]

If you are deciding on what weapon to get, you are not in the army.

That means you will not have arty or air support or snipers to take care of targets belong 300 yards. Not even crew-served weapons. Not even full-auto carbines.
Neither will you have a trained team with full kit for room-entry assaults.

As for bullets being cheap, that is not an attractive quality in the army’s view. Whoever heard reports on the numbers of bullets used? Of becoming wealthy on bullet contracts? Army is attracted to big and expensive toys.
Also, life is expensive for you personally if you are in a militia. Same if you have to hire mercenaries out of your own pocket.
It is not the case for the state army – they do not have cost-accounting. Whoever they waste, gets replaced. Those are conditions in which modern army doctrines developed and weapons got adopted.
You may wish to consider that before aping the army approach for your private armory.

miko

 

[buzz_knox]

Excellent points, miko. But we're discussing the reasons why the military replaced the M-14, not personal weapons.

 

[Byron]

I trained on the 14 in Basic in 68,AIT Infantry was the 16. Oct 68,I was assigned to the 4th Inf Div,D Co.,3/8th Inf.My experience was the 16 killed as well as the 14 round being fired from the 60. The M193 was the round then from the 16. We were a disciplined infantry company.I do not recall any 16 being on full auto. Nothing was hit and too much ammo used. My ruck weighed about 85+ pounds and was carried in the mountains of the Central Highlands. I could carry more ammo for the 16 and resupply was not always there.The extra weight of the 14 and ammo would have been too much.To the men who carried the 14 in combat and that is your chosen weapon,I will not disagree. To those who read too much literature on the Battle Rifle(whatever that is)andwant a 14, get into a time machine and go back to Nam.My 16 worked and was kept claen as any infantryman should do. To the Nam Infantryman on this discussion, Welcome Home. Byron

 

[MechAg94]

That is what I have heard from my Dad. He liked the M14 and thought the M16 felt like a toy when he got it. But he also said he would rather starve on a partrol than run out of ammo. He also liked the idea that you could shoot the M16 on the move and one handed if needed.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Why Did Military Give Up on M14?

The U.S. coerced NATO into adopting 7.62 NATO (.308 Winchester) then
dumped the M14 for the .223 (5.56mm) M16. Hmmm. Our military wanted
to peeve off the rest of NATO?

The M14 was billed as replacing the BAR, the M1 Garand, the M1 carbine,
.45 Submachinegun. I don't recall if it was billed as replacing the .45 1911
(the carbine was supposed to do that). The M14 was simply too light to
be used full auto, but it was and is a viable alterative to the M1 Garand
and M1 carbine and used the same ammo as the M60 machinegun.

USAF adopted the M16 to replace the aging WWII M1 carbines used in
guarding AF bases. Curtis LeMay wanted air base guards to have a
weapon to shoot saboteurs or spies without damaging aircraft.
Combat soldiers need a weapon that will damage aircraft and unarmored
vehicles. I agree the AR15 makes a good coyote rifle and will out varmint
the typically maintained .223 bolt action gun.

M16 is really just a replacement for the carbine and submachinegun.
My father fought in New Guiena and Luzon mostly with BAR but
would use a Garand if a BAR was not available. He had a low opnion
of the carbine and SMG.

If you were on a ship in the Gulf, what would you want the Marine
sharpshooter on the bow watching for floating mines to be armed
with: an M14 or an M16?

If I do acquire another military rifle, it will probably be an M1A (civilian
M14). The military (read DoD) made a mistake dropping the M14
which is still the weapon of choice of many of our best fighting men.
McNamara and his whiz kids really screwed up our military in the VN era.

(Oh, Edsel Ford's auto designs were way cooler than that '57 POS named
after him after he was dead; if McNamara designed a car, he designed the
'57 Edsel, I agree.)

In a book on the Battle of the Bulge, "Nuts!", it was noted that German
troops with burp guns or assault rifles tended to hose down suspicious
looking bushes in the snow and mist, while Americans armed with M1
Garands tended to wait for specific targets. Under bad visiblity, Americans
with carbines and Thompsons were more likely to lay down fire than
soldiers with M1 Garands. This seems to parallel what a lot of folks
observed in Viet Nam relative to the M14 and M16.

 

[Byron]

Mr. Brown,please relate your combat experience with the 14 and the 16. Thanks, Byron

 

[Lucky]

Does the M14 eject the brass upwards? I've heard people say stuff about the brass bouncing off scopes. Did I mis-understand?

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Reply to Bryon

I have and claim no combat experience.
I have listened to my father (who served in WWII),
two brother-in-laws (Viet Nam), and son (1st Gulf war)
and a few other friends and relatives who have had
actual combat experience.
My interest in the M14 v M16 controversey is the
result of following all the "Popular Mechanics" style
coverage of how great and wonderful first the M14
then the M16 were going to be.

 

[9mmepiphany]

The U.S. coerced NATO into adopting 7.62 NATO (.308 Winchester)

yes, just like they tried to sell our NATO allies the lockheed F-104 as a all weather fighter

 

[Dienekes]

Back when I worked for Gen. Buck Turgidson Air Police were phasing out the M2 carbine and just starting to get the first M16s. Don't know of any firsthand cases of anyone putting bullet holes in B-52s, but either will puncture aluminum real well. (So will a .22 LR, for that matter.)

Did hear an apocryphal tale of the poor SOB who ran a truck into a B-52, and if true he is probably still having the cost of the damage deducted from his social security check. The USAF was real anal about getting their toys dented in those far-off days.

 

[BusMaster007]

Did anyone answer the original question...?
Why did the U.S. Military give up on the M-14 so quickly?


'CUZ IT SUX'...

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Did anyone answer the original question...?
Why did the U.S. Military give up on the M-14 so quickly?


'CUZ IT SUX'...

It didn't, you know. It was more powerful, more reliable, and with enough ammo to accomplish the mission, lighter than the M16 with enough ammo to accomplish the same mission.

The Military didn't give jup the M14 -- the politicians did, and ordered the military to adopt the M16.

 

[benEzra]

I suspect that if they had not rigged the competition from the start, and allowed the FAL to compete on even terms, we might have adopted the FAL instead (and might still be using it). I'm not bashing the M14 at all, but the FAL is a bit more modern design and addresses a few of the M14's potential drawbacks, IMHO.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I suspect that if they had not rigged the competition from the start, and allowed the FAL to compete on even terms, we might have adopted the FAL instead (and might still be using it). I'm not bashing the M14 at all, but the FAL is a bit more modern design and addresses a few of the M14's potential drawbacks, IMHO.

The FAL is based on the BAR, and is an older design. It has more parts, needs an adjustable gas system and is longer and heavier than the M14.

 

[Correia]

...and is easier to strip, easier to maintain at both the individual and armory level, easier to mount optics, and has a stock that allows more control in rapid fire.

Sorry, Vern.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

...and is easier to strip, easier to maintain at both the individual and armory level, easier to mount optics, and has a stock that allows more control in rapid fire.

Nope -- the M14 is easier to strip. And American soliders had been stripping the M1 very successfully for about 20 years (the M14 is actually easier and simpler to strip than the M1 due to the lack of the en bloc clip mechanism.)

I'd have to have someone show me how the FAL, with more parts and an adjustable gas system, is easier to maintain at either troop or unit level.

And the rapid fire issue is one of personal taste. The M14 is highly controlable in rapid fire, and easier to use from field firing positions.

I've carried and used an M14 in combat (the pre-M21 sniper version.) The optical mounts are built in. On the other hand, the Australians with FALS whom I often operated with didn't seem to have a better rifle than I did.

 

[miko]

The FAL is based on the BAR, and is an older design. It has more parts, needs an adjustable gas system...

It does not "need" it any more than AR or or M14 or Mini14 or AK do, but it sure is a great feature - allowing to minimize recoil and wear in a clean rifle shooting good almmo, while allowing it to function reliably when dirty and on crappy ammo - with a mere flick of a dial.

miko

 

[Vern Humphrey]

It does not "need" it any more than AR or or M14 or Mini14 or AK do, but it sure is a great feature - allowing to minimize recoil and wear in a clean rifle shooting good almmo, while allowing it to function reliably when dirty and on crappy ammo - with a mere flick of a dial.

Believe me, the FAL needs the adjustable gas system - I've seen the problems the Australians had with them in Viet Nam.

The M14, on the other hand has a self-adjusting gas system. It works better than the FAL, and needs no flicks at all.

 

[Byron]

I agree with Vern that the 14 is easier to strip. It is controlable on rapid fire.I have wondered if the 14 had been scaled back to 223 (the Mini 14 has too different of a gas system to compare),would it have been better the the 16?
Byron

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I have wondered if the 14 had been scaled back to 223 (the Mini 14 has too different of a gas system to compare),would it have been better the the 16?

Certainly! In the early '60s, when the politicians decided we need the M16, we would comparing a refined and updated version of a thoroughly-battle-tested rifle with a new and not so well thought-out design.

 

[miko]

The problem was not with a design as much as the cartrige. With 6.5mm ammo and a synthetic stock, M-14 design could have been an almost perfect weapon.
In fact, with side-throwing ejector (like the one on Mini-14 Ranch), the M-14 action could have been easily accomodated in a bullpup stock and that would have made it just perfect.

miko

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Why'd We Give up the M14 so Fast?

1. The damn thing is a beast...
2. The ammo has a more weight, less capacity, and more recoil...
3. The M14/M1A in it's intended design parameters is unwieldly by todays
standards(24-28" of barrel )
4. Many new conscripts were unable to control," The Beast".
5. M14 was too much gun for the shifting battle fiield

PS- I still want two of 'em. One all chrome on synthetic stock and one all original