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

[Vern Humphrey]

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

The M14 is lighter than either the M1 or the FAL. I have always claimed that an M14 with enough ammo to accomplish the mission is lighter then the M16 with enough ammo to accomplish the same mission.

The M14 barrel is 22 inches long.

The M14 is as easy to shoot as the M1 -- and millions of "conscripts" shot that rifle very well.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Gimme a break!

I still want two, gollie

 

[Gunnutz13]

I concur with Rabbit...

on page 2 of this thread. I've read the book called "Misfire:The History of How America's Small Arms Have Failed Our Military" by William H.Hallahan.
Describes weapons choices and developments from the Revolutionary War through Vietnam and the men who failed our military by making choices based on bad information, personal notions and bias, and other stupid reasons.
Check it out..you'll be amazed !

 

[Lucky]

When you put a scope on the M-14 does the brass eject upward and hit it?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

When you put a scope on the M-14 does the brass eject upward and hit it?

No.

Next time you see someone firing an M1 or an M1A, notice the ejection pattern. The brass lands about 6 to 10 feet away, to the shooter's right front. Then take a look at the rifle after it has been fired a bit. You will see brass marks on the operating rod hump.

The operating rod hump is the primary ejector -- the plunger simply puts the case in the path of the operating rod as it moves forward, and it kicks the brass out to the right front. The brass doesn't get any higher than the operating rod hump until it's clear of the rifle.

Now the M1 couldn't have a scope over the bore because that would block the receiver so that you couldn't insert an en bloc clip. And without an en bloc clip you can't load the M1 (except as a single shot.) So it isn't ejection, but loading that was the problem there.

The M14, of course, is loaded from below with a detatchable magazine.

 

[mustanger98]

Lucky, Garand type actions eject to the right. No, it won't hit a scope.

M14 ejects, IIRC, straight to the right.

M1 Garand ejects right and forward.

Mini-14 ejects right and forward.

Editted to add: This post and Vern Humphreys' were posted at the same time. I didn't read his last one till I'd pulled the trigger on this one.

 

[Correia]

Sorry, but I don't see how the M14 is easier to strip than the FAL. On the FAL you push or pull a lever (depending on if it is inch or metric). The gun hinges open and bolt falls out. The adjustable gas system is a red herring, because it doesn't really add any more complexity. It is going to get adjusted once and stay there for all intents and purposes.

I'm only taking a wild guess at the armory maintenence level because of how easy FALs are to build compared to M14s. There is only one tricky part to FAL building, and that is getting the headspace right. Piece of cake for a 45B.

Hey, I like both of them a lot. And I think the M14 is an excellent weapon, but I wouldn't just dismiss the T44/45 trials out of hand as if the M14 was just vastly superior or something.

 

[Lucky]

Excellent, thanks. Thinking about a long-range rifle for the future, and $399 norincos keep staring me in the face.

 

[Sleeping Dog]

The M14 is as easy to shoot as the M1 -- and millions of "conscripts" shot that rifle very well

This young conscript shot pretty well with the M14. My biggest gripe was that I had to shoot without my glasses, otherwise the oil would spatter them and make it worse. So the front post AND the target were both fuzzy.

I never had a M14 with "the switch", and that's probably for the best. I didn't have enough inertial mass to control it back then. Today, I got mass .

Regards.

 

[Commissar Gribb]

for all that's said about M14s, they sure are some neat looking rifles.

I'll have to pick up an M1a someday.

 

[thereisnospoon]

One word: S.T.U.P.I.D.I.T.Y. !

:banghead:

 

[spartacus2002]

Sorry, but I don't see how the M14 is easier to strip than the FAL. On the FAL you push or pull a lever (depending on if it is inch or metric). The gun hinges open and bolt falls out.

If you get a bolt stuck halfway open on the FAL, you're screwed because the action will not hinge.

 

[Tony Williams]

According to the histories I've read, the US Army extensively tested the M14 and the FAL, and found that they were more or less of equal merit. So they went for the M14 because it was American (fair enough).

But the FAL - and the G3 - were extremely successful in international sales...

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

I keep seeing reference to my use of the word,"Conscript",

Does it have a negative conotation ....

I have never fired or held and M14, M1A, Garand, or FAL; So I was just giving my opinoin based off of holding a Socom 16 which felt,"Beefy" to this little guy, and it was unloaded, iron sights. With those extra 6 inches up front that may help with recoil on the full-sized M1A/M14, but with a scope, 20 rounder, and whatever load out you carry, she becomes a." beast", IMHO (compared to an AR sorry )

Edited to say: I still want two

 

[Commissar Gribb]

I keep seeing reference to my use of the word,"Conscript",


Does it have a negative conotation ....

generally a conscript is a soldier who's been drawn into the military quickly, handed a rifle and sent off to fight.

Conscripts are trained quickly and because they've been drafted into service, many times they dont want to be there and as such don't fight as hard or effectively as volunteer soldiers.

 

[Byron]

Mr. Gribb, I was a draftee and most of the men in my infantry company were draftees.We fought hard, as hard as volunteers. Who in their right mind wants to be in war, drafted or volunteer? I resent your remarks. By the way,most my company,D and A Co.3/8th INF are on the Wall. Each company had about 140 men each(mostly draftees).On March 4th,1969,A went down. We tried to come to their aid. A reinforced NVA Battalion,about 1800 men surrounded both companies.We all fought hard.You are way out of line to the Memory of A & D Companies.I write nothing else for it would not be printable.
Byron completely disabled combat veteran drafted to defend such as you to run us down.

 

[USMC Tanker]

About the controllability of full-auto on the M14...three words...well aimed shots. Try it.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

generally a conscript is a soldier who's been drawn into the military quickly, handed a rifle and sent off to fight.

Conscripts are trained quickly and because they've been drafted into service, many times they dont want to be there and as such don't fight as hard or effectively as volunteer soldiers.

This is uncalled for.

Troops in the US Army received the same training, without regard to their method of entry into the service.

And as a company commander in Viet Nam, I assure you you could not tell if a man was a volunteer or a draftee by the way he fought.

 

[slzy]

edsels were produced '58'59'60. the last year,it was a mercury with different tail lights and grill. mcnamara expanded the '57 ford line into 2 different convertibles 2 wagons ,ranchero ,2 door ht,4door ht 2door sedan,in other words many variants on the same theme. edsel was supposed to have its own dealers,and it is diffucult to see where it would fit. as bad an effect mcnamara may have had on rifles,trying to transfer his success at ford in'57,resulted in the one size fits all/none f111.

 

[Kiwi98J]

I've read the thread with interest.

I qualified with the M-14 in basic & AIT and was issued a M-16 after I arrived in country in '69. I was well traned and conditioned for a war based on flank and maneuver warfare against fixed positions and large unit operations against which my M-14 was a superb weapon. Too bad we didn't fight the commies in Europe. Unfortunately, that wasn't the reality in the Central Highlands and the enemy I fought didn't cooperate and seek to take and hold positions. Everytime it got hot it was a firefight, sudden and quick and over in just a few minutes. Didn't have time to shoulder my weapoin, aim and place a killing shot - it was all too quck and confusing. Just spray and pray. My expert marksmanship badge didn't mean sqat. I wouldn't have traded my M-16 for a 14 under any circumstances. The only time I ever shot at anything over 200 yards was perimeter duty protecting the REMFs.

As to "Why the U.S. Military gave up on the M-14 so quickly?" I'm not sure but I don't see how it would have been anywhere near as effective as the M-16 in my experience, except in holding a position.


RE Vern Humphrey's comment "And as a company commander in Viet Nam, I assure you you could not tell if a man was a volunteer or a draftee by the way he fought"

Thank You sir!!

JE NE CHANGE QU'EN MOURANT (I change but in death)

 

[Grunt]

Politics, plain and simple is my best guess. Well, that and follow the money is generally another common (and pretty accurate) way to describe these sort of things. Now during my time in the Corps, I have used the M-16A2 (the standard back in those days) a couple CAR-15's (on loan from NIS for guarding the front gate) and an M-14 that I was assigned for DM duty. These days as an Air Force combat arms instructor, I have used the M-16A2, GUU-5 (M-4 barrel, A2 upper and full auto lower) and the M-4A1 carbine. Personally, I own 4, M-14 variants as well as 4, AR variants. Of all the weapons I've used, I'd stick with the M-14 as the best of the lot. It was accurate, reliable (the M-16 was reliable as well but the PM schedule was a bit more demanding to keep it that way), more rugged (shattering an A2 handguard blocking an overhead slash during bayonet practice once tells me that it's not as rugged as I'd like) and fired a projectile that had range, penetration and some serious thumping power behind it.

 

[spartacus2002]

fired a projectile that had range, penetration and some serious thumping power behind it.

I've fired the M14 at 500 yard targets with wooden 8" railroad ties as backdrops. At 500 yards, that 7.62 round penetrates the railroad ties with no problem.

I'll guess that the M855 penetrator round does too, but it probably won't have much ooomph left.

 

[Salvage Sailor]

Just to address the original question.....

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

The USN has had the M-14 in it's shipboard armories from introduction to present day.

Anchor's Aweigh

 

[geekWithA.45]

Perhaps it was largely the simplisme' of the round count issue.

WWII stats said it took X (I don't recall the number, something preposterous...27k? )rounds to kill/disable 1 bad guy. They also had another number that suggested that < 27% of troops actually aimed at the enemy.

Therefore, logic suggests that if you carry 3x the # of rounds, you'll kill 3x the bad guys.

Personally, I think the M-14/1A is a rifleman's battle rifle: it is for a man who expects to find enemies, and subsequently intends to aim and fire at each of them (more or less) once, in rapid succession.

The M-16 is for everyone else.

That's not a knock in the M-16, it's got a lot of virtues for folks who may or may not encounter an enemy, and may or may not engage them individually.

It will also serve in the rifleman's role, although he must adjust his attitude such that he expects to find enemies, and subsequently intends to aim and fire at them (more or less) thrice in rapid succession.

 

[varoadking]

Robert McNamara