spartacus2002
Member
The M14 was the last rifleman's rifle. The M4 is a CQB weapon, the M16 a spray and pray weapon. Flame away 
Why did the U.S. Military give up on the M-14 so quickly?
- Thread starter Exposure
- Start date
- Status
mustanger98
Member
Flame away about what? They say talk's cheap, but the price is high when it's true.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
spartacus2002 said:The M14 was the last rifleman's rifle. The M4 is a CQB weapon, the M16 a spray and pray weapon. Flame away
Really? Which weapon now dominates the sport of High Power rifle shooting (a decidedly non spray & pray sport)?
spartacus2002
Member
Bartholomew Roberts said:
I freely admit that the AR15 does, and that the accurized AR15 is a highly accurate rifle (not to mention easier/cheaper to accurize), but their modifications make them different from the M16. Plus, wind can affect the 5.56mm round much more than the 7.62mm round at 500 yards. I have met several highpower shooters who went back to the M1A once they started 400-500 yard shooting. Remember -- at 300 yards, the 7.62mm round has more energy than the standard 5.56mm does a the muzzle.
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
spartacus2002 said:
Different? Name one change you have to make to an AR15 to "accurize" it that you do not also have to make to the M14 in order to make it suitable for High Power.
And yet the AR15 still dominates the 600yd line over the M14.
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
RE: 600 yard paper shooting...
The reports from boomershoot indicate that .223 simply did not arrive with enough authority to reliably ignite boomers past 500 yards.
Being accurate at a certain range isn't the same as being useful at that range...
The reports from boomershoot indicate that .223 simply did not arrive with enough authority to reliably ignite boomers past 500 yards.
Being accurate at a certain range isn't the same as being useful at that range...
In all reality though, who the heck is shooting at some one at 600 yards?
An AK can't reach that far, nor can Dragunov (sp) not acruatly at least. And any enfields or any bolt gun the bad guys have, considering there training, are not going to be hitting any thing at 600 yards. At that distance you call in an airstrike or an atillery strike and sit back and watch.
An AK can't reach that far, nor can Dragunov (sp) not acruatly at least. And any enfields or any bolt gun the bad guys have, considering there training, are not going to be hitting any thing at 600 yards. At that distance you call in an airstrike or an atillery strike and sit back and watch.
tell that to the afganies and the russians
Bartholomew Roberts
Member
I don't think there is any argument over which cartridge has more oomph at 500yds; but this is a different argument from the one I was addressing(that the M16 is a "spray & pray" weapon).
geekWithA.45 said:
That had absolutely nothing to do with the M14s demise. The idea of a lightweight select fire rifle firing an intermediate cartridge was born in WWII. It had nothing to do with so called spray and pray techniques. The M14 was the US ordnance establishment's execution of that idea.
There is no such thing in any US military doctrine as a rifleman's battle rifle. Battle rifle is a term that was coined by a gunwriter to differentiate between the true assault rifle (select fire/intermediate cartridge) i.e. M16, AK-47 and the overweight versions (M14, FN FAL, G3, CETME etc.) forced on the Western nations by the US insistance on a full powered round as the NATO standard. A rifleman is expected to engage the enemy with aimed fire no matter what rifle he's issued.
So you're saying that the riflemen in US Army and Marine Infantry units aren't supposed to engage the enemy? It is their job to close with and destroy the enemy.
The rifleman is trained to service the target with as many rounds as are necessary to prodice the desired effects on the target no matter what weapon he's using.
The M14 was abandoned because it wasn't economical to develop three different rifles at the same time. The M14 was suffering production difficulties, the commanders in Southeast Asia were begging for every M16 they could get their hands on, and the ordnance folks were trying to make their wonder weapon, the SPIW (Special Purpose Individual Weapon, an over/under rifle/grenade launcher combo that looked a lot like the current OICW) work. McNamara had only so much money, so he decided that since the commanders on the ground in the shooting war wanted the M16, and the R&D folks were promising the SPIW would be the wonder weapon that would be the next rung on the evolutionary ladder of military small arms development and would replace both the M14 and M16 when it was ready, the best course of action was to stop production of the M14 which would be obsolete before they completed developing and fielding it.
Jeff
That had absolutely nothing to do with the M14s demise. The idea of a lightweight select fire rifle firing an intermediate cartridge was born in WWII. It had nothing to do with so called spray and pray techniques. The M14 was the US ordnance establishment's execution of that idea.
There is no such thing in any US military doctrine as a rifleman's battle rifle. Battle rifle is a term that was coined by a gunwriter to differentiate between the true assault rifle (select fire/intermediate cartridge) i.e. M16, AK-47 and the overweight versions (M14, FN FAL, G3, CETME etc.) forced on the Western nations by the US insistance on a full powered round as the NATO standard. A rifleman is expected to engage the enemy with aimed fire no matter what rifle he's issued.
So you're saying that the riflemen in US Army and Marine Infantry units aren't supposed to engage the enemy? It is their job to close with and destroy the enemy.
The rifleman is trained to service the target with as many rounds as are necessary to prodice the desired effects on the target no matter what weapon he's using.
The M14 was abandoned because it wasn't economical to develop three different rifles at the same time. The M14 was suffering production difficulties, the commanders in Southeast Asia were begging for every M16 they could get their hands on, and the ordnance folks were trying to make their wonder weapon, the SPIW (Special Purpose Individual Weapon, an over/under rifle/grenade launcher combo that looked a lot like the current OICW) work. McNamara had only so much money, so he decided that since the commanders on the ground in the shooting war wanted the M16, and the R&D folks were promising the SPIW would be the wonder weapon that would be the next rung on the evolutionary ladder of military small arms development and would replace both the M14 and M16 when it was ready, the best course of action was to stop production of the M14 which would be obsolete before they completed developing and fielding it.
Jeff
pcf
Member
The ability to mass fires has been essential to organized fighting units since spears were thrown and arrows launched.
Machine Gunner on Iwo Jima.
At the Library at Quantico, the logistic logs for Iwo Jima are available. IIRC somewhere around 12,000 tons of small arms munitions were expended on the island. That comes out to 2 Japanese killed per ton of small arms' munitions (assuming every death was caused by small arms which is far from true). A common complaint among NCO's on Iwo Jima was that new guys would not shoot enough. If something didn't seem right shoot it, kill it destroy it, not wait for the platoon of Japs to do a bonzai charge. More ammo was always available.
"Spray and Pray" or overwhelming fire power? Do it with a 30 caliber cartridge it's overwhelming fire power, do it with a 5.56 cartridge and it's "spray and pray".
Fast foward to Korea and a major change has occured. Fighting units are starting to move farther and faster, and the supply couldn't keep up or it's cut off. This is where the myth of not using 50cal arms against enemy combatants comes to life. It has nothing to do with "laws of warfare" and everything to do with logistics. Manpacking enough ammunition to keep an M2 running is a difficult task for an infantry company, expending limited stores of ammunition on enemy personel would be unwise. Two important things troops moved faster than the supply trains and the weight of ammunition were limiting factors. Effectiveness is pointless if you can't use it.
Vietnam, Troops moved farther, faster, and in smaller groups than was ever imaginable. Helicopters could move a company of men 150 miles in less than an hour. A lone platoon of could cover 30 miles in three days on patrol (WWII administrative movements could take longer). Supply can't move that fast, or with everyone. Logistics became more important than ever, and the need to not depend on logistics became important at the same time. Just by weight one can carry more than twice as much 5.56 as 7.62.
Not going to bite on which is better or which platform is better, but if the troops don't have ammo they can't fight. It's a compromise, how much can a man carry and still fight? How long can he fight without resupply? What's most effective? Where's resupply? Caliber and platform aren't the only considerations.
Machine Gunner on Iwo Jima.
At the Library at Quantico, the logistic logs for Iwo Jima are available. IIRC somewhere around 12,000 tons of small arms munitions were expended on the island. That comes out to 2 Japanese killed per ton of small arms' munitions (assuming every death was caused by small arms which is far from true). A common complaint among NCO's on Iwo Jima was that new guys would not shoot enough. If something didn't seem right shoot it, kill it destroy it, not wait for the platoon of Japs to do a bonzai charge. More ammo was always available.
"Spray and Pray" or overwhelming fire power? Do it with a 30 caliber cartridge it's overwhelming fire power, do it with a 5.56 cartridge and it's "spray and pray".
Fast foward to Korea and a major change has occured. Fighting units are starting to move farther and faster, and the supply couldn't keep up or it's cut off. This is where the myth of not using 50cal arms against enemy combatants comes to life. It has nothing to do with "laws of warfare" and everything to do with logistics. Manpacking enough ammunition to keep an M2 running is a difficult task for an infantry company, expending limited stores of ammunition on enemy personel would be unwise. Two important things troops moved faster than the supply trains and the weight of ammunition were limiting factors. Effectiveness is pointless if you can't use it.
Vietnam, Troops moved farther, faster, and in smaller groups than was ever imaginable. Helicopters could move a company of men 150 miles in less than an hour. A lone platoon of could cover 30 miles in three days on patrol (WWII administrative movements could take longer). Supply can't move that fast, or with everyone. Logistics became more important than ever, and the need to not depend on logistics became important at the same time. Just by weight one can carry more than twice as much 5.56 as 7.62.
Not going to bite on which is better or which platform is better, but if the troops don't have ammo they can't fight. It's a compromise, how much can a man carry and still fight? How long can he fight without resupply? What's most effective? Where's resupply? Caliber and platform aren't the only considerations.
Last edited:
Fatelvis
Member
Ive written in to "Mail Call" twice, asking for R Lee to address this question. And Ive never seen it on the show. Wouldnt you like to see his answer?
Rifleman 173
Member
And the correct answer is:...drum roll... POLITICS!!!!!
EVERYTHING that McNamara, the Kennedys, the Democrats and the republicans did back in those days revolved around POLITICS. In those days, politics also meant MONEY for all of your friends. You took care of your friends and they would later on reciprocated to you. Back in those days General Dynamics was a MAJOR supplier of military gear to include.... M-16 rifles. General Dynamics was located in Massachusetts. Hmmmmm. Didn't some guys named Kennedy come out of Massachusetts? General Dynamics did all sorts of military contract work for the Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Army. What they could not produce on their own they "farmed out" to other companies. The Kennedys/General Dynamics connection was blatantly corruption at its lowest form. Colt the M-16 supplier was located in Massachusetts. Smith & Wesson which supplied revolvers was and still is located in Massachusetts. It got so bad in Viet Nam that the port supervisors would check out where a shipment came from, deliberately delay it and wait for one of the Kennedy reps to call them up to get the shipment expedited. Back in the days of the first M-16 rifles, nobody in the Army or Marines really wanted them. McNamara and his whiz kids came up with the idea of "one gun to fit all military and tactical situations." That was as stupid as their one airplane for all the services idea too. All that stuff boiled down to the useless M-16. When I first got to Nam I was issued an M-16 and didn't like it. I had taken Basic with an M-14 and AIT with an M-16. But I had no option as to which rifle I wanted and ended up saddled with the M-16. We very quickly learned that the M-16 was really, really weak for combat. IF you shot an enemy soldier you had to hit him MULTIPLE times in the body to insure effectiveness. If the guy was doped up on morphine and such, body hits were useless and you had to go to head shots. Try doing that in the dark. The guns easily rusted in the humid conditions of Viet Nam. The ammo was very dirty which caused fouling which caused jams which cost American lives. You had to keep your rifle very clean and oiled while living in a dirty, steamy and slimy land. So, the correct answer for ANY change within our government and/or military is POLITICS.
EVERYTHING that McNamara, the Kennedys, the Democrats and the republicans did back in those days revolved around POLITICS. In those days, politics also meant MONEY for all of your friends. You took care of your friends and they would later on reciprocated to you. Back in those days General Dynamics was a MAJOR supplier of military gear to include.... M-16 rifles. General Dynamics was located in Massachusetts. Hmmmmm. Didn't some guys named Kennedy come out of Massachusetts? General Dynamics did all sorts of military contract work for the Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and Army. What they could not produce on their own they "farmed out" to other companies. The Kennedys/General Dynamics connection was blatantly corruption at its lowest form. Colt the M-16 supplier was located in Massachusetts. Smith & Wesson which supplied revolvers was and still is located in Massachusetts. It got so bad in Viet Nam that the port supervisors would check out where a shipment came from, deliberately delay it and wait for one of the Kennedy reps to call them up to get the shipment expedited. Back in the days of the first M-16 rifles, nobody in the Army or Marines really wanted them. McNamara and his whiz kids came up with the idea of "one gun to fit all military and tactical situations." That was as stupid as their one airplane for all the services idea too. All that stuff boiled down to the useless M-16. When I first got to Nam I was issued an M-16 and didn't like it. I had taken Basic with an M-14 and AIT with an M-16. But I had no option as to which rifle I wanted and ended up saddled with the M-16. We very quickly learned that the M-16 was really, really weak for combat. IF you shot an enemy soldier you had to hit him MULTIPLE times in the body to insure effectiveness. If the guy was doped up on morphine and such, body hits were useless and you had to go to head shots. Try doing that in the dark. The guns easily rusted in the humid conditions of Viet Nam. The ammo was very dirty which caused fouling which caused jams which cost American lives. You had to keep your rifle very clean and oiled while living in a dirty, steamy and slimy land. So, the correct answer for ANY change within our government and/or military is POLITICS.
I thought Colt was located in Hartford, Conn., the same location it's been in since Sam Colt founded it in 1847.
GD is headquartered in Falls Church, VA, as it has been since 1952 (when it was founded).
Politics (largely internal to the Army) played as much of a role in the M-14's adoption (the sabotage of the AR-10 as an example) as it did in its demise, but not all those politics can be laid at the feet of the Kennedy clan (although McNamara played a huge role in the demise).
USSR
Member
And this differs from today in what way?
Don
Rifleman 173, Welcome Home. I was a grunt in the 4th Inf 68-69 in The Central Highlands. I too trained on the 14 in Basic and 16's in AIT. My experience was different than yours with the 16. I had no trouble stopping someone in their tracks with mine. I cleaned it often as infantryman would do in any war. Mine never jammed. Our rucks weighed in about 85+ pounds.Ammo for the 14 was far heavier. I do not recall any problems in my company with the 16's not performing well. Head shots in the dark would be hard with any rifle. The ammo problem was cleared up when I got there as Dupont powder was being used as it was in the originals. I opened a crate of ammo once and Dupont Powder was stamped on the boxes. That stayed with me. Byron
Must read books for this topic:
"The great rifle controversy" By Edward Ezell. Out of print and hard to find, copies go for about $150. It covers the whole history from the Garand (and earlier) through the M16, including all the politicing, etc.
"The Black Rifle: Also by Ezell and R Blake Steven, this one is easier to find and touches on the M14 briefly. It is mostly about the M16 and is a must have for any serious AR fan
"US Rifle M14" by R Blake Stevens.
The whole history of the M14, icluding all the warts you never heard about - accuracy problems, manufacturing problems and explosing receivers.
"The great rifle controversy" By Edward Ezell. Out of print and hard to find, copies go for about $150. It covers the whole history from the Garand (and earlier) through the M16, including all the politicing, etc.
"The Black Rifle: Also by Ezell and R Blake Steven, this one is easier to find and touches on the M14 briefly. It is mostly about the M16 and is a must have for any serious AR fan
"US Rifle M14" by R Blake Stevens.
The whole history of the M14, icluding all the warts you never heard about - accuracy problems, manufacturing problems and explosing receivers.
I would love to hear some details on this.
I'm not sure how sabotage fits into the equation. It wasn't Springfield Armory's fault that Armalite chose to use an aluminum/steel composite barrel on the AR-10, and that it burst during testing. Likewise, it wasn't SA's fault that the AR-10 performed poorly and was prone to jams during cold weather testing.
The Springfield "sabotage" allegation is often brought up with regard to testing of the FAL and the AR-10. What I never see, is any proof to substantiate the allegations.
The FAL initially performed better than the M14, but SA engineers were allowed to tweak the rifle during tests. This is well documented in "The great rifke controversy" showing actual army communiqués. Originally, the US agreed to adopt a NATO standard weapon if NATO adopted the US standard ammo (308). It later balked at the FAL, with Studler and othjers convinced that the M14 could be made on modified M1 Garand machinery.
This proved not to be the case. And even while the M14 and FAL had nerely identical peeformance in th Army's tests (with a slight edge to the FAL) productionof the M14 proved problematic. Winchester and H&R had serious problems meeting the specification and requested relaxed specs. The accuracy standard for acceptance for the M14 was 10 rounds into 5.5 inches at 100 yards, and many rifles could not pass this test!
It wasn't until TRW entered the fray that the M14 really became a great rifle. TRW build special machinery like continous broaching machines that made the manufacture highly automated and of high quality. TRW lost money in the first year of production, but expected to turn a profit in subsequent years once the cost of the machinerty w was amortized. Unfortunately, the M14 was cancelled by this time, due to earlier issues and the appearence of the M16. The M16 itself was originally supposed to be an interim weapon until the SPIW was fielded in a few year. 40+ years later, the M16 is still the standar arm of US forces, the longest serving rifle in US history.
This proved not to be the case. And even while the M14 and FAL had nerely identical peeformance in th Army's tests (with a slight edge to the FAL) productionof the M14 proved problematic. Winchester and H&R had serious problems meeting the specification and requested relaxed specs. The accuracy standard for acceptance for the M14 was 10 rounds into 5.5 inches at 100 yards, and many rifles could not pass this test!
It wasn't until TRW entered the fray that the M14 really became a great rifle. TRW build special machinery like continous broaching machines that made the manufacture highly automated and of high quality. TRW lost money in the first year of production, but expected to turn a profit in subsequent years once the cost of the machinerty w was amortized. Unfortunately, the M14 was cancelled by this time, due to earlier issues and the appearence of the M16. The M16 itself was originally supposed to be an interim weapon until the SPIW was fielded in a few year. 40+ years later, the M16 is still the standar arm of US forces, the longest serving rifle in US history.
Dr. Peter Venkman
Member
Bartholomew Roberts said:
An AR-15 is high-powered? When did this happen?
According to the info I have on FAL vs. M14 testing, the results of the 1956 trials were as follows:
Average number of broken/damaged parts replaced in firing 6000 rounds from a single rifle:
M14 2 parts
FAL 6 parts
Average number of malfunctions per 100 rounds with the rifle held normally:
M14 .03%
FAL .17%
Combat reliability test percentage of malfunctions:
M14 4.9%
FAL 5.3%
Average score in firing qualification course B (six shooter)
M14 166-4V
FAL 141-3V
M1 178-5V
Sounds to me like the FAL lost, and the complaints about test rigging are just sour grapes from the losing team. If the engineers at Springfield were hell bent to torpedo the FAL, why was it that the Garand tested so well during accuracy testing? It would make sense to sabotage the Garand rifles used as a control group in order to make the M14 look better, no? Instead the Garand test rifles shot the best score of all the rifles during accuracy testing.
The numbers are what they are. I don't see the alleged scandal.
Average number of broken/damaged parts replaced in firing 6000 rounds from a single rifle:
M14 2 parts
FAL 6 parts
Average number of malfunctions per 100 rounds with the rifle held normally:
M14 .03%
FAL .17%
Combat reliability test percentage of malfunctions:
M14 4.9%
FAL 5.3%
Average score in firing qualification course B (six shooter)
M14 166-4V
FAL 141-3V
M1 178-5V
Sounds to me like the FAL lost, and the complaints about test rigging are just sour grapes from the losing team. If the engineers at Springfield were hell bent to torpedo the FAL, why was it that the Garand tested so well during accuracy testing? It would make sense to sabotage the Garand rifles used as a control group in order to make the M14 look better, no? Instead the Garand test rifles shot the best score of all the rifles during accuracy testing.
The numbers are what they are. I don't see the alleged scandal.
It should be noted that the above test compared the T44E4 against the H&R T48 and not the Belfian FAL. The T48 at this point was nowhere near as developed as the T44, and H&R had numerous problems. H&R later proved to be just as imcompetant manufacturing M14, ewhen several H&R made receivers failed catastrophically thanks to the use of the wrong material. The 1956 trials were not even a full test as the earlier trial had been, where the FAL outperformed the T44 except in arctic conditions.
The final report of the Infantry board was that bothe the T44 and T48 were "suitable for army use".
Quoting "US Rifle M14" (page 176)
"The T44E4 was preferred, due to its similarities to the M1 rifle: not the least of these of course was its American origin....The T44E4 furthermore weight a full pound less than the T48, contained fewer parts and springs, and featured a gas system which, unlike the gas-impingement T48, professed to have no need for manual gas power adjustments"
The final report of the Infantry board was that bothe the T44 and T48 were "suitable for army use".
Quoting "US Rifle M14" (page 176)
"The T44E4 was preferred, due to its similarities to the M1 rifle: not the least of these of course was its American origin....The T44E4 furthermore weight a full pound less than the T48, contained fewer parts and springs, and featured a gas system which, unlike the gas-impingement T48, professed to have no need for manual gas power adjustments"
Gun Tech,
I have the same Blake Stevens "US Rifle M14" book as you. The way I read it, on page 174 it appears that the T48 rifles used in the test were in fact FN produced rifles. The H&R T48 rifles were not ready due to production problems.
The T48 rifles tested were made by both FN and High Standard.
Quote:
"They put these rifles through an abbreviated combat test course which showed the T44 a full percentage point ahead of the T48 in total malfunctions: T44, 1.4%; T48(FN) and T48(HS), 2.4%. In the combat portion of the tests, the malfunction rate still showed the T44 ahead : T44, 4.9%; T48(FN) 5.3%, T48(HS), 6.6%."
We are really splitting hairs here. As you mentioned the Army found both rifles to be acceptable. I guess what aggravates me is continually hearing people claim that SA rigged the tests while never providing any credible evidence to support their position.
I have the same Blake Stevens "US Rifle M14" book as you. The way I read it, on page 174 it appears that the T48 rifles used in the test were in fact FN produced rifles. The H&R T48 rifles were not ready due to production problems.
The T48 rifles tested were made by both FN and High Standard.
Quote:
"They put these rifles through an abbreviated combat test course which showed the T44 a full percentage point ahead of the T48 in total malfunctions: T44, 1.4%; T48(FN) and T48(HS), 2.4%. In the combat portion of the tests, the malfunction rate still showed the T44 ahead : T44, 4.9%; T48(FN) 5.3%, T48(HS), 6.6%."
We are really splitting hairs here. As you mentioned the Army found both rifles to be acceptable. I guess what aggravates me is continually hearing people claim that SA rigged the tests while never providing any credible evidence to support their position.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
