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

[GunTech]

In any case, it looks like I misremembered, or was thinking of the earlier 1952 test where the FAL came out on top except in arctic tests. IIRC, there were lots of initial problems with the T44 magazines.

Personally, I like the M14 better than the FAL - better trigger, superior iron sights, more accurate. But I'd feel pretty comfortable with a FAL.

Of course the FAL has undergone a few changes since 1956, and none of the rifles tested fully represent what came to be issued. I consider the peak of the M14 to be the final TRW guns. Too bad the contract got cancelled right as TRW figured out how to make them right.

I still amazes me that the TRW's bid per rifle was around $65, and they expected to make a profit by year two of production. And finally, all that machinery that TRW designed and set up at a cost of some $6 million (1960 dollars) was sold to Taiwan for pennies on the dollar.

 

[GunTech]

I have the same Blake Stevens "US Rifle M14" book as you.

Have you looked at "The Last Steel Warrior: US M14 Rifle" by Frank Innamico? I am wondering if it's worth buying.

 

[trbon8r]

I haven't looked at the "Steel Warrior" book. I need to pick that one up.

There is a guy that posts on the M14 forum that goes by the name of "Different" that has written what is supposed to be a great book on the M14 as well.

I like the FAL, I really do. I have one, but I also have three M14 type rifles so I guess you know which one I prefer. My STG clone FAL is a good rifle and never gives me any problems, although admittedly it hasn't been shot too much. I must admit I do hate the metal handguard of the STG version.

Anyway, this thread is getting me motivated to knock the dust off on the FAL, and take it to the range along with one of the M14s for a little fun.

 

[Slamfire]

Follow the Money

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.

It is my considered opinion that money is the root of all this evil. Call it Politics if you will.

Imagine the Office Secretary of Defense is populated with “whiz kids” who are brilliant, and absolutely despise the military and everyone within the Dept of Defense. Throw in Colt lobbyists, the unseen force, and their money, the unseen lubricant. These Colt lobbyists are masters of manipulation . They feed the Whiz kids egos, feed their stomachs, tell them how smart they are, how dumb the DOD, and what a bad rifle they have in the M14. The song they sing directly feeds into the predilections and preconceptions of the Whiz Kids. At the same time, there has never been a single system that ever made the transition from Development into Full Scale Production without a lot of screeching and hairpulling. These early problems provide an infinite supply of gossip from which to tarnish the M14 program.

The Whiz kids, brilliant and arrogant as they are, crunch the numbers using databases mostly based on their trusted Colt experts. Trusting their ability to understand the present, and accurately predict the future, they terminate the M14 program and buy Colts product.

I believe that is a summary of what happened.

Defense acquisition is a dirty and messy thing. It is all about profits, and the corporations who want that public money to make profits. For Defense procurements, it is a zero sum game. If you want the profits, you have to take the money from someone else. By all means necessary. And that is what happened here. Colt got the money.

 

[HorseSoldier]

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.

Not really. The Garand was a dead issue by the time of the testing, so it could have cured cancer, tap danced on command, and cooked a pretty decent steak and, with an 8 round en bloc clip, it was still slated for retirement.

Imagine the Office Secretary of Defense is populated with “whiz kids” who are brilliant, and absolutely despise the military and everyone within the Dept of Defense. Throw in Colt lobbyists, the unseen force, and their money, the unseen lubricant. These Colt lobbyists are masters of manipulation . They feed the Whiz kids egos, feed their stomachs, tell them how smart they are, how dumb the DOD, and what a bad rifle they have in the M14. The song they sing directly feeds into the predilections and preconceptions of the Whiz Kids. At the same time, there has never been a single system that ever made the transition from Development into Full Scale Production without a lot of screeching and hairpulling. These early problems provide an infinite supply of gossip from which to tarnish the M14 program

It did not help, I'm sure, that the M14 was obsolete the day it was type classified before the first unit was ever equipped.

 

[buzz_knox]

I would love to hear some details on this.

You are correct. I was mistaken. That should have read the "sabotage of the AR-15" but that would have been a strong term anyway. The Ordnance Dept. did play some games with the AR's arctic tests. The Black Rifle, p. 174.

I believe my confusion concerning the AR-10 came from the fact that the aluminum barrel was installed against Stoner's advice. I'd misremembered the Ordnance Dept. requiring the barrel, but instead it was Stoner's superiors.

 

[buzz_knox]

Throw in Colt lobbyists, the unseen force, and their money, the unseen lubricant. These Colt lobbyists are masters of manipulation .

They effectively manipulated Gen. Lemay into believing the AR-15 would be an effective replacement for the M2 his SAC guards were using. They also manipulated the US Special Forces into believing the AR-15 was an effective weapon in Vietnam and would serve the smaller Asians better than the Garand or M14. Those two factors started the ball rolling on the selective purchases of the AR, which became an effort to standardize the entire military on the weapon.

 

[trbon8r]

Not really. The Garand was a dead issue by the time of the testing, so it could have cured cancer, tap danced on command, and cooked a pretty decent steak and, with an 8 round en bloc clip, it was still slated for retirement.

Obviously the Garand was a goner, but it doesn't really matter in the scheme of things.

My point was, since according to some folks the Springfield Armory staff was so good at rigging tests, why would they not rig the Garands to fail too?

Surely the SA engineers wouldn't want the old Garand showing up their newest pride and joy. It must have been at least a little embarrassing to admit that the early versions of the M14 weren't even as accurate as the old M1. Sounds to me like when the test results were published the "Test Rigging Department" at Springfield Armory must have been asleep at the switch.

 

[BigG]

Obviously the Garand was a goner, but it doesn't really matter in the scheme of things.

My point was, since according to some folks the Springfield Armory staff was so good at rigging tests, why would they not rig the Garands to fail too?

A controlled experiment. The Garand was the control, or standard they measured against. The Garand was not in the cards to be continued in service so they wanted something to show the status quo.

I agree with Horse Soldier the M14 was stillborn - obsolete on birth. Not a bad rifle, just not good enough.

 

[Slamfire]

They effectively manipulated Gen. Lemay into believing the AR-15 would be an effective replacement for the M2 his SAC guards were using. They also manipulated the US Special Forces into believing the AR-15 was an effective weapon in Vietnam

As I understand, Colt took General LeMay to a watermellon shoot. It is well known that watermellons are the most dangerous creatures known to humanity. Therefore stopping a charging watermellon, by exploding it all over the place, is fun for the children and impresses the ignorant. Watermellon shoots are used today by anti gunners. "Imagine this is a human head!"

Gen LeMay got treated royally, beer and brastwust on the menu. General LeMay was not qualified to determine the maturity of the weapon system, magazines were not interchangeable into something like 1968. The AR was only a couple steps advanced from a napkin drawing, it had not undergone full scale development. And guess what, all those dead GI's happened after Le May bought the AR15. Maybe he should have stuck with Thermonuclear Weapons.

As for the Special Forces. There are a bunch of Special Forces type outfits out there, all elite warriors. And they get to play with anything they want. And when they are bored with the old toys, they get new ones. The AR was a new toy. Now it is an old toy.

 

[buzz_knox]

As I understand, Colt took General LeMay to a watermellon shoot.

Actually, General LeMay was throwing the party, which he did every year.

And guess what, all those dead GI's happened after Le May bought the AR15.

Would those be the dead GIs (or Marines, depending on who's telling the tale) who were found with cleaning rods in their barrels? To the extent they existed, I thought it was the result of 1) Congress changing the ammo specs in order to have all rifle ammo using the same powders and 2) people ingorantly informing troops that the rifle never having to be cleaned. Neither of those can be laid at Colt's doorstep.

And probably a few of those malfunctions was due to reliance on the forward bolt assist. This was something insisted upon by the Army, and incorporated against Stoner's advice. Nothing like dealing with a recalcitrant round by slamming it into the chamber, and using a fragile system to do it to boot.

And when they are bored with the old toys, they get new ones. The AR was a new toy.

You missed the point about the "new toy" being desired for the ARVN, not necessarily themselves.

 

[BigG]

LeMay got treated royally, beer and brastwust on the menu.

Sounds kind of proletarian rather than royal to me.

Slamfire -
I don't see how you know LeMay's qualifications for judging a weapon. The AR15 is a pretty good weapon, despite your ill founded attacks.

 

[HorseSoldier]

They also manipulated the US Special Forces into believing the AR-15 was an effective weapon in Vietnam and would serve the smaller Asians better than the Garand or M14.

I'm not really clear on how they "manipulated" SF soldiers advising the ARVN.

Some ARVN units with SF advisors got handed AR-15s. They carried them in the field. They were radically superior to the other options available to US-supported ARVN troops at the time (M1 carbine and Garands). It was light, handy, and packed significant firepower into a very portable and highly ergonomic package. SF advisors wrote AARs concerning the weapon based on their firsthand experience with them out on operations.

"Manipulation"? You make it sound like Colt was handing out weekend passes to houses of ill repute in Saigon or something. I've never ever heard those rumors, unlike the widely reported claims that Springfield Armory rigged the cold weather phases of the M14/FAL competition to make their product win.

 

[buzz_knox]

I was being sarcastic in terms of how Colt "manipulated" LeMay into replacing the M2s and "manipulated" Special Forces into trying and liking the weapon, and thinking it would serve their allies well.

I thought the context of my remarks would show the sarcasm, but I should have gone with something along the lines of quotation marks or .

 

[Slamfire]

Would those be the dead GIs (or Marines, depending on who's telling the tale) who were found with cleaning rods in their barrels? To the extent they existed, I thought it was the result of 1) Congress changing the ammo specs in order to have all rifle ammo using the same powders and 2) people ingorantly informing troops that the rifle never having to be cleaned. Neither of those can be laid at Colt's doorstep.

It is well worth reading Dick Culver's experience with the M16 in Vietnam. with "The Saga of the M16 in Vietnam (part 1 and part 2)

http://www.jouster.com/articles30m1/links.html

The ammunition specs were just the tip of the iceberg. When the AR was fielded it had a absolute miminum of development. It was an immature platform. As an example, the rifle required ammunition be held to tolerances that were tighter than state of the art.

This is one of the problems with fielding immature designs, they work well at watermellon shoots, but in the dust, rain, in the hands of callous GI's, non robust systems fail.

And whom do you think came up with the idea that the rifle was self cleaning? It was all part of the sales pitch by Colt!

I don't see how you know LeMay's qualifications for judging a weapon. The AR15 is a pretty good weapon, despite your ill founded attacks.

Air Force General LeMay was an authentic American hero. He flew plenty of missions in WWII, and was a good enough administrator to push the Air Force to defeat Japan. Those Tokyo fire missions were his baby. That being said, being an Ace Air Force General does not make him a qualified test article evaluator.

The AR15 is now a pretty good weapon platform. The bugs were worked out over piles of dead GI’s. For every fix that was implemented, the contractor got profit. This is the situation every contractor wants to be in, a sole source procurement with a proprietary item that the Government has to have. When the Government is over a barrel like this, it then has to spend millions in developmental money to make the item work. And guess who gets profit on every developmental dollar? At the end of this, the Contractor has a reliable, fully developed system, all at Government expense.

 

[BigG]

The AR15 is now a pretty good weapon platform. The bugs were worked out over piles of dead GI’s. For every fix that was implemented, the contractor got profit. This is the situation every contractor wants to be in, a sole source procurement with a proprietary item that the Government has to have. When the Government is over a barrel like this, it then has to spend millions in developmental money to make the item work. And guess who gets profit on every developmental dollar? At the end of this, the Contractor has a reliable, fully developed system, all at Government expense.

I get it - you work for the media, don't you? That statement is so full of hyperbole it makes me want to vomit but it would play perfectly on television. BTW - every procurement contract works like that, in case you didn't know it. You got a big hate on for Colt.

The ammo was the problem and all the A1 fixes were bogus, especially the forward assist. The army thunk that one up - hello?

 

[cameron.personal]

Ask the guys that are actually in combat with the M16 and M4... I have heard very few complaints.

The M14 was dropped because it wasn't a FAL

Cameron

 

[Slamfire]

I get it - you work for the media, don't you? That statement is so full of hyperbole it makes me want to vomit but it would play perfectly on television. BTW - every procurement contract works like that, in case you didn't know it. You got a big hate on for Colt.

The M16 was purchased as commercial off the shelf. (COTS) Design problems were fixed under Government money, and then the Government spent big bucks to acquire the TDP. However since then, Colt has been able to declare the M4 proprietary. See

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/12/colt_v_bushmast.php

"The M4-carbine TDP is proprietary to Colt, and the U.S. government has designated Colt its “sole source” supplier of M4 carbines. Plaintiff’s Additional SMF Under the M4 Addendum, the U.S. government does not have the right to procure the M4 carbine on a competitive basis."

According to Wikipedia, that monopoly lasts until 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine Guess what happens in 2009?, new election cycle, new president, she pulls us out of Iraqi and M4 Carbine sales are put on hold.

Colt has got the Government over the barrel, if the Government wants M4’s to fight in Iraq , it has to pay Colt’s price.

So why should the Government be spending taxpayer money to improve COTS? I think Colt should have been sued for fraud and misrepresentation of the M16, and they should have had to fix their rifle under their dollars.

Ah, no I don't work for the media. I had 25 years of Defense Acquistion experience. How many do you have?

 

[BigG]

Ah, no I don't work for the media. I had 25 years of Defense Acquistion experience. How many do you have?

I think the DOD geeks started tinkering from the get go. Also, any rifle manuals I got in the Army were from the Army, not from Colt, so all the doctrine BS was from the Army, not Colt. If there was any fraud, it was the DOD procurement geeks who claimed they knew what they were doing. I don't believe the M16 was Commercial Off the Shelf. Do you have a copy of the contract? If it was COTS, the DOD geeks were negotiating in bad faith, writing the performance attributes after the rifles were accepted. What does your 25 years of DOD acquisition experience say to that?

 

[GunTech]

They effectively manipulated Gen. Lemay into believing the AR-15 would be an effective replacement for the M2 his SAC guards were using.

The AR is an effective replacement for the M2. Just about anything would have been better.

 

[GunTech]

All of this has been covered in painful detail, complete with cites, in "The Great rifle Controversy" and "The Black Rifle". Unfortunately, a lot of stuff floating around on the internet and heard at gun shows is simply not true, or a gross exaggeration. However, there were serious problems with the M16 platform when first introduced to regular troops.

Colt has always been good at ontaining military contracts. Fro day one, Samuel Colt focused on the military in preference to civilian sales. The M16 (and it's predecessor) was going no where as an Armalite product. It took Colt to push it into military service because they knew how to play that game.

It should be revalled that by the time the M16 entered the fray, the Ordnance department had already spent years trying to find a replacement for the M1 Garand. The Army was really waiting for the SPIW, aside from the traditionalist who were flogging the M14, was really waiting for the SPIW - a weapon designed around the concepts drawn fromHitchman's "Operational requirements for an infantry hand weapon".

The M16 was supposed to be an interim weapon until the SPIW was available. The M14 had proven to be difficult to manufacture, and not well suited for anything other than a traditional rifle role (note the failure of the M15). Eventually, the M16 proved 'good enough' and when the SPIW failed to appear, it continued to soldier on.

Finally, in the gfeat scheme of things, the rifle is a rather unimportant weapon in modern high-tech warfare. The vast majority of casualties on the battlfield are produced by aretillery and air power. To the bean counters, it doesn't make a lot of sense to lavish large amounts of money on a weapon system that really doesn't do much on the battlefield. Of ourse, the infantryman has a very different opinion.

 

[BigG]

Guntech said

The Army , aside from the traditionalists who were flogging the M14, was really waiting for the SPIW - a weapon designed around the concepts drawn from Hitchman's "Operational requirements for an infantry hand weapon".

- edited by me to remove the double reference to SPIW -

And still is, as the SPIW was a dream sheet concept that has never been successfully built to my knowledge.

Your post is excellent and your view is given at arms length, something that a scholar would appreciate.

 

[Slamfire]

Also, any rifle manuals I got in the Army were from the Army, not from Colt, so all the doctrine BS was from the Army, not Colt.

Ah, so you are a ground pounder, you are looking at the procurement system from the ground up, not top down, and probably wondering why the sky was raining garbage on your helmet. Zero Acquisition experience then?

Every couple of years acquisition strategy changes, all in an attempt to get more for less, but generally speaking all operator and maintenance manuals (10 and 20 Papa’s) are written in the same format. This is because the Acquisition Corp understands that the Soldier has a difficult enough time operating the junk shoveled out in the field, never mind trying to find information in manuals with a completely different format. So even for COTS, manuals are written in a familiar format and everything looks the same.

If you have forgotten what Tech Manuals look like, I suggest

https://www.logsa.army.mil/etms/online.cfm

And if you want to relive your experiences with Connie and Sergeant Half Mast, visit them here

https://www.logsa.army.mil/psmag/psonline.cfm

When they took the genetic engineering off Connie’s chest, the magazine has just not been the same. Agree?

If there was any fraud, it was the DOD procurement geeks who claimed they knew what they were doing.

Well, when the top guys say buy this piece of equipment, you salute and say, "Yes Sir". Trying to push back on an OSD level decision will terminate a MACOM. Money for OSD procurements comes out of Congress. Congress decides how much goes into a program. Pushing back against Congress will terminate a Service Branch.

Congressional decisions are based on campaign contributions, which come from Corporate Lobbyists! Circle of Life.

All of this has been covered in painful detail, complete with cites, in "The Great rifle Controversy" and "The Black Rifle". Unfortunately, a lot of stuff floating around on the internet and heard at gun shows is simply not true, or a gross exaggeration. However, there were serious problems with the M16 platform when first introduced to regular troops.

My source for the contracting information was the Black Rifle.

 

[m1009]

M14 full auto control...

Hope you don't mind my 2 cents worth....we owned 2 M14's and yes they are very hard to control on a full burst-tend to point up by the 3rd round. That being said, we did this and it worked fantastically: shortened the barrel to 18 1/2 inches, put a compensator on it, at the time we used a Fabian comp, great product, but can't find any now. Made sure we put some extra holes in the comp to help direct the muzzle when firing. Balanced the weapon out, also made the recoil go straight back when shooting, no upward motion to throw you off target. It was great! I was fairly skinny at the time, around 125 lbs, (yes, I'm female) and I could hold that rifle either at my shoulder or hip height and put a complete 20 rd mag into the target without any problems, and at 100 yards kept it into the size of a basketball area. For me, that was pretty good, and I didn't have any muzzle rise or side twist on it. That comp pushed it straight back and it was a joy to shoot. Wish they'd thought of that before getting rid of all the M14's and going to the M16. Had them too, and prefer the M14, less jamming, more power, less breakage of parts. Easier to strip down too. Oh, for the good old days....

 

[trbon8r]

The M14 was dropped because it wasn't a FAL

You mean like the same way the FAL has been dropped by every major army in the world except for a few banana republics?

If the FAL is your favorite that is fine. It's a good rifle. However, your statement couldn't be further from the truth. The M14 wasn't dropped because it wasn't a FAL, it was dropped because it did not fire a smaller caliber and put out as much firepower as the M16, which was what the Army wanted in Vietnam.

Had we adopted the FAL instead of the M14, the FAL would have wound up in the garbage can just like the M14 did once the M16 appeared.