this really broke my bubble with the M14

[Former Cav]

http://looserounds.com/2015/01/30/the-m14-not-much-for-fighting-a-case-against-the-m14-legend/

Broke my heart. I've been one of the believers of the 14 over the 16 in terms of KNOCK DOWN power in nam.
I hope DA GIMP responds to this.
Cav

[barretcreek]

Say it ain't so, Joe. I explain to non-gunners the AR is like a plastic model ship, whereas the M1/M14 is hand built wooden one.

[Col. Colt]

Take the critics with a grain of salt. The AR is good up close - the M14 looks a whole lot better as the range expands - or the target hardens. Remember that a 5.56MM stops fragmenting at anything below 2500fps. Most all of the M14's "teething problems" were quickly handled during production, and no longer a factor by the time we were engaged in Vietnam. And for CQB, no comparison - the M14 was much better with a bayonet or a buttstroke. Lots of jealous naysayers out there! CC

[Art]

The report of course, relates to very old service rifles, I don't think the Army has accepted a new M14 since the early 1960s so I'm sure that has something to do with it. The people who wrote the report also may have an ax to grind and the folks in the Ord. Dept. and Civvy sources alike have agendas that can definitely influence the outcome of "research."

However:

There is a reason M16/Ar15 rifles dominated the matches, they are simply more accurate, in fact M16/Ar15 rifles are the most accurate rifles (at least to 300 meters) I've ever shot, period, that includes military, commercial, all action types (I should mention I don't shoot match rifles in any configuration so the results of people who do may be different, and anyone's mileage can vary.) The M14 is an accurate rifle but if accuracy alone is the criteria I'm going to pick an M16 rifle or one of its clones any day. While I never sent a round downrange with an M14 in combat I carried the weapon regularly in the field. I had reliability problems when it was wet and they got worse when it was cold and wet or muddy and wet. and I wasn't the only one. I was darn sure I kept the weapon as dry as possible. Part of the problem, I'm sure was that the Army, at least where I was in Korea didn't issue gun grease. I was also issued one defective M14 in Korea, on the first or second shot the magazine would fall out I had carried it for a couple of months before that unhappy fact made itself known.

The original M16 rifles with the original ammunition were devastating on Human flesh, though they lacked penetration through barricades. Attempts to improve this penetration deficiency have turned the 5.56 projectile into a "flying drill" with much more limited wounding capabilities, This based on information of people who have used the weapon in combat from its inception to the present. The M16 platform rifles are much superior today than they were when first issued but they're still finicky, require a lot of maintenance and that isn't what my ideal combat rifle is either.

[joem]

I'm sure that there were serious problems with the M14 that had to be corrected. Perhaps some of these problems were the result of worn out machinery. After all it was developed after WWII most likely using the same tooling that carried us through the war. Today with many manufactures of rifles and parts I'm sure the quality would be superior. I trained on the M14 and I liked it. Before deployment we turned them in and were issued and trained on the plastic rifle.

[bruce]

Things become obsolete as technology evolves. The M-1 was in it's era a game changer. The M-14 was a limited product improvement. By the time the M-16/Ak-47 hit the scene, things had simply changed. Reality is that the M-16/AR-15 design is excellent. About all that is needed is to bump the caliber up a bit. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.

[Former Cav]

I'm sure was that the Army, at least where I was in Korea didn't issue gun grease. I was also issued one defective M14 in Korea, on the first or second shot the magazine would fall out I had carried it for a couple of months before that unhappy fact made itself known.

I presume you were in the 2nd Inf Div. I was down south for the first 6 mo's guarding a Nike missile base and they changed to an MP company and all of us without MP MOS's got shipped up north. I lucked out, volunteered and ended up at camp casey working on the rifle range. What an awesome job.
Shoot targets with the M-14 and get PAID for it!! I was with HQHQ 7th INf Div. TF (Train Fire) this was 1966

[Former Cav]

Reality is that the M-16/AR-15 design is excellent. About all that is needed is to bump the caliber up a bit. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.

My idea on how to improve the M16/AR15 is to get rid of the SPLINE locking lugs on the bolt and make only TWO big lugs (like on the 14's bolt) also leave more clearance for sand and crap so it doesn't lock up,
and bump it up (like you said) to at least 6mm so you could shoot the 107 grain pill. Only problem with a .243 / 6mm is they are "barrel burners". I know this from prairie dogging with a .243 bolt gun where I shot the barrel out in 2000 rounds.

[Griff Murphey]

My experience is only that of an ROTC kid but my university had 500 new M-14s issued to us in 1968. Most of the firing was with blanks. I used those guns my last three years in College. In 1970 I went through Army ROTC Advanced Camp at Fort Sill which lasted 40 days and was roughly speaking about like going partway through Basic, and partway through AIT; living in tents 100pct, and in the field daily. We also did the full Trainfire deal, plus nightfire etc. Did have a squademate blow his up -idiot. Our guns were all brand new. I never saw a single malfunction that I can remember, never saw a single breakage. I qualified to have a Texas State Rifle Association DCM NM M-14 issued to me and i used that from 1969 to 1972 when they tightened up and said you had to go to Perry.

When I served in the Navy with the Marines on Okinawa '74-'75 I spent as much time as I could on the range, 100 pct. with the M-16 (XM-16E1A2) I saw numerous parts breakage and the Corpsmen were always taping up the rear of the upper to fix the gas leaks. I think sometimes s-bird Marines would pull up on the bolt latch and break it on purpose to get off the range. I should add these rifles had been well used and were probably rebuilt Vietnam vets.

I have never fired a weapon in combat. But to me it boils down to the AR-15 platform being light, low recoiling, and a lot quicker to handle. I would think at long range (define that as anything 250 or over) the M-14 would have the advantage. I spent enough time handling the M-14 to have a huge amount of respect for it. This sounds a good deal like sour grapes to me and reminds me of that book THE GUN by that Marine officer C.J. Chivers.

[UUURah]

Good GRIEF!!!!! Comparing the AR-15 to the M-14 is like comparing Termites to Elephants.

The AR-15's in use by you "Range Warriors" is NOT the same weapon used in combat, NOR the same AR-15 produced by the Gubmit. It's been tricked, whipped, and fitted with BULL BARRELS, gadgets of every kind. Mine I even fitted with a "Titanium" Firing Pin. Gives one a 1/1000 of a second faster lock up, like I really would need that in combat.

Then you take the barrels ... yes, THOSE things. Mine is a 1/7 twist. It took me two years to figure out that it's not designed to shoot the standard 55 gr. bullet. I would fire Expert one match, then the next I would have fliers, have to change sight settings, never consistent. I happened upon some 62 gr. bullet tips, and WHAMMMO. Consistent and dead on. Guys here use Colt's like mine with the 1/7 twist at 600 yds. even. BUT, they are loading 80 GRAIN bullet tips, too long for a magazine, but perfect for single loading.

Hey, can those guys in combat request some 80 GRAIN bullets?

The BASIC M-14 will still shoot standard 150 GRAIN bullet tips consistently in the black at 500 yards. Load them with 175 Grain bullet tips, which FIT the magazine, and they will shoot consistently in the black at 1,000 yards. Let's see the STANDARD "Matel" do that?

But ... but... but ... I WANT my BULL BARREL.............. and my 80 GRAIN bullets....... and my Titanium Firing Pin ....Waaaaaa ... Waaaaaaaa... .Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...

[Sunray]

No such thing as KNOCK DOWN power in Nam or anywhere else. However, both rifles were adopted for political reasons and nothing else. If the Ordnance Dept. tests hadn't been thrown out by interfering politicians, the U.S. Army would have had FAL's. If McNamara hadn't stuck his nose in, Colt would still be making AR's to shoot ground hogs with and there'd be no silly arguments.
An AR-15 is not a battle rifle either. It's a commercial sporting rifle that has never been issued to anybody for combat use.

[Ted Brown]

Seems to me that I've read this same or similar report before and it's a rehash of old information. The sources who wrote this stuff at the time were reflecting the same type of prejudices that have been voiced with the introduction of every new weapon system ever introduced. My association with the M14 started in the mid 1970's and I have been directly involved in building and modifying thousands of these fine rifles, both military and commercial. I have nothing against the AR platform and I have used them to win many matches, but I have also done the same with the M14. Everyone is welcome to their opinion. Mine is that the M14 is one of the finest rifles ever fielded by any military.

As a side note, my first exposure to the M14 was at a rifle match in Ruidosa, NM in 1964. An Army team showed up with their new M14NM rifles and didn't seem too thrilled with them. I was shooting and AFPG M1 and we soundly trounced the Army team that day. I thought the M1 had to be the greatest rifle in the world. I still have a tremendous amount of respect for it, but I am convinced that the M14 was a much needed improvement. When we switched to the M16 it was a definite step down, but it evolved into a great paper puncher after the competition shooters got ahold of it. It took about 30 years from it's adoption in 1965 to turn the M16 into a rifle that could equal the accuracy of the M14NM rifle.

[Clark Howard]

What purpose is served by throwing dirt on the face of a "dead" weapon system? I would suggest that the author turn in his M-14 at the next gun buy-back and use the money to buy some new appendages for his AR. Regards, Clark

[Former Cav]

No such thing as KNOCK DOWN power in Nam or anywhere else.

I strongly disagree with your statement. The 7.62 Nato takes em out of the fight more then a 5.56 with the hits being EQUAL. I was on the ground over in that chit hole and I did point man more then once. I distinctly remember hosing down two VC and I know I was hitting them from 25 yards away as they were jumping and twitching and TURNING on me with their AK's.
It was night time and I came up on their flank.
They hit our NDP first and took off running and got hit in the calf of the legs with a FIFTY. They killed one of our guys and wounded another.
We sent out a patrol after them and I was point. I came up on their flank and they were lying in a depression in the earth facing the NDP.
there was a FULL moon behind me. The only thing that saved me was the fact they were partially bled out and NOT dead yet but slow. I got the drop on them I put THREE 18 round mags into them and they were turning on me!!
Hit em with a 7.62 is MUCH more effective then the .223.
I'm not saying "you won't die from getting hit by a .223", but it takes FAR too long for the enemy soldier to DIE and meanwhile he is Pis$ed at you and highly motivated trying to take you with him.

[da gimp]

I suspect that if we had stayed with the original 7.62mm NATO AR-10,.....that now everyone would be happy..........All the tricks/knowledge that are used in tuning 5.56mm AR's/16's/M-4's can be used on the 7.62mm NATO version too...........since it is essentially the same system, no one has to be re-trained on maintenance............I'm wondering if we don't need to have a 7.62mmNATO AR 10 rifle for some areas of conflict & keep the M4 carbines in 5.56 mm for urban warfare & 300 yd or less fields too.