this really broke my bubble with the M14 even MORE!

[Clark Howard]

Since the M-16 operating problems came up in the mid-sixties, those who backed the switch over from M-14 to M-16 have been trying to justify the cancellation of the M-14 production program. The argument will go on for years. Having used both weapons in Vietnam, I prefer the M-14. The 16 has it's place, and it does offer some advantages in weight, but the most important attribute in a properly maintained combat weapon is reliability. The M-14 has it, the M-16 does not. Just my opinion. Regards, Clark

[goo]

for a valid test they shoulda used at least two different rifles.

using one rifle to define how all rifles will perform is stoopid

[Art]

Since the M-16 operating problems came up in the mid-sixties, those who backed the switch over from M-14 to M-16 have been trying to justify the cancellation of the M-14 production program. The argument will go on for years. Having used both weapons in Vietnam, I prefer the M-14. The 16 has it's place, and it does offer some advantages in weight, but the most important attribute in a properly maintained combat weapon is reliability. The M-14 has it, the M-16 does not. Just my opinion. Regards, Clark

Neither rifle is an AK 47 when it comes to ease of maintenance and reliability (which is why the Rooskie design is my preference for serious social encounters.) The M14 is a lot more reliable than the original M16s and still has an edge on the current versions. However I have experienced, as I said in a previous post, exactly the malfunction demonstrated in the video with an M14 and I carried the weapon a lot when I was in the Army. So I think the Garand system (M1, M14) is generally more reliable than the Stoner system M16, M4) in most circumstances, an opinion based on very extensive use of the former and a good bit of use with the latter as well.

[Col. Colt]

The test is still invalid - because it implies a result NOT OBSERVED in the real world, by real end users of both platforms. If your Theory does not work in Reality, you need to change your Theory - because REALITY DOES NOT CHANGE. But Youtube lets everyone "prove their point" and get their fifteen minutes of fame - even if they are wrong or ignorant.

M14s (real, USGI ones) are not know for problems in desert warfare use. M16/M4s are KNOWN to be problamatic in the Desert - our troops have field reports that verify this. I just talked to an Iraq War veteran yesterday who emphasized the need for daily, active through care of the M4 in the desert just to keep it running - and how much trouble you were in when sand/dust got down in the M4's bolt lug area - much more difficult to clear out than an M14 - impossible to fix quickly.

A Springfield Armory M1A, with cast reciever and miscellaneous parts from miscellaneous sources built to unknown tolerances - and with a commercial grade, plain/stainless steel, tight, minimum .308 Match chamber vs. a military 7.62MM longer throated, chromed GI barrel is NOT an M14 - and not to be considered representitive of real, USGI military M14 performance for reliability testing. Especially if the user didn't have the US Military training in adjusting to environmental variables.

And M14 period GIs were taught what level of lube to use in the cold, sand, or jungle in training, it's in the Field Manual. And their rifles were smooth, well broken in, tested and zeroed, by the time they were deployed, too. Believe what you will - but a dry or semi-dry M14 will be fine in the desert - you will always have to fuss with the M16. Look it up. CC

[Art]

And M14 period GIs were taught what level of lube to use in the cold, sand, or jungle in training, it's in the Field Manual. And their rifles were smooth, well broken in, tested and zeroed, by the time they were deployed, too. Believe what you will - but a dry or semi-dry M14 will be fine in the desert - you will always have to fuss with the M16. Look it up. CC

...and therein lies the rub. You see I was a 1960s M14 period GI who used "real M14s" and carried one....a lot in Korea. I was never taught any of that stuff and neither was anyone in my basic training unit, and neither was anyone I served with. Maybe they were in Infantry A.I.T. but I wouldn't know about that and neither would thousands of G.I.s who were not in the infantry. The fact is we were taught to clean our weapons and lube them with light machine oil, that was it. I took impeccable care of my weapon and had it seize up on two occasions and I wasn't the only one. I know now that some form of gun grease would have solved the problem I delt with (rain and mud) but no unit I was assigned to ever issued anything like that. The M14 and the M16 both require too much maintenance, and too many steps to disassemble (especially the M14) for my taste. The big problem with the M16 series of rifles is that they create their own crud. Our son who carried an M4 in the "Sand Box" told us one of the biggest problems, maintenance wise, is that the powers that be refuse to issue solvent claiming that C.L.P. is the wonder lube that solves everything; Well it doesn't and he would be the first to tell you that.

By the way, when I was in the army I never saw an M14 field manual, and I can just about guarantee that no one I served with ever saw, or if they did, was required to become familiar with an F.M. on the M14.

[ridgerunner]

Gentlemen,
I went through basic with the M14. It was, I thought a good semi auto weapon. I was put on a BAR, for awhile. Heavy, but it worked. Then.... they gave me a select fire M14. I thought this is good. Light, works good, I know from past experience.
I could not get a complete magazine emptied on full auto. Two bursts, and a jam,, on 'every' magazine in the M14. I remember thinking, I'm dead. Got overseas, and 'issued' an M16. Not perfect, at that time, but better than that damn M14. I also used a thumb eater for a while. ( M1.)
My own preference runs toward the L1A1, or FALs ( for .30 cal. ) and an AR 15 that is put together properly, using the right components.
This is just from my own experience. I'm sure other's have had better.

[goo]

if an m-16 wasn't good enough, it wouldn't be good enough.

3a.jpg

3a1.jpg

delta, 1/1, 1970.

i know this to be true....... mostly because i ain't dead.

bloopers is better for killing pussy cats, though

3a2.jpg

[ridgerunner]

They got one at Kontum that had a GI by his head. He did survive. ( the GI. Not the kitty. ) I 'assume' they used 16s. ( bad word. assume ) Probably a trifle noisy, for a few seconds.

Happened a few days before I got dropped into the area. They did bandage the GIs head, up, a 'little'.

[jeffj]

Let's not forget the ar direct impingement system blows out of the chamber with every ejection. They did the perfect test to favor that system.

[Griff Murphey]

I think there is a tendency for commanders to fail to emphasize weapon maintenance. This is probably a function of their own interest in and practical experience with firearms. The best illustration I can give of this is that when 1-4 Marines left Okinawa for Frequent Wind and Eagle Pull, the battalion basically left without any gun cleaning gear. I cannot say there wasn't any of it but I can tell you after a few days at sea all of the officers' pistols and many of the shotguns were red with rust. The M-16s did better....

I am not surprised at the combat veterans' comments about lack of cleaning and lubricating oils and solvents.

I can't tell you about combat, but can tell you about Army ROTC advanced camp and back at my College - our M-14s, which were basically new guns, ran like Swiss watches with blanks and ball. Many had selectors fitted and they ran great. Uncontrollable but reliable, 100 pct. They were cleaned weekly using light weapons oil and bore cleaner. We had grease in the little pots but never used it since it looked sloppy I guess. I saw military match shooters using it at matches but we didn't.

My brother who is 10 years older went through ROTC summer camp on the M-1, and found them very unreliable. Those guns were worn out. He has creds, he was a 5V lifetime master and NRA instructor.

[Major Tom]

I served in 'Nam with the M14. The 7.62 round could penetrate heavy brush and even trees which is good. I never saw a M14 manual and never was advised as to what lube to use either. When I was handed a M60 I was given the manual for that which I still have BTW.

[Griff Murphey]

I served in 'Nam with the M14. The 7.62 round could penetrate heavy brush and even trees which is good. I never saw a M14 manual and never was advised as to what lube to use either. When I was handed a M60 I was given the manual for that which I still have BTW.

I am curious about the individuals who say they never saw M-14 manuals. I understand the M-14 came in in 1961 with the Berlin Brigade the first to equip with it. I was shown tech movies on it in 1964 in high school. When I got to college in 1967 it was in our individual weapons and marksmanship manual along with the M-1 etc. but we still had M-1s. We received our M-14s in '68, and had plenty of manuals.

My question for the individuals who never saw an M-14 manual is just out of curiosity: Were you trained stateside on M-1s or M-14s? How much marksmanship training did you get, full KD or Trainfire qualification, or familiarization firing only? What year did you get to Vietnam?

I would think ROTC would be at the very bottom of the priority list of who got what but maybe not. SNAFU?!

[13Echo]

I was trained on the M14 in Basic at Ft. Polk in 1967. We were thoroughly instructed in maintenance and lubrication of the rifle but we never saw a manual except what showed up in the maintenance magazine with Connie Rod and MSgt Halfmast. As for training there was marksmanship training out to 450meters using paper targets to sight in then mostly trainfire reactive targets. I would have liked more range time but I felt very familiar and comfortable with my rifle and trusted it to deliver the bullet where I aimed and to function no matter what. As an artilleryman I had an M14 for the entire three years of service and never was issued a manual. However the the appropriate TMs were kept in the Battery Orderly room and armory and were available if needed. Requalification was with paper targets out to 500yds and the battalion actively participated in the Division rifle matches. We might have been cannon cockers but we could still shoot a rifle.

Jerry Liles

[13Echo]

I need to add that considering all the problems the grunts were having with the M16 air rifle we were happy to keep our M14s. At that time the M14 was far more reliable than the M16. It has colored my opinion of the M16 ever since and I just have never cottoned to that rifle.

I never fired an M16 till I came back as a Doctor in the Medical Corps. They had the entire hospital medical staff out on the Ft. Lewis range for familiarization. A real circus that was. There were just enough former enlisted Docs to keep it from a complete cluster.

Jerry Liles

[Art]

I am curious about the individuals who say they never saw M-14 manuals. I understand the M-14 came in in 1961 with the Berlin Brigade the first to equip with it. I was shown tech movies on it in 1964 in high school. When I got to college in 1967 it was in our individual weapons and marksmanship manual along with the M-1 etc. but we still had M-1s. We received our M-14s in '68, and had plenty of manuals.

My question for the individuals who never saw an M-14 manual is just out of curiosity: Were you trained stateside on M-1s or M-14s? How much marksmanship training did you get, full KD or Trainfire qualification, or familiarization firing only? What year did you get to Vietnam?

I would think ROTC would be at the very bottom of the priority list of who got what but maybe not. SNAFU?!

I was at Fort Polk for Basic Combat Training form June - August 1966. We spent two days on maintenance, learning to disassemble, reassemble and clean the weapon, then two weeks on the range on the trainfire course disassembling and cleaning the weapon every day after firing. I was stunned to learn I could actually hit something at 300 meters. After two weeks we shot for record on a very difficult course involving multiple situations that none of us had seen. We also spend one day on a fire and maneuver assault course (I did this in the pouring rain, it was the first time my M14 seized up and I could not clear it.) We then spent another day on live fire defensive situations. I would estimate I fired between 800 and 900 rounds of ammunition total during basic. During this period I never saw a manual, in fact I never saw an M14 manual the entire time I was in the Army. I was never taught anything about lubrication except to coat all parts with a thin film of oil after cleaning. That was it. Interestingly I fired the M14 for qualification on the SR target while I was part of the cadre at Redstone Arsenal, never knew my score, they just told me I passed.

I was not a Viet Nam veteran. Because of my MOS I was sent to Korea at the end of 1967 where my issue weapon was an M14 that I trucked around (literally) a lot and fired two or three times with the rest of the guys at an improvised range that couldn't have been longer than 50 yards. Interestingly when we got two M60 machine guns and I was put in charge of them I was given an M60 manual to learn maintenance from (this was the only manual I read that didn't pertain to the Nike Hercules missile system) since I had never seen or touched a real M60; I suspect no one else had either since they gave me the job.

When I was in the Army and for quite a while after I got out ROTC and most national guard units used the M1.