this really broke my bubble with the M14 even MORE!

[Art]

That's why I mentioned those manually operated arms. Introduce that much dirt into any mechanism and it will cease functioning. The M1903 came in first when tested in sand and mud during tests of the M1 and other semi auto rifles in the early 40's. But that didn't mean that the 03 and other bolt actions didn't have problems in harsh conditions. Sealing actions is a good way to keep dirt out. A few bolt action designs started out with sliding action covers because dirt did cause malfunctions. Eventually, militaries decided that sealing the actions with covers was not necessary and those rifles served well enough without them.

The AR15 in that test functioned as long as it did because of its sealed action and not enough sand entered the action to stop it. It would have been interesting if the shooter performed a reload during that mini sand storm. That open ejection port would have received a load of sand before the shooter chambered the first round of the second magazine.

Also, as I mentioned before, the accessory rail on that particular M1A most likely directed additional sand into the action. Also, the flat bolt of a M1/M1A tosses sand off the bolt and away from the action during unlocking and that accessory rail probably caused any sand ejected by the unlocking bolt to bouce back into the action. They should have used a stock M1A in the testing.

True enough, and I do agree a "stock" M1A would have been a better choice, but an M14/M1A would have been just as susceptible with it's bolt open after the last shot from a magazine. Thinking about it now I wonder a bit if the lack of a bolt hold open device on the AK weapons might have been a way to mitigate this problem?? Who knows.

[Col. Colt]

I decided to research the official sources for how an M14 was to be used in the desert, per Uncle Sugar. Once again, the GI Manual sheds a little light......

If these "Low Budget Myth Busters" had a fair test, certain conditions would have been met before and during the test - simulating reality, not just the testers own limited desire to "make a video": (full disclosure - I tried to get to see the video again, and it still won't let my Windows XP machine in) :

If they are simulating a sandstorm firefight (pretty unlikely, but possible) the AR variants should have had to do a reload WITH THE SAND BLOWING into their open weapon, as it would actually be. I predict a different outcome for them. As Art already quite correctly mentioned - ALL weapons systems stop when the lockup is fouled with sand. As I mentioned, this has happended, in combat, to the AR/M16 weapons system - contrary to the outcome of this supposed "test".

For the M1A/M14 test to be considered to be a valid test of these weapon types against each other, the following conditions must ensue:

1.) The rifle in question should NOT be a brand new, out of the box weapon - but at least broken in with 500 rounds. The parkerizing/coatings alone, on an unfired rifle, temporarily create extra friction that will never occur in the field - because no one takes a brand new, untried/sighted in weapon to war - if they are smart.
2.) The M14/M1A tested - if this is a test to prove the reliability of one distinct weapon platform over another - should be configured as actually issued by the US Army for field (not Match) use. That would mean a chrome lined barrel/chamber, and in 7.62MM chambering, not .308 Winchester at 1.631 headspace. The SAGE stocked EBRs are made from grade A, standard M14 rifles, adding the stock and optics only. A few grains of sand on the round would stop a tight, Match chambered gun immediately. And probably did.
3.) The weapon will be appropriately lubed, by the USGI Manual FOR THE EXPECTED CONDITONS, as listed in the manual, (and expected maintenance would of course be performed daily, PER THE MANUAL, in the field by real troops).

In the M14/M1A's case, let's look at Field Manual FM 23-8, dated 1974 "M14 and M14A1 Rifles and Rifle Marksmanship". Starting on page 51 we have "Normal Maintenance" instructions to the soldier. Under paragraph (e) we find the following instructions: "In hot, dry climates the rifle must be cleaned daily or more often to remove sand andor dust from the bore and working parts. In sandy areas, the rifle should be kept dry. The muzzle and reciever should be kept covered during sand or dust storms. Wooden parts must be kept oiled with raw linseed oil to prevent drying. The rifle should be lightly oiled when sand and dust conditons decrease."

So, was the M1A/M14 given a fair shake in this multi-platform competition? Probably not. And as a side note, how many of us in the United States will be dealing with these desert conditions? Only those living in the Southwest, and not much happens around the few sand dunes in the United States.

Was this a Relevant Test of AR vs. M14? Not remotely. Half axxed "Mythbusters" episode - they get a lot wrong with wrong assumptions, too. CC

[5MadFarmers]

(full disclosure - I tried to get to see the video again, and it still won't let my Windows XP machine in)

Was this a Relevant Test of AR vs. M14? Not remotely. Half axxed "Mythbusters" episode - they get a lot wrong with wrong assumptions, too. CC

If you can't see the video how on earth can you know if it's a relevant test or not? How would you possibly know what assumptions they made if you cannot even see it?

You're responding out of emotion and emotional responses are, by definition, not real rational.

When the M16 was experiencing problems in VN there was a move to correct the discovered issues and, simultaneously with that, a move to "show" that the rifle's problems were either being addressed or were not completely as reported. That the rifle was having problems was clear and I'm not really going on about that. Just setting the stage... On the 23rd of May, 1967, the CBS Evening News showed a segment. In the segment the USMC had a Marine bury an M16 and and M14 in sand and then pull them out and attempt to fire them. The M14 jammed immediately whereas the M16 fired fine. Not terribly different from what's being showed in that video.

No amount of cleaning or lubricating is going to prevent the problem of malfunctions if sand is being blown directly into the action as the rifle is being fired. The assertion that the M16 would jam if it was "loaded" under those conditions isn't, from what I can see, true as that isn't going to materially introduce sand directly into the action. It also isn't going to affect the M14 at all as it's not "sand introduced into the rifle via the magazine" that is causing the problem shown. It's sand blowing directly into the action. Pure speculation on my part: the sand is preventing the bolt from driving all the way forward. That the extractor is not correctly engaging the round seems to be the case. So it's either the sand preventing the bolt lugs from engaging the recesses or it's the sand preventing the bolt from driving fully forward.

The Krag and M-1903, incidentally, would be just as prone as the M14 to this. Both of them have a notice in the manuals issued with them covering that. Not sand specifically - a warning that gunk in the bolt recesses may prevent the lugs from being able to engage as they cannot get into the recesses. Thus an open bolt situation is present. German Commission rifles and Mausers do not suffer from this as the firing pin cannot be released in an unlocked bolt. Regardless the fact that they'd not fire doesn't change that those rifles are also useless if sand fills the bolt lug recesses and the bolt cannot be locked.

The "test" simply shows that guns will not function if you blow sand directly in the action while operating them. The M16 has a cover preventing the sand from entering at that pace and thus keeps firing. Presumably continuing the test over more rounds would also lock the M16 up as the sand will get into the action but, due to the cover, at a slower rate.

Obstructions prevent items from moving. Film at 11.

[Col. Colt]

I think I'm being pretty logical. The observations don't fit KNOWN REALITY is why I'm objecting. The AR/M16/M4 must be treated very carefully to work in the desert, or failures occur. This is know and has been since we got to Iraq. My friends returning from the sandbox recently have emphasized the absolute need to do a through cleaning, every single day on your M4 - or to expect malfunctions.

Some of us are fairly good at visualization. The test was adequately described to construct a reasonable mental visual by all the prior posters here - these guys are blowing sand over the weapon as it is being fired. Apparently somewhat corse sand (maybe more corse than is likely to get airborne - I'll wait for the video). Sand being sand, all of us understand what that does in a mechanical mechanism, and how blowing it directly on a rifle action can create a problem. I understand English fairly well, and the discussion seemed clear enough - unless there is some special way to blow sand I don't know of - and I operated a pipeline sandblaster for most of a summer in my youth...... Hot under that hood in the Midwestern summertime!

What I did was to note the logical, knowable conditions that may have been factors in the outcome of what was perceived in this made up "test" to show the AR is a better platform in sandy/dusty conditions. What I am pointing out is that the results might have been very different if you were running a real M14 with military tolerances and a long 7.62MM chromed chamber, cared for under the standard training given to every soldier who carried one during Basic - and undoubtedly would be reinforced by their Sgts. as they transported to the dusty war zone. Conversely, there are plenty of reports of the AR/M16 series choking on sand in very recent history - and yet this "test" gives the world the impression things are otherwise. Seems odd to me everyone just accepted the video so easily, knowing recent history, without questioning the method used IN DEPTH. I question the method, because the results give an impression I have not heard expressed by anyone who was there.

A real, military clearanced M1 or M14 usually has some fore and aft/up and down play in the bolt lugs and op rod and the chamber is slightly larger than a civilian version, allowing some clearance for debris - or grains of sand. Thus, if the gun is DRY as per the manual for desert warfare, without lube (or only has a modern thin film lube in the pores of the metal that don't pickup dirt) dry sand will not adhere to the parts, and will be pushed out of the way, and will drop/vibrate free as the gun is fired. If lubed per standard protocol with rifle grease, yes, the sand will stick. But if the gun is dry, per Desert protocol, a Garand type action is completely open at the top, and easy to brush or blow out should that be necessary. Once you have sand in an AR, you need a bench, cleaning gear and some time. You can reach the locking lugs on an M14 or an M1 with your fingers - and you can't reach them AT ALL without disassembling an AR.

We agree sand can stop any weapon, given a chance. We probably also should agree that, properly maintained, all US weapons in the last 100 years were tested in sand and can be kept working, with proper efforts and technique, which is to be found in Basic training or your field manual. But the implication here is that the AR series is great in sand, and the M1 Garand/M14 design sucks in sand, and I don't think that perception is remotely true. Both designs require more work to keep them going in less friendly environments. But neither one has been prohibited from use by the US Military where there is sand....

It is my opinion that a good troop can do just fine with either one, if he knows what he is doing. And if my visual image somehow failed to understand their "test" I'll let you know after I do see the video. I hate having to constantly upgrade my software, leading to a need for new hardware, but that is the computer industry at work! CC

[S.A. Boggs]

Wonder how the G3 would do?
Sam

[5MadFarmers]

I think I'm being pretty logical. The observations don't fit KNOWN REALITY is why I'm objecting. The AR/M16/M4 must be treated very carefully to work in the desert, or failures occur. This is know and has been since we got to Iraq. My friends returning from the sandbox recently have emphasized the absolute need to do a through cleaning, every single day on your M4 - or to expect malfunctions.

Without seeing the video you really have no idea on the conditions or the test itself.

First, the M16 and cleaning thing. Whether the M16 is used in the desert, Arctic, my basement, or Disney-world really doesn't change what's happening there: unless it's cleaned the powder residue from that direct impingement system is going to gum up the works eventually. It's an artefact of the design and the environment is really irrelevant as it's not foreign matter (sand) but matter from the system itself. So the M14 doesn't suffer from that but that's the result of having a piston versus skipping it.

Second, the M14 is going to be more sensitive to foreign matter introduced into the action as the action is open. Pour sand on an engine. No significant result. Pull the valve cover gaskets and repeat. Problems will result. The M16 having more of a "closed" action means it permits foreign matter to enter less than designs which have open actions.

Third, to the test itself. The test is accurate as far as it goes. Blow sand into the M14 and it's going to jam. Blow it at the M16 and it won't as the action is "sealed" to a certain extent.

Doesn't mean the test is logical or really that useful. If sand is blowing bad enough to enter the system that rapidly it won't be from a pile of it next to the gun being blown with compressed air. It'll be sand everywhere. Which means you'll not be able to see more than about 5 feet. So I guess the M14 wins that one as it's more sturdy and you're going to need that to beat people to death as they're going to be too close to shoot.

If sand is blowing that hard from a direction, turn the M14 so the floor plate is in the direction of the wind. There, sand isn't being blown into it. Holding the rifle sideways will decrease your use of the sight but, again, with visibility limited you're pretty much just shooting in a compass direction anyway.

If the sand is blowing that hard, and does regularly, do not lube the M14. With the chamber area being dry, and sand being dry, holding the rifle upside down will permit gravity to clean the sand out in a downward direction. Either pull the trigger in that orientation or turn it sideways. Again, visibility is causing more harm than sand getting into the weapon. Lube will permit the sand to stick.

So, yes, guns with open actions are going to jam with sand blowing around that that rate. "Action covers" existed for guns from the 1890s into the 1950s. Krags, M-1903s, SMLEs, and the M1 carbine. Probably others and later. It's to keep the action clean of debris in those situations. When the sand settles down visibility returns and you then ensure the gun isn't gummed up and start banging away. If somebody shows up before the sand dies down I'd suggest the use of an entrenching shovel. Sand doesn't jam those.

So the test is accurate as far as it goes. What it proves is M14s don't operate well in sand storms. Neither do humans. Nor motor transport. In other news, cars don't run well underwater, solar panels don't work well in thunderstorms, and pork doesn't sell well in Jordan.

Interested in reading more? I'd suggest tracking down a book titled: "a job of pipe." Royal Engineer in North Africa during the Rommel/Montgomery thing. During sand storms everyone pretty much tries to find a spot that it's not blowing up your nose or in your mouth. Masks help but aren't 100% effective. No doubt why the shooter in that film is wearing a gas mask. That'd get real old in the desert real fast.

[usmc69]

Doubt if mine will be used in a really sandy environment. Unless I am called to the beach to repel invaders..........my house to the beach is four miles as the crow flies.

[Rock]

If sand is blowing that hard from a direction, turn the M14 so the floor plate is in the direction of the wind. There, sand isn't being blown into it. Holding the rifle sideways will decrease your use of the sight but, again, with visibility limited you're pretty much just shooting in a compass direction anyway.

Good point, I would be trying to cover a rifle with anything available in those conditions. I've seen quite a few photos of Lee Enfields with web action covers. Wouldn't be a bad idea for an M14. Also, I have seen photos of troops on D Day entering landing craft with M1's in full length plastic bags. They knew that sand in mechanisms was a problem and developed ways to minimize it.

[PhillipM]

I was just watching d-day on h2 and one of the vets on Omaha described he and other unarmed scattered troops being made into an ad hoc platoon by a lieutenant. First order: Every man find a weapon. Second order: Spread out your raincoats and clean them! After that they assaulted the sea wall and got off the beach.

[gunner312]

I NEVER had problems like that with my M14 that I carried through the mud sand and slush of every where from Hawaii through Vietnam.

My opinion is that rather than a malfunctioning rifle that was jammed by sand, they had a malfunctioning Magazine that was affected by the sand and dirt. I have had that problem, new magazine fixed the problem. Also, didn't appear that any lubriplate was on the bolt or slideways, but I couldn't really tell.

Just my 2cents worth.

Jim Wright

[PhillipM]

Thanks, Gunner.

Your opinion carries a lot more weight than youtube heroes.

[Ted Brown]

I've brought this up before, but while firing my M14 in a Rattle Battle at Ft. Ord years ago, sand jammed the action to the point it seriously bent the operating rod and disabled the rifle. This was due to my failure to remove the grease I normally lubed it with in less sandy conditions. For those that never shot at Ft. Ord, the range was on the beach just north of Monterey. That took me out of the match. I shot there again with a degreased rifle and won the leg match to earn my Distinguished Rifleman Badge (USAF No. 214). Stuff happens, but it shows that one should always be prepared for any conditions.

[da gimp]

Dern Ted, I was just going to opine that this scenario would never arise in the real world.. and a well trained armorer/rifle smith had it happen to him here in the USA...............


In Dad's outfit in the Aleutians, during the fighting there, some men's Garands froze up ... they learned to completely degrease the rifles & to run them dry & had no more problems... When they were in Europe in 1944... he made sure the men of his company ran their rifles dry... and to get boots 1/2 size or 1 size big so that they could wear multiple pairs of warm wool socks & still have room for their feet to expand......Lessons leaned from earlier similar situations... prevents the same problems from arising.

I'm glad Ted told of us of his fix for that problem... I love that old M1A...........

[StockDoc]

Dern Ted, I was just going to opine that this scenario would never arise in the real world.. and a well trained armorer/rifle smith had it happen to him here in the USA...............



...........

Exactly, can it happen, yes, to that extent, no.

[StockDoc]

Without seeing the video you really have no idea on the conditions or the test itself.

First, the M16 and cleaning thing. Whether the M16 is used in the desert, Arctic, my basement, or Disney-world really doesn't change what's happening there: unless it's cleaned the powder residue from that direct impingement system is going to gum up the works eventually. It's an artefact of the design and the environment is really irrelevant as it's not foreign matter (sand) but matter from the system itself. So the M14 doesn't suffer from that but that's the result of having a piston versus skipping it.


.

Disney World, really, man you are sick, guns owners have enough problems without people like you putting that Sheet on a forum