Never carried either one in combat or drew down on another man even. But as a life long hunter and amateur ballistican, I know that a .223/5.56x45 doesn't have the power or range of a .308/7.62x51. I ain't real bright, but if it can't be trusted to put down a coyote reliably, how on earth can it be trusted to put down an adrenaline or drug charged man intent on doing you grave harm? Just my .02

Some slight correction here:

The .276 round had been approved for the M1 (Garand), not the M-14. Yes, MacArthur overrode that. His decision was based in part on the existence of large stocks of .30-06 ammo (which was used in our then-current battle rifle, the M.1903 Springfield), and in part on not wanting to have an additional cartridge in our supply chain, hence he opted for the .30-06. If you look at the experience of the Italians and the Japanese, who both were fielding 2 different cartridges for their main rifles during the war, you'll see he was correct.

His decision had nothing to do with "the still tremendous stocks of M1 Garands", because at this point there were no stocks of M1 Garands, since the decision regarding choice of caliber of .276 vs. .30-06 was regarding the as-of-yet unapproved M1 Garand, as this was 1932. Further, there was no "NATO pressure to go to the 7.62 x 51mm" because at this time there was no such entity as NATO, nor was there any pressure by anyone concerning the 7.62 x 51mm cartridge, because it hadn't even been envisioned yet. Again, this decision was made in 1932, long before there was a NATO, or a 7.62 x 51mm cartridge.

I think the problem here may be in differentiating between the M1 (Garand) the M1A (the semiauto version of the M-14) and the M-14.

Tim

Also the Italians and the Japanese found their 6.5MM rifle cartridges not that effective in machine guns, lacking range and penetration.
Also in my day-BCT at Fort Dix, Summer of 1967, C-4-2, we received training with the bayonet and the vertical and horizontal buttstrokes, the idea being not only to encourage aggresiveness but also to know that the rifle can be used as other than a firearm in close combat. My personal opinion of the M-16 is that it is like the M-1 Carbine-a great weapon for someone who's main function is to something else, but not
as a main battle rifle.
MacArthur's decison was correct, not only due to the vast amounts of 30/06 on hand but also the BAR and the various machine guns chambered in 30/06.
Some of the bad press received by the M-14 was due in part to M-14 vs M-16 tests which were rigged to make the M-14 look better.
I personally subscribe to the idea that since a military weapon will be exposed to all sorts of rough conditions it is better to have a design that is easy to disassemble, clean, and properly reassemble. The M-1 and M-14 are just that.

The M14 was also the issue rifle for Seabee battalions during the Vietnam war. They didn't replace them with M16's until well into the 1970's.

During a heat up of hostilities during 1970 in the Middle East, our 3rd Naval Construction Brigade staff was put on 24 hour alert to relieve Army Corps of Engineers in Europe, in case they had to be deployed to Israel, or some other place. Available Atlantic Fleet Seabee battalions were to be deployed to Europe.

We had to re-qualify with the M14 and Colt .45 in preparation for that deployment.

At the time, Diego Garcia was just being built by Atlantic Fleet Seabees.

model 70hunter--Probably not me! I would have been the one wheezing down the road-I really didn't get into shape until infantry AIT at Ft. Polk.

The days of running 5 miles w/out breaking a sweat are long over. I'd still like to have an M-14, however.


Tumbling bullets, huh?

__________________
... a little behind in my work

Corpsman deploying with the Marines generally rate an M4 carbine and an M9 pistol. They do not carry M14s. Though when my wife went through the field med course, they had A2s. (A2s are also in use on at least some ships, I saw guards with them on the USS Stennis.) Every Corpsman that deployed from Quantico or here sent back an obligatory photo of themselves posing with a tricked out M4 and all their gear on.

Last year's course of combat refresher training in the combat town at Quantico had nary an M14 to be seen.

When my brother came home from Vietnam in 1968 I remember him and my dad discussing the fairly new M16. Dad was a Pacific Theater WW2 vet and his comment was "If the Army wanted a lighter caliber they should have just adopted that 25 caliber Jap round". I never heard a Pacific Theater Vet talk of the 6.5x50 round with anything but respect, especially when linked to the Nambu Light Machine Gun. In fact Russia used the 6.5x50 for the basis of their first select fire rifle.

With modern powders a 6.5x50 shortened to 6.5x45 would be an interesting ctg. Of course the cheapest thing to do would be convert the M16A2 to 7.62x39.

Google "6.5mm Grendel".

7.62x39mm won't work in Stanag magazines. No one really wants it anyway in today's military environment. It does't lend itself well to AP rounds and hasn't had as much development in terms of improved lethality. Today's 5.56mm black tip AP (once seen only on SAW belts, now somewhat more widely to be had) actually penetrates armor as well (or better than) the old .30-06 black tip AP rounds.

Even the Chinese and the Russians have long ago started moving away from 7.62x39mm. It's considered a third world chambering these days, the sort of thing that we give away in bulk to our nominal "allies" in order to keep them from being too well equipped.

M16/M4/AR rifles can be converted to 6.5mm Grendel or 6.8 SPC with new uppers and it is a relatively easy conversion. However, the handiness of the FN Scar-H for a heavier option along with the improved lethality of 5.56mm rounds likely makes both a non issue.

The 6.5mm Japanese was feared in the early days of the Pacific for its low muzzle flash. For a time, the Army thought that the Japanese had developed some mysterious new flashless powder. In fact, it was just the relatively long barrels of the Japanese rifles allowing for reduced muzzle blast/flash/signature.

The Japanese used .303 (British) rounds for certain purposes. A faction in the Kwangtun Army wanted heavier MG rounds and a longer range option for use in Mongolia, Manchuria, and invading Russia. This begat the 7.7mm Japanese, which was essentially a modified .303 British.

Bullzaye, you are absotively correct! When you get to be my age with as many miles on the azz, you can get your facts convoluted from time to time. Mixing what I thought I read about both weapons. If I had thought more closely, I probably would have realized the errors of my ways! Thanks for catching my six and setting the record somewhat straight!

BLACKHAWKNJ,

About a month ago a group of us were cleaning the M1 Garands my American Legion Post uses for funeral details. There was one former Navy guy and a former Army Infantryman from the Korean War helping me clean.

I would completely disassemble the each Garand and clean the gas system, the other guys would clean the other parts, then I would reasemble and function test the rifles.

The Korea Vet watched me disassemble the trigger group on the second Garand and said "I never saw one taken down that far before."

"Didn't you carry a Garand in Korea?" I asked? "Yes" he replied, "But all they taught us to do was remove the trigger group and clean it with a toothbrush, run a rod through the bore, then reassemble the rifle." "They pushed us through training and onto the line so quick they didn't teach anything else."

He watched me thoughtfully for a few more moments and said "Makes me wonder how many guys died simply because they didn't know how to get the frozen mud out of the trigger group."

Unfortunately too many GIs were thrown into combat in Korea with the absolute bare minimum of training-and paid the price.
Given the short distances at which combat was conducted in the Pacific, I can see how the 6.5MM Japanese would be effective and the shorter stature of Japanese soldiers was a consideration.
One disadvantage the VC/NVA had in Vietnam was the lack of a rifle caliber LMG like the M-60. They had the RPK which was simply an AK-47 with a longer barrel, but no quick change barrel and magazine fed-sort of a BAR, not capable of sustained long range fire.

Went to basic/AIT using a M14 in 1966. I was in the 82nd in the spring of 67 and we had M14s. I went to Vietnam using the M16a1.

Joined the Guard in 73, we had M16A1s but I started shooting for the NG in 1977 and we used M14s. Went to sniper school in 1978 (USAMU Sniper School) using the M21 (M14) and taught sniper schools using the M21.

Shot for and coached the AK NG Rifle team until 1992, using the M14 or my M1A (got it in 1977, serial # 0068XX).

I got my M1A it was a Standard Grade but was converted to Super Match (at Guard Expense) by none other the Gene Barnett (Barnett Barrels).

Shot out a few barrels, and stretched out some slings, other then that that sucker had treated me well, getting me my Dist Badge. I still shoot it in matches today (though I'm slowly switching to the AR for HP).

To say I like the M14/M1A would be an understatement.

HHOORAHH !

I carried a M-14 in the Marines from 1970-1971 and was issued a M-16 in 1972; I prefered the M-14 due to accuracy and range of weapon.
I now own a Ruger Mini-30 just for nostalgia, plinking, (not trying to compare to the M-14) and walking up wild hogs in the swamps of Florida. It is a fun gun to shoot but not as accurate as my M-14 was.

__________________
"Life is short, hunt hard"

I went to RVN in 1966 with an issued m-14. Carried it until 1967, when the M-16-E1's arrived.(experimental models). Nobody wanted to give up their M-14's, until we were threatened with courtmartials. The M-16-E1's were real ****. They didn't have the chrome lined bores, and rusted instantly. we were all told we weren't cleaning our rifles, because they always saw "dirt" in the bores. it took several months before they found out it was rust they were seeing. Shortly after that the M-16-A1's arrived with the chrome lined bores. Nobody trusted the M-16's, because Marines were dieing in the field with their rifles disassembled, trying to make them work. Everyone was looking for AK's from dead VC, because they could be trusted to work, no matter what. They also fooled the enemy, because they didn't sound like m-16's.

EarlFH

It is a wonderful semi auto weapon.
The only draw back is you can't carry as much ammo as you can for a CAR-15 or a M16A1 (or other variants).
Not a good rifle for full auto.

Wonderful if it is not worn out and has been reworked to accuracy out to distant ranges.

I couldn't imagine working in the field in A-Stan without one.
Couldn't imagine working with one in the Triple and Double Canopy of I Corps or II Corps.

Rule 303

The M-14 is not made to be an assault rifle. We regularly qualified to 600 meters with a run of the mill rifle. How far do you expect to shoot it? I always carried at least 120 rounds with me, and never minded it. After carrying the weapon through boot camp, it wasn't heavy. We were required to carry our weapon everywhere except to the showers. No problem at all.

EarlFH

I was in the Army from 67 to 70. I was issued several M-14’s and I never fired an M-16 as I never served in Nam. My overseas tour was Ft Wainwright in Fairbanks, Alaska. We actually received overseas pay for serving in Alaska. I was on the Ft Leonard Wood and 5th Army rifle teams in 1968 and was issued a couple of NM M-14’s. They were and are great rifles. I currently own one National Match M-14 with a rear lugged receiver made by Armscorp using GI parts and a Kreiger heavy match barrel. It is one rifle I will not sell.

Considering after 40 or 50 some odd years they are still in use by our military, they are in that way one of the most successful rifles adopted by the US. They must be good for something.

Of course they were inferior to the M1 Garand for the poor GI who tried to shoot from the prone position.

__________________
Jon

The NVA received and used large numbers of RPD GPMGs, these were being phased out of Soviet mainline service at the time (finally withdrawn circa 1974) and thus large numbers went to the Vietnamese. The RPD fired off 100rd belts contained in a drum.

The DP28 and it's later Chinese made belt fed cousin and SG43 mgs were also supplied to the NVA and VC and used in some numbers.

Technically, the M60 was not a light machine gun, but a general purpose machine gun.

+1 on gatorfarmers first post. I went thru basic at Ft Leonard Wood in 83 and was issued a M16A1. Didn't see a M14 til the following year later in the Special Forces course. When I got to my first team we still had two XM21s assigned and used those til replaced by the M24 (still issued the XM16E1 til 86!). I did take a M14 to Kenya in 98' instead of my issued M4A1, things bite back over there (did see the big five in the field). During my second OIF deployment in 04' took a TRW National Match M14 with a Springfield Armory Scout mount and mounted a EOTech to it. Used the same rifle at Benning in 06' at the All Army Matches (out to 1000yds with irons using M118LR)
(me and my son, Baghdad 04')



As mentioned the standard stock is too long with body armor that is a requirement everytime you leave the wire. Around here in Astan this year 101st has a bunch of M14 in EBR stocks. The stock have a adjustable butt for length of pull and a adj. cheek piece. Weapon weighs a lot with the added bipod, IR laser pointer and 10x Leopuld M4 scope.

That stated I've also carried the FAL in Iraq when I could obtain one. For a main battle rifle I prefer the FAL as it has better egronamics and is easier to assessorize as todays battlefield demands.

CD

ETA: forgot to mention that when I went thru sniper school in 94, two guys on my team used our two M24s and I borrowed a M25 (modified M14 w/10x Bushnell mil dot scope) for the course. My spotter (another team mate) and I had the same zero on the M24. The M14 is a good solid rifle and I like older stuff. Carried a M1911A1 and M79 in Iraq all those years also.

__________________
De Oppresso Liber

Nothing feels better in the hand then a steel & wood M14 type rifle, with the sweet smell of linseed oil permiating off the stock. Unless of course you have a synthetic!

The older Springfield Armory Inc M1As were all USGI, save for the Receiver, and are great rifles. I had a few and sold a few.

Now, I have an all hand selected USGI, LRB assembled M14SA and it is the cat's meow! Every single part was hand picked and collected by me for over a year, until I could get the barreled action assembled at LRB.

What a great rifle! As close to a USGI M14 as one could get.

However...
I carry an M4 on patrol, simply because it is shorter, and more easy to manipulate in and out of the radio car.

I do like both weapons the same, and consider them equal.

The Military had this "great" idea to make one weapon to cover everything.
Simple truth is that different platforms for different tasks. You can't have a one for all.

That's why I find both weapons equal. Different tasks.

I have only shot a few "real" M-14's and found them to be great reliable rifles. Assault weapons they are not but for long range shooting they cannot be beat.

Most of my experience is with the m1a's.



This is 50 shots per target, 100 yrds, off the bench with my SuperMatch.





This is 50 shots per target, 100 yrds, off the bench with my NationalMatch.

I shoot the Super better then the National but I enjoy them both. I just don't shoot them enough out here. Reliable, accurate and fun.

__________________
SWCA 1646