Dear Smith and Wesson Forum i would like to hear some opinions from my fellow Forum members about the M14 Rifle sincerely and repectfully mg357 a proud member of the Smith and Wesson Forum

Don't know much about the M14, only fired one and it was a DM rifle so the slector lock was on. But I love my M1A.

Yeap they are a true battle rifle.

The best battle rifle the U.S. has ever issued.

EarlFH

Can be an excellent battle or target rifle. Get Springfield and probably one reworked by an armorer. Stay away from China and other mfg.s Many available "bells and whistles" but far less than the ARs. I have an early one - full match - built by Glenn Nelson (himself). About 12.5 pounds with full mag but very accurate with iron (match) sites. Have not tried with a scope, but expect it would be fantastic. At my age (74) sighting and recoil a problem.

__________________
TOMBECK

carried one (mostly over my head with arms extended in the air) while marching and running about 10,000 miles at Ft. Leonard Wood Missouri one summer........hope to never see another one as long as I live!
PAPERBOY98

I've got an Springfield Armory M1A rather than the real deal M14 but it offers a lot to the shooter. Though not some "match grade" variation, it certainly is accurate and shoots an admirably effective cartridge. Mine has given reliable function over many years. I keep it clean and lubed. No muss, no fuss. Though I have an AR 15 I admire the M14/M1A much more than the weenie rifle.

It wasn't any better in the winter either but I'd like to find a good one. I suspect it would be lots heavier now as I'm not in the shape that I was in 1966. The rifle range was a loooooong way, wasn't it?

An excellent rifle in my opinion.

__________________
... a little behind in my work

The M-14 is, IMHO, the best battle rifle the U.S. Army ever had. Accurate, excellent range, and good knock-down power, with quickly interchangeable magazines. I carried it and used it to very good effect. Oh yes, it had a selector switch allowing full auto fire, but required a key that was retained by the unit's XO, and only issued to designated personnel - really kept new troops from blowing out all their ammo (usually in the tree tops) during the first few seconds of an hours-long fire fight (unlike the M-16 popgun that replaced it, an incredibly stupid idea). Been there, used them both, absolutely no comparison. One other thing, the National Match M-14s were even better, I had them on my rifle team, and I always shot high score on the 600, 800 and 1,000 yard stages (all with iron sights, BTW). The standard M-14s were almost as accurate. To replace such a fine rifle, with power, reliability, range and accuracy, with the "Swell Mattel" (yes, there was a run of early M-16s made under contract by Mattel, complete with their logo and motto - "You can tell it's Mattel, its Swell" stamped on the left side of the lower receiver above the magazine well, we were issued several) was just wrong. Going from a serious round to a varmint round (with a FMJ projectile, at that) in an unreliable weapon which was seriously deficient in accuracy, just because it was lighter (plus political reasons, the real reason), was a huge step backward. Sorry, got a bit off-track. A real M-14 is a great weapon, but, since it is select fire, would be a Class III weapon, and not available to the public. Of the civilian "clones," the advice to stay away from the Chinese replicas is good, but Springfield's M-1A (a semi-auto only clone of the M-14) is a well-made weapon with a good reputation. If you're considering one, I say go for it, you won't regret it.

It is an exceptional weapon. Ironically, the US Army just began to reissue it under an Operational Needs Statement as the "EBR" (Enhanced Battle Rifle) for designated marksman. It's still an M14, call it what you will.

__________________
Tout Pret (Always Ready)

Carried one in Basic Training @ Ft. Ord. One day on a tactical (ITT, I think) course, it was raining cats and dogs. At one of the stations, I found Myself in a foxhole full of mud and water. As I attempted to fire the required 2-round-count (blanks) the trigger assembly was so full of muck that I couldn't depress the trigger.

I quickly removed the trigger group, rapped it on my helmet a few times to get the muck out, reinserted the trigger group and depressed the trigger. The trigger pull felt like grinding gravel, but both rounds discharged amid a hail of gunk and water from the barrel! Try that with an M16/AR!

I gotta think Charlie and his buds would have called it quits sooner, for real, if our people had been able to continue to carry the M14, instead of that pop gun! 5.56 vs 7.62; no contest!

Seems like the 7.62 is in use in combat zones today where the operator needs more WHOOMPH!

Expensive to buy or build and shoot. Can be alot of work/money to get the type of accuracy most shooters expect today if you are reffering to an M1A. If you really mean an M-14 then you can just add the "extremely" to my first sentence. I like the weapon and I am not knocking it at all but just consider the following for thought. If it is/was so fantastic why is it no longer the rifle of choice for most shooters on the National Match course and why was it one of the shortest lived battle rifles we had???

Wish I hadn't had to part with mine - sold it to a lawyer who paid me what it was worth, thus guaranteeing I could never afford to buy it back . . . . .

The most accurate semi auto 30 caliber I've ever owned.

They are a handful to control on full auto, but great in semi.

Oh Lord, here we go again...........

Agree with all of this.

Transition to jungle warfare and a different philosophy (misguided in my opinion but I didn't have to use it) by the powers that be so the individual grunt could carry more rounds.

As far as competitive target shooting, "game guns" will always rise to the top and the lowest recoil manageable usually turns in the best scores over the long haul. The .22 is easier on the shooter and the platform is lighter.

Good points...not really sure what the OP intends to do with an "M-14" so not really sure what comments apply to him.

Every army in the world had full power battle rifles for over half a century and they all switched to lower powered weapons, and I don't think any have switched back. The M-14 was a good, solid, old school gun and I can see the need for a lighter and lower powered weapon but I think they went too far with the 5.56m/m. I like the AR platform O.K. but I would love to see a scaled down M-14 that fired a round like the .243 Winchester or .250 Savage.

Boy, would I LOVE to see a picture of that one!

"Always remember your equipment was made by the lowest bidder..."

__________________
The Last Standing Knight

I loved shooting the M14, but I never carried one on duty – only shot it at the range. I saw it as the better "general purpose" weapon over the M16 (I carried the M16A1 and M16A2 while on active duty), but I saw the M16 the better urban warfare weapon. If the majority of my shots were to be under 100m in a tight environment, the M16 is still my preferred choice of the two, but if my shots were to be "anywhere, up to 800m, the M14 is my preferred choice. Also, the M14 is much easier to maintain and keep running than the M16 – in my opinion.

Agreed. I think the 6.8mm round the Army has toyed with has possibilities, and in a Mini 14 package I think it would really be interesting. (I once submitted a suggested a 6.5mm version based on the same case [.30 Remington] in the late 70’s while I was shooting on an Army team.)

Note: While stationed in Central America, I was often able to forgo the M16 in favor of a military issue Winchester M1200 12 ga. and a M1911A1 for jungle ops. I liked that combo for that environment.

Peace,

I don’t recall ever seeing a frame with the "Mattel" logo, but I distinctly remember seeing a “Marx Brothers” (as in Marx Brothers Toys) logo on the inside of my hand guards. It was on the M16A1 I had in basic training.

In Pursuit,

...when it comes to the battle rifle. In another thread, I defined a 5.56mm battle rifle as an oxymoron.

The M14 had a short life as a battle rifle because of perceived changes in battle doctrine. The M14 was designed for target engagement at ranges of out to 800 meters. In 1964, the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps were engaged in close-in jungle-type fighting in Vietnam. The heavier M14 was not the rifle to be carried around in rice paddies and jungles. The smaller and lighter M16, which was an unmitigated disaster shortly after general issue, was the choice.

The M14 fixed all the problems the M1 Garand had, and added selective fire and a more efficient cartridge. The 7.62mm cartridge with comparable bullets (147gr FMJBT proved superior to the 150gr FMJFB) is an equal-to or better performer.

The M16 wasn't chosed for it's superior firepower capabilities. It's stopping power at 500 yards is one-seventh that of the 7.62mm cartridge. The 5.56mm has only 94 ft/lbs more energy at 500 yards than a .22LR has at the muzzle.

Also, don't forget the politics of selecting rifles for the military. In the early 1960's Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense, wanted to outsource weapons from internal military development, to so-called low-bid outside contractors. He was determined to close Springfield Armory. (In 1967, he got his wish.) Thus Eugene Stoner's AR180 variant, the later-named M16, was chosen to replace the M14, even though the M14 was superior in every important category. McNamara believed outside input would result in a superior weapon. To see the folly of this, one only needs to go back to the Civil War, when every crackpot coming out of the woods had some sort of improved weapon, most sadly lacking. The armory system had effectively weeded out the bad ideas during its history.

As warfare has shifted from close-in jungle, to more wide-open desert warfare, its been made clear that the 7.62mm cartridge is better than the 5.56mm. Even though recepients get fairly nasty wounds from the internal tumbling of the 5.56mm bullet, it still takes too many rounds to take out an enemy permanently. One may very well argue that the 6.8mm SPC would suffice. However, if one wanted to maintain the M16 platform, the AR10 and LR308 provide a similar feel in a slightly larger platform. One could then argue that the 260 Remington (6.5mm-08) would be the cartridge of choice.

The M1A is an outstanding rifle. I happen to own a National Match version, made in 1989. It's a true sub-minute-of-angle rifle. Several members of our club also own them, and it's a favorite. A scoped M1A with a match barrel is capable of five shots in one hole at 100 yards.

The dominance of the AR15 platform at Camp Perry is not a true test of the various platforms. Since the National Matches are tests of marksmanship, and not combat performance, stopping power is not a criterion. Rather, low recoil for the enevitable flinching, is the order of the day.

If I ever had to go into combat, I'll take the M14 every day.

Guess I'm showing my age. I qualified with one in training, and carriend one in Viet Nam. Not all M-14's had full auto on the selector switch, but mine did. At 3 round bursts it was very manageable. It also distracted from the M-60 machine gun.
Later during my tour, I had the choice of either an M-16 or keeping my M-14. I kept the 14 .... I liked the feel of it better, and I trusted it more.
I have to say that if I had the money to indulge myself, I'd have an M1A1. I loved that M14 and would still enjoy being able to shoot one every now and then.
I never saw an M-16 that was made by Mattel. I did see one that was made by General Motors. 16's were OK I guess but my personal choice was the 14.
As Socom noted ... they are being brought back into to service in the mid east. Probably a good reason for that I'd guess.

I read Ezell's book, he said there were quality control problems with the M-14 which apparently were never resolved, also the initial concept was flawed, IMHO-the M-14 was supposed to replace the M-1 Rifle AND the BAR. A 9 pound rifle firing a full power cartridge in a fully automatic mode, right. There was supposed to have been an M-15, a heavy barreled M-14 for the BAR role, it never went into production. There was an M-14E2 for the BAR role, the people I knew who fired one said it was unsatisfactory, too light. That said, I trained in BCT on the M-14, prefer it to the M-16. In Vietnam it seemed the only real function of M-16 armed riflemen were to point out targets to M-60 gunners. The problems with the M-16 jamming due to the use of different powders wouldn't have occured with the M-14 with its user cleanable gas system. The 7.62 round is effective not only on personnel but on thin skinned vehicles and on aircraft within range, the 5.56 round is not. They're constantly tinkering with the 5.56 round and its platform as combat exposes its shortcomings. "Someday" I will get an M1A, if someone gives me an AR-15 or ine of its clones I will acept, but I will not buy one.

Used the M14 on the range, eventually bought an M1A. I am now older, the eyes are fuzzier, and the rifle got heavier. I shoot an M4gery (with an optic) more now but "if all things were equal"--the 7.62 definitely packs the mail.

The original stick powder was changed to ball powder, since the powers that were wanted a faster cyclic rate. That created several very severe problems:

• The faster cyclic rate caused problems with early extraction. This caused the brass casing to jamb since it was still expanded, and resulted in stripped and torn rims.
• The ball powder was dirtier, and caused jamming problems. The original M16 was advertised as not needing normal cleaning.
• The unlined chambers would swell in the heat and humidity of Vietnam. This caused chambered rounds to stick, independent of the cyclic rate problem.

I never fired a M14E2 or its predecessor, the M15. However, several friends have, and they're in total agreement with you. The M14, in that configuration, is still too light for control. I did get to fire an M14 on full auto once, and it really got away from you quickly. I believe that's why the selector switches were removed early on.

One of the problems with the M14 was the swelling of the stock in the jungle climate. This was resolved by replacing the wooden stock with one made of fiberglass. However, the M16 made its debut before this modification was totally completed.

As you mentioned, the M16 and its ammunition, have been a 45-year work in progress, and it still hasn't been perfected. The 1-7" twist, and its heavier bullet, still haven't resulted in a better cartridge vis-a-vis the 7.62mm.

Lipstick on a pig is still a pig.

snopes.com: M-16 and Mattel


Jim

__________________
Big bullets leave big holes

The M-14 was the best rifle the USMC let me use.
Bill@Yuma

For about 4 years I was issued a NM M14 as part of an Army Precision Rifle Team. I told my Commander that if our Battery was activated for Desert Storm I was taking that rifle with me. He told me that I had to take the M16A1 I was also issued because that was considered my primary weapon, but if I wanted the M14 as well he didn;t care.

Frankly had I been infantry I might have felt different, but we were FA and vehicle mounted. That M14 and a wire bound case of 7.62 Special Ball would have gone with me.

Obviously I no longer have the M14 but I still have most of that case of 7.62 Special Ball. ;D

That's a hard question to answer. There were the original M14s that saw use early during the Vietnam war (and continued use in the Navy as line throwing guns and such), then there was the "second life" of the M14s when they were taken out of mothballs and used in limited numbers from Somalia to the present day, as well as attempts to make the system into a designated marksman rifle. And then of course there are the commercial M1As from Springfield and Norinco. (The Norinco ones haven't been imported into the US for years, but are still sold in Canada for 399 CDN. )

If you want to know how they performed historically, there are many twice told tales (about as reliable as the Mattel M16 ones) floating around. If you want a more balanced assessment, pretty much every other country (save France) in the free/quasi free world that adopted a 7.62mm Nato rifle used either the FAL or the G3. Three countries used M14s. The United States, The Phillipines, and Taiwan.

Ask the same question to recent veterans. The general consensus that you'll get is that one of the M14/later spawns there of, can be a useful niche weapon these days if nothing else is to be had.

They're not particularly accurate either. A rack grade one in specs is going to be about a 3 MOA rifle. One can tune one to do better, but often at the cost of reliability.

They're heavy, don't fit well with modern body armor, and aren't optics friendly.

The design is long obsolete. It resurfaced as a limited issue item simply because it was what was available. There was a recent article in SWAT magazine that was on this topic and correctly referenced the M14 as a sacred cow of sorts.

The idea of firing at man sized targets in the era before universal issue of optics at 800 meters (and even to this day with optics) is just that, an idea. It rarely happened. From WW2 to the present, most firing is done at relatively close ranges save during certain special situations. It's difficult to see and differentiate targets with the naked eye at more than about 300 meters. The Germans figured that out a long time ago, thus was born the Stg 44.

I had an M1A for a long bit. Mine was purchased back before SA ran out of surplus USGI parts and started using parts from dubious vendors. It was heavy, it banged into things, it wasn't that accurate, and the magazines are not particularly quick to change out. (You almost might as well top them off with stripper clips, which was indeed part of the design.)

The M14 was meant to replace the Garand, BAR, and M3 Greasegun. It never supplanted the Garand since many National Guard units had Garands as late as the early 80s. It never replaced all the M3's either, since these continued to be issued to AFV crews on through Desert Storm. And it failed miserably in attempts to make it a squad automatic weapon, being replaced in that role first by the M60, then the M249 (and sometimes M240).

If it was 1965 and the alternative was an early M16 with no forward assist, no training, bad ammo, and no cleaning kit, then yes the M14 would be a wonderful thing to have.

45 years later...Well you're unlikely to see one unless you're in the Navy and doing an underway resupply. If you want to buy a larger caliber semi auto rifle, then do what the rest of the world did and get a FAL (DSA still makes them and actually has improved modular versions) or else save your coins for a SCAR-H (adopted recently by MARSOC).

I was issued M14s at Ft. Dix and Ft. Benning. Except for when I had to run while holding one over my head I loved the M14. I recently sold a S&W model 625-3 Model of 1989 to help pay for another M1A with TRW parts. Lucky me! I am always looking for more as I have four of them.

There is a forum for the M14. The people there are prone to spending $$$ for genuine forged receivers and USGI parts to duplicate as closely as possible the M14 they love.

I have a nice 1944 M1 and a couple black AR types but they don't get used much. "I don't want no teenage queen, I just want my M14."

+1 on everything Gatorfarmer said. Of course, it was the US Army Ordnance Board that insisted on a full power 30 cal cartridge despite the lessons of WWII. But the most likely candidate for a NATO intermediate cartridge at the time was British, so it was doomed by the NIH crowd. The FAL was originally designed for this .280 round and IMHO would still by in military use and production today had that caliber been adopted. Sad to say that NATO troops in harm's way are still paying the price for poor decisions made 60 years ago.

Getting back to the M14 and its derivatives, I have never fired one so I have no practical experience. My buddy has one and says that is has a smooth feel to it when shooting with lots of character. Hard to define, but you know it when you experience it. My FN-49 gives me the same "all parts in perfect harmony" feel that is absent from my FAL or an AK clone. However, from what I read the M14 is probably harder to scope than a G3 or FAL. What's up with that?

I carried a M14 in 1965-66. It was OK, heavy, jammed/malfunctioned when it got muddy and/or full of sand, just like any other rifle. As I recall the basic load was only 180 rounds and weighed a ton. The wooden stocks tended to break at the pistol grip. Trying to shoot one on full auto was a waste of ammo.

Later on I was on an army level rifle team. The bedding tended to be delicate. The M16s got perfected, and blew the pants off M14s. A match grade M16 is just plain a whole bunch more accurate, and easier to shoot, than a 14. Maybe thats why no one shoots a M14 anymore in service rifle.

Personally, having carried both in combat, I'll take a good M16 any day. Keep it clean, and don't try to turn it into a machine gun, and it won't let you down.

The M14 is still the rifle for the Navy, They carry the M14 or shotgun. It still see's time in the field, you will see a Jar-head with one on the news. The Navy Medic's are the ones with them.

The M14 was the rifle I trained with, and it was still issued to us in 'Nam. That rifle was as good as it gets, and I really wish I could afford an M1A.
TACC1

What they said! I own two M1A's and love them both. If you want the job done this rifle will do it right the first time.

De Oppresso Liber

I have an M1A and shot it in NRA High Power matches for several years. It was, and is, the most consistently accurate rifle I own. Mine was another competitors backup rifle and has had some accurizing work done. Still is very reliable with surplus ammo, or my reloads.

I got to shoot a couple mags from an actual M14 several years ago at a range in Minnesota. I found that it was quite controllable if shot in three and four round bursts. (I had shot quite a bit of FA before shooting the 14).
Shooting on the range is different, no doubt, than fighting with a rifle. But, I've met a couple guys who used M14s in combat on FA and claimed to have no trouble controlling them.

SC state association had 16 NM M-14s issued for competition shooting for a number of years. They were called back to CMP a few years ago. (Turned them in personally.) Was told the military wanted the receivers to rebuild into sniper rifles. Definitely see M-14s being used by the sniper teams today. M-16s are basically a "spray and pray" type. But that appears to be the trend.

__________________
TOMBECK

...was aboard USS Belleau Wood as a Marine on deployment. I got to fire five rounds at a plastic garbage bag about 200 yds out in choppy seas off the flight deck. I did not miss my target..although I didn't think it was really a good "accuracy" test.
It was heavy, long, and felt very reassuring. I would've gladly traded my M16A2 for it. However, a friend told me that when he was on barracks duty, they had a stash of 14's and he did not speak favorably of them.

My SHTF rifle is a Ruger Mini-14 which I consider a distant cousin of the 14. More similarities than not and while not a "Camp Perry" rifle by a long shot, it'll get the job done.

Lots of pros and cons about this here and I've learned a bit, too from those who carried and used it regularly from this. Still, I wouldn't mind owning a match grade M14 and give it a try out to, say, 500 meters.

__________________
The Last Standing Knight

Larry, you and paperboy 98 were there when it was still called Little Korea. Hotter than hades in the summer and colder than anywhere else in the winter. My dad had a 200 acre farm just west of Fort lost in the woods. I may have heard you say SIR YES SIR as you ran to the range.

+1! And it fires a cartridge that gets the job done!

When the Garand was under development (daddy to the M-14), two rounds were being considered, the .276 and the .256.

During testing, it was found the .256 gave the best performance on living tissue, but the ordnance folks wanted sa round with more punch on hardened targets. So the .276 was supposed to be the Garand round.

Then came politics and what to do with the millions of rounds of 30-06 left over from WWI.

Hat the original Garand been produced with a .256 round (or even the .276), imagine what the M-14 could have been!

They are available to the public. Pay the tax.......


In my opinion the M14 is the best battle rifle ever made.

I have always (the last 42 years) found the M14 to have a sharper muzzle blast, more uncomfortable recoil, less favorable ergonomics, and more weight than the M1. Mount the 20 round magazine and sling the weapon and I always got a punch in the kidney. There was one M1 in the USAREUR small arms championship match in 1969. I was not the only one who envied the USAF Master Sergeant that shot it.

Regards,

Tam 3

The Navy always had these aboard ship for line throwing duty (replaced the trapdoor Springfield I think!) and for repelling boarders and it was said that it was used because the 30 cal bullet could penetrate leftover WW2 mines.
They were still in the inventory until the DMR program started up, and I know for a fact that the SEALS do use them!
My own impression is, if you want an accurate, heavy, take out a Buick at 500 yds rifle, this is it! The 7.62 NATO round is getting some attention from the spec-war community (in the form of the FN SCAR H) and will work out past the 5.56s range and can double as a sniper platform if accurized. A battle rifle it is! Try one you'll like it!

this. I put a lot or rounds thru them in the Army.

__________________
ASA/NSA 67-71
NRA Benefactor

Humped one of the accursed things many, many miles on shanks mare! TRW mfg, issued by USMC serial number 1336953! Could shoot the gonads off a gnat at 200 yds and not bloodshot his eyes! (almost, but not quite!) Qualified High Expert! (Could see back then!) Best firearm, bar none, that I have ever had the privilege of shooting. Beast to carry, but puts out mucho damn damn in a hurry! Had to give mine up kicking and screaming for a 16. Lighter, carry more ammo, but not the same knock down power. Kinda like a 9mm vs .45 ACP! Have a mostly TRW early Springfield M1-A. Its a good shooter, but not quite as accurate!

After reading some more of the posts, I read somewhere that the .276 round had been approved by the Army Ordinance Board for the M-14, but General of the Army Douglas McArthur rescinded the decision due to the warehouses being overloaded with surplus 30.06 and did not want to incur the cost of replacing all that ammo and also with it not being in synch with other weapons such as the BAR, the M-1917 MG and the still tremendous stocks of M1 Garands, even with NATO pressure to go to the 7.62 x 51mm. Wonder why politicians don't think that way today?

If I didn't have a 2 year old sleeping in the the other room I would have an LRB Tanker in my closet right now.

__________________
Thirty characters. Exactly...

Trained with one in the late 60's.
Definitely the best rifle the US ever issued. If you can't do it with a 14, you just can't do it.
I love 'em, and I love FAL's.
I can get by with either one.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett