Dear s&w forum, I have question regarding the m14 service rifle. The m14 was developed as a replacement for the m1 garand which was a semi-automatic rifle.

Here is my question why in the world didn't the m14 designers design the m14 as a semi-automatic rifle just like the garand instead of making it a selective fire rifle?

It would appear that they wanted to take out the BAR and M1 out of service and thus have one weapon to SORT of do both functions!

Who knows? However, I'll tell you that of the 40 or so I have access to, only ONE of them has full-auto capability. All the rest are semi-only. It seems we got our heads on straight about these rifles.

My understanding is the same as NYlakesider. It was supposed to replace both the service rifle and the squad automatic weapon. But with the lightness of it, 9.8 pounds instead of 19 (1918 version), it was, for most people, uncontrollable in full auto, so the selector switch was removed, and it was issued as a semi-auto rifle.

__________________
I always take precautions

It was never intended that all M-14's would be select fire.
It was initially intended that 2 per squad would be M-14E2 (later designated M-14A1) which would be select fire. They were heavier, had a pistol grip stock and bipod.

They performed very poorly. Therefore, they never saw wide issue.
In 1968, I was part of a very combat ready unit in Europe that would have been the first meat put in front of the Russians if they got feisty. M-14's were our TOE, but I never saw an M-14E2 in our unit.

They tried it, it didn't work, and they abandoned the idea very quickly.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

Absolutely-the select fire M14 could not be adequately controlled in auto. The BAR, albeit a great rifle-is heavy-and has its own magazines. I don't know if the M14 mag is compatable.
With the advancement of plastics, metals-and small-high velocity cartridges-came the concept of increasing the volume of fire-so the Stoner development of the M16 (at the time I think it was AR15) with its light weight and minimal recoil moved us in that direction. Still not a very good automatic gun-the M16 could not replace the BAR-the M60 was a partial solution-but belt fed 7.62 is a limitation (and only a couple could be issued to a Platoon-ammo is heavy!). So they came up with the SAW-Not perfect-and we have the M 240 replacing the M 60-still 7.62.
Today's M4 is a pretty sophisticated rifle-but the only constant with US Infantry weapons-is change.

M14 magazines shouldn't work in a BAR. Th BAR is chambered for the longer 30-06 versus the M14's 7.62.

__________________
Proud anachronism

The M14 was to replace not only the M1 and BAR, but the M1 Carbine and the M3 Submachine gun as well. This is and was a daunting task and it was obvious to all but those in charge, that this was not going to happen. The M14 is one hell of a rifle, a good marksman can hit anything he can see. It is not a SAW or a submachine gun. The Brits sorta did it right when they adopted the FAL. They converted their Bren guns to 7.62 using a 30 rd. FAL compatible magazine or a standard 20 rifle mag if need be. With the Mag 58, they took care of their belt fed needs. They also kept the Sterling smg and supplimented it with MP5's for the SAS boys. Bob!

The full auto was originally dubbed M-15. Later modified to M-14-E2 form.

Very poor idea. We should have adopted the 7.62mm Bren gun as a squad weapon. But it probably had the Not Invented Here stigma.

And didn't cost enough

I have read many times that the M14 is "uncontrollable" in full auto.
The one I shot was controllable as long as I kept the bursts to three or four rounds. (Since I'd shot a fair amount of full auto by then, I could do it, on the range).

I've met a couple of guys who said they used the M14 on full auto in
combat in VietNam. One said he "...never had any trouble controlling
it."

If I had the money I would own one, load .308s for six months, and
go to the range for a couple days and investigate the matter...

And they looked like this.

The idea that the M-14 would replace both the M-1 and the BAR is one of those Great Ideas That Don't Work-looks great on paper, in actuality...
Originally there was to been a heavy barrel version of the M-14 designated the M-15 that to replace the BAR, but it was cancelled before
production. Those I have known who fired the M-14E2 in full auto mode all gave it a thumbs down.

Though I have not fired an -E2 stocked rifle in full-auto , I do have an -E2 stock on my Springfield M-1A. It does change and soften the recoil considerably. The stock is bulkier and heavier , but the straight-line design of the buttstock keeps it on target.
FYI , The Navy had approx.200 sniper rifles made with -E2 stocks back in the late 70s. Which is what inspired me to build mine.

Like the F111 one plane does it all mind set, the M14 was supposed to be the one weapon for the Army. Still a great weapon, long range,plenty of knock down at longer ranges. They sent a bunch to Iraq and Afghanistan to deal with those pesky spray and pray bad guys who like to shoot at out troops from beyond effective M4 range. my step son a Marine tells my when given to the best shots in a rifle squad, they had the desired effect. The bad guys soon learned the hard way.

Sounds like the Fulda gap.

Or Bad Hersfeld with the Cav.

__________________
CSM, U S Army(Ret) 1963-1990

When I went through Pre Airborne Infantry AIT at Camp Crockett at Ft. Gordon, we were issued two M14E2s per squad for FTXs. We shot them on the range, difficult to hold down is an understatement.

Got to Vietnam and didn't see any E2s, lots of M14s carried by support troops, but no E2s.

I ended up buying two new E2 Stocks back in the early 80s at gun show in Texas and Olkahoma, $50 apiece with all the metal hardware.

My son now has one on his M1A.

Rule 303

There were many efforts at Springfield Armory by John Garand and others to improve on the M-1 Garand ranging from fitting a magazine, altering the gas system, adapting it to full-auto fire, chambering it for different calibers, fitting various telescopic sights, adapting it for use with rifle grenades and anti-tank weapons, redesigning the stock to allow a more straight line recoil, etc. The M-14 was in many respects a genuine produce improvement on the M-1. It retained most of the positive features of the M-1 will incorporating a better gas system and bolt and adopting a magazine over the enbloc and adding full-automatic capacity. The addition of the full-automatic capacity was in some eyes problematic. It did not really meet the need for a squad automatic weapon, as performed by the BAR. Some complained it was not "controllable." Traditionalist simply despised it as it forced them to face the fluid realities of combat that were so far removed from the formality of known distance target shooting. And of course there were those who complained that it only led to wasting ammunition. Of course the who matter became moot when a salesman from Ford eliminated the govt. armory system of developing U.S. combat weapons having decided that the U.S. Army, etc. could get by just fine with a smaller, lighter, cheaper, commercially produced carbine type space gun that eliminated chrome lining of the chamber and barrel as a unneeded cost. It cost the lives of many front line combat soldiers for the U.S. Army to product improve that little space gun. That man from Ford got more men killed than a later Ford decision would kill in a little car called the Pinto.

__________________
<><

As I undertand it, the problem with the M-14 in full auto was that the rate of fire was too high and that's what made it so difficult to control. Efforts were made to slow it down, but resulted in the weapon becoming unreliable.

Back when I was a Marine Corps midshipman in a Navy/Marine ROTC unit, the drill rifle was the 1903 or 1903A3 Springfield. The front sight was removed and the firing pins were ground down. Great for close order drill; not much good for shooting blanks.

For field exercises, we borrowed M14s with blank adapters from the Army ROTC unit. A few of the borrowed rifles had the standard stock and selector switches.

BTW, a 7.62x51 blank WILL mess up a Alabama copperhead in a kudzu patch.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

The M14 is probably one of the reasons why the Springfield Armory closed.

There had been complaints for years, that the Armory and the U.S. Army had too cozy a relationship. As the M1 was being developed, the preferred cartridge was the .276 Pedersen. However Chief of Staff, General Douglas MacArthur nixed the idea because of all the surplus .30-06 on hand from WWI. After WWII, and the Springfield Armory began development of what eventually became the M14, U.S. Army rifle doctrine began to change from the 800 yard target, to the 350 yard target. This was the result of extensive research on infantry engagements in WWII. However, the M14 was adopted in the face of changing infantry doctrine.

The 7.62mm round was shorter, to allow for faster cycling, but the M14 was only a baby step forward, and what was needed was a quantum leap.

When Robert McNamara became Secretary of Defense, he desired that DoD procurement be further outsourced to private industry. That spelled the doom for the Springfield Armory. As I mentioned earlier, the coziness of the armory with DoD procurement, just didn't sit well with McNamara, and his priority was to close Springfield.

While the M14 was being adopted, Eugene Stoner developed his AR platform, which used the same 7.62mm NATO round. He couldn't get the Army or Marine Corps to give him a fair trial, and he took his AR platform international.

When Curtis LeMay saw it, he had the US Air Force try it out, and the rest, as they write, is history.

This is not, in any way, an endorsement for McNamara's methods. The introduction of the AR15/M16, and the F111, aren't exactly ringing endorsements for McNamara. However, that's the way things happen sometimes.

I know I will probably be tarred and feathered, but I will say it anyway.

A bigger mistake than the M14 was the adoption of the 7.62 NATO cartridge. The Brits had a good .280 intermediate round and even 7mm Mauser would have been a better choice for facing off against the Soviets in Europe. Yes, I dislike 7.62 NATO for a number of reasons.

I have it on good authority from Army vets at work that the M14 was a bad joke in full-auto. "Aim for the knees and the second round MIGHT get the guy in the throat if he was tall" was the way one chap put it.

For a while I was issued a National Match M14. The selector switches on the rifles we had were modified and the stocks were glass bedded in the semi position. I asked if the rifles were capable of full auto and it was explained to me by the former Marine who was the rifle team coach that they would. However at one point the military had modified most of the M14s so that it took a special wrench to switch the rifles to full auto.

When he was in S Vietnam for the war games the squad leader would carry the wrench and only switch one or two rifles to full auto and the rest would stay semi for ammo conservation purposes. The automatic riflemen would attempt short bursts of suppressive fire to give the rest of the squad time for aimed fire.

During the shooting season we only cleaned the trigger group and exterior. Bores were not touched unless we had shot in the rain and we removed the barreled actions from the stocks only at the end of the season for a pre-storage cleaning. He of course had saved a wrench, so at the end of one season we removed a barreled action from the match stock of a rifle that was going back for a rebuild, flipped the selector, and experienced the M14 on full auto.

Everything negative that has been said about the M14 on full auto has validated my impressions after firing three magazines in attempted three round bursts. The wrench was small and L shaped, in case you were wondering. The selector knob on the M14 I had looked like they had just ground the lever part off leaving a circle with a flat. Imagine taking a dime and cutting a piece off with a cold chisel across the top of Roosevelts head.

One of the greatest and most reliable rifles ever. We were issued the M14 in basic training and it was so heavy to a just turned 20 year old who never held anything heavier than a 22 rifle. With a full 20 round mag I think it was about 9 pounds. The peep sights were excellent allowing you to hit a silhouette target at 300 meters...I'm talking iron sights. I could do that with young eyes. I never saw an M16 while in the military, only the M14 and it was a sweetie.

Ours were not the select fire variety although I wish we had been able to at least try them. IMHO, the best and most accurate long range rifle the Army ever had.

In 1966 I got designated as the guy with the full auto 14 and this was because I had some time on the sixty. This was an Engineer Company. My armorer was a nutcase. Without the a fore mentioned full stock this was not an enjoyable weapon to shoot. My first time testing it on the perimeter this thing was climbing for the sky. A guy from C company 1st Infantry came over to help. He had a cut down version of the full stock, no butt, but with the pistol grip and proceeded to teach me how to sweep with it. Three and four shot bursts were all you could hope for unless you had it held down with a sand bag. Barrels getting hot were an issue also. You could water them down but too much too fast would warp the barrel. Barrel life was not as good as the sixty either.
DW

__________________
"NUTS"

All true M14s are capable of FA fire. Most have a cylindrical lock over the selector, to be replaced with a fun switch if desired. The wrench walnutred mentioned was to remove the lock.
----
LVSteve, you are exactly right. The Brit .280 did everything desired of a new round, but the Powers That Were wanted something with ballistics close to the .30cal, but smaller and lighter--therein lay the rub...
----
Muley Gil, when were you at Auburn? I attended '76-'79 and was in the PLC Program, so I ran around with the Marine Option NROTC cadets.

Just talked to a neighbor today who carried the M14 in VietNam.

"Short bursts," he said.

He also said he loved the rifle and was not happy to give it up when it
was replaced by the M16.

You all have part of the story, but are hitting all around the truth.

When originally designed the T-44 (Thank you Wikipedia) was designed as two different models, which were to be designated M-14, and M-15 (Heavy Barrel). The original intent was for the M-15 to be selective fire and fulfill the mission now referred to as Squad Automatic Weapon. The M-14 was to be the semi-automatic version. Pert of this was during the tenure of Robert Strange McNamara as Secretary of Defence when he and his "Whiz Kids" tried to run the Armed Forces like a business!

The M-15 was dropped because the Secretary couldn't understand why two similar weapons were needed when one could perform both functions. Didn't work, for several reasons.

The M-14E2 was developed ca. 1965 in an attempt to make the M-14 more suitable for the SAW function. The stocks were weal and easily broken, which eventually resulted in the fiberglass version. There never were a lot of E-2 (or A-1) variants produced.

Selective fire. All M-14, M14 E-1, E-2 and M-15 receivers were identical. Without getting too deep, all could be made/used as selective fire weapons. The selector consisted of a cam which could be rotated 180 degrees to select semi- or full-automatic fire. In exactly the same fashion as in prior years, the major reason for converting most M-14s to Semi-Automatic was the supply concern that too many soldiers with fully automatic weapons would waste a lot of ammunition and complicate supply issues and costs, while accomplishing nothing.

How was the conversion to semi-auto only done? There was no "special wrench" or any other tool needed, simply a pin punch, hammer, and the conversion kit. Thje "kit" was nothing more than a cylindrical cap which replaced the selector knob and spring. With the semi-full option functional all you did was push the selector switch in against the spring and turned it 180 degrees. This changed the connector cam position which allowed the connector to pull the sear off and fire the gun until the trigger was released. It was the operating pulling against the connector and rotating the selector against the secondary sear which accomplished this. To do the conversion, the selector knob pin was driven out, knob and spring removed and replaced with the solid cylinder which would only fit when the cam was in the semi-automatic position, and the pin replaced. The selector knobs or switches and springs were stored securely in the company arms room and permanently retained for future use.

At the time much of this occurred I was in Army Ordnance as a Field Artillery, Small Arms, Chemical Weapons and Fire Control Instrument Repairman as Duty MOS's. In addition to being Armament Section Chief I was Company Armorer. I do know of what I speak. As Elmer said, "I Was There!"

__________________
Gunsmithing since 1961

It is hard to argue with the ballistic coefficient and sectional density of 7mm bullets. They are about the best.
The 7.62/51 is a great cartridge. It had to be- it is just a shorter 06 with a fat sholder.
I tend to agree they missed a chance to adopt a greater cartridge.

I have a great fondness for the M-14. It is a great rifle. I was very young when it was issued to me, making me a nearly invincible killing machine, around eight feet tall.

Funny story-
We did a 5 day biv in basic at Benning. In one of the earliest snafus I ever saw in the Army, they told us no weapons oil of any kind was available on the whole post that we could get. Maybe they were just messing with our heads.
It rained every day. We were crawling thru the bushes every day in some kind of exercise with the rifles. It rained every day. We were shooting a lot with blanks in the woods and ball on the ranges. Sand is very plentiful at Benning. It rained.
Needless to say, our rifles were turning orange by day two. The last day we were trucked to one distant range for some live fire. A DS caught me hunkered down in front of a deuce and a half, about to pop the hood and see if I could steal some oil off a dip stick. I just couldn't take seeing Baby all orange no more. He encouraged me to move toward the range foxholes by talking awful about my mother and playing the drum solo from In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida on my steel pot with a steel range rod. That piece is very hard to play with one drumstick, but he was very good and seemed highly motivated. He missed a few notes when he missed the steel pot and hit my sholders, neck, or back. I did not critique that. It was raining.

So, I'm in a plank lined foxhole, elbows on the ground, about to pop some targets. For the first 4 or 5 rds, I would fire, hook the op handle on the plank, and push the butt to eject. I'd then hook the handle on the other side of the plank, and pull to chamber a round. It was that rusty. I figured the technique out trying to chamber the first round- could not do it by hand! Enough rust soon rubbed off for it to work for 55 more rounds.

It is a confidence inspiring weapon. It REALLY made those early 16's seem like Mattels.

Still, there is the old saying-
We developed a great rifle in the 14, and the rest of the free world simply bought FAL's.
If you've never shot an FAL, you should try one.

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

I trained on the M14 in basic training, and it was a very fine piece of equipment. Mine was manufactured by TRW (the satellite folks). Lord knows how many trainees had used it before me. It was so worn that I could shake it and it sounded like a bucket full of nickels rattling around. But that rifle took the trophy for me with a perfect score on the final qualification.

Later in infantry AIT we trained on the E2 version, straight stock, pistol grip, heavy barrel and bipod. Training emphasized short bursts of 3 to 5 rounds. I qualified as expert with the automatic rifle (Winchester made).

Never saw the M16's until I got to Vietnam. First one I was issued was made by General Motors Hydramatic Division. Nothing but trouble with it, so I did a little horse-trading and came up with a good M14. Not as lightweight or easy to carry as the M16, but extremely reliable under all circumstances.

All of the standard M14's I saw while in the Army had the selector switches removed and had been limited to semi-auto mode. Not a big deal in my opinion. Still a very fine rifle for the purpose.

TRW, Thompson-Ramo-Wooldridge. Aero-space, automotive spare parts, and they ran a credit reporting/rating service after the same fashion as the current Experian and others. Obviously they manufactured firearms, but only under Gov't contract.

__________________
Gunsmithing since 1961

What was a real trip at Ft. Jackson was going through the day/nite infiltration course-crawling for 100 yards on your belly with an M14 cradled in your arms, pockets filling with SC sand and some guy shooting at you with a 30 cal water cooled machine gun. At night it was even better-you got to see those bullets coming at you as every 7th round was a tracer. Add to that the deafening sound of TNT going off in scattered bunkers, crawling over barbed wire and logs in the way and being dead still when the flares went up just to get to the end of the course...precious memories.

Always thought they were part of GM. TRW made the forged pistons and valves used in most GM factory high-performance engines.

I have some wrenches marked TRW. Seems they forged and machined a ton of stuff.

In "U.S. Rifle M14:from John Garand to the M21" R. Blake Stevens says there were some quality control problems with the M14 and I recall some of the Old Sergeants saying the M14 was not as rugged as the M1. Stevens also says some of the M14 vs M16 tests were rigged to favor the M14.

In 1975, the M14 was still the official standard rifle of the Marine Corps, the M16A1 being 'substitute standard'. At Marine Corps OCS, I was issued an M14 (with the selector lock). As can be imagined, I became very close friends with it, and scored hits at 300m during a FAMFIRE, even though it was the first high-powered rifle I shot! When we turned them in, the armorers simply checked serial numbers and loaded them into wooden rifle crates, then tossed them into the back of a truck.

Two years later, at the second increment, we were issued M16A1s, and when they were turned back in, each rifle had to be inspected by an armorer; they did not think well of the rifle at all!

I was at Auburn from Sept '72 to Mar '77. I was in the NROTC unit until March '74. Had to leave due to allergies and bronchitis. Did you know Jim Charette and Butch Pike? They were Marine midshipmen in the Class of '77.

__________________
John 3:16
WAR EAGLE!

Charette rings a very faint bell; 30+ years is a long time.
I was in a similar boat; I failed my pre-commissioning physical in Dec. '78 due to insect sting allergy. It was rough, suddenly being on the outside...not to mention the death of a lifelong dream.