opinions on the M14 Rifle

Something similar...

Steave said:

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

Click to expand...

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,

The M14 is the ultimate...

...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.

BLACKHAWKNJ said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

My only chance to fire an M14....

...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.

lonejacklarry said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.