opinions on the M14 Rifle

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!
 
310Pilot said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Ah, the M-14

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!
 
M-14

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!
 
M-14 Round

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?
 
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.
 
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
 
ldausmc1369 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Badkarma 1 said:
The Navy always had these aboard ship for line throwing duty ...
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
Bullseye Smith said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
m1gunner said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
walnutred said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mea Culpa

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."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
M14 rifle question?
2
Replies
37
Views
6K
shep854
shep854
M
opinions on the ruger gunsite scout rifle.
2 3
Replies
50
Views
17K
TANKER
T
M
opinions on the m16 rifle
2
Replies
22
Views
4K
ldp4570
ldp4570
M
opinions on the browning automatic rifle
2 3
Replies
40
Views
5K
bennettfam
B
G-Mac
If you could only afford one centerfire rifle.....
6 7 8
Replies
145
Views
35K
buckyjames1
B

Latest posts

Back
Top