M14 rifle question?

[mg357]

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?

 

[NYlakesider]

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!

 

[squidsix]

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.

 

[Alpo]

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.

 

[handejector]

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.

 

[11B Lifer]

Changes

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.

 

[nawilson]

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

 

[Roadranger]

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!

 

[Texas Star]

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.

 

[Bullet Bob]

And didn't cost enough

 

[ACP230]

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...

 

[mkk41]

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.

And they looked like this.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

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.

 

[mkk41]

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.

 

[silentflyer]

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.

 

[Hurryin' Hoosier]

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.

Sounds like the Fulda gap.

 

[REM 3200]

Sounds like the Fulda gap.

Or Bad Hersfeld with the Cav.

 

[Rule 303]

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

 

[brucev]

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?

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.

 

[Grayfox]

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.