"The M-14 rifle" Topic

When are the Pentagon guys finally admit that we can not use the plastic toy gun in the desert? Arming at least some of our guys with the newest version of the M-14 might do some good. I'm surprised the Marines have not done so already. Just because you can carry more 5.56 than 7.62 doesn't do you much good if you can't hit what you are shooting at. And yes, I've fired both on the range. Some of the modern versions of the venerable M-14 really look good. Folding stocks, plastic stocks (I use the term plastic as meaning not wood), pistol grips, etc.. Surely they are an improvement when fighting in the desert.

I'd like to see them go back to the AR-10, chambered in 7.62mm.

An excellent weapon, sadly, under-produced.

The M14 (Garand Mk II) was the rifle I cut my teeth on. Always have had a soft spot for it and it's proved itself over and over again. For many years the fully automatic version with a heavier barrel was the favorite for mercenaries. You would have thought that would have been a signal to someone.

I understand now is called the ABR – "Advanced Battle Rifle".

The M14 and/or AR10 do have their uses, but my friend who was over there tended to drop mortars or air on anything that was out of M4 range.

There is a bullpup version of the M14. With all the Picatinny rail accessories and the special ammo/magazines/cassettes it could be far better than it was originally. Better than designing a new rifle.

link

First rifle I was issued was the M-14 when I was a cadet in '75 … Of course you are going to have longer LOS/FOF in the desert than the jungle or a lot of places in Europe. But something to think about. The Max Effective range of both the M16 and M14 is 460m. Which is more of a situation of sights than actual Max range of the rounds. IIRC – 5.56m 2500m vs. 7.62 NATO FMJ 3750m … On the qual range the max target was at 300m … and it was a tiny MF to see and inturn hit … regardless of firing an M14 or M16 … Just say'n …

I was assigned an M14 sporadically one when I was with the MarDet on the USS Ranger (1986-89.)

Apparently, I had the best overall & best consistent marksmanship scores in the Marine Detachment; so I was the "designated marksman" and was put up in the tower with a spotter during weapons moves on the flight deck or onto the pier.

Like all the MarDet, we fam-fired and had shoots with it, and all our other weapons, but no "extra" training of course…

In answer to "when" the answer is "never". Having used both I prefer the 14 (although I will admit that the 16 has its uses). The 7.62 round is more stable when having to penetrate vegetation or deal with wind and has superior knock down power. But people have been trying to get rid of the 16 since the mid sixties and it hasn't gone anywhere yet.

The actual answer is one of commercial and supply related decisions.

Well, my friend in the Stryker brigades said they had an M14 in each truck to use as a DMR.

There is something to be said for just how much 5.56 there is in the supply pipeline and all the AR parts, too.

But another important part of the equation is the weight carried by the individual soldier. Why was the XM29 OICW canceled? Too much weight and the 20mm shell had limited lethality, but mostly too much weight.

The Marines still have the M39 which is just an M14 with a new stock and some internal work done to it, as a DMR. Special Forces also still have them in their inventories for similar uses.

And then there is the 6.5mm and 6.8mm crowd, Allegedly the carrying ease of 5.56mm combined with the firepower of 7.62mm ammo.

(I kinda fall into the 6.5mm crowd myself)

Though I am willing to bet that the military won't buy a new set of weapons until the Lightweight Small Arms Tech program settles down. I'm hoping that the Army can be convinced to hold on until the caseless tech has matured a little more.

Personally, I would hope that the military ALSO does some caliber changes when the LSAT LMG and rifle actually enter service, to 6.5mm for the basic rifle and SAW and 8.5mm for the bigger MG.

I saw the 6.8 being fired and was impressed. I think either a 6.5 or a 6.8 would be a vast improvement. Especially since most of the existing parts can be used with the new caliber. This is not one of my favorite suggested changes, but at least it would save some of our guys by knocking the SOBs down the first time. I also was issued an M-14 back in 1970. It was made by Winchester. I loved using that weapon. At least I could hit something with it. You could fire from the hip, too.

Being a firearms nerd in addition to a gaming nerd, the 6.5 Grendel has a bit less punch than the 7.62NATO up until 500m (lighter bullet at lower velocity), and from 500m on actually has more punch due to better ballistics (it's going faster than the NATO beyond 500m). Since it's actually short enough to fit in regular AR magazines, I'm very tempted to get a 20" barrel version for me.

The 6.8 has about 50% more energy than a 5.56, but still less than 7.62NATO.

Gents the US has deployed the

link

As the DMR for a few years. it is part of the TOE and the troops like it.

The Max Effective range of both the M16 and M14 is 460m

How does the shorter M4 compare?

Last time I checked the USMC was still using M16A4 with M4 only issued in limited numbers, whilst the Army has gone for M4 100%.

Nomenclature: US Rifle, caliber 7.62 mm, gas operated, air cooled, magazine fed, semi or full automatic, shoulder weapon.

I loved that rifle.

Re: Desert fighting

Iraq isn't desert fighting in the wastes of North Africa 1941 sense. Any objective worth fighting over is usually urban, and most enemies that are not total boneheads will exploit the way urban areas can be used to force US forces to close in and engage inside the enemy threat window.

To that end the M4 is entirely worthwhile and much more manageable going room to room. From my time downrange you only needed a little care to keep it working (mostly just a quick wipe down when you came back in from the day). The M14 was nice for getting additional standoff, or use on the high ground, but I never felt like it was a tool we couldn't leave behind. Also given the length of the M14, the DMR guy frequently also carried an M4 for when we had to go into houses (we mostly worked off our trucks though, so this meant the M14 stayed in the truck more often than not)

In more open terrain, at least in Army formations, it's still heavier weapons like the vehicle mounted ones or the M240 that covers long range engagement, but the day where the combat rifle's long range was relevant likely passed around 1900 or so with the advent of "taking cover" and using terrain to close with the enemy. Having precision rifle fire as a capability can be useful, but hardly more than the one M14 per squad allocation some formations have.

You have a very good point, panzersaurkrautwefer. City fighting definitely needs a submachine gun / assault rifle / AK (yes I know the AK is an assault rifle). I still think the A4 should be chambered for a 6.5 or 6.8 round where ever the fighting takes place.

How does the shorter M4 compare?

IIRC, there was a 20% reduction in range and accuracy, for the CAR-15/16 … And I'm sure you could still hit the 300m target on the range. Something else, many/most firefightes take place at @ 250m. For a number of reasons including LOS, etc. regardless of terrain. A sidebar, in '56 during the 2 Arab-Israeli War/Suez Crisis. The IDF Paras at the Mittla and Geddi passes in the Sinai. Found their Uzi 9mm Parabellum Pistol rounds were having a hard time vs. the Egyptians packing AK-47 with 7.62x39 Assualt Rifle rounds. The 9mm pistol rounds were really much only effective to @ 50m at best. The Uzi is a sub-machine gun/machine pistol, vs. the AK's Assault Rifle round. Which is note to being only effective at @ 250m. However as panzer noted all that won't make much difference in MOUT. And if you note many engagements in Iraq, and some in A'stan took place near/around villages. Of course in the mountains in A'stan, you could have shots at 250m or less or much longer from ridge top to rigde top, etc. … US/NATO snipers were taking some amazingly long shots. Using both 7.62 NATO or similar type rounds and/or .50 cal rounds from Barret, Weaver, etc., Anti-Material/Sniper Rifles.