PDA

View Full Version : M14 compared to M16


Abndoc
November 11, 2007, 11:33 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4weIh3Mc6kU

This is a video comparing the two rifles. It's just one guys opinion and I really don't agree. His testing methods leave something to be desired.

heckledpie
November 12, 2007, 12:09 AM
dude, alot of there "facts" are not facts.

RockyMtnTactical
November 12, 2007, 01:31 PM
The video wasn't bad.

As for the "testing". All he wanted to do was demonstrate that the recoil is better and allows for much more accurate full auto fire. If you don't hit your target, it doesn't matter how big the round is that you are shooting.

They discussed many of the supposed drawbacks of the M16 and it's cartridge.

I think you guys are probably reading too much into it.

44 AMP
November 12, 2007, 06:22 PM
I have used both in real life. And was Army trained as a Small Arms Repairman on both the M14 and the M16A1.

My preference, if I am going hunting (men or anything else), I choose the M14 over the M16. In a defensive situation, the M16 has the edge in putting out rounds faster, but neither one comes close to a good dependable belt fed gun (like a Browning, or an FN, not like the M60).

Modern variants of the AR have inproved the accuracy a lot, and the dependability some (with the right ammo it never was as bad as the rep it got, but with the wrong ammo it sucked) too bad it only took them 40 some odd years to get most of the bugs out of the system!

Army GI
November 12, 2007, 06:35 PM
I have used both in real life. And was Army trained as a Small Arms Repairman on both the M14 and the M16A1.

My preference, if I am going hunting (men or anything else), I choose the M14 over the M16. In a defensive situation, the M16 has the edge in putting out rounds faster, but neither one comes close to a good dependable belt fed gun (like a Browning, or an FN, not like the M60).

Modern variants of the AR have inproved the accuracy a lot, and the dependability some (with the right ammo it never was as bad as the rep it got, but with the wrong ammo it sucked) too bad it only took them 40 some odd years to get most of the bugs out of the system!

Yep, the Germans had it all figured out when they made the machinegun the center of infantry tactics.

TPAW
November 12, 2007, 06:45 PM
For a supposed professional, I didn't care for the way he rested the M-16 magazine on the ground as a support for the rifle when he was firing from a prone position........:mad: It was not made to be a bi-pod. Not only can he damage the mag, but I've actally seen them dislarge from the locking device from the recoil of the rifle, and not feed properly and stove bolting the next round......:(

Abndoc
November 12, 2007, 08:32 PM
I like both platforms, but given the choice between the two, I would choose the M14. I would take something like the AR10 or the G3 over either one though.

It looked like our shooter only put a couple of rounds from the M14 into his target. Doesn't it seem that he would get more hits with a 3 round controlled burst? The first shot should be a hit, even if recoil pulls the muzzle off target with for the next 2.

SR420
November 12, 2007, 08:42 PM
Bolt that FA M14 into a TROY M14 MCS (http://www.athenswater.com/images/H2OMAN-MCS.jpg), install a Kali legal DC Comp (http://www.athenswater.com/images/SEI-DC-CaliComp-1.jpg) and you will have very different results.

I'll take the M14 :cool:

heckledpie
November 13, 2007, 12:46 AM
Bolt that FA M14 into a TROY M14 MCS, install a Kali legal DC Comp and you will have very different results.

I'll take the M14

omg dude, those are amazing looking m14s!:eek:

44 AMP
November 13, 2007, 03:07 AM
With the design of the M14. And that was to put a full auto switch on it. By doing that, they tried to make it something it never should have been, which is why 90% of them had the switch removed and the "selector lock" installed, making it semi only. If they hadn't fooled with the full auto in the first place, it would have been hailed as a great rifle and a worthy replacement for the M1.

Instead many people just look at its problems as a select fire weapon, and its short service career (as a general issue rifle), which was cut short by politics and changes in what the service wanted, not due to any fault of the rifle's design.

I have used the M14, FAL, G3, HK 91, and M1A, and of the rifles I can legally own, I prefer the M1A. It has advantages for a civilian owner over the G3/HK rifles, especially if you reload.

I have never used one of the AR rifles in .308 (yet), and so withhold judgement, butr I have extensive experience with the AR15/M16A1, and some with the A2 and the semi M4s, and while they are better than they used to be, they are still poodle shooters.:rolleyes:

ronc0011
November 13, 2007, 10:02 AM
With the design of the M14. And that was to put a full auto switch on it. By doing that, they tried to make it something it never should have been, which is why 90% of them had the switch removed and the "selector lock" installed, making it semi only. If they hadn't fooled with the full auto in the first place, it would have been hailed as a great rifle and a worthy replacement for the M1.

Instead many people just look at its problems as a select fire weapon, and its short service career (as a general issue rifle), which was cut short by politics and changes in what the service wanted, not due to any fault of the rifle's design.



Ditto that,

The first testing of the M-14 showed that the weapon on full auto was uncontrollable. The M-1A is what the M-14 should have been. Almost immediately after it was issued, troops were instructed to not use it on full auto and subsequently the selector switch was rendered inoperable. The rifle was simply too light to fire the 7.62 NATO on full auto aprx. 700 rnds per minute. This was the Army trying to have it all, a light weight weapon that fired a heavy round on full auto, the expectations were simply unreasonable. As a semi-auto weapon it performs outstandingly and it puts 20 rounds of 7.62 x 51 at your fingertip. The M-14 fires a 7.62x 51 which is essentially a Winchester .308 and is very effective at longer ranges. At 500 meters and further it is still capable of penetrating obstacles such as car doors and still make the kill. Its short service life was due entirely to the personal agendas of various people and completely unrelated to the weapons performance. This was painfully and often tragically obvious in the early days of its replacement when the M-16 was still having so many problems. In spite of all of that the M-14 has never been completely out of service. From the time of its inception it has always been in service in one capacity or another. Very often down through the years when ever the Army has wanted to “Reach out and touch someone” they have called up the M-14 as the weapon that is fundamentally up to the task. Even today if you look on discussion boards frequented by our service men you will see that the M-14 is well thought of and jealously desired by many of our service men. This is because in a desert environment it can reach a very long distance and still kill you dead when it gets there.

This is really the same old argument of one caliber / cartridge vs. another. Frankly I have trouble understanding why some people insist on clinging to the idea that the much smaller though significantly faster bullet is more lethal than the much heaver and almost as fast bullet.

Here are some interesting links where you can see what the difference is between these rounds. The first link shows the .223 at the bottom of the page and the second link shows the 7.62 x 51. I think the are some more direct comparisons on that site but I just didn’t have time to look for them.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot4.htm


http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot4_2.htm

Abndoc
November 13, 2007, 10:15 AM
It took 40 years for the M16 platform to reach it's current level of development and it's still a .22. I find it ironic that they are improving it by using heavier rounds with a slower muzzle velocity.

Imagine if the same effort had been used to improve the M14, instead.

HorseSoldier
November 13, 2007, 11:38 AM
Its short service life was due entirely to the personal agendas of various people and completely unrelated to the weapons performance.

Myth. The M14 was canned because it was obsolete and a flawed concept from the start. I find it amusing that anyone who was not a fan of its mediocre performance has "personal agendas" but, apparently, the corrupt/incompetent bureaucrats who forced it and the 7.62x51 round on the US military and NATO were somehow aboveboard in their underhanded disservice to the American servicemen they were supposed to be providing the best equipment to.

Even today if you look on discussion boards frequented by our service men you will see that the M-14 is well thought of and jealously desired by many of our service men. This is because in a desert environment it can reach a very long distance and still kill you dead when it gets there

Actually, if you look at boards like this one you'll find a bunch of servicemen (myself included) who think the M14 is 99% hype, and who will point out the reality that in the desert it simply has not done its job very well at all in the eyes of many end users. You'll also note that the reality is that both the Army and Marines are ditching it in favor of other platforms because its real world performance is nowhere near what fans on the internet claim.

But, I suppose that means we folks who aren't impressed also have "personal agendas" . . . :rolleyes:

SR420
November 13, 2007, 11:45 AM
The M14 was canned because it was obsolete and a flawed concept from the start.

That's a Myth.

if you look at boards like this one you'll find a bunch of servicemen (myself included) who think the M14 is 99% hype, and who will point out the reality that in the desert it simply has not done its job very well at all in the eyes of many end users.

There is a small vocal group, but their arguments are hype because the M14 platform continues to be viable.

Jack O'Conner
November 13, 2007, 12:20 PM
Biggest difference to my view is the M-16 is easier to train newbies. Additionally, it is simple to trouble-shoot and maintain.

M-14 came and went away. Entire warehouses of M-14 rifle were destroyed during Clinton Administration. Now it appears to be back as a tactical weapon for certain occupational specilities within USA Armed Services.

I'm certain the M-16 holds the record for longest life as a standard issue rifle. Many upgrades since the Viet Nam era has brought a better weapon into the hands of American troops.

I'm also certain that Lobbyists seek to bribe those in Washington to scrap the M-16 in favor of a new rifle. Since our nation is well over $700 billion in debt, I think its just plain foolish to seek to replace the M-16 at this point in time.

Jack

azredhawk44
November 13, 2007, 12:32 PM
Can we talk about something IMPORTANT, instead?

Like, "9mm or .45acp?":p

"What caliber to use for bear?":rolleyes:

or maybe:

"What one rifle should I get for (insert activity here)?";)

In defense of the M14, I find it interesting that the same people who consider the M1 Garand to be one of the finest weapons invented, and a key contributor to the allied victory in WWII, will denigrate the direct descendant of that great rifle for its increased capacity, shorter action and faster cycling time. The M14 is an improvement on the M1 and was designed to be a cross between the M1 and the Browning BAR light machine gun.

As such, it failed. As an SDM issue rifle, it is a great success.

Different tools, folks.

RockyMtnTactical
November 13, 2007, 01:01 PM
The Military only made one serious mistake...

With the design of the M14. And that was to put a full auto switch on it.

The problem with this statement is that the military had wanted their main rifle to be select fire.

So, yes, the M14 was flawed for the US military purposes from the start.

The M-1A is what the M-14 should have been.

The M14/M1A is what the M1 Garand should have been.

SR420
November 13, 2007, 01:12 PM
..the military had wanted their main rifle to be select fire.

..the M14 was flawed for the US military purposes from the start.

The M14/M1A is what the M1 Garand should have been.

Um.. What?

RockyMtnTactical
November 13, 2007, 01:27 PM
They made a rifle that was ineffective at full auto, and they wanted a full auto weapon.

So, the M14 was worthless from the beginning. That is (one of the reasons) why the M16 was eventually adopted. It worked well as a select fire weapon.

Still confused?

As for the Garand/M14 comment. The military had explored going with a detachable magazine on the Garand (the only real advantage to the M14 over the Garand) originally, but ended up scrapping the idea.

Sturmgewehre
November 13, 2007, 02:02 PM
With the design of the M14. And that was to put a full auto switch on it. By doing that, they tried to make it something it never should have been, which is why 90% of them had the switch removed and the "selector lock" installed, making it semi only. If they hadn't fooled with the full auto in the first place, it would have been hailed as a great rifle and a worthy replacement for the M1.
I doubt it M14 would have ever been successful regardless of it's mode of fire. Yes, the full-auto capability hastened its demise but regardless the big bore battle rifle was on its way out in favor of the new "assault rifle" as the standard issue infantry weapon. What armies wanted was a light weight, pistol gripped, mid-powered, high capacity, select fire rifle. The Germans set the trend in WWII and Russia capitalized on it right away. The US and our allies lagged behind for years but ultimately we realized we had to make the switch.

The M14 offered very little advantage over the M1 Garand. About it's only improvement was the addition of a 20 round magazine and slightly shortened overall length. The Army really hoped that the M14 would be an answer to the AK47 and it wasn't. It was a failed design right out of the gate for its intended mission. But that's not to say the rifle is a bad design, because it's not. It's a very good design.

Today the M14 serves in a much better role in our armed forced. As a designated marksman rifle, it adds range and power to a squad. It also serves quite well in special units that need weapons with diverse capabilities depending on their mission.

Sturmgewehre
November 13, 2007, 02:22 PM
You'll also note that the reality is that both the Army and Marines are ditching it in favor of other platforms because its real world performance is nowhere near what fans on the internet claim.
This is true, the M14 does need to be replaced with a more modern and versatile weapon system. The M14 does an "ok" job as it's currently deployed but a more modern system would do a much better job.

It will be interesting to see what they decide upon.

Sturmgewehre
November 13, 2007, 02:35 PM
Very often down through the years when ever the Army has wanted to “Reach out and touch someone” they have called up the M-14 as the weapon that is fundamentally up to the task.
Unfortunately the M14 doesn't lend itself to extreme accuracy. The rifle, by its very design, is kind of a poor platform for long range work. Scopes are something of an after thought, the gas system needs to be modified, a heavier match grade barrel added, the stock replaced and bedded. Even then, with heavy use, the rifle begins to rapidly loose accuracy and needs to be sent back to the armory for some TLC.

The M14 was pressed into the role of designated marksman because it was already in the armories. It's by no means the ideal solution to the needs of our military.

FirstFreedom
November 13, 2007, 02:39 PM
Imagine if the same effort had been used to improve the M14, instead.

OK, I imagined it. And it would still be obsolete from the get go, because it would STILL not be controllable in full auto, which is what the military wanted then and still wants now. Horsesoldier knows of what he speaks...

MTMilitiaman
November 13, 2007, 02:43 PM
So, the M14 was worthless from the beginning. That is (one of the reasons) why the M16 was eventually adopted. It worked well as a select fire weapon.

Only to have that capacity butchered.

The M14 was adopted in the hopes that an entire family of weapons could be derived from a single platform. The power and high cyclic rate of the round combined with a weight about half of the BAR's combined to make this unreasonable so the project was scrapped in favor of a lighter rifle and ammunition capable of automatic fire. This automatic fire capability proved to be an unnecessary waste of ammunition, at least according to the top military brass and politicians making the decisions. So it was scrapped in favor of a burst fire mechanism.

And nobody finds it ironic that the automatic fire capability that the M16 was adopted for in the first place wasn't kept in later models of the weapon, and is now absent, or that the M16 isn't capable of meeting the requirements the M14 was expected to meet to any substantially or appreciably higher degree than the M14, yet the M14, or rather its related politics, holds the M14 as a failure while the M16, and its related politics, establish it as a success? And nobody bothers to wonder what advancements could have been made to the evolution of the M14 if the military had bothered to invest as much in it as it did the M16? Even with the potential shown by the system with current chassis systems? No takers?

The M14 was scrapped because certain politicians were ****** that it took Springfield Armory 14 years to improve on the M1 Garand, yet the platform they replaced it with took over 20 years to develop into a really noteworthy combat rifle. The government invested millions more into adapting the M16 to its needs, but wasn't willing to do the same with the M14. Over 40 years later, the M16 has matured into a decent rifle. With a fraction of the effort, some companies take the M14 and modernize it, yet the M14 is hype?

HOLY DOUBLE STANDARD BATMAN :eek:

Whatever :rolleyes:

So, the M14 was worthless from the beginning. That is (one of the reasons) why the M16 was eventually adopted. It worked well as a select fire weapon.

Which is why the M21s in Vietnam had less down time for repairs than the M40s, and most of that was because the scope it was employed with was complex and prone to breakage.

FirstFreedom
November 13, 2007, 02:52 PM
It's not "hype", and there may or may not have been politics in ditching the M14. But regardless, let me ask you a question, MT:

If you or a well-trained soldier shoot an M4 or M16 in burst mode at a man-sized target at say, 150 yards, how many shots will hit it? The answer is probably two, and possibly three.

If you shoot an M14 in burst mode (assuming they made this), at the same distance, how many rounds would hit the target? The answer is ONE.

The military wants an *effective* 3-rd burst mode in their standard issue rifles, for better or worse, for whatever reason. There is NOTHING you can do to improve the M14, to make it hit multiple shots on the same target, save making it nearly as heavy as a BAR, and then it's no longer a standard infantry rifle. Sure a 300-lb cornfed bubba with hands of steel can hold the gun tight enough to keep it on target in burst mode, but not the average soldier. That is apparently unacceptable to the military. Right?

End of story (until the .mil changes their doctrine on 3-round burst).

Sturmgewehre
November 13, 2007, 03:07 PM
And nobody finds it ironic that the automatic fire capability that the M16 was adopted for in the first place wasn't kept in later models of the weapon, and is now absent, or that the M16 isn't capable of meeting the requirements the M14 was expected to meet to any substantially or appreciably higher degree than the M14, yet the M14, or rather its related politics, holds the M14 as a failure while the M16, and its related politics, establish it as a success? And nobody bothers to wonder what advancements could have been made to the evolution of the M14 if the military had bothered to invest as much in it as it did the M16? Even with the potential shown by the system with current chassis systems? No takers?

Are you kidding?

First, every M16 produced for the US military is capable of "full auto" fire. I assume you're talking about the 3 round burst used with the M16A2. Psst, burst is full-auto fire, it's just mechanically controlled full-auto fire. You see, the military never wanted a rifle the troops could hold the trigger back on and dump a 30 round magazine. From the very beginning they taught (and still teach) fire discipline. Troops were taught to fire controlled bursts but many ignored this training in combat so they forced this on the troops mechanically.

Second, what in the world could they have done to the M14 to make it a workable assault rifle besides ditch the traditional stock in favor of a pistol grip stock, ditch the 7.62 round in favor of the 5.56, put a burst system in it and redesign the receiver to have a rail system incorporated. But try as they might they would never get the M14 into an in-line design without completely redesigning the rifle. They would have made it into a totally new weapon that would resemble the M16 or any other current military assault rifle. LOL

MTMilitiaman
November 13, 2007, 03:16 PM
If you or a well-trained soldier shoot an M4 or M16 in burst mode at a man-sized target at say, 150 yards, how many shots will hit it? The answer is probably two, and possibly three.

If you shoot an M14 in burst mode (assuming they made this), at the same distance, how many rounds would hit the target? The answer is ONE.

Except even the burst capability is almost never used. The infantry rifleman is told their mission is individually aimed rounds at identified targets. In this capacity, a trained soldier can put out aimed semi-automatic rounds from a 7.62mm rifle like the M14 as fast, or nearly so, as a 5.56mm rifle. Even against multiple targets when displacing, I always expected to operate in semi-automatic with the M16. The 3rd burst feature was somewhat of a curiosity to us, and never used unless we had lots of mags forced on us by Cpls and Sgts who didn't want to participate in a range exercise, and then it was just to get the rounds expended as fast as possible with little or no thought given to accuracy.

If accuracy is a consideration with volume of fire, most soldiers are going do better trained in hammer pairs with semi-automatic fire than with automatic fire, regardless of the caliber.

The civilian sector has shown us that the M14 can be made smaller and lighter in a carbine for CQB, that chassis systems can eliminate any accuracy/bedding problems that may exist while allowing for the same number of sights, white lights, lasers, and vertical foregrips as the M16, and that compensators can even largely eliminate the "excessive" recoil of the 7.62mm round.

And while we are on the subject, it has been shown that 7.62mm belt fed machine guns can be made small and manageable enough to question the validity of 5.56mm systems as well.

Psst, burst is full-auto fire,

Heh hehe...

If you say so...

Sturmgewehre
November 13, 2007, 03:23 PM
Being a former Infantry Marine, we were taught aimed fire as well. Full-auto was used to suppress the enemy during things like ambushes and during a fighting retreat. Here's a video that came to mind explaining how a military force uses full-auto to overwhelm an enemy and to suppress them using automatic fire.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1lsc_X7ls8o

But yes, 90% of the time semi-auto aimed fire is what is needed to win a fight. But there are those situations where tactics dictate a heavy volume of fire that can only be delivered through automatic fire.

I'm sure you were taught something similar in the Army although I don't know for certain as I never served in the Army.

Sturmgewehre
November 13, 2007, 03:25 PM
Heh hehe...

If you say so...

Wow.

RockyMtnTactical
November 13, 2007, 03:38 PM
The M14 was scrapped because certain politicians were ****** that it took Springfield Armory 14 years to improve on the M1 Garand, yet the platform they replaced it with took over 20 years to develop into a really noteworthy combat rifle. The government invested millions more into adapting the M16 to its needs, but wasn't willing to do the same with the M14. Over 40 years later, the M16 has matured into a decent rifle. With a fraction of the effort, some companies take the M14 and modernize it, yet the M14 is hype?

One thing you fail to mention or maybe even realize is that the M14 is simply not a good select fire weapon. Yes, it is an improvement on the Garand, hands down IMO.

That said, it just doesn't fill the role it was asked to fill, and the main reason is the caliber. If the military simply wanted to switch platforms, they could have adopted the AR-10, but they wanted a smaller caliber that was controllable in full-auto (and as noted, they use mostly 3-shot burst now, which would still make the M14 just as useless).

The 7.62x51NATO is not going to be as effective for what the military wants across the board. The recoil is too harsh for select fire weapons like these, and even in semi-auto the 5.56 can be shot far faster and far more accurately at the ranges they were designed for.

I realize you have an inherent hatred for the .223 round in combat, but that is what the military wanted at the time.

Neal in GA
November 13, 2007, 03:44 PM
It's not "hype", and there may or may not have been politics in ditching the M14. But regardless, let me ask you a question, MT:

If you or a well-trained soldier shoot an M4 or M16 in burst mode at a man-sized target at say, 150 yards, how many shots will hit it? The answer is probably two, and possibly three.

If you shoot an M14 in burst mode (assuming they made this), at the same distance, how many rounds would hit the target? The answer is ONE.

The military wants an *effective* 3-rd burst mode in their standard issue rifles, for better or worse, for whatever reason. There is NOTHING you can do to improve the M14, to make it hit multiple shots on the same target, save making it nearly as heavy as a BAR, and then it's no longer a standard infantry rifle. Sure a 300-lb cornfed bubba with hands of steel can hold the gun tight enough to keep it on target in burst mode, but not the average soldier. That is apparently unacceptable to the military. Right?

End of story (until the .mil changes their doctrine on 3-round burst).

The Army would never use burst on a target at 150m. It's a moot point. Burst on M16s is only used when starting an ambush or to provide covering fire. Aimed fire at individual targets on select fire modes of operation is entirely irrelevant. The standard combat load (though most carry more) of an M16 is 7 magazines. How long do you think that'll last on burst? Even in MOUT (urban combat operations), we still use the semi-auto mode of fire. We have SAWs (and M240, M2 depending on mission) for the rock and roll stuff.

Abndoc
November 13, 2007, 03:59 PM
That said, it just doesn't fill the role it was asked to fill, and the main reason is the caliber.

Now, this is where you and I disagree. If an effort was made to build a rifle (not necessarily the M14) utilizing the 7.62 caliber and using modern technology to suppress recoil, the 7.62 is superior to the 5.56. I know that this opens up the old lighter, faster vs. slower, heavier thing and this debate is old and is open to personal opinion and this is mine. But that would be my preference.

MTMilitiaman
November 13, 2007, 04:10 PM
One thing you fail to mention or maybe even realize is that the M14 is simply not a good select fire weapon.

Fail to mention? You mean like this, in my first post on this topic:

The M14 was adopted in the hopes that an entire family of weapons could be derived from a single platform. The power and high cyclic rate of the round combined with a weight about half of the BAR's combined to make this unreasonable so the project was scrapped in favor of a lighter rifle and ammunition capable of automatic fire.


That said, it just doesn't fill the role it was asked to fill, and the main reason is the caliber.

Neither does the M16. That is the point. The military wasn't able to turn the M16 into an entire family of weapons, namely, a squad automatic weapon, which happens to be the same role the M14 failed so miserably at. Hence the adoption of the M249.


I realize you have an inherent hatred for the .223 round in combat, but that is what the military wanted at the time.

I realize that you have an inherent hatred for the M14 rifle in combat, but personal biases aside, you fail to address the majority of the points in favor of the M14. Even spending most of the last 40 years in mothballs as a combat rifle, it still has the ability to improve alongside the AR platform, and advancements in stock design and compensators can't be ruled out. If the rifle had been given as much a chance as the M16 to develop and mature, then no one can say how it might have turned out.

At any rate, forcing the 7.62x51 onto NATO wasn't any worse than forcing the 5.56x45 on them, and though of the two I prefer the 7.62mm, I would rather see a happy medium adopted.

Crosshair
November 13, 2007, 04:10 PM
I think the whole debate goes to show that the military always goes with what they want, not what they need.

Everyone who looked into the matter saw that the full power cartridge was obsolete. The Brits had their experimental 7mm round that would have worked very well in that role. The Swedes got it right from the start when they introduced the 6.5x55 back in 1891. The US wanted the impossible and the end result didn't work well for what they needed.

We have this modern infatuation with sending bullets downrange as fast as possible. In shorter barrels, that just doesn't work. Short barrels is where rounds like the 7.62x39, 6.5 Grendel, and the 6.5 MPC do well where the 5.56 just gives you a fireball. You are going to have to compensate for drop. A heavier slug is not as dependent on velocity.

Abndoc
November 13, 2007, 04:46 PM
I don't think they always get what they want, either. The procurement process is so wrapped up in politics, it's a wonder that they get anything they can use effectively.

RockyMtnTactical
November 13, 2007, 04:59 PM
Fail to mention? You mean like this, in my first post on this topic:


Well, that's the whole point, the cartridge is too much for select fire... Why are you still debating if you claim that you agree with that fact?

You're trying to turn this argument into something else.

I realize that you have an inherent hatred for the M14 rifle in combat

This isn't true, I just believe it is outdated by today's standards.

If the rifle had been given as much a chance as the M16 to develop and mature, then no one can say how it might have turned out.

Like someone else said: "OK, I imagined it. And it would still be obsolete from the get go..."

Tim R
November 13, 2007, 05:16 PM
Good Grief....

The M-14 did have full auto. The idea was to replace the BAR but I don't think we will argue how effective that rifle was. The squad leader decided on who was going to have full auto on the M-14 and gave those people the "switch", normally 2 guys in a squad. The regular GI could not switch to full auto when he wanted to like on a 16.

So much for the M-1A is what the M-14 wa supposed to be.

I started shooting high power with a tuned M-14. Wore out 3 of them. I gave it up for 12 years and it was not until last year I finally beat my personnel best with my tuned AR using my dime. I found the AR is easier to shoot but I have not shot the AR at a 1,000 yards like I did with a 14.

The Army didn't want the 16, it was the Air Force who ordered them first for their Security Police. It went down hill from there.

We did knock the Russians on their backside when the 16 and 5.56 came out. The Russians thought we were on to something so they came out with their own version.

I believe those who bash the M-14 have not shot or have spent little time on the plateform to understand what a fine rifle it really is. So what if it kicks a little, man up. Could have been shooting a 03.

MTMilitiaman
November 13, 2007, 05:17 PM
Like someone else said: "OK, I imagined it. And it would still be obsolete from the get go..."

And judged by the same standards, so is the M16.

HorseSoldier
November 13, 2007, 05:37 PM
There is a small vocal group, but their arguments are hype because the M14 platform continues to be viable.


Small, vocal groups like the United States Marine Corps STA plstoons whose after action reviews of the M14 as a DMR are extremely negative?

Wait, that's right, this is the M14. Those enlisted Marines at the sharp end needing reliable kit that does the job, and finding that ain't the M14, must have a political agenda :rolleyes:

The infantry rifleman is told their mission is individually aimed rounds at identified targets. In this capacity, a trained soldier can put out aimed semi-automatic rounds from a 7.62mm rifle like the M14 as fast, or nearly so, as a 5.56mm rifle.

No. Not really. Give the same shooter an M14 and an M16 (or better an M4) and put him on a pact timer doing controlled pairs, failure drills, and multiple target engagements and there is simply no comparison. The 5.56mm leaves the 7.62x51 weapon in the dust -- simple physics. Add in the M14's poor control placement (safety, mag changes) and the more involved your speed test becomes the less well the M14 performs.

SR420
November 13, 2007, 05:43 PM
I believe those who bash the M-14 have not shot or have spent
little time on the platform to understand what a fine rifle it really is.
So what if it kicks a little, man up. Could have been shooting a 03.

+1

I also believe the 14 bashers don't know anything about how accurate and reliable a modernized M14 can be.
Modern technology and good old American ingenuity properly applied to the 50 year old platform yields awesome results.

Small, vocal groups like the United States Marine Corps STA plstoons whose after action reviews of the M14 as a DMR are extremely negative?

I guess your not up to speed on the new USMC M39EMR (Enhanced Marksman Rifle)
It's a modernized M14 in a SAGE stock. They love it!

ronc0011
November 13, 2007, 06:00 PM
HorseSoldier

Myth. The M14 was canned because it was obsolete and a flawed concept from the start. I find it amusing that anyone who was not a fan of its mediocre performance has "personal agendas" but, apparently, the corrupt/incompetent bureaucrats who forced it and the 7.62x51 round on the US military and NATO were somehow aboveboard in their underhanded disservice to the American servicemen they were supposed to be providing the best equipment to.


Actually just a little reading and research will show that it was in fact personal agendas. In fact if anything can be said about the m16 as it was first deployed it is that it got a whole lot of American service men killed and again it was because of personal agendas. Granted, today the m16 is a much improved weapon over what it was originally but the bottom line is it is still a .223 which is a varmint round or a marginal deer cartridge at best and certainly not the optimal cartridge for killing people.

Type this into a Google search ”McNamara m14 vs m16” and you will find a plethora of information on this subject and anywhere that the hits are relevant at all they will bare out this “personal agenda” business.

Here is one I found to be very informative.

http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2007/02/whos-at-fault-for-m16.html

But there are a lot more out there and then if you pick out the names mentioned in one of these pieces and revise the search criteria the list of relevant hits just gets longer.

HorseSoldier

Actually, if you look at boards like this one you'll find a bunch of servicemen (myself included) who think the M14 is 99% hype, and who will point out the reality that in the desert it simply has not done its job very well at all in the eyes of many end users. You'll also note that the reality is that both the Army and Marines are ditching it in favor of other platforms because its real world performance is nowhere near what fans on the internet claim.


You know it’s interesting because I have looked on a lot of boards and in fact that is what prompted my statement in the first place. In fact it is common to see like one post such as yours and oddly enough it seems that post always seems to make a claim such as the one you’re making and usually in a tone much like yours. And with out fail it is like this lone post among all these others who either very much like the M14 or very much wish they could get their hands on one.

RockyMtnTactical
November 13, 2007, 06:08 PM
I don't think people are bashing the M14 here as much as they are saying that it is not a good weapon in terms of being used by our troops as a whole and/or more specifically as a select fire weapon. Specifically based on the caliber.

The weapon chosen by the military has to be a compromise of something... When they had the M14, they mainly compromised rapid fire capabilities and the amount of ammo a person could carry. Now that they have the M16, they have lost the long distance capabilities and a little bit of shot for shot power.

However, it seems that they have a weapon that fits what they need for the majority of our troops right now.

As much as someone may prefer the M14 over the M16 as a military rifle, it doesn't fit the military quite as well, obviously...

ronc0011
November 13, 2007, 06:10 PM
:cool::cool:Hey wait a minute. You real name wouldn’t be McNamara would it or did you ever work for a guy named McNamara?

Hmmmm?

:cool::cool:

SR420
November 13, 2007, 06:14 PM
Actually, the M14 meets the mixed needs of todays US Military quite well :cool:

STLRN
November 13, 2007, 06:17 PM
I guess your not up to speed on the new USMC M39EMR (Enhanced Marksman Rifle)
It's a modernized M14 in a SAGE stock. They love it!

Who exactly is they? The STA, BN Recon and MSOC units I see around this base have been replacing their DMRs with Mk12s and supplementing their M40A3s with Mk11s

RockyMtnTactical
November 13, 2007, 06:20 PM
Actually, the M14 meets the mixed needs of todays US Military quite well

Hmmm... wonder why we aren't using them in large numbers then...

Oh, not really...

ronc0011
November 13, 2007, 06:21 PM
The weapon chosen by the military has to be a compromise of something... When they had the M14, they mainly compromised rapid fire capabilities and the amount of ammo a person could carry. Now that they have the M16, they have lost the long distance capabilities and a little bit of shot for shot power.

However, it seems that they have a weapon that fits what they need for the majority of our troops right now.

Actually I do agree with this. No weapon is perfect for every situation. However I do think that the 7.62 x 51 is a much more lethal cartridge and designers should be able to design a platform that makes this a viable cartridge for a light weight full auto weapon.

Several years ago I saw a full auto something or other that could be fired one handed and controlled quite easily. It was because of the way the barrel / receiver was canted into the stock. The recoil drove the weapon straight back into your hand and didn’t cause it to rise. And of course these days we have a lot more and better technology so it really should be possible to come up with a better platform for the 7.62 x 51

STLRN
November 13, 2007, 06:25 PM
Except even the burst capability is almost never used.

It actually used quite a bit in combat. State side training not so much so, the problem is that training doctrine doesn't match well with combat reality. Case in point we took a great training program with the EMP and ruined it with the CMP. That is part of the problem with allowing fighting doctrine to be written by the rifle range mafia. Most of them are exceptional shots, but not from combat arms MOSs, much less combat veterans.

Sturmgewehre
November 13, 2007, 07:19 PM
Who exactly is they? The STA, BN Recon and MSOC units I see around this base have been replacing their DMRs with Mk12s and supplementing their M40A3s with Mk11s
Oh c'mon, these guys read it in Guns and Ammo so it must be true! :)

TPAW
November 13, 2007, 09:01 PM
the corrupt/incompetent bureaucrats who forced it and the 7.62x51 round on the US military and NATO were somehow aboveboard in their underhanded disservice to the American servicemen they were supposed to be providing the best equipment to.

Their frame of reference was still WW2 and Korea. They were from the old school and indoctrinated into the old style of battle. They were weined on the M1 Grand and the Browning BAR (military version). To them, the M-14 was a godsend.

w_houle
November 13, 2007, 09:18 PM
Ok, I am going into this cold no google checking so bear with me.
First, if I remember correctly the major flaw with manufacturing the M-14 was that it was being manufactured on the same equipment used to manufacture the M-1 and that in itself somehow hindered the manufacture of the weapon.
"The M-16 holds the record for longest life as a standard issue rifle", umm I think that title actually goes to the Mosin Nagant rifle.

Baba Louie
November 13, 2007, 10:22 PM
In the end it's politics. There is no end all be all rifle that can wear two hats at the same time. There's always a trade off or two. But for the sake of logistics it's nice to have common rounds for the riflemen and SAW gunners.

Why was the M1 Garand built using the 30-06 and not the .276 that Mr. Garand based his design on? Politics.

Why did the US Army decide it had to follow the Wermacht's Stg44 concept (a 400 meter fire-fight design) yet use a slightly shortened round designed to match the venerable 30-06 Springfield in a lighter weapon, forsaking the T48 over the T44 and Gene Stoner's late to the party AR10? Politics.

What chambering did Dieudonne Saive originally intend for the FAL? 7.92x33, yet it too fell victim to... politics.

When Eugene Stoner designed the original AR rifle it was in the 7.62x51 format yet it ended up a scaled down version and was accepted due to LeMay and McNamara's political muscle.

To my way of thinking (and I've got no dog in the fight) this debate is apples to oranges for a couple of reasons. Caliber or cartridge design being one, intended use being another, operating system being the third, each a political animal or victim.

If Garand had been allowed to go with the .276, if it (the .276) had later been scaled down for the StG copy concept post war, maybe a tad bit closer to the 33mm in lieu of the 51mm size, if Saive and Stoner had used that round to develop their famous FAL/AR platform... we'd still find something fun for heated debate for hours on end.

A 7mm Kurz. Pretty close to a 6.8 Spc isn't it? 7mm Kurz/6.8 Spc. Interesting concept. Naaaah. Needs more punch downrange. The politics of logistics (and inertia), not to mention cost of new weapons R&D/procurement would never let it see the light of day.

What I want to know is this, Is direct (gas) impingement really better than piston impingement? If not, should the piston system be totally enclosed or have a portion of it as an exposed op rod? And what SHOULD the perfect select fire military weapon be (op system), what should it weigh and what catridge should it utilize? Clearly it's not the M14 or the M16, each having it's drawbacks and strengths, no one can agree on a consensus. Politics. ;)

WNTFW
November 13, 2007, 11:01 PM
I'd like to have at least one every U.S. Mxx rifle ever issed.
M1 Garand & Carbine
M14 & M16
Nothing else goes with 1911's or US Flags quite the way they do.
I've shot, handled & spent time with all of them. I love them all. My only complaint is not owning them all & the M14's ars so danged expensive.
http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s147/WNTFW/USFlagGP.jpg
WNTFW

Abndoc
November 14, 2007, 01:22 AM
Baba Louie, you summed it up nicely. Politics.

TPAW
November 14, 2007, 11:24 AM
Why was the M1 Garand built using the 30-06 and not the .276 that Mr. Garand based his design on? Politics.

Because the US Military had stock piles of the .06 left over from WW1 all over the world, and was still being produced years later. Some of it is still around today!........:eek:

Crosshair
November 14, 2007, 12:19 PM
Some of it is still around today!........

Pre-WWII 30-06 ammo? All the stuff I am aware of is post WWII. They should have simply kept the bolt guns in reserve service and for training until the ammo ran out. Then just sell them to civilians.

It was a penny wise/pound foolish situation.

HorseSoldier
November 14, 2007, 12:29 PM
"The M-16 holds the record for longest life as a standard issue rifle", umm I think that title actually goes to the Mosin Nagant rifle.


Think the OP meant American rifle. If not, I think the Brown Bess musket and some other long guns from the same era have the MN beat as a combat long gun :)

HorseSoldier
November 14, 2007, 12:51 PM
Pre-WWII 30-06 ammo? All the stuff I am aware of is post WWII.

All four current rifle ammo DODICs for M2 30-06 are exclusively dedicated to support the CMP. With CMP out of USGI 30-06 ammo, I'd venture to guess whatever stockpiles of 30-06 we have in various ASPs around the country are getting pretty lean.

(Belted MG ammo, DODIC A218, is apparently still in the system, with only "excess" being given to CMP. I suspect that anything left in stock is pretty limited and for familiarization training for SF and other SOF forces who may occasionally run into a working M1919 MG in the 3rd World).

Limeyfellow
November 14, 2007, 02:47 PM
Ok, I am going into this cold no google checking so bear with me.
First, if I remember correctly the major flaw with manufacturing the M-14 was that it was being manufactured on the same equipment used to manufacture the M-1 and that in itself somehow hindered the manufacture of the weapon.

That was one of the selling points to the M14 that it would be able to be made on the same equipment as the M1, however it turned out to be totally wrong and required a whole new bunch of machinary to make.

I also believe the 14 bashers don't know anything about how accurate and reliable a modernized M14 can be.

Modern technology and good old American ingenuity properly applied to the 50 year old platform yields awesome results.

With the same reason of thinking any rifle that you spend weeks fine tuning could be capable of such performance. Throw enough money and you can do this with many rifles. The problem with the M14 is it is hard to keep it running at that performance for long and many of the troops issued the M14 are the regular old surplus out of stock. It is a stopgap method, due to being in stock rather than some super weapon. A match grade M1a is going to shoot better than your average M14 by far.

The BAR replacement as someone mentioned was going to be the M15. Pretty much an M14 with a heavy barrel to add some weight and a bipod, but it never saw any service.

MTMilitiaman
November 14, 2007, 03:15 PM
With the same reason of thinking any rifle that you spend weeks fine tuning could be capable of such performance.

How 'bout 40 years...

Throw enough money and you can do this with many rifles.

Such as in the case of the M16?

SR420
November 14, 2007, 03:41 PM
The problem with the M14 is it is hard to keep it running at that performance for long ...

The problem with M14 bashers is that they don't want to accept the fact that this perceived issue is eliminated with the modernization program.

STLRN
November 14, 2007, 04:20 PM
The problem with M14 bashers is that they don't want to accept the fact that this perceived issue is eliminated with the modernization program.

That program really isn't going on though, it is more the talk of the internet and gun magazines. Big army and Marine Corps have already spoken, both the 7.62 semi-auto system and the accuratized riflemen weapon will be a AR bases system. No amount of fantasizing or pushing agendas on gun boards is going to change what is going on in the operational military.

Sturmgewehre
November 14, 2007, 04:21 PM
It's childish to call those who see the M14 as being out dated "bashers" when many of us own and enjoy shooting our M1A's. Just because the rifle has been surpassed by time and technology and more modern systems are available doesn't mean our rifles are any less loved. I don't think the M1 Garand should still be in service but I still love mine and enjoy shooting it. Does that make me a "basher" too?

Seriously, let's behave like adults and avoid tossing around unfounded sophomoric slurs.

NOok
November 14, 2007, 04:32 PM
No one seems to consider this, those of us who have been in line units understand:

WEIGHT. I would much rather tote an M16 with 200 rounds in addition to everything else on one of the many many many 12+ mile humps I've done, than an M14!

ONE M-14 in a platoon might be a good idea for a little reach-out-and-touch someone ability for the platoon's top shooter, but not for everyone.

SR420
November 14, 2007, 04:46 PM
ONE M-14 in a platoon might be a good idea for a little reach-out-and-touch someone ability for the platoon's top shooter, but not for everyone.

Yep, one or two modernized M14s in the mix is all that's needed.

STLRN
November 14, 2007, 05:21 PM
Why, the ACOG rifles are doing the job well enough without introducing a class V and IX block into the system unnecessarily.

SR420
November 15, 2007, 01:02 AM
Why

Because the M14 performs better than just "well enough".

RockyMtnTactical
November 15, 2007, 03:41 AM
Because the M14 performs better than just "well enough".

Not really...

STLRN
November 15, 2007, 04:39 AM
Well, well enough is what combat is about. Also well enough is good enough to kill, so what more do you need?

Socrates
November 15, 2007, 10:08 AM
Get both. I've had access to both for 3 years, and, really wished I'd bought similar guns. Now, in Kali, the M1A is the only choice. I was unable to accurately shoot a full auto M14.
A REALLY good muzzlebrake might change that.

WEIGHT is a big difference. One of the short barreled M1A's always looked really good to me for when the SHTF type day.

I've always wondered if you could use a 115 grain bullet in the M1A, cutting the carry ammo weight a bunch. For a sub, the shorty M16 is very hard to beat.

Apples and oranges here. Wonder if you can bullpup an M1A action, cut the size down, and weight?

s

EngineerMG
November 15, 2007, 10:22 AM
I am currently in Iraq now and have used bot rifles quite a bit, here is my opinion. The M14 is ok for rooftop work until you fire a magazine through it quickly and then it is junk. Once the barrel heats up it is hard to hit past 400 Meters. It is no good for carry on patrol because you need a rifle that will do it all. You send a guy to kick in a door with a M14 and chances are pretty good someone is getting hurt because he cant get it on target quick enough. I have hit with my M4 out to 740 meters(checked with a mellios laser range finder) and killed beeb with one shot. The M4 is also great for close quarters and out on the street, but the best thing about it is weight, i can hump my M4 with 15 30 round mags along with all my other gear all day long. I cant do that with a M-14 and i dont want a rifle that opens up a ton once it gets hot. As for knock down power, there is not a single shoulder fired cartridge in the world that has the power to knock a man off his feet when hit. I have seen beeb run after getting hit with the 50 BMG, i dont care what you use it is all about hitting center mass, and if you do the 5.56 does all the damage needed to kill your enemy.

SR420
November 15, 2007, 10:45 AM
A REALLY good muzzlebrake might change that.

Two very effective muzzle devices are available from SEI. The USCG version and the new Direct Connect California Compensator (http://www.athenswater.com/images/SEI-DC-CaliComp-2.jpg)


I have hit with my M4 out to 740 meters

Nice shooting. The M4 is an excellent weapon - I have spoken to several that have made kill shots @ 600+ yards.
It sounds like your M14 needs to be refurbished, maybe you can trade it in for a freshly modernized M14.

Stay safe.

SDDL-UP
November 15, 2007, 10:45 AM
I like the 7.62x51 caliber and I like M1A's (but don't own one).

It's all about compromise and the adoption of the M-16 and 5.56x45 was weighted heavily towards full auto fire.

Things change.

The debate is good. 7.62x51 isn't coming back for every soldier and proponents of the 5.56x45 need to admit that maybe, just maybe, it isn't the perfect compromise. 6.5 Grendel? 6.8 SPC? 7x46? Who knows?

Unless we adopt a new caliber the 7.62x51 will stay in limited numbers because the 5.56 can't get the job done all the time.

WOW! A 740m kill with an M4! I'm not an "expert" here, but I'll tell you that the difference between an M4 and a M1A or bolt action 7.62x51 at 740 meters is dramatic! GREAT shooting is all I can say. It would be interesting to see the terminal ballistics at that distance, but seldom is the case in combat, and a kill is a kill regardless. Stay safe out there EngineerMG and thank you!

ronc0011
November 15, 2007, 12:11 PM
Anyone familiar with the AR-10? I have been curious about this rifle for some time. When I bought my M-14 / M1A I was also looking at the AR-10 but I saw some stuff that gave me concerns about the durability of the gun and so I finally ended up going with the M1A. I don’t really have any issues with the AR platform simply because I don’t really know enough about it. I do have issues with the 5.56 cartridge, thus my interest in the AR-10.

Other questions regarding these two platforms are things like what can be done to improve accuracy? What kind or accuracy issues are inherent in the two platforms.

For example, my M1A performs pretty well right out of the box but researching the subject tells me that any semi auto rifle is not going to have the potential for accuracy that a bolt gun does simply because you have all these parts flying around and with everything moving around, getting everything to return to the same place between shots is something of a challenge. Thus the question, which of these two platforms have greater issues with this kind of thing. Then the next question is what kind of after market and third party alternatives are available for the two platforms. Having the M1A I am pretty much up on what’s available out there for the M1A but not so much for the AR-10.

I really like my M1A but in the end my ultimate goal is a durable, reliable, accurate rifle that stands up to hard use and wear. By accurate I mean bare minimum 1 MOA. Also I’m thinking that for the price difference I could probably pretty nearly trade out even for my M1A. However I’m not even going to consider such a move unless I can find out more about the rifle from people who have used them and preferably in more extreme environments. In other words I’m interested in upgrading in terms of durability, reliability and accuracy not just having a more modern design. The two are not necessarily the same.

ronc0011
November 15, 2007, 12:26 PM
Ahhh youth, those were the days. Today I have trouble holding the crosshairs steady to within 3 – 4 inches at 100 yrds. Of course I could probably improve on that if I could spend more time (and $$$) at the range. But still that’s just 100 yards. I don’t even know how you can see the target at 740m. You make me feel old. :(

Good shooting, you guys are the best.;);)

SR420
November 15, 2007, 12:28 PM
my ultimate goal is a durable, reliable, accurate rifle that stands up to hard use and wear

Your M14 type is exactly the rifle you need to meet your ultimate goal. It may need to be tweaked, but what doesn't.

The AR-10 can be very accurate out of the box. I have an AR-10A4 SPR (http://www.athenswater.com/AR-10A4SPR.htm) with an SWS free float tube that should shoot MOA or better.
I have never fired it because I want to replace it with another M14 type rifle.

HTH ~

ronc0011
November 15, 2007, 12:40 PM
Well one of the things that gives me pause is that I still have these images in my mind of pictures from Vietnam of M16s that are held together with duct tape. Doesn’t go a long way to build confidence. Of course those pictures are from a long time ago, I don’t really know where the weapon stands today.

Sturmgewehre
November 15, 2007, 01:19 PM
The AR-10 can be very accurate out of the box. I have an AR-10A4 SPR with an SWS free float tube that should shoot MOA or better.
I have never fired it because I want to replace it with another M14 type rifle.

So you're nostalgic, that's great. There are lots of people who feel the same way about the M1 Garand, 1903 Springfield, SMLE, K98, etc. That doesn't mean these arms are still the right choice for a modern, well equipped, most powerful military in the world. We have the resources to deploy a cutting edge weapon system such as the SCAR and assuming it lives up to its promises (which SOCOM thinks it does) then that's the direction we should go.

RockyMtnTactical
November 15, 2007, 01:55 PM
EngineerMG,

I speak with our troops on a regular basis due to my line of work. They all pretty much share your same point of view, at least the majority of them (there are a few exceptions). The 5.56 is getting the job done, and shot placement trumps caliber.

Thanks for sharing your opinion, it is worth far more than that of several people with no real life fire-fighting experience.

There's no doubt the 5.56 is a compromise, every cartridge is a compromise of something.

Thanks for your service, stay safe!

STLRN
November 15, 2007, 04:36 PM
It would be interesting to see the terminal ballistics at that distance, but seldom is the case in combat, and a kill is a kill regardless.

Most of the alleged problems with 5.56 hits revolve around three major issues. The first being most people are not all that great of shots, when you throw in non-rifle range conditions, moving targets and unknown distances the chances of making extended range hits go down drastically. The second being that at extended ranges M855 has been shown to have accuracy issues. Several lots of ammo have already proven that at 400 meters they lose the accuracy potential to assure 100 percent of rounds will go into a E silhouette even with a center mass hold, forget about a reduced target exposure. The third being that most troops lack a frame of reference as to what rounds actually do to people. When the only thing they know is what they see in the movie, TV and what is told to them third hand, you get comments like "lack if knock down" capability. However after you see people hit with various rounds you quickly understand some guys can take anything to include almost being ripped in half and will continue to fight and no switch in caliber will do any better.

Number 1 and 2 can be seen in two ways, the Marine Corps chose the ACOG vice the CCO and had less complaints about extended range lethality. The ACOG does make it easier to hit at distance because of autoranging and magnification than it is with a 0x M68. And when issued 556 SDMs, both with and without Mk262 there is allot less complaints about lethality of 556 even well beyond fragmentation range of either projectile. It just goes to show that it doesn't matter if it is a .223 or .308 hole in the chest, a hole in the chest sucks and will take most out of the fight.

SR420
November 15, 2007, 06:36 PM
We have the resources to deploy a cutting edge weapon system such as the SCAR and assuming it lives up to its promises (which SOCOM thinks it does) then that's the direction we should go.

You are so progressive, and that's great ... versions of the SCAR L&H do show promise, but why don't we just wait for hand held phasers.

Sturmgewehre
November 15, 2007, 09:09 PM
You are so progressive, and that's great ... versions of the SCAR L&H do show promise, but why don't we just wait for hand held phasers.
Now you're just plain not making any sense. It would help to be a little more objective. The M14 is in service until a more modern system can be found and tested. We're not waiting another 200 years for phasers. I'm sure FN would be flattered at your analogy in comparing their rifle so something as futuristic as a phaser though.

SR420
November 15, 2007, 09:57 PM
I'm sure FN would be flattered at your analogy in comparing their rifle so something as futuristic as a phaser though.

:D

http://www.fnhusa.com/support/images/dynamic/m/FNM0113m.jpg

HCQB: Less than 8 lbs unloaded

http://www.fnhusa.com/products/firearms/model.asp?mid=FNM0113&cid=FNC01&fid=FNF045&gid=FNG007

ronc0011
November 15, 2007, 11:25 PM
Someone put up a link to a after market stock for the M-14 recently that looked really good. Anyone know what that was?

Sturmgewehre
November 16, 2007, 12:10 AM
http://www.securityarms.com/sale/sage/sagestocks.htm

Sturmgewehre
November 16, 2007, 07:17 PM
Wow, that stock on the M1A is horrible. :) It looks like what they did to the mini-14's in Starship Troopers.

http://www.starshiptroopers.net/HEROCarbine1.JPG

If you want a modern rifle, buy one... don't take a beautiful classic like the M1A and wrap it in something so silly looking.

Abndoc
November 17, 2007, 12:35 PM
^ I wholeheartedly agree.

ronc0011
November 17, 2007, 04:16 PM
Actually I’ve been doing some research since I posted that and it looks like the Troy MCS is the way to go. I’m seeing reports that the Troy gives amazing accuracy improvements and better than the Sage. My only concern is the weight.

As for modern verses classic… well, like I said I’m looking for three things Durability, Reliability, Accuracy, and… OK 4 things, kinetic energy.

Yeah I saw that Bull Pup setup. Don’t know how it will work. It’s gotta change the balance and unless it makes improvements in the accuracy I don’t even really see the point.

SR420
November 17, 2007, 05:23 PM
If you want a modern rifle, buy one... don't take a beautiful classic like the M1A and wrap it in something so silly looking.

LOL that Bullpup movie prop is FUBAR :)

I much prefer the TROY MCS and the SAGE EBR over the old classic look.

http://www.athenswater.com/images/ChiCom14-EBRs.jpg

If you want a rifle for classic looks, buy one ... but I'll buy function over looks any day of the week.
Anything less would be silly.

ronc0011
November 17, 2007, 09:48 PM
Here’s some interesting stuff on the Troy MCS

http://www.m14firinglineforum.com/upload/showthread.php?t=47960

I found this one to be especially interesting.

http://www.m14firinglineforum.com/upload/showthread.php?t=47673

And here is the site for that Bull Pup setup. (Not the one from Starship Troopers.)

http://www.shortrifles.com/index.html

ronc0011
November 17, 2007, 10:05 PM
That Bull Pup setup is interesting, I’ll be curious to see what people have to say about it after they’ve been in use for a while. If it can deliver groups like those in that second link I might get real interested.

Just sitting here thinking about it, it would put most of the weight close to your own center of gravity so it might just handle real well. I wonder what the over all weight of it is.

SR420
November 17, 2007, 10:15 PM
Additional information on the TROY MCS is available here: http://m14hdw.us (http://m14hdw.us)

Sturmgewehre
November 18, 2007, 12:05 AM
I much prefer the TROY MCS and the SAGE EBR over the old classic look.

Top one, nice.

Bottom one, looks silly. I would laugh at a dude with that on the range. He would have tacti-cool clothing on, knee pads, helmet and a fake badge trying to play SWAT. :p

heckledpie
November 18, 2007, 03:01 AM
i wouldn't laugh at any dude with a fake badge and a 7.62 m14 bullpup. Now thats silly.

SR420
November 18, 2007, 08:57 AM
I would laugh at a dude with that on the range. He would have tacti-cool clothing on, knee pads, helmet and a fake badge trying to play SWAT.


http://www.athenswater.com/images/SAGE-DMS.jpg

Art Eatman
November 18, 2007, 09:20 AM
Enuf wanderin' off in the bushes...