January 28, 2016, 05:38 PM | #1 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,867
|
AR-10 vs M14
Quote:
Does anyone have any actual insight as to why the already obsolescent Garand_MOD-1 won such a contest? |
|
January 28, 2016, 05:57 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2005
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 3,336
|
__________________
The History and Development of the M14 EBR |
January 28, 2016, 06:26 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Posts: 2,313
|
In those days, there was an entrenched old boy clique that ruled military small arms procurement. They could certainly not be described as forward thinking.
There was no way any weapon could win over the government arsenal designed M14. Not the AR10. Not the FN FAL. We forced the 7.62/.308 on our NATO allies, and adopted the M14...a rifle with very big problems in initial production. It took the TRW company to solve some of the issues.
__________________
The past is gone...the future may never happen. Be Here Now. |
January 28, 2016, 07:53 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 18, 2001
Location: Over the hills and far, far away
Posts: 3,206
|
That's right. What eventually became the M-16 was actually first designed as a proper 7.62x51 battle rifle before it was redesigned into a "Poodle Shooter".
__________________
- Homeland Security begins at home: Support your Second Amendment - www.gunowners.org - www.saf.org - act.nraila.org - www.grnc.org |
January 29, 2016, 03:41 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 21, 2008
Posts: 485
|
"That's right. What eventually became the M-16 was actually first designed as a proper 7.62x51 battle rifle before it was redesigned into..."
And, the AR-15 along with the .223/5.56 was first abopted by the AIR FORCE... As a M-1 CARBINE replacement!!! T. |
January 29, 2016, 08:02 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 6,867
|
I was earlier asked why I simple didn't do an internet search for the reason that the AR10 lost to a thoroughly antiquated design at that point -- a design that was going to shoot the same 7.62 cartridge anyway.
I answered that there are at least a half-dozen men on this particular forum who have extensive experience in the history of military weapons choices made by this country in the last century. I generally regard myself as one of them as I lived through some of the most contentious of those times (and weapons). But I'll be honest, I was not aware until 48 hours ago that the AR10 in 7.62(what became NATO) -- the original Stoner rifle -- was an active/contemporaneous competitor to the Garand-based M-14. So I don't have any problems at all in asking the knowledge of those few men who might have better insight that I have. I [actually many here] know who they are... and every once in a while another adds himself to the list by jumping in with facts that add to the historical [and political] base for otherwise inexplicable decisions. No problem at all. |
January 29, 2016, 08:50 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2005
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 3,336
|
Most folks don't have a clue as to how old the AR10 design is, they seem to think it was developed around Y2K.
I would like to own one of the original variants with the charging handle inside the carry handle.
__________________
The History and Development of the M14 EBR |
January 29, 2016, 08:51 AM | #8 | |
Junior member
Join Date: July 26, 2001
Location: midwest
Posts: 2,374
|
Quote:
|
|
January 29, 2016, 09:05 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,131
|
Both rifles are capable of doing the same thing. It just comes down to cosmetics and a slight weight difference, just like.....
|
January 29, 2016, 09:55 AM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 18, 2006
Posts: 7,097
|
Some of the original AR10s submitted for military evaluation were submitted with an aluminum steel composite barrel instead of a full steel barrel.
That's a pretty easy explanation as to why the M14 beat it out, it simply wasn't the AR-10 that we know today. Why the M14 beat out the FAL is anyone's guess. As far as a the M14 goes, it is a fine battle rifle, and makes a decent SDM rifle with a good scope mount and stock upgrade. Which is to say that the TACOM SDM M14s are not the M14s of the 1950s either. But even the AR-10 that we know today isn't an AR-10 as was submitted for evaluation. Even the Armalite current offering, the AR-10B is really just based on an upscaled AR-15 pattern. Jimro
__________________
Machine guns are awesome until you have to carry one. |
January 29, 2016, 12:02 PM | #11 | ||
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,616
|
Quote:
The beauty of the M14 is that it is an improved Garand. The downfall of the M14 was that it was only an improved Garand, and not the "one gun can do it all" weapon many wanted it to be. It is a poor LMG/Automatic Rifle, its too light. It is a very poor SMG, it is too big, and too powerful. Neither of which stopped a certain segment of the brass from promoting it as such. Quote:
The Garand had serious issues in the beginning, too. And the flaws and faults of the AR 15 (M16) are legend and legion. Admittedly these were magnified by the deliberate sabotage attempts, but we would have seen the flaws in the AR without that, its just a matter of degree. Leaving aside what actually happened in the performance tests, I think the AR-10 never stood a chance because it was simply to new and radical against the "upgraded old school" M14. (and of course, who was making the decision). Only a few short years later, the M14 (with a different group making the decision,) didn't stand a chance, because it was too "old school", and the powers that be demanded the "new" AR (15).
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
||
January 29, 2016, 01:39 PM | #12 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 5, 2010
Location: West Coast...of WI
Posts: 1,663
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Life Member, SAF contributor. |
|
January 29, 2016, 06:17 PM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 18, 2006
Posts: 7,097
|
Quote:
I'd say that someone was making the case the M14 would be cheaper because the tooling for the Garand should be an easy transition to the M14, and supposedly European manufacturing capabilities might still be in recovery from WWII (Britain was still under rationing well into the 50s). The Army is nothing if not penny wise and pound foolish. Jimro
__________________
Machine guns are awesome until you have to carry one. |
|
January 29, 2016, 06:27 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2006
Posts: 2,313
|
Things were different in 1950, you can't compare later aquistions like the M9 Beretta.
And, if we had adopted the FN FAL, it would have been built here.
__________________
The past is gone...the future may never happen. Be Here Now. |
January 31, 2016, 09:54 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 3, 2002
Posts: 1,264
|
|
January 31, 2016, 10:25 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 10, 2012
Posts: 6,158
|
Throughout military history the inferior weapon has been chosen.
|
January 31, 2016, 11:51 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
|
Hey, I like my M1a. It is not a M14, but I really like the rifle and there are a number of advantages to the Garand design that made it an outstanding service weapon.
As for the AR10, Stoner had a shoe string development budget. His investors expected the US Army to test and fix all his problems, and even if the Army had done so, I really doubt they would have adopted an AR10. The rifle was too radical for them. Having worked with the user, I observed some consistent characteristics. The Army does not like change. They like what they have, they want something better, but only a little different, and they reject revolutionary change. Baby is very sensitive to the taste of its milk and Baby will puke out anything which the taste is a little too different. Baby was used to a Garand, the wooden stock, the sights, take down and operation. All that stuff. Baby had used the Garand in WW2 and Korea and trusted the rifle. An AR10 was radical, real radical. No wood, plastic parts, looked radically different from the Garand, operated different. Based on first impressions you could predict Baby was going to puke this one out. Currently Baby loves it's AR15 rattle, but it took the Secretary of Defense to shove that down's Baby's throat. No General out ranks the SecDef, and when the SecDef took away the choice from Baby, Baby had to live with it. Now Baby would rather die than give up its favorite rattle, but 60 years ago, Baby did not want the AR.
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading. |
February 1, 2016, 12:09 AM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2016
Posts: 337
|
I love the AR-10 (or really, latter-day platforms like the LMT MWS) but I don't think any of the advantages it has now were in play back then. The new guns are great because they have a natural flat top receiver with rail, are accurate, and have triggers that if not as good as a bolt gun at least don't suck. All this combined with modern match ammo means you can have a rifle that's sniper-accurate, an autoloader, and CQB-capable to boot.
Take away all the advances of the modern AR-10 and shoot irons with an iffy barrel and military ball, and I'm not sure it would seem like anything special. The M-14 would seem like a good conservative evolution of what you've already got. |
February 1, 2016, 05:47 AM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 18, 2006
Posts: 7,097
|
Quote:
In my relatively short career (only now coming up on two decades) the Army along has tested the SCAR, XM8, and HK416 and found them all better than the M4. The bean counters found they weren't better enough to justify the cost over yet another upgrade of the M16/M4. Of course, if we could get the USMC to give up just one little F-35B, a new rifle is back on the table. Until then, it's budget shenanigans all around as everyone tries to replace or upgrade major systems. Jimro
__________________
Machine guns are awesome until you have to carry one. |
|
February 1, 2016, 10:09 AM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
|
Quote:
That is one story. I am of the opinion that the Army personnel who came up with the numbers ensured that the M4 would not be replaced. It is my recollection they wanted a rifle that was 200% better than the M4. I don't believe any rifle on the planet is 200% better than the M4. And if there were, they would have set the requirement to 300%. Baby does not like change and has ways to prevent change. Baby likes its rattle and will have no other.
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading. |
|
February 1, 2016, 11:11 AM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 5, 2009
Location: Just off Route 66
Posts: 5,067
|
Quote:
So do you go with a proven design or something new made by an airplane manufacture that has never made a rifle before in their history. General Lamay's choice of replacing the M-1 carbine with the AR-16 for the Air Force was not a difficult one (he was a WWII hero many times over, as well as being Chief of the Air Force) , but to change over all the rifles in the US military, now that took guts. Consider that your job maybe on the line with the choice you make. What would your decision be???? Stay safe. Jim
__________________
Si vis pacem, para bellum Last edited by Jim243; February 1, 2016 at 11:35 AM. |
|
February 1, 2016, 11:27 AM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2009
Location: NorthWest USA
Posts: 1,996
|
Excellent post (#11) 44 AMP! Really cuts to the heart of the matter.
|
February 1, 2016, 11:41 AM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 12, 2005
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 3,336
|
They work well together.
__________________
The History and Development of the M14 EBR |
February 1, 2016, 12:36 PM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 27, 2004
Posts: 4,811
|
Lets not forget the embarrassing burst barrel syndrome of the early AR-10's!
As part of the attempt to get a full auto 7.62mm (OK T-65) under 7 1/2 Lbs the early AR-10s were fitted with a aluminum/steel composite barrel several of which burst during the trials. Quote:
__________________
Allan Quatermain: “Automatic rifles. Who in God's name has automatic rifles”? Elderly Hunter: “That's dashed unsporting. Probably Belgium.” |
|
February 1, 2016, 06:40 PM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 21, 2008
Posts: 485
|
"Of course, if we could get the USMC to give up just one little F-35B, a new rifle is back on the table. Until then, it's budget shenanigans all around as everyone tries to replace or upgrade major systems."
But generals (admirals) are not made by being an enlisted infantryman (or sailor)... You get there by flying (commanding) the newest "cool toy"... "Im of the opinion that the Army personnel who came up with the numbers ensured that the M4 would not be replaced. It is my recollection they wanted a rifle that was 200% better than the M4. I don't believe any rifle on the planet is 200% better than the M4. And if there were, they would have set the requirement to 300%." No different now for ANY program or through history or for the M-14... Someone has already decided WHAT THEY WANT and you can be sure they will do everything in their power to corrupt the true results. M-14 had the additional benefits of 1 - "being designed here (at SA) and 2 - being very familiar to those in control (if not those in charge). "...or something new made by an airplane manufacture..." Got you facts mixed up there! ArmaLites were NEVER made by an airplane manufactureR... The ArmaLite Company was PURCHASED BY Fairchild, which was an aircraft and aerospace manufacturing company... T. Last edited by TimW77; February 1, 2016 at 08:18 PM. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|