The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: Semi-automatics

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old November 13, 2007, 03:07 PM   #26
Sturmgewehre
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 4,212
Quote:
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
__________________
Visit my YouTube channel for reviews, tests and more.
Ex Mea Sententia
Sturmgewehre is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 03:16 PM   #27
MTMilitiaman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2004
Location: NW Montana
Posts: 1,875
Quote:
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.

Quote:
Psst, burst is full-auto fire,
Heh hehe...

If you say so...
__________________
"...nothing says 'I WILL shoot every last one of you before you have time to reconsider your poor choices in life' like an AK."
~Dave R.
MTMilitiaman is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 03:23 PM   #28
Sturmgewehre
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 4,212
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.
__________________
Visit my YouTube channel for reviews, tests and more.
Ex Mea Sententia
Sturmgewehre is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 03:25 PM   #29
Sturmgewehre
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 4,212
Quote:
Heh hehe...

If you say so...
Wow.
__________________
Visit my YouTube channel for reviews, tests and more.
Ex Mea Sententia
Sturmgewehre is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 03:38 PM   #30
RockyMtnTactical
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2006
Location: Western US
Posts: 1,957
Quote:
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.
RockyMtnTactical is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 03:44 PM   #31
Neal in GA
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 26, 2002
Location: Georgia
Posts: 171
Quote:
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.
Neal in GA is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 03:59 PM   #32
Abndoc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2006
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 719
Quote:
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.
__________________
With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog.
Abndoc is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 04:10 PM   #33
MTMilitiaman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2004
Location: NW Montana
Posts: 1,875
Quote:
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:

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
"...nothing says 'I WILL shoot every last one of you before you have time to reconsider your poor choices in life' like an AK."
~Dave R.
MTMilitiaman is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 04:10 PM   #34
Crosshair
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 16, 2004
Location: Grand Forks, ND
Posts: 5,320
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.
__________________
I don't carry a gun to go looking for trouble, I carry a gun in case trouble finds me.
Crosshair is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 04:46 PM   #35
Abndoc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2006
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 719
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.
__________________
With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog.
Abndoc is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 04:59 PM   #36
RockyMtnTactical
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2006
Location: Western US
Posts: 1,957
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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..."
RockyMtnTactical is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 05:16 PM   #37
Tim R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 30, 2004
Location: God's side of Washington State
Posts: 1,601
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.
__________________
God Bless our Troops especially our Snipers.
Tim R is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 05:17 PM   #38
MTMilitiaman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 14, 2004
Location: NW Montana
Posts: 1,875
Quote:
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.
__________________
"...nothing says 'I WILL shoot every last one of you before you have time to reconsider your poor choices in life' like an AK."
~Dave R.
MTMilitiaman is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 05:37 PM   #39
HorseSoldier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2006
Location: OCONUS 61°13′06″N 149°53′57″W
Posts: 2,282
Quote:
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

Quote:
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.
HorseSoldier is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 05:43 PM   #40
SR420
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2005
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 2,807
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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!
__________________
facebook.com/M14EBR.US
SR420 is online now  
Old November 13, 2007, 06:00 PM   #41
ronc0011
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 1, 2006
Posts: 539
Quote:
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...t-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.

Quote:
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.
ronc0011 is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 06:08 PM   #42
RockyMtnTactical
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2006
Location: Western US
Posts: 1,957
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...
RockyMtnTactical is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 06:10 PM   #43
ronc0011
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 1, 2006
Posts: 539
Hey wait a minute. You real name wouldn’t be McNamara would it or did you ever work for a guy named McNamara?

Hmmmm?

ronc0011 is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 06:14 PM   #44
SR420
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 12, 2005
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 2,807
Actually, the M14 meets the mixed needs of todays US Military quite well
__________________
facebook.com/M14EBR.US
SR420 is online now  
Old November 13, 2007, 06:17 PM   #45
STLRN
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 1,163
Quote:
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
__________________
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
STLRN is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 06:20 PM   #46
RockyMtnTactical
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 21, 2006
Location: Western US
Posts: 1,957
Quote:
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...
RockyMtnTactical is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 06:21 PM   #47
ronc0011
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 1, 2006
Posts: 539
Quote:
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
ronc0011 is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 06:25 PM   #48
STLRN
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 28, 1999
Location: USA
Posts: 1,163
Quote:
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.
__________________
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
STLRN is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 07:19 PM   #49
Sturmgewehre
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 12, 2006
Location: Indiana
Posts: 4,212
Quote:
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!
__________________
Visit my YouTube channel for reviews, tests and more.
Ex Mea Sententia
Sturmgewehre is offline  
Old November 13, 2007, 09:01 PM   #50
TPAW
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2005
Posts: 2,859
Quote:
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.
TPAW is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13876 seconds with 7 queries