M-14 in Afghanistan
- Thread starter homer76
- Start date
i would kind of like to hear/read H20's actual reasons, factually supported or not, as to why he thinks the m14 is better for the job than the new MK110, and why he thinks the MK110 would not do the job
We are all waiting with our hands funnelling our ears !
"I love my 5.56mm guns, but adding a 7.62 to the Squad/Section gives you more engagement distance, more penetration for intervening media.
The other issue with the M-14 is it is a visible different gun, and operators of said become targeted." Kevin B
+100
here Kevin. Like I said in my earlier post 7.62 is nice for punch power. I love the M14 as much as the next guy but this M110 looks outstanding and is very simmiliar to the M16 platform thus not making the operator stand out in a section. I am still praying for a civvie model here in Canada. A man can dream can't he??
The other issue with the M-14 is it is a visible different gun, and operators of said become targeted." Kevin B
+100
here Kevin. Like I said in my earlier post 7.62 is nice for punch power. I love the M14 as much as the next guy but this M110 looks outstanding and is very simmiliar to the M16 platform thus not making the operator stand out in a section. I am still praying for a civvie model here in Canada. A man can dream can't he??
Last edited:
I think he's busy preparing his thesis on the subject, be patient it may take a few years for it to be made available to the public.
I can't buy the line that a guy carrying an m14 is targetted on the battle field cuz his gun looks different than an AR....... what about the guys carrying light machine guns and other weapons other than the AR...... if this reasoning truly had merit..... every battlefield weapon carried by the soldier would be dressed to look like an AR.
dunno much about this new and improved Ar-ish m14 ...... but there sure is A LOT of hate on for it in the states.
They (MG’s) are also high value targets to the enemy and are priority kills, the same as radio operators, officers and medics are.
agreed........ but i don't see the reasoning or need to change the m14 from an otherwise perfect (imho) battle rilfe .... spending millions in R&D to do so..... just to change it's appearance on the battle field.
will the same R&D be forthcoming to help the other high value target folks "blend in" ??
Not trying to devalue the comments and thoughts from those who actually have combat experience....... just trying to wrap my head around why the m14 would need any kind of overhaul to make it a valuable asset to any combat unit...... other than the kit availlable to them already....
will the same R&D be forthcoming to help the other high value target folks "blend in" ??
Not trying to devalue the comments and thoughts from those who actually have combat experience....... just trying to wrap my head around why the m14 would need any kind of overhaul to make it a valuable asset to any combat unit...... other than the kit availlable to them already....
Firing a 7.62mm round and being cheap is a tiny portion of the selection criteria. To understand what is required, you have to read the solicitiation and contract which outlined what the US Army wanted. Your trying to understand a simplistic view of a much larger army requirement. The M14 battlerifle was not a sub MOA rifle, it was a battle rifle. It requires significant modification to meet what the US Army wanted in terms of performance, capability and sustainablity.
As noted to me in training course for grown ups in my past life.... When it comes to war, amateurs think tactics is what wins, professionals think logisitics. If you can't maintain it, train people on it, service it and sustain it...it is not realistic and will fail. The M14 as it stands is not a precision rifle. Never was and never will be. A customized variant maybe tweaked to perform, but there are no spare parts, tool kits, training, familiarization. The AR series is familiar to all soldiers currently on operations. The M14 is a stop gap capablity. As noted by Kevin, the US Army's priority is to get the M110s to the deploying intos heading into theatre.
Last edited:
Further, the US Army is not looking for a battle rifle. It is looking for a precision rifle. Remember my comments about the balance of weapons suites. There are plenty of 7.62mm Machine Guns with the troops. MGs win battles. They are the firepower on the battlefield. For some people, there seems to be a gap of capablity, but it is not. The M110 fills a role, but the fighting is done with M4/M16/C8/C7s....and machine guns. Remember as well engagement ranges are generally very close and far. There is a wide selection of systems designed to meet these challenges. It is a holistic approach to battle. There is no universal rifle, no ultimate rifle. Combat is not two people faced off OK Coral style mano a mano. Combat is a dynamic and moving game of high speed chess. It seems simple to compare rifle ballistics and say this is better than that. If that is the case, why not have an even bigger caliber since people comment that the 5.56mm is no good? Because there is much more to it than the caliber. Fighting as a team is what soldiers do, and they practice it time and time again. Group tactics - firepower and manoever is what allows us to kill the enemy. Not the caliber of a rifle or having a designated Marksman. Canada does not have them....and we have been kicking some serious ass....
So try to understand that there are alot of smart people, operators and soldiers who spend their life in the profession of arms. It is not a hobby. Logistics, and maintenance might not be ###y....but guess what....no spare parts or trained support personnel and the coolest of rifles is junk....
So try to understand that there are alot of smart people, operators and soldiers who spend their life in the profession of arms. It is not a hobby. Logistics, and maintenance might not be ###y....but guess what....no spare parts or trained support personnel and the coolest of rifles is junk....
I would definitely like to see his reasons and not because I plan to mock them...H20man may disagree with some pretty established guys on military stuff but he is also someone who knows the M14 platform very well and a lot of guys could learn from him.
Since I have chosen the M14 as my SHTF platform, his information could at the very least be useful to me personally.
I don't presume to know exactly what all the reasons for the selections the Army made were, but if the M14 doesn't fit their criteria so be it. There are plenty of applications - some apparently military - for which it seems to work.
As long as this thread can remain civil I would like to see it continue. I would not like to see it get muddy as the Battle Rifles forum is usually quite civil and H20man is a valuable member IMO.
Aren't we all talking about the M21 here? I haven't seen any M14s in any of the pictures. The M14 is the non-sniper version and thus no scope or bipod.
The M21 was the US issue sniper rifle until 1988. I'm sure there are still some in service though.
The M21 was the US issue sniper rifle until 1988. I'm sure there are still some in service though.
M21 is gone, there was a brief and illfated attempt to modernize it into a M25 several years ago.
The M14 is what we are taking about - hence my comments about no issue optic, one mag etc.
There are several comments on other boards about what an abortion the M21 was and why it failed so miserably as a Sniper Rifle.
The M14 is what we are taking about - hence my comments about no issue optic, one mag etc.
There are several comments on other boards about what an abortion the M21 was and why it failed so miserably as a Sniper Rifle.
Last edited:
I can read your post and I know what the topic is.
But that was not WWIII's or my question.
You praise the M14 as it was a God, defending it above all else.
Since this is a discussion forum. We claim and discuss...
Answer my question, give me objective comments, give us something to work with. Try to make us embrace your God, or loose all credibility on this topic.
In short: I am calling you on it.
KPA
But that was not WWIII's or my question.
You praise the M14 as it was a God, defending it above all else.
Since this is a discussion forum. We claim and discuss...
Answer my question, give me objective comments, give us something to work with. Try to make us embrace your God, or loose all credibility on this topic.
In short: I am calling you on it.
KPA
Kevin , Side by side is M110 any better than the M14 system that is currenty deployed in service I am not talking about the Night Vision or the Sound Suppressor. I am talking about a rifle with an issued scope and 1 mag
Failing a response from Kevin...have a look at the Statement of Work on the contract. It outlines everything that the rifle had to do. It was the top dog in the evaluations. A number of systems that were entered failed to be compliant and did not make the cut. The general public will never know how the participants in the selection actually did as this is protected information. After the award is made, the entrants are given a debrief on how they performed overall but they are not given the details of the other companies. They become system A or B etc.
An M14 based system was entered. We know that. Besides that, we have no firm data on how it performed directly against the M110 other than the M110 came out on top.
So in short, we know the performance requirement line. We don't know which systems made it across the minimum performance line and which did not. Of those that made it across the minimum line, the KAC entry performed the best based on the criteria established by the US Gov. I have to reread the selection criteria but normally they will specifiy in the solicitiation on how the selection criteria will be done and how it is scored.
Last edited:
