Did Canadian forces ever use M14s?
- Thread starter evolture
- Start date
.. The M14 was a Vietnam Era weapon,until replaced by the M16, and some Canadians did Enlist, but as Individuals, with the US Forces to fight there, one of my Troop Mates being one, with both the Scars and Medals to prove it. ( US Marines ) ..... David K
Actually the full suite of US Army WW2 small arms were issued to train the 6th Cdn Infantry Division for the planned invasion of Japan in 1945. This never came off as the Atom bomb ended the war before the 6th Div was fully concentrated and trained.
Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
We all know the Devil's Brigade WW2 exploits in the rocky parts of Italy.
True, the RCAF base defence personnel at NATO bases in Western Europe, were issued M1 Garands frrom 1953-56.
As well, Clive Law's book "Without Warning" page 64-65, he writes of Post-WW2 use,
"Little is known about the use, by the Canadian Army use of M1-C and M1-D sniper rifles. Both use the Lyman scope of nomenclenture M-81 and M-82 respectively. The differences between the two models can be found in the reticles. The M-81 used crosshairs, while the M-82 used a tapered post. The intial assumption was that these M1 sniper rifles were used by the Canadian 25th Infantry Brigade in Korea, appeared to be logical and straightforward. However research has shown the only M1 sniper rifles issued to Canadian forces in Korea were equipped with the infrared sighting system. Two of these infrared rifle systems were held at each infantry battalion and were used as late as 1955. Each infantry battalion each also held, eight No.4 MkI* (T) sniper rifles. The Garand rifles were in fact issued to the 27th Canadian Infantry Brigade. This brigade destined for Germany, had been formed by transfering to active status several Militia units. While in control of Western Command an order was issued 18 July, 1951, All USA type weapons, ammunition,pamphlets, be distributed to units and Corps Schools. Effective immediately all units of 27th Infantry Brigade will train with the USA type weapons with which they have been issued. (this was based on a policy that Canadian troops will be attached to US forces, in Germany) As this did not happen and actually Canadian troops were attached to the British Army (BAOR) it only made sense to retain the No.4 MkI*(T) The M1-D Garands were withdrawn from service and retained until 1961. They were finally declared obselete and disposed of."
Sorry, but the Canadian gov't purchased 8,000 Garands for the second world war. They seen use defending RCAF bases in France in the '50's and The Canadian Army Manual of Training you want is CAMT 7-15, issued for the M1 Garand in 1953.
Why wouldn't we?
Donny Fenn1
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- East Kootenays
we had the FAL.
The 1st Special Service Force did not like the name "Devils Brigade" which they considered an insult.The name was given to them by the Germans - ( Die Schwarzen Teufel - [the black devils] ).
They preferred to be called "Fredricks Freighters" after their Colonel.
The Canadians were used to the Bren and when they were issued the B A R (or "BLOODY AWFUL RIFLE") they complained so bitterly that the guns were replaced by the Johnson LMG, which also had limited use by the U.S. Marines.
The FN FAL or FN C1 A1 was a much better combat firearm than the M14. So much so many elite US military I know agree with me. The improved versions of the M14 were however a far step above as their accuracy was substantially improved.
The key benefits that the FN FAL offered was the flawless gas piston system that was capable of being tuned for the environment the action was taken. Given the hostilities of today, the FN FAL has proven to exceed in it's reliability in the desert environment, the punch of 7.62 round, and the decent combat accuracy of the rifle system made it an excellent system.
The M14 is very similar but the basic and initially issued version lacked in accuracy until many years later. The reliability of the M14 gas system in adverse environments lacked in comparison to the FN FAL by my US military comrades.
During the time of the adoption of the M14 (simply an improved version of the Garand), NATO had just agreed to a standard caliber 7.62x51 (.308). The US choose the M14 as a domestic design but nearly adopted the FN FAL.
Regards,
J
The key benefits that the FN FAL offered was the flawless gas piston system that was capable of being tuned for the environment the action was taken. Given the hostilities of today, the FN FAL has proven to exceed in it's reliability in the desert environment, the punch of 7.62 round, and the decent combat accuracy of the rifle system made it an excellent system.
The M14 is very similar but the basic and initially issued version lacked in accuracy until many years later. The reliability of the M14 gas system in adverse environments lacked in comparison to the FN FAL by my US military comrades.
During the time of the adoption of the M14 (simply an improved version of the Garand), NATO had just agreed to a standard caliber 7.62x51 (.308). The US choose the M14 as a domestic design but nearly adopted the FN FAL.
Regards,
J
What!?
Actually desert reliability was the FN's shortcoming. This was the reason the Brits had to put sand cuts in the bolt to get it to work somewhat better in the desert. The Israelis also had their share of problems with the weapon in sand.
The M14 on the other hand can eat sand all day long and still function. Don't get me wrong here, the FN is one of the worlds best, but it does not score top marks for reliability in sand.
"...Garands were used by..." And by some troopies in Korea. M1 Carbines, as well. The Canadian 25th Brigade was trained on U.S. kit prior to being sent, then equipped with Canadian weapons. However, neither the M1 Rifle or the M14 Rifle was ever officially adopted by Canada.
"...NATO had just agreed to a standard caliber 7.62x51..." Nope. The 7.62 was designed and developed to be used in the M14, then jammed down NATO's throat after the U.S. adopted the M14. (They did the same thing 10 or so years later with the 5.56.) Other NATO countries didn't want either cartridge. Several, the Brits among 'em, were working on cartridges far more suitable to European battle fields(mostly 7mm's) than a re-hashed .30-06. The U.S. said adopt it or we'll pull our money.
"...US choose the M14 as a domestic design..." Adopted because it was a U.S. design. The FAL beat it in every test except accuracy.
No AR10's either. They were used by very few countries.
"...NATO had just agreed to a standard caliber 7.62x51..." Nope. The 7.62 was designed and developed to be used in the M14, then jammed down NATO's throat after the U.S. adopted the M14. (They did the same thing 10 or so years later with the 5.56.) Other NATO countries didn't want either cartridge. Several, the Brits among 'em, were working on cartridges far more suitable to European battle fields(mostly 7mm's) than a re-hashed .30-06. The U.S. said adopt it or we'll pull our money.
"...US choose the M14 as a domestic design..." Adopted because it was a U.S. design. The FAL beat it in every test except accuracy.
No AR10's either. They were used by very few countries.
Last edited:
Are you trying to suggest that the IDF are idiots?
It is a fact that the weapon in question does not have the best track record when used in the desert. We all love the FAL, myself included, but it is well known that the other two battle rifles (M14, G3) work better when fed sand.
The HK G3 used in that same environment by Iran, Jordan and Lebanon to name a few works just fine and does not exhibit the same problems. The troop quality of those countries does not compare to Israels. Cleaning issue my a**, this is not an excuse for poor desert reliability. Sand cuts were added to the design later on by the Brits to solve the problem. Israelis added a forward assist on their rifles but moved on and developed the Galil series. Also Israel adopted the FN design in 1955. Early trials rifle?
The M14's were dug out of storage and deployed in Desert Storm when the M16's gummed up and performed flawlessly. The Americans have had large quantities of M14's deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq since the conflicts started, no reliability problems. Different and H2O Man can further elaborate on M14 performance over there.
The FAL is a fantastic rifle and excels in other areas compared to the other two.
The old FAL vs M14 vs G3 debate has gone on and on for many years. In the end they are all about equal, have been proven in battle the world over and if I had to go to war tomorrow I wouldn't give a damn which one of them got put in my hands (unless it was the sandbox in which case the FN better have sand cuts).
Last edited:
Are you trying to suggest that the IDF are idiots?
It is a fact that the weapon in question does not have the best track record when used in the desert. We all love the FAL, myself included, but it is well known that the other two battle rifles (M14, G3) work better when fed sand.
The HK G3 used in that same environment by Iran, Jordan and Lebanon to name a few works just fine and does not exhibit the same problems. The troop quality of those countries does not compare to Israels. Cleaning issue my a**, this is not an excuse for poor desert reliability. Sand cuts were added later on to solve the problem. Israelis added a forward assist on their rifles but moved on and developed the Galil series. Also Israel adopted the FN design in 1955. Early trials rifle?
The M14's were dug out of storage and deployed in Desert Storm when the M16's gummed up and performed flawlessly. The Americans have had large quantities of M14's deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq since the conflicts started, no reliability problems. Different and H2O Man can further elaborate on M14 performance over there.
The FAL is a fantastic rifle and excels in other areas compared to the other two.
The old FAL vs M14 vs G3 debate has gone on and on for many years. In the end they are all about equal, have been proven in battle the world over and if I had to go to war tomorrow I wouldn't give a damn which one of them got put in my hands (unless it was the sandbox in which case the FN better have sand cuts).
My understanding was that the Israli FALs never had the sand cuts that the L1A1/C1A1 pattern rifles. I believe these were incorporated very early in the design of the Commonwealth patern.
I also was under the impression, however uneducated it may be, that only the Israelis had a problem with the FAL in the desert, while others were far happier with it. I could just never figure out why only the Israelis had problems with them.
Personally, I love the FAL, I love the mystique around it, and would love to have one. Seing as the government likes to be a bit of a ####, I will probably be getting a lovely LRB M-14, the next best thing
