M-14 in Afghanistan
- Thread starter homer76
- Start date
I believe Kevin is refering to identical opposition you might have met on a similar topic on other websites, namely M4C and Lightifighter.
Cheerios
KPA
You are getting the picture upside down.
M110 is Factually and contractually being purchased NOW by the US Army.
The M14 is Not.
Stop gap is getting the dust out of the M14 in the armory.
Not buying new m110 with a decade + support contract.
But...
You seem to be on your own track, so good luck.
Why would that be?
Probably because it is less reliable and because the armorer dont have m14 tools issued to them for maintenance ???
- Location
- Vancouver Island BC
I don't have any battle experience,I am strictly going on what I would rather have in the bush,between the M-16 style and the the M-14, the M-14 is the choice for me.I have handled and shot the M-16 and found it to be a cheap little plastic toy compared to the Garand and M-14 I fired.
I have family that served in WW1,WW2,Korea, and other skirmishes around the globe,I never heard any of them say that the M1 Garand,BAR,M-14 was too big or that they wish they had something smaller.
An American friend of mine did three tours in Vietnam,he said that the minimum he would pack was the M-14. His tours of duty were on a Bayliner gunboat and I believe the deck gun was a 50 cal. I am presently trying to get some stories from him to add to my veterans thread,he is very tight lipped so far.
I have family that served in WW1,WW2,Korea, and other skirmishes around the globe,I never heard any of them say that the M1 Garand,BAR,M-14 was too big or that they wish they had something smaller.
An American friend of mine did three tours in Vietnam,he said that the minimum he would pack was the M-14. His tours of duty were on a Bayliner gunboat and I believe the deck gun was a 50 cal. I am presently trying to get some stories from him to add to my veterans thread,he is very tight lipped so far.
Having hauled a heavy old FNC1 around the world for a while, with it's accompanying supply of ammo, I'd take the AR platform and 5.56 for a long jaunt if I had my druthers.
I'd compare the FN in size and weight to the M14.
Gents,
It is one thing to debate the virtues of various systems...but another to debate our country's service in Afghanistan in this thread. Please stay in the subject of battle rifles at the very least....take the political commentary to the off topic section and start a separate thread.
It is one thing to debate the virtues of various systems...but another to debate our country's service in Afghanistan in this thread. Please stay in the subject of battle rifles at the very least....take the political commentary to the off topic section and start a separate thread.
Kevin, what does the M110 system offer over competing 7.62mm ARs?
(Which 7.62mm AR makers are even competing for contracts? Did DPMS or RRA submit competitors for the program?)
Now that you're in the states, did you end up finding that SR-25 I vaguely recall you looking for on the EE?
(Which 7.62mm AR makers are even competing for contracts? Did DPMS or RRA submit competitors for the program?)
Now that you're in the states, did you end up finding that SR-25 I vaguely recall you looking for on the EE?
Some people are just now realizing that the M14 is not supported by the Green Machine south of the Border . Think back to the start of GW II thats a good indication how long unit funds have been used to have DMR fielded . As allready stated the US Military has few if any M14 quailified gun plumbers left in service.
BTW This thread is rather enjoyable to watch keep up the good [shaking my head in wonderment]
BTW This thread is rather enjoyable to watch keep up the good [shaking my head in wonderment]
I live in a work of SR-25's
DPMS-Reminton, Armalite and 6 other vendors submitted 7.62 versions for the XM-110 SASS Trials, they did not pass.
Sinister said:
Yeah, the Rock Island built M14s are crap.
SEI was contracted to rebuild and un-fu!k the M14s Rock Island built.
To refresh what a properly built M14 is reliably capable of.
The M21A5 Crazy Horse that was tested at Ft. Benning in March of
2008, fired groups under 1 MOA at 1000 yards with M118LR ammo.
This is the performance the US Army wants and needs from M14s in AFG.
.
H20,
Let it go man. The M14 is not the choice for the future and is being replaced. Have a look at the contract requirements and see what had to be done to make it competitive. Slapping a stock on it and have SEI tweak it does not make it compliant for the contract. Have a look at what future system integration issues we noted as madatory...that is looking out to new system capability.
Step back and look at the big picture. The M14 is filling a void as the M110 is fielded. You have said you believe that M14 is a better choice...and for you it might be, however, the army, the infantry school, the Marksmanship Unit and the troops in the field are happy with the way ahead. The M14 enthusiasts are blinded by a desire for a validation or redux of the M14. As noted by others, the maintenance, lifecycle management, spare parts, training....all work against the M14. The facts just don't add up. As a professional, you have to do an assessment without emotion, without bias.
As I have mentioned, I have a large collection of M14s. I build them up in my spare time and help others enjoy the rifles. There are about 10 board members who have spent time in my basement working on their rifles. I love the M14, but in Canada, the non restricted status has a stronger factor in the assessment than the performance capablity of the M14. They are fun to shoot and I enjoy them however....as a professional soldier, they are old technology and are beat by the new designs.
Soldiers in the field deserve the best system possible. The fact that they can be made to shoot well is mute. The off the shelf performance was not MOA or sub MOA. It was a battle rifle and was not designed as a precision rifle. Check the US Gov specs on the M14 battle rifle. It is not MOA. With tweaking and work, it can be made to shoot. The AR10 that Canada uses and the M110, was designed as a precision rifle. You may argue that it uses the older AR10 design however the integral modifications separate it from the parent design. Kind of like arguing the M16 of the 60s is the same as the modern ARs that deployed in combat. Not the same stuff.
Don't take this so personally. The M14 is not the ultimate rifle and not the rifle to take the US Army forward...
Let it go man. The M14 is not the choice for the future and is being replaced. Have a look at the contract requirements and see what had to be done to make it competitive. Slapping a stock on it and have SEI tweak it does not make it compliant for the contract. Have a look at what future system integration issues we noted as madatory...that is looking out to new system capability.
Step back and look at the big picture. The M14 is filling a void as the M110 is fielded. You have said you believe that M14 is a better choice...and for you it might be, however, the army, the infantry school, the Marksmanship Unit and the troops in the field are happy with the way ahead. The M14 enthusiasts are blinded by a desire for a validation or redux of the M14. As noted by others, the maintenance, lifecycle management, spare parts, training....all work against the M14. The facts just don't add up. As a professional, you have to do an assessment without emotion, without bias.
As I have mentioned, I have a large collection of M14s. I build them up in my spare time and help others enjoy the rifles. There are about 10 board members who have spent time in my basement working on their rifles. I love the M14, but in Canada, the non restricted status has a stronger factor in the assessment than the performance capablity of the M14. They are fun to shoot and I enjoy them however....as a professional soldier, they are old technology and are beat by the new designs.
Soldiers in the field deserve the best system possible. The fact that they can be made to shoot well is mute. The off the shelf performance was not MOA or sub MOA. It was a battle rifle and was not designed as a precision rifle. Check the US Gov specs on the M14 battle rifle. It is not MOA. With tweaking and work, it can be made to shoot. The AR10 that Canada uses and the M110, was designed as a precision rifle. You may argue that it uses the older AR10 design however the integral modifications separate it from the parent design. Kind of like arguing the M16 of the 60s is the same as the modern ARs that deployed in combat. Not the same stuff.
Don't take this so personally. The M14 is not the ultimate rifle and not the rifle to take the US Army forward...
What's to let go?
As the title of this thread sates:
M-14 in Afghanistan ~ The US military requested the M14 and not the M110 for the coming surge in AFG.
Some here think the M110 is the ultimate rifle and take it personally when it doesn't get top billing.
That's possibly a subject for another thread...
I have seen pictures of your collection, have you made any updates?
.
As the title of this thread sates:
M-14 in Afghanistan ~ The US military requested the M14 and not the M110 for the coming surge in AFG.
Some here think the M110 is the ultimate rifle and take it personally when it doesn't get top billing.
That's possibly a subject for another thread...
I have seen pictures of your collection, have you made any updates?
.
Last edited:
Would you please explain why the M14 is better suited?
H,
You are mixing up apples and oranges. Units requested funding to upgrade M14s via unit budgets as they had not received the M110 thus providing a stop gap capablity. That is not at issue. However there is no national level initiative to code the M14 in the upgraded configuration. Which is the step done by SOCOM. There is a process to do this and it is not being done. The employment of the M14 is a stop gap measure. The M14 is being used in dozens of different configurations with wild differences in performance and capablity. This is unacceptable for any army.
The US Military on the other hand has requested and is receiving the M110 via a competitive national contract. The contract will see the sustainment of the rifle for the next 10 years. This has not been done with the M14. Sustainment of the M14 is haphazard and based on the skill of the individuals rather than a developed and sustainable maintenance program.
The national contract had very specific long term sustainment points, accuracy requirements and performance critieria. Have a look at what is required of the weapon. The M14...without significant investment and modification would not pass and is my understanding....did not pass. No one is going to know the exact details except the submitters who were give a debrief on their system only, post award. We do know however the the KAC system passed the critieria, performing the best.
I certainly don't think the M110 is the ultimate rifle, however it did perform the best at what the army wanted it to do. We can't deny that. So it is the winner and the army moves forward.
As far as my collection. Sold off the SAGEs, and have focused on two M1A SOCOM IIs and two Norinco receivered all USGI 18.6 barrelled rifles, all in vortex stocks....
