M-16 & m-14 & m110

[drache]

Ok with the US now stating their M16's and M4's don't have the punch to reach out at long distances it seems the M14 has found another roll. Now the M14 was put back into use in Afghanistan by the US Forces for Marksmen and Sniper roles but it competes with the marksmen packing the M110.

Now supposedly the M14 is expensive as hell to get sub MOA out of for the sniper roll and keeping it shooting sub MOA can be pricey.

So is the M14 worth it in the long run or should the US just bring in the M110's to supplement the M16 when range range is required?

Which is more costly in the long run? M14's or the M110's?

Which would you prefer?

 

[300Spartans]

We're told that the M-14 is a "bizarre" and "archaic" myth.

Maybe the FAL will make a comeback too.

 

[C9-Gunner]

Hand me a M-14

M110 still uses direct gas which equals to Stoner design...
Change the cartridge but it still blows *pun not intended*

Both M-14 and the M110 have 20-rds mag = same?

Both M-14 fiber stock and M110 weighs pretty much the same after a 20rd mag *I think the M110 is heavier though*
M-14 wins for weight if using fiber stock
IF M-14 is wearing the EBR stock... M110 wins for weight

M-14 have a standard barrel length of 22"
M110's standard barrel length is 20"
M-14 has higher muzzle velocity

 

[Morpheus32]

Ok with the US now stating their M16's and M4's don't have the punch to reach out at long distances it seems the M14 has found another roll. Now the M14 was put back into use in Afghanistan by the US Forces for Marksmen and Sniper roles but it competes with the marksmen packing the M110.

Now supposedly the M14 is expensive as hell to get sub MOA out of for the sniper roll and keeping it shooting sub MOA can be pricey.

So is the M14 worth it in the long run or should the US just bring in the M110's to supplement the M16 when range range is required?

Which is more costly in the long run? M14's or the M110's?

Which would you prefer?

The M14 will slowly fade from use as the M110 issuing continues in force with priority to deploying units. The simple problem is there is no sustainment for the M14. Units that are using them as an interim while they wait for the M110 are using whatever "skills" they have within their organization to support the rifles. Many are issued to troops with little or no training since there is very little in the way of training available.

The US Army has made its decision on the M110, the only reason the M14 had a brief resurgence was that simply the rifle was available. Now as operations scale down in Iraq and the deployment cycle for units going to Afghanistan stabilizes, the issuing of the M110 will meet the deployment needs.

If we want to mentally masturbate over the M14 vs M16/M4/M110 platform then have at it...but understand what is happening with the system as a whole in the big green machine...that is the US machine. Reality that is...

For those longing for the C1...they are all gone...none left...

 

[Hungry]

It's all about logistics, support, training, more support (read: parts, replacement, refurbish, rotation), ability to operate with every optic system in existence (diff generations of NVG systems, co-witnessing with new / existing systems) etc, etc, etc.

The M14 (as much as we all love it) is a wonderful platform for the last couple of conflicts and that's all she wrote. I'm yakking about force on force, army on army conflicts, not guerilla warfare insurgency, yada yada yada. The reality is the M14 platform in order to bring it up to modern day battlefield expectations just cannot be sustained. Once it gets up to speed in to the system, it's gonna be hard to KEEP it in place since the parts swapping support techs will not be able to keep up with all the necessary mods/tweaks, etc.

The M110 system allows modularity from the get go, just like an AR/ M4 platform and that's the distinct advantage it brings to the table, so to speak.

In short the sunset for the M14's ability to operate (within the system) is close at hand and it's been a fabulous run (and re-run).

Who knows what is going to happen? It's all a good debate!

My after-taxes 2 cents worth!

Cheers,
Barney

 

[RaTa]

Frankly I think both will be phased out in the next couple decades. If the SCAR really does take off with the Army then you will likely see the SCAR-H follow behind.

Or maybe by then a viable caseless option will come up...

 

[Morpheus32]

Frankly I think both will be phased out in the next couple decades. If the SCAR really does take off with the Army then you will likely see the SCAR-H follow behind.

Or maybe by then a viable caseless option will come up...

Generally speaking, most militaries are waiting for the technological leap before they commit to replacing their current small arms. The cost of changing a weapon and ammo is monstrous and the danger is an upgrade cost becomes so great it pushing back the replacement which might be a technological leap forward. Stuck between a rock and a hard place....

It will be interesting to see what the future small arms will be...

 

[greentips]

Instead of debating on the rifle, they should fix the C9 first.

 

[RaTa]

Instead of debating on the rifle, they should fix the C9 first.

C9 Performs to its design specifications, we just try to extend the lifespan too much. The better option might be to replace it with a short barreled C6.

Truth is in Canada the Army is heading back into a contraction phase and you will likely not see anything interesting for a while.

 

[Petrock]

C9 Performs to its design specifications, we just try to extend the lifespan too much. The better option might be to replace it with a short barreled C6.

Truth is in Canada the Army is heading back into a contraction phase and you will likely not see anything interesting for a while.

It may be coming again that the troops will have trouble getting ammo for training let alone new rifles and equipment. The budget isn't being cut, it's being slashed from all sides.

 

[alexD92]

It may be coming again that the troops will have trouble getting ammo for training let alone new rifles and equipment. The budget isn't being cut, it's being slashed from all sides.

Can't blame the government for the cuts in the military. I mean the arts and cultures department need funding too.

 

[Lazerus2000]

BULLPUP, BULLPUP, BULLPUP!!!!
My Crystal Ball tells me that the future is gonna be all about bullpups!
for example:
Tavor [ battle tested, refined, improved, and proven by some of the most experienced infantry in the world ].

QBZ95 [ newest issue to the largest army in the world ]

And for the traditionalist,
who MUST have a full powered 7.62 Main Battle Rifle,
an M14 in a Short Rifle Bull pup stock.

PS: Morpheus,
your posted opinion that the US can't find skilled technicians to keep the M14 maintained is highly suspect ...

If Thomas and Barney and I can teach hundreds of CGN members how to successfully maintain, tweak, accessorise, and accurise their M14 rifles,
why then I submit that any properly motivated monkey can be trained to do just that.
Obviously the US is not providing the correct motivation to their monkeys.
This is a failure of the bureaucracy, NOT the fire arm.

PPS: if you ain't gonna go with a bull pup,
then I personally MUCH prefer an AR 10 over an M14, and have posted my reasons for this opinion several times before. Just so you don't start chopping up a perfectly good 7.62 MBR into a noisy flamy beastie with a barrel shorter than 18.5". Otherwise, you might as well stick with an AR 15, or a lighter, more compact 7.62X39 Russian system [ which the disemboweled 7.62 NATO ballistics will closely resemble ].
[;{)

 

[misanthropist]

The M14 is a great rifle - one of my all time favourites. But it is from an era when hand-fitting of parts was the norm, not the exception.

Unfortunately, there are 3 big issues with the M14 that make it less desirable from a military perspective:

1) not modular. Everything is going this route and it makes sense. You want to be able to switch a part out with a part from any other gun and have it run. You want to be able to drop on accessories from any other gun and have them fit. Otherwise...too expensive.

2) too difficult to mount optics. this is somewhat addressed by the chassis systems, I guess.

3) looks different than everything else. This will make anyone carrying one an easy-to-spot high value target. Obviously that is also a problem.

I love the M14 and for the individual it is an awesome rifle to run. For a huge military it is not a good choice and that's why it's been phased out or is being phased out of its last few roles.

 

[RaTa]

BULLPUP, BULLPUP, BULLPUP!!!!
My Crystal Ball tells me that the future is gonna be all about bullpups!
for example:
QBZ95 [ newest issue to the largest army in the world ]

And for the traditionalist,
who MUST have a full powered 7.62 Main Battle Rifle,
an M14 in a Short Rifle Bull pup stock.

I tend to agree with you but for the T95, it has been supplanted by the Type 03.

I see caseless in a bullpup config.

 

[Morpheus32]

PS: Morpheus,
your posted opinion that the US can't find skilled technicians to keep the M14 maintained is highly suspect ...

[;{)

I served in a US Brigade on my tour in Afghanistan....they had zero pers capable of working on M14s besides enthusiastic gun nutz.

In the us military today, there is no current parts in the system, no training for weapons techs, no sustainment of the system. What there is happening is units purchasing stuff including parts, putting bits on rifles and using them in an adhoc manner. The performance, equiping and training of the M14 operator varied significantly from unit to unit based on the enthusiasm by some for the rifle or the perceived need to have a 7.62mm before being issued with the M110. The reality is that an army just does not work that way hence the M110 and the slow reduction of the M14 from service. There is no army wide program for the M14, nor is there a long term life cycle management program for it. There is for the M110, but not for the M14.

There are lots of bits and pieces to support the M14 on the civilian market as well as some excellent smiths/techs. Many units still retain the M14 for use, but at the army logistic level, the M14s time is fading. Not a criticism of the rifle, but rather the end product of the US Army's decision to go with the M110 over rebuilding the M14. Logistics in the end will be the determining factor. There is no army course to training the weapons techs/maintainers on the M14 nor are their a deliberate support infrastructure for the rifle.

Also, just because an item has a NATO stock number, does not mean it is a supply item. It just means it has an identifier for that particularly item and can be ordered. The logistics system might refuse it along the line but having a NSN helps in the procurement process.

I hope that helps articulate the point....and no you cant go overseas and play with M14s

 

[Dr_Scholl]

BULLPUP, BULLPUP, BULLPUP!!!!
My Crystal Ball tells me that the future is gonna be all about bullpups!
for example:
Tavor [ battle tested, refined, improved, and proven by some of the most experienced infantry in the world ].

QBZ95 [ newest issue to the largest army in the world ]

And for the traditionalist,
who MUST have a full powered 7.62 Main Battle Rifle,
an M14 in a Short Rifle Bull pup stock.

PS: Morpheus,
your posted opinion that the US can't find skilled technicians to keep the M14 maintained is highly suspect ...

If Thomas and Barney and I can teach hundreds of CGN members how to successfully maintain, tweak, accessorise, and accurise their M14 rifles,
why then I submit that any properly motivated monkey can be trained to do just that.
Obviously the US is not providing the correct motivation to their monkeys.
This is a failure of the bureaucracy, NOT the fire arm.

PPS: if you ain't gonna go with a bull pup,
then I personally MUCH prefer an AR 10 over an M14, and have posted my reasons for this opinion several times before. Just so you don't start chopping up a perfectly good 7.62 MBR into a noisy flamy beastie with a barrel shorter than 18.5". Otherwise, you might as well stick with an AR 15, or a lighter, more compact 7.62X39 Russian system [ which the disemboweled 7.62 NATO ballistics will closely resemble ].
[;{)

The QZB95? You do realize China hasn't fought a war in over 3 decades right?

 

[Scocou]

The QZB95? You do realize China hasn't fought a war in over 3 decades right?

Gulp... knock on wood!