M14 discussed on Guns: Machines of War - National Geographic Channel

Rammer Jammer

Rammer Jammer

CGN frequent flyer
EE Expired
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I watched "Guns: Machines of War" on the National Geographic Channel last night.

Initially designed to save lives, the modern machine gun can destroy the enemy from more than a mile away and can fire 1,200 rounds in just 17 seconds. How did the machine gun become one of the most powerful Machines of War? NGC explores its 150-year history and evolution from the 19th-century machine gun that can chop down a single tree, to the first gangster "hit" with a Tommy Gun, to one of the deadliest weapons in the world.
Click to expand...

I can't find an official webpage for this show on their site or any uploaded videos on Youtube or Google Video for this show.

It had a short segment on the M14 during the evolution of the rifles.

They showed the M14 shooting at a Vietnam era US issue helmet in full auto mode at 450 metres.

It didn't appear to hit the helmet at that distance, just a lot of hits and dust around it. There was no semi-auto shooting done by the M14. That was the intention of this shoot.

This was intended to show the design of the stock, being of the hunting rifle style, where the trigger hand is gripping on the top of the stock. This type of stock was partially to blame for the inaccuracy during firing. The recoil caused the rifle to pivot upwards at the location of the trigger hand on the stock they said.

This problem was solved by Eugene Stoner with the design of the M16 style rifle. The stock was built so that the recoil went straight back into the shoulder instead of making the barrel rise. The trigger hand was under the stock with a pistolgrip and the top of the rifle's barrel and stock was made into a straight line. A smaller cartridge also made for lighter recoil and was easier to keep on target.

When they showed the helmet after being shot at by both rifles at the same range, there were holes made by the M14 as well.

Kinda PO'd me off at the way the M14 was portrayed but it made me feel better to see those 7.62mm holes acknowledged. :D

Just thought I'd pass this info along.
 
its a great show, i got it tape on my PVR, i will see again tonight.

its surprising even the .45 have a severe climb in full auto so you can imagine what a 7.62 nato can do.
 
I already searched "torentspy" and couldn't find it.

DAMN!

If anyone locates an online copy please post.

Thank you,

Jeff
 
Rammer Jammer said:
This problem was solved by Eugene Stoner with the design of the M16 style rifle. The stock was built so that the recoil went straight back into the shoulder instead of making the barrel rise. The trigger hand was under the stock with a pistolgrip and the top of the rifle's barrel and stock was made into a straight line.
Click to expand...

If you want to get technical about it, the problem was really solved by adoption of what was initially known as the "### round" but due to an increasingly negative connotation associated with that word, the term became "##### round," then "wuss round" and finally, ".223" There is no recoil associated with either the ".223" or it's modern equivalent, "an airsoft pellet."

:dancingbanana:
 
Any CGN's have any experiences with use of different stock designs and the recoil differences with the M14?

Does it seem to make a big difference in accuracy during a rapid fire session?
 
Last edited:
I saw it - thought it was very lame, actually. It went from the Tommy gun straight to the M14 to the AR-15/M-16 without a single mention of either the MP-44 or the AK-47. It implied Eugene Stoner thought up the whole 'assault rifle' concept all by himself in the late 50's. :rolleyes:
 
cancer said:
Well, you know, as it says in the cover of many a National Geographic magazine, they're an un-biased publication. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

yeah, they lead me to believe while a m14 missed the helmet at 450m and the m16 had multiple hit from the same distance, i think not.
 
Zorak said:
A machine gun is an area weapon, so hitting the target is irrelivant.
Click to expand...


Ya, ya, I know.

Enfilade, defilade, cone of fire, beaten zone, etc., etc.

I am (was?) a machinegunner :D

Although the M14 was tried as a MG when first developed, it was better suited as a battle rifle. But NG is trying to compare it as a MG against a M16?

No mention of the M60 or GPMG (C6) in the show about MG's?

Like I said before, it p*issed me off about making the M14 look bad. :D
 
It would have worked OK with a heavy front end weight bias and a heavy barrell. But for the weight, you could just have a LMG. That's why they got rid fo the BAR. A fine gun, but straddling the middle ground made it master of none.
 
It's simple the M14 was a failure in it's intended role,it was not an assault rifle by any stretch of the imagination,nor was it any good as a Light automatic rifle (LAR). The trend at the time was to switch to lightweight assault rifles,hence the M14 having one of the shortest service life of any US Military weapon.
Is it junk?No but is it outdated you bet it is (was ?).
The M14 has proven to an adequate Marksman's rifle,as seen in Iraq but only after modifications such as getting rid of the senseless full auto capability and some precision work.
I sure as hell would not have to rely on one in today's battlefield,for that matter I wouldn't want an FNC1A1 either. I'll take my C7/M16/C8/M4 anyday over any battlerifle. The M16/M4 platform has been proven time and time again on many battlefields..the M14 never stood a chance.
 
you have to remember that the m14 was designed to overcome the shortcomings of the m1 garand which was pre ww2 thinking- the main being a detachable magazine and greater round capability- the thing weighs just as much as the m1 garand, even with the fiberglas stock- they were experimenting with full- auto garands at the end of ww2 , but never fielded them- the full auto thing was very short lived, and most had the connector blocked off- the m60 was issued about halfway through the m14's service life - some sources say as early as 57-60, which means it was being tested as the 14 was being fielded-and there are pictures of the 14 and the 60 fighting side by side- as to which weapon is better, the 14 or 16- the m15 was a heavy barreled 14 that wasn't fielded- there are champions on both sides, but the fact remains that the m16 has been general issue for a lot of countries for years now and most don't know what a 14 looks like- i've had mine called "GARAND" by folks that don't know better- and that shorty 5 round mag - i've also seen tests where the m16a2 with the ss109 ammo penetrated the american m1 tin pot at 800 yards-
 
The M14 is a Main Battle Rifle (MBR) is has never been and never will be an Assault Rifle.

Apples and Oranges.
 
From M-14 to M-16: Tipping Point Eh

Its interesting to consider just how the M-16 was eventually adopted into the Viet Nam theatre as well as the theatres of operation that each has served in. General Curtis Lemay wanted something better for his USAF and the rest is history. I have not carried either one in combat; however I have shot both Norinco M-14s in stock and scoped/NM condition as well as Colt HBars since the early 1980's.

This included competing in shooting my Colt Match Target Hbar with the MPRA APM at the St Charles Ranges in 1991 up to and including the 300-500-600- 800 metre ranges. Perhaps the most interesting part of that Match was the DCRA ammo issuer refusing to issue me and my nephew with my other HBar the required .223 ammunition for the 800 metre match. He claimed that we would "waste" our shots. I had to file a formal protest to the MPRA Match Chair to get the ammo. Later some said they had "never heard of a frame hold" on a DCRA target. Only was using iron sights eh.

On the NM M-14 Norinco clone front I also remember one pleasant afternoon in July 2002 at the Connaught Ranges in the CFSAC/DCRA NSCC spent with the 10th Mountain Division. I shot my M-14 with Federal Match as they shot their M-16s with iron sights from 100 to 660 metres. Along the way several of them fired about a 100 rounds or more of my Federal Match with my M-14.

IF I had a dollar for every time someone in the 10th Mountain Division told me that the M-14 was the rifle they would like to have had in their recent tour of Afghanistan I could have bought a case or two of 24 for the tent lines later that night.

The Designated Squad Marksmen in Iraq currently use scoped M-14s for their work at 600 to 800 metres or more. After watching the battle footage on CBC last night of British Forces in Afghanistan I can see why.

Lacking any combat experience who I am to say anyway?

In my laymans opinion in CQB conditions where engagements are 10m-50m to 300 metres primarily my take is that the M-16 or C-7 would be the optimum choice with "lots of magazines". Sad to say my Lakehead neighbour Cpl Boneca was KIA in Afghanistan last summer while traversing a stairwell.

The Combat range was 5 metres or less.

Indeed in folding stock versions and with the ammunition lighter and capable of full auto bursts the .223 round and its MANY various platforms seems like an optimum choice for CQB.

At longer range or where significant penetration of walls or other hard cover is needed to "get at the target" in my laymans opinion the M-14 in 308 would be a good choice. Indeed if I had to hit the target at 500 or 800 metres easily I would pick the .308 round.

In Viet Nam the engagement distances in infantry fighting were brutally short. My graduate adviser at the University of Texas flew 183 Artillery Spotting and Downed flier missions. He carried a M-16 when he stood in the Jolly Green Giant's door as the jungle penetrator cable went down to rescue a flier.

In "Blackhawk Down" there is a stirring portrayl of how two posthumous Medals of Honor were achieved by two courageous men armed with two M-14s versus a murderous mob.

Is it fair to say that it depends on what you have learned is "instinctive to use in a crisis" and works best for you? In terms of how much training time you have, the M-16/C7/clones of same are the easiest to achieve results with in the shortest time. When my son was 14yrs in the 1980s I was able to let him use my Colt Hbar; after about an hour of practice together with all the 22 shooing he had done with a M-16 .22LR clone he could easily hit the 400 metre or 500 metre foot square steel plate from prone or kneeling position.

The M-14 and .308 has more recoil and more weight to contend with..both the rifle,its ammunition and magazines along with recoil management. You can shoot as well with it but it takes longer.

At Camp Perry the AR-15/M-16 type rifle has basically taken over NRA target shooting; look at the accessories and accurizing available! The NRA is going to have a "commemorative" M-14 match this year.

The M-14 is "what was"; the AR-15/M-16/C7 IS. Nevertheless you have to be Very Proficient almost instinctively so with your C7. There is one Canadian Solder charged with manslaughter as of yesterday because he was allegedly neglient with his and is charged with "Negligent Performance of Duty".

Todays Globe and Mail sums up the situation for Viet Nam or almost 40 years later for Afghanistan:

"In the Army's view, accidentally discharging a weapon is an inexcusable error for infantry members. An infantryman must be expert with his weapon...In a light battalion that is our (Lieut Col. Don Denne 2003) bread and butter" (Globe and Mail, March 12th, 2007, p.A1)

Simply put which one could you state that for? The M-16/Ar-15/C7/their clones or the M-14/Norinco clones?

IF I could only have ONE battle rifle it would be a Norinco M-14 clone in NM condition with a 3x9 scope in the M-24 type mount.
 
Last edited:
provided it had a fiberglas stock
myself , i would tend to agree, but change it for a 4x12- but i'm probably older
 
Now that more people have seen the video and have discussed the M14 vs M16, 5.56 vs 7.62, etc, etc., I'll ask again:

Do any CGN's have any experiences with use of different stock designs and the recoil differences with the M14?

Does it seem to make a big difference in accuracy during a rapid fire session?

Or is it just the amount of recoil from the size of the cartridge that makes the difference?
 
Rammer Jammer said:
Do any CGN's have any experiences with use of different stock designs and the recoil differences with the M14?

Does it seem to make a big difference in accuracy during a rapid fire session?
Click to expand...

I have fired my 18" M14s in synthetic stocks, wood, SAGE EBR and TROY MCS.
The heavier pistol gripped stocks control recoil and muzzle jump during rapid fire sessions.
The TROY is a little better at this than the SAGE due to AR-ish alignment of the action and butt stock.

I no longer shoot .223 so I am unable to offer you a comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom