Why I Despise the M14...

[jethunter]

Reliving old history from 60 years ago.

 

[cyclone]

.

One sobering thought to recall I'd just how long the Enfield remained an infantry rifle (and not just for marksmen)...

 

[Apple tree]

Is it a very good rifle: yes

Was it the best rifle in existence for an army with the options you get after ww2: no

The guy is angry at his government for not choosing the right gun for their troops. M14 still a very good rifle for most of us who don't want to build an army in the 1960s.

 

[xdmer]

The system works well on the xcr, the M305, pass .... Chris is kind of polarizing on this one, but the point's he makes I think are true.

 

[Jarvy]

garbage

With an M14, there is no cover behind walls, vehicles or tree trunks etc.

M16 is a pea shooter fit for shredding leaves.

A useless poodle cartridge that has been adopted or emulated by every country on the planet, our allies, adversaries, and neutral countries alike. Maybe there's something to it after all?

Nope, his take on that is as distorted as anything else he spews. Nobody "sabotaged" the rifle to get soldiers killed and make the M16 look bad. Some testing was designed to bias against the AR15, but that was years before the rifle ever saw service in the field.

Ridiculous. There was an enormous inquiry. Are you denying the M16s were built out-of spec? Are you denying the ammunition was loaded with powder never tested with the M16? Are you denying that cleaning kits were not issued with the rifles? Are you denying that rifles were only issued to soldiers once they were in-country, with no training?

The M16 actually had so many troubles for so long because when Army Ordnance came forward with the report of the deficiencies, it was assumed that they were lying, as they had been well-known for doing up until that point.

The M14 could have been a lot better, or at least available much earlier, but one wonders what it could have became if it had been able to receive even a fraction of the improvements that the M16 needed?

It wouldn't have mattered, it was an entirely wrong class of rifle. Intermediate calibre assault rifles were clearly the future, the FAL was originally designed as one, and everyone wanted them but the Americans. Of course, after shoving 7.62 down NATO's throat, the Americans were scrambling to abandon it after that little reality check known as "contact with the enemy."

I think a lot of people here are missing the point. It's not that he hates the rifle itself. It's a handsome and accurate rifle, to be sure. As civilian shooters here in Canada it's a great gun particularly because we can get inexpensive knockoff of it. But the M14 is a symbol of romantic traditions and stubborn bureaucracy being given priority over lives of soldiers and the realities of modern war.

And there's plenty to hate about that.

 

[can14]

Having put many thousands of rounds through Australian L1A1, L2A1 and military M14 rifles.
I have one comment, I must being able to still do it!

 

[sail32]

One of the problems with procurement and adoption of weapon is;

The bright young lieutenants of today with up to date ideas;

50 years from mow are the General Blimps of tomorrow who have not upgraded their ideas to the present !

At the start, wars are fought with yesterdays weapons and tactics.

 

[45ACPKING]

A useless poodle cartridge that has been adopted or emulated by every country on the planet, our allies, adversaries, and neutral countries alike. Maybe there's something to it after all?



Ridiculous. There was an enormous inquiry. Are you denying the M16s were built out-of spec? Are you denying the ammunition was loaded with powder never tested with the M16? Are you denying that cleaning kits were not issued with the rifles? Are you denying that rifles were only issued to soldiers once they were in-country, with no training?

The M16 actually had so many troubles for so long because when Army Ordnance came forward with the report of the deficiencies, it was assumed that they were lying, as they had been well-known for doing up until that point.



It wouldn't have mattered, it was an entirely wrong class of rifle. Intermediate calibre assault rifles were clearly the future, the FAL was originally designed as one, and everyone wanted them but the Americans. Of course, after shoving 7.62 down NATO's throat, the Americans were scrambling to abandon it after that little reality check known as "contact with the enemy."

I think a lot of people here are missing the point. It's not that he hates the rifle itself. It's a handsome and accurate rifle, to be sure. As civilian shooters here in Canada it's a great gun particularly because we can get inexpensive knockoff of it. But the M14 is a symbol of romantic traditions and stubborn bureaucracy being given priority over lives of soldiers and the realities of modern war.

And there's plenty to hate about that.

now that is a helluva good post

 

[greentips]

The whole "injure 1 and take 4 out" is an old myth. In reality, no one is going to stop fighting until they won the firefight so self aid it is in hope your survive to be carried by 4. Also, no army teaches its soldier to shoot to wound.


On another note, m14 were put back in service for the afghan war as a sharp shooter rifle with great success.

It is an old myth, but with the advancement and proliferation of body armour ( plates ), the of part of shooting to wound ( minus the part assuming others will stop fighting to take care of the wound) may become true again in a future conflict with a near peer or peer enemy.

5.56 or 7.62, neither can shred plates. It COM shot cannot stop a person, there is no valid argument a shot is fired to kill other than creating wounds or random lethal hits, some maybe eventually lethal but some may not.

That's why some US decision makers are obsessed with high velocity 6.8 AP round to defeat armour. But if I am going against an enemy with AP weapons, I am going to leave my heavy plates and go light. This means 5.56 with lots of ammo will have to been brought back to deal with lightly armoured fast moving targets.

Eventually, we will need a mix of 5.56 and hard hitting HV 6.8 AP to keep the enemies wearing their heavy armour, so we can kill them with the 6.8 and at the same time stop them from going light because of the relative high volume 5.56 fire. In this scenario, 5.56 is to injure and keep the enemies less mobile with their heavy plates on.

 

[cyclone]

It is an old myth, but with the advancement and proliferation of body armour ( plates ), the of part of shooting to wound ( minus the part assuming others will stop fighting to take care of the wound) may become true again in a future conflict with a near peer or peer enemy.

5.56 or 7.62, neither can shred plates. It COM shot cannot stop a person, there is no valid argument a shot is fired to kill other than creating wounds or random lethal hits, some maybe eventually lethal but some may not.

That's why some US decision makers are obsessed with high velocity 6.8 AP round to defeat armour. But if I am going against an enemy with AP weapons, I am going to leave my heavy plates and go light. This means 5.56 with lots of ammo will have to been brought back to deal with lightly armoured fast moving targets.

Eventually, we will need a mix of 5.56 and hard hitting HV 6.8 AP to keep the enemies wearing their heavy armour, so we can kill them with the 6.8 and at the same time stop them from going light because of the relative high volume 5.56 fire. In this scenario, 5.56 is to injure and keep the enemies less mobile with their heavy plates on.

One wonders if there will be a significant renewed interest in individually-carried 20mm rounds again...