Jump to content

THE M14 BATTLE RIFLE...SAD DEMISE?


ka bar
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

 

 

These are both Mk14 Enhanced Battle Rifles, not modified M14's. The design is based on the M14 barrel and receiver group, but they are newly made.

 

 

Thanks for the clarification!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My local gun shop called me in about 20 years ago - a vet was in with a sniper rifle he had captured in VN while on a MACV Advisory Team. I met him and he had his fully documented Czech Vz57 (tho I didn't know what it was at the time). He wanted to trade it for the rifle that he carried back in 1971 - a Springfield M14. He just said that he really really liked that M14, it shot great, never jammed, and was highly accurate. I fell all over myself buying him a NIB Springfield M1A to trade for his extremely rare bringback. We both walked away happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'm a huge fan of the M-14 also. Never had a love for the M-16, other than it was pretty easy to carry around. For accuracy I'd put the M-14, and M-1 on equal footing. Both are deadly. Also Sniper qualified on the M-21 System. That was the most accurate weapon I ever used, with , or w/o scope. Yup! I adore the M-14. Was very glad to see them used in Afghanistan, knew they'd make a comeback there, and Iraq. SKIP

 

 

I agree with SKIPH, it's a great weapon. I was pretty disappointed when they took them away and replaced them with M-16.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I carried an M-14 in Germany 1963-66, and I also carried one for half of my tour in Vietnam (1967-68).

The M-16 was okay being light weight. But my preference is with the M-14 for sure.

Just my opinion! Danny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a picture of me at Camp Mackall, NC November 1970. Note the M-14 doesn't have a magazine, but does have a blank adapter over the muzzle. We also used M1919A6 .30 cal. machineguns, which was like carrying an engine block around. No pics of those. SKIP

SKIP Phase 1  1970 001.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"and Finally McNamara had it in for Springfield Armory and Army Ordnance"

 

I remember when the Armory closed - I was living in Springfield and it was said that this was Nixon's payback for Massachusetts not carrying him in the 1968 election.

 

The "14" was a great rifle from a firepower standpoint - too bad it was phased out

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the M14 is a true rifleman's rifle, it took more skill & training to become proficient with an M14 and you couldnt carry as much ammunition because of the weight and some people just cant handle a full sized Main Battle rifle, the modern soldiers arent man enough to handle a rifle like that, thats why only the more highly trained or elite units still use it.

 

The M16 was easier to train most soldiers including women because of the lighter weight and ease of handling and accuracy, and they could carry more ammo, the Vietnamese loved the lighter , smaller lighter M16 because of their small stature

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know a whole lot of guys on the M14 forums whose choice of rifle is the M14 platform as is mine. The military gets what it gets and fights battles with what is issued. The M16 has been around a long time and is a proven winner. If I had to lug a rifle around the jungles and up and down mountains then I'd take the lighest rifle I could find which would be a M16 type rifle.

 

Now if I rode around in a vehicle or had a gun bearer then it would always be a M14. I personally like the bigger holes the 7.62 bullet puts in things.

 

I have a M1 Garand and a SA M1A NM configured rifle. My M1A prints on paper better then my Garand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

family member recently served in the Afghan. Co. had m-4"s and it's variants, M-14's upgraded tactical scoped, m-9 Beretta 9mm, and Mossberg model 500 riot barrelled pump guns. all had their uses. "14 great for reaching out at longer ranges

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The M14 EBR's that are currently in service are not actually new manufactured weapons. Several of the ones that I have in my company arms room are actually WInchesters which the receivers are 1960's vintage. The Sage stocks on them block the stamps on the barrel, but I'm nearly certain that they are fully refurbished and built off of old receivers. My grandfather worked at Winchester during the 60's on the M14 project so I think it's awesome having a family connection to the weapons in my arms room. This is not uncommon with several of our current weapons. We also have an M2 .50 that was made by Buffalo Arms Corp in the 40's and a few of my M240B tripods have 1950's date stamps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our SDM Rifles in 2004-05 were M14's. I made sure we only signed for ones with the GI fiberglass stock but one joe traded another company for a birch stock anyway(Ex USMC) EBR stocks weren't available and I would hate to have one as they are heavy as hell compared to USGI fiberglass.

 

Most Were TRW and SA, I avoided signing for Winchesters because quality did not look good, 1 joe bought through mail order the happy switch to make it F/A (Why I have no idea). Most were painted CARC Tan stocks. They only came 1 mag each so one joe brought 6 commercially @ 60 bucks each and in Kuwait we suddenly got enough mags for 9 for each rifle. Mag Pouches were either 100 rd SAW MOLLE or aftermarket Specops brand in Coyote, DCU or woodland. Cheekrests were dark brown nylon. Slings were MRT M1907 leather and various makes of Black nylon assault slings from the PX

 

Bde gave us "Supersniper" 10X40 Mildot scopes and SA inc aluminum mounts and steel rings. I mounted them and serial numbered scope and mount to rifle using a Electric Pencil

 

Ammo was initially regular M80 Ball, later some M118LR came to us and also some UK 7.62 stripped from M13 Links

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manchu Warrior

When I was in the ROK they stiill had M14's in the arsenal. Strange as it is the only ones that were ever issued them were the old Korean guards. They were probably in their 60's and they were main gate guards or guarded the ammo dump with us.They either had a shot gun or an M14. It seemed to be a nice weapon and that was the only time I ever got to play with one when I was in the Army.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The M14 EBR's that are currently in service are not actually new manufactured weapons.

 

Good to know. I was under the impression they were all newly manufactured receivers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the modern soldiers arent man enough to handle a rifle like that, thats why only the more highly trained or elite units still use it.

 

I'm sure all the current service members who have used M14's in one form or another, many in combat, would dispute that. As someone who served as recently as ten years ago, and who has fired an M14 before, I find it a rather childish and silly comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the M14 is a true rifleman's rifle, it took more skill & training to become proficient with an M14 and you couldnt carry as much ammunition because of the weight and some people just cant handle a full sized Main Battle rifle, the modern soldiers arent man enough to handle a rifle like that, thats why only the more highly trained or elite units still use it.

 

 

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! oh thats funny bruddah

 

 

So those 12 SDM I had with M14's came to 2004 by time machine from 1965?

 

Got news for ya an M240 Machinegun weighs more than the M-60 You used. Does that mean the Soldiers then were pansies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" the modern soldiers arent man enough to handle a rifle like that"

 

Seriously?

I carried one in 2005 in Iraq. It was made by Winchester and had all Winchester parts. It was the only one in our BN that had the select fire switch on it. One of the Lt's wanted to fire it on full auto and it walked him off the rear deck of his tank! It was issued with a Leupold Mk4 scope, sling, cleaning kit, Harris bipod and ten mags. I loved that weapon. At the end of our tour, all the Supply SGT wanted back was the rifle and scope, so I brought everything else back. I told my wife I pretty much had to have an M1A, because I had all the "stuff" to go with one, right? I found an Armscorp M21 that had all USGI parts, except for the receiver and a NM Springfield Inc. barrel, for 1200.00 after I got home. Supposebly built by a USAMU Armorer. I put a Burris Fullfield II on it and hunt with it. Its a real tack driver, one of my favorite guns.

 

post-3820-0-89450700-1413744116.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

El Bibliotecario

RE the many comments on the fully automatic capability of the M14: While I've not doubt many people in combat finigled the appropriate selector parts, the rifle was generally issued locked a semi-automatic only capacity. My battery was equipped exclusivly with M14s, none of which had a selector. In two years the only fully automatic example I ever saw was a squad automatic rifle version carried by a visiting infantryman.

 

While I won't dispute any of the previous war stories about firing the M14 in the automatic mode, I believe one of the reasons the M14 was shorted lived was that soon became apparent that for the average soldier, automatic fire with the weapon bordered on uncontrollable. My personal favorite M14 war story concerns a fellow who during an ambush excitedly began firing his M14 in the full auto mode--while seated in a truck, with the muzzle in the vertical position, the bullets going through the canvas. Realizing this guy was more of a danger than the enemy, his NCO disarmed him and made him stand behind the truck until the shooting stopped.

 

As for the original poster's remark about the M14 having a 'carbine look,' I respectfully submit that carrying an M14 for a few hours would disabuse you of that notion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2008/2009 we had M14's in our unit that were supposed to be issued out to the squad designated marksmen (SDM). Sadly they didn't issue them out to us but we had some beautiful rifles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I carried a 14 for a while. Tossed the bipods and sling, also the stacking swivel. The guy I got it from a guy had what we called a jungle sling. He was short an made a sling he could step on to prevent the rise on auto. I was skinny but wiry, 6'2" 147 Lbs.by the time I rotated. I carried 21 mags 18 rounds each plus 500 more match rounds in my pack. I always carried extra gear others didn't. Like a 16 bandoleer of battle dressings and field jacket during the monsoon season. I shot a 229 out of 250 at qual time. Hated the fiberglass stock. Didn't carry a green eye because it was hard to keep the rifle perpendicular, too much weight offset to left. When firing auto I turned it on its side so it would cut across horizontally. My 2 bits. Dave If you look at my profile I have a 14.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the M14 is a true rifleman's rifle, it took more skill & training to become proficient with an M14 and you couldnt carry as much ammunition because of the weight and some people just cant handle a full sized Main Battle rifle, the modern soldiers arent man enough to handle a rifle like that, thats why only the more highly trained or elite units still use it.

 

The M16 was easier to train most soldiers including women because of the lighter weight and ease of handling and accuracy, and they could carry more ammo, the Vietnamese loved the lighter , smaller lighter M16 because of their small stature

This post has to be a joke... right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

El Bibliotecario

This post has to be a joke... right?

I'd guess it isn't intended as a joke but is an example of niavete. I've taught marksmanship to soldiers, and I have no idea why it would be easier to train on the M16 rather than on the M14. It might be easier carrying the former to the range, but that's another issue.

 

Those who have read SLA Marshall's study THE SOLDIERS LOAD will understand that if the weight of Pvt Tentpeg's basic ammunition load is reduced, those in power see this as an opportunity to simply load him with more ammunition.

 

As for modern soldiers not being macho enough to use the M14, that's possibly the dumbest thing I've heard this month.

 

As for the M14 being a 'battle rifle,' this is the sort of verbage generated by gun magazines. Does that mean the M16 is a garrrison rifle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the modern soldiers arent man enough to handle a rifle like that,

 

If you come in to the service using the M14, you get used to it. If you come in to the service using the M4 or M16, you get used to it. Your body has muscle memory and can learn to hold whatever weapon system a soldier is carrying. By this standard you are also implying any other soldier from any other conflict who had a weapon and load that was less than the M14 would also less than 'man enough'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE the many comments on the fully automatic capability of the M14: While I've not doubt many people in combat finigled the appropriate selector parts, the rifle was generally issued locked a semi-automatic only capacity. My battery was equipped exclusivly with M14s, none of which had a selector. In two years the only fully automatic example I ever saw was a squad automatic rifle version carried by a visiting infantryman.

 

While I won't dispute any of the previous war stories about firing the M14 in the automatic mode, I believe one of the reasons the M14 was shorted lived was that soon became apparent that for the average soldier, automatic fire with the weapon bordered on uncontrollable. My personal favorite M14 war story concerns a fellow who during an ambush excitedly began firing his M14 in the full auto mode--while seated in a truck, with the muzzle in the vertical position, the bullets going through the canvas. Realizing this guy was more of a danger than the enemy, his NCO disarmed him and made him stand behind the truck until the shooting stopped.

 

As for the original poster's remark about the M14 having a 'carbine look,' I respectfully submit that carrying an M14 for a few hours would disabuse you of that notion.

I'd guess it isn't intended as a joke but is an example of niavete. I've taught marksmanship to soldiers, and I have no idea why it would be easier to train on the M16 rather than on the M14. It might be easier carrying the former to the range, but that's another issue.

 

Those who have read SLA Marshall's study THE SOLDIERS LOAD will understand that if the weight of Pvt Tentpeg's basic ammunition load is reduced, those in power see this as an opportunity to simply load him with more ammunition.

 

As for modern soldiers not being macho enough to use the M14, that's possibly the dumbest thing I've heard this month.

 

As for the M14 being a 'battle rifle,' this is the sort of verbage generated by gun magazines. Does that mean the M16 is a garrrison rifle?

 

Hi there...

 

Yeah, my comment about it having a carbine look was a pretty silly thing to say...I have to agree with you there!

 

I called it a battle rifle because I thought that's what it was called...

 

I have NO military experience...so if it is called something else, i really didnt know...sorry about that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...