Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Mausers and Military Rifles About That M14 Service Rifle...

According to Gun Jesus:


Huh.




GR

That's pretty much the way I remembered it...In 1964 I was issued a Winchester in basic training, (prior to enlisting I had qualified expert with the M-1 in ROTC), but with the M-14 in basic I could barely qualify as marksman...unbelievably, I whined to my training platoon sergeant who took the time to fire my rifle (there was a performance award system)...short story...he issued me another M14, a TRW with which,. miraculously, I was able to fire expert qualification.
Standard issue M-14s were really poor IMO.
I wonder where the military would be today if they had chosen with the rest of NATO, the FN FAL. Maybe not with a .270 Stubby.

Never had a problem with mine, qualified expert with it. We had M-16s in Nam, but we also had some M-14s. The only thing I really disliked about the 14 was the weight, and, it wasn't much fun in the full auto mode.

In 1962 I was stationed at Paris Island in Weapons Bn working on the pistol line training recruits. In January of that year we were issued new M14s. I don’t remember the manufacture of the rifle but mine was a very fine rifle. During the year I had the opportunity to fire my rifle and many times since the rifle line was right there. With that rifle in the month of October I qualified with a score of 237. I still have the Leatherneck Magazine medal to prove it.
The problem with the M14 was the selector switch. That thing turned a super rifle into a pile of schit.
We had about 80 rifles with selector switches and bipods that the recruits fired from 25 yards for familarezation and they were terrible and uncontrollable due to the light weight and high Cyclate rate of fire.
One Saturday the Gunny selected 10 of us coaches to shoot the selector switch rifles from the 200 yard line. What we learned real quick was if you fired a burst of say 2-4 rounds only the first round hit the target. The selector switch was the problem.
Sorry for the long post.
Semper Fi

I Love the M-14.

It is what the M-1 matured into being.

Some may have been bad.

I will say M16-A1 and ammo was a lot lighter.

The M14 is an outstanding service rifle. Possibly the best the US military ever had.

for being so wonderful, it sure did not stick around long.

Before the M14 was chosen there were huge debates both for and against. One that was supposed to happen was that the M14 would replace both the M1 and the BAR. For sure it replaced the M1 but in no way did it come close to replacing the BAR and for me that was it's only failure.
I was not in Viet Nam but I have talked to many people who were and I personally do not remember hearing anyone talk bad about the M14s performance in combat.

Semper Fi

I cannot imagine carrying an M14 around all day in the tropical heat in Vietnam

I saw guys still carrying them in Iraq in 2009.

Pussy’s couldn’t handle the weight is what the powers to be claimed. Though the WWII guys could handle the M1. The M1 being nearly as good as the M14.

Stoner was an “enemy of the state” in my opinion. The GI’s having to carry his worthless invention. Politicians must have been paid big bucks for that to happen.

It wasn't a whole bunch of fun.

One of my great uncles carried a Thompson during WWII in the Philippines

A friend of mine carried the M14 with an early night visions system. Fortunately for him, he was on a patrol boat in the delta so his humping was limited to carrying it from the arms room to the boat and from below deck to the topside then back to the arms room. He really liked it for that mission.

kwg

Bugger...you are so wrong. Stoner perfected his rifle with IMR 4475...nearly flawless performance in all the testing. The US Ordnance board rejected the Stoner because it was 100 fps below specs. at -65 below zero. The Ordnance board changed Stoners design ammo to ball powder and that is what increased the failure rate in actual combat. The ball powder clogged the gas system internally, and the cyclic rate of fire on full auto increased from 850 rpm max to over 1000 rounds in the high temps in VNam, causing endless jams. If you want to pin the tail on the donkey, start with the Ordnance board and Olin Mathieson Corp who bribed high rankers in procurement.
See "A Bureaucratic Horror Story", The Atlantic 6/81.

The M14 was practically obsolete before it was built. And it tried to fill too many roles to be really effective. Most things that try to do everything well end up not doing any of them well. It consistently amazes me that the accuracy standard for the M14 was 6 MOA - and it had trouble meeting that. It's always tough to find the right balance point between having enough specialized tools and not having too many specialized tools.

The Ordnance Board bureaucrats who sabotaged the M16 (and Robert McNamara) should have all been fired and/or prosecuted.

Also, the forward assist was not Stoner's idea. He said it was not necessary, but the OB said it was.

The M14 was a very mis-managed program. Springfield Armory really screwed up on both the M14 and M60, and they got shut down because of their institutional arrogance. McNamara did the right thing.

Worst? I doubt it. Lee Navy, trap door, come to mind.

Actually when Stoner was finally !! consulted about the forward assist he advised them NOT to do it, mainly because if a round wouldn't go into battery with spring pressure, it would compound the jam into a real problem (needing a cleaning rod) not solved by "immediate action" ie, discarding the stuck round by cycling the charging handle...and recommended again that they, the Ord Board, forget Olin's ball powder and go back to IMR 4475...which would eliminate carbon in the gas system and jams caused by 1000 rpm cyclic rate (Stoners design was for 750 rpm and could handle up to 850).
You suspect just how bad the early M16 was in 1964, when Charley didn't even bother to pick them up on the battlefield. No wonder some units hated to give up the M-14, it may have been clunky for the purpose, but it wouldn't get you killed in a hot firefight.