View Full Version : US Army sees urgent need for 'longer-range' infantry weapon
The US Army is requesting more funds to buy modified M14 rifles to meet an urgent operational need. (http://www.janes.com/news/defence/land/jdw/jdw080801_1_n.shtml)
I bet Ron Smith and company are going to be busier than ever very soon :D
The only place the M14 belongs is at the CMP getting prepped for civilian sales.
KAC M110, FTW
I and many others disagree and since the ARMY is seeking the M14 over
the SR25 & M110, I would say they also disagree with your opinion.
Long live the M14 :)
All reports seem to indicate that the KAC unit is a pile. They are failing and being returned, if posts online are any indication.
That said, the SPR shoots flatter and is a lot cheaper. I don't get it.
The M14 isn't an 800M weapon anyway. Not with M80 ball.
Many have tagged the M14 a stop gap rifle.
The stop gap label can be officially removed. The M14 is no longer just a stop gap.
With just a little help and enhanced technology the private sector will be able to produce brand new lighter weight M14s from scratch
at a lower cost than any of the new and improved .308 ARs currently available and new .308 auto loaders not quite ready for prime time.
Even without a change from the top, the private sector will soon be making brand new M14s from scratch.
The private sector embraced the M14 years ago because it's a money maker and the US military keeps using
the M14 because the old ones are paid for, it works and it responds extremely well to low cost modernization techniques
A Smith Enterprise, Inc. M21A5 was tested at Ft. Benning in March of 2008.
The modernized M14 fired groups under 1 MOA at 1000 yards with M118LR ammo.
Jay Cunningham
08-04-08, 18:49
The M14 is no longer just a stop gap.
Yes, it is - refer to SCAR-H.
The M-14 belongs in a museum.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/Vickers%20Subgun%20Aug%202-3%2008/P1000825.jpg
Gutshot John
08-04-08, 18:59
This would be the same Army that has introduced any number of bad weapons into the inventory.
Just because they're the army, they're not necessarily infallible.
I see the point of using it as a DMR rifle, but to substitute the basic infantry M4/M16 with a $4k Smith Enterprises M21 seems a poor economic choice. While lesser cost M-14s exist, they are not the same quality as the Smith. There are truckloads of quality FAL parts, and I doubt it would be that hard to get modern FAL manufacturers to produce a military quality semi-auto 7.62 in short-order for half the cost of bringing back the M-14.
While a personal fan of 7.62 Nato in my FAL, I don't see the sense in choosing it either as a new infantry weapon. If you're going to go that route, just create a new weapon that uses a new caliber that has a comparable per unit cost.
The SCAR series would make a great "stopgap" until this new wonder weapon can be fielded. Personally I'm not convinced they've really thought about replacing the 5.56 with 7.62 through and so I'd agree with others that the SCAR would be the way to go.
All reports seem to indicate that the KAC unit is a pile. They are failing and being returned, if posts online are any indication.
That said, the SPR shoots flatter and is a lot cheaper. I don't get it.
The M14 isn't an 800M weapon anyway. Not with M80 ball.
No it isn't. It is better than the M14 in every category.
The fact that it might not be reliable is something that can and will be fixed.
It is far superior to the M14 in terms of:
Modularity
Weight
Suppression
Part Count
Many have tagged the M14 a stop gap rifle.
Even without a change from the top, the private sector will soon be making brand new M14s from scratch.
It took 30 years for someone to make a forged receiver instead of Springfield Inc cast crap.
New GI grade M14s where every part is new and to GI specs isn't going to happen.
Best part is that it's almost free to push the M14 further in to service.
$10,000+/unit for the M110 or $1,000/M14 to retrofit....hmmm...
Jay Cunningham
08-04-08, 19:16
Best part is that it's almost free to push the M14 further in to service.
$10,000+/unit for the M110 or $1,000/M14 to retrofit....hmmm...
But how much does it cost to support and maintain the M-14 weapon system?
The M-14 is a fine rifle but it is long obsolete. Why not issue M-1 Garands to the guys one per squad? It should be rightfully utilized as a stopgap when needed but that's it.
But how much does it cost to support and maintain the M-14 weapon system?
The M-14 is a fine rifle but it is long obsolete. Why not issue M-1 Garands to the guys one per squad? It should be rightfully utilized as a stopgap when needed but that's it.
+1
It is time to move onto something else.
But how much does it cost to support and maintain the M-14 weapon system?
Honestly, probably the same as deploying the M110, excluding the huge up-front cost.
You still have to ship M118LR around to the guys with the SR-25's, so it's probably the same in that regard.
You still have to ship SR-25 mags around, as you would do with M14 mags.
Apparently, according to written reports, you still need to service the SR-25 in the field, as you'd have to do with the M14.
From a purely logistical and financial standpoint, it seems like the M14 continues to make sense.
I'm holding out for the Massoud. I heard some interesting information just two weeks ago, and I would put my money on the Massoud at this point.
The Stoner 7.62 seems to be full of problems, and I don't know why.
If al they want is to kill people at 800M they should just use an M16 derivative anyway.
Something to ponder. The reason for going with the KAC M110 if I recall correctly was to have a more accurate 7.62 sniper rifle that allowed for faster follow up shots and the ability to engage more targets if necessary.
Yet, the maximum sustained rate of fire for the gun is 5 rds per minute. There is a table in the operator manual which goes into more detail about cumulative times and cooling. Now obviously in combat that chart will go right out the door. IIRC, the system as it comes is right about 8K per weapon. I just wonder if we are getting the most bangfor the buck. The M14 now has the ability to be modified in to a more precise and effective weapon, that in some aspects is easier to care for than the KAC.
I know a few guys that have used and been involved with the M110 had some not so flattering things to say about it over on SOCNET.
IrishDevil
08-04-08, 19:49
The M14 is a fine rifle, but it is not ideal. I can see it used as a stop gap, until the SCAR-H is out in numbers. If the .gov is going to buy a new 7.62 semi, it might as well be the SCAR. Correct me if I'm wrong but, isn't this the role the SCAR-H was mainly developed for?
New GI grade M14s where every part is new and to GI specs isn't going to happen.
True, the new one will be better than GI spec.
Economic sensibilities dictate putting two or three modernized
M14s into action for about the same cost of just one SR25.
Can our government actually do the correct, cost effective thing just once?
We shall see.
Honestly, probably the same as deploying the M110, excluding the huge up-front cost.
You still have to ship M118LR around to the guys with the SR-25's, so it's probably the same in that regard.
You still have to ship SR-25 mags around, as you would do with M14 mags.
Apparently, according to written reports, you still need to service the SR-25 in the field, as you'd have to do with the M14.
From a purely logistical and financial standpoint, it seems like the M14 continues to make sense.
+1 :)
Something to ponder. The reason for going with the KAC M110 if I recall correctly was to have a more accurate 7.62 sniper rifle that allowed for faster follow up shots and the ability to engage more targets if necessary.
Yet, the maximum sustained rate of fire for the gun is 5 rds per minute. There is a table in the operator manual which goes into more detail about cumulative times and cooling. Now obviously in combat that chart will go right out the door. IIRC, the system as it comes is right about 8K per weapon. I just wonder if we are getting the most bangfor the buck. The M14 now has the ability to be modified in to a more precise and effective weapon, that in some aspects is easier to care for than the KAC.
I know a few guys that have used and been involved with the M110 had some not so flattering things to say about it over on SOCNET.
+1 :)
CarlosDJackal
08-04-08, 22:04
I bet that some of our Allies have some stockpiled FALs/L1A1s that they would be happy to give us for nothing. :D
For what they intend on using these weapons system for, why don't they just start purchasing a batch of magazine-fed bolt-action Sniper rifles? These should have the accuracy and ragne that they need to engage IED teams for a fraction of the cost.
It actually wouldn't be a bad idea to rebarrel and modernize the garand rifles that are just going to get melted anyway. Probably be cheaper than M14's. Those garands are paid for, but re fielding them isn't even a remote possibility.
Unfortunately it's all sort of a stopgap unless the military fields a weapon specifically designed for the DMR role. The price on the SCAR has to be downright stratospheric. I think an AR firing .308 could get the job done, but none of the existing rifles are as reliable as current M16's, or original AR10. Also I get the distinct impression they're never going to buy and field all that many thousand dollar rifles that need another two thousand dollars + worth of optics, picatinny, etc just to meet the spec.
Something has to give, and it hasn't for a number of years.
The M14 is a fine rifle, but it is not ideal. I can see it used as a stop gap, until the SCAR-H is out in numbers. If the .gov is going to buy a new 7.62 semi, it might as well be the SCAR. Correct me if I'm wrong but, isn't this the role the SCAR-H was mainly developed for?
That's an awfully big assumption. The SCAR-H is going to have some stiff competition if/when a new 7.62 rifle is solicited. There are a lot of people in high places who hold very strong opinions about the SCAR, both positive and negative. Considering the recent influx of viable competitors in the 7.62 semi-auto market, I don't see any way the SCAR-H could be swept into widespread service without some sort of competition, nor should it be. I say write the requirements for a new gun, test everything industry throws at you, and may the best man win.
True, the new one will be better than GI spec.
Nobody makes trigger housings and small parts to GI spec anymore.
Ehhh, buy HK417's and be done with it. :)
Tspeis
You mean they got the HK417 to work? Last I heard it was a bullet puller.
You mean they got the HK417 to work? Last I heard it was a bullet puller.
Would you be so kind as to share your source for such info? Word I've received from folks who've had actual trigger time on the platform says otherwise.
Tspeis
Me too. But that was when they first came out, so I'll let it go.
The point is that for about 95% of the speculation in this thread is pointless.
Would you be so kind as to share your source for such info? Word I've received from folks who've had actual trigger time on the platform says otherwise.
Tspeis
I hear they're hit or miss in terms of reliability, but getting a LOT better as time goes on. The problem with the 417 is cost and availability right now. It's my understanding that most of the weapons in the field now are still in somewhat prototype phase, and are therefore very expensive and hard to get. IMO, if LWRC or any of the other piston AR makers can step up the quality of their barrels to match that of HK, the 417 will become low hanging fruit.
Nobody makes trigger housings and small parts to GI spec anymore.
Small parts that meet or exceed GI spec are in production and have been for a few years.
Trigger housings are low on the list of priorities - bolts and op rods are high on the list of priorities.
I feel a modernized M14 in a configuration that is similar to my M21A5/C-IED E2 EBR would be ideal.
The Magpul CTR with a snap on cheek riser would work well with optics.
http://www.athenswater.com/images/NightFighter.jpg
The 20" 6.5 Grendel will reach the same distance as a .308 Win, with less wind drift yet still use the standard M16 lower.
Though it would add a single degree of complexity to the logistics - new ammo. However, it would remove two degrees of complexity from the system and maintenance. Standard M16 lowers and typical weapon parts.
The 20" 6.5 Grendel will reach the same distance as a .308 Win, with less wind drift yet still use the standard M16 lower.
Though it would add a single degree of complexity to the logistics - new ammo. However, it would remove two degrees of complexity from the system and maintenance. Standard M16 lowers and typical weapon parts.
As you noted, the new logistical burden is a barrier in addition to the fact that no one wants to certify a new caliber for use. We probably should abandon almost every caliber currently in military service today (9mm, 5.56 NATO, 7.62 NATO, etc.) in favor of more efficient designs, but pushing its certification/testing through the proper Army channels is akin to holding back the Pacific with a broom. Not quite, but you get the idea...
CarlosDJackal
08-05-08, 09:31
It actually wouldn't be a bad idea to rebarrel and modernize the garand rifles that are just going to get melted anyway. Probably be cheaper than M14's. Those garands are paid for, but re fielding them isn't even a remote possibility...
One word: LOGISTICS.
Failure2Stop
08-05-08, 11:17
Any M14 that is tuned to be an 800 meter gun will be down for maintenance every time the gun is handled roughly or *gasp* dropped. Don't matter what you feel or think the greatest option is, if it can't do the job when beat-up, it doesn't make the cut. Highly accurized M14s are almost a different animal than their rack-grade bretheren (which are not as great as some would have you believe either).
The modern alternatives are more rugged, dependable, durable, and effective over the long-run. While the M14 may fill a role that does not require an $8000 M110/417, that does not mean that it is the optimal candidate for the role.
I can easily see more push for long-range/larger caliber guns in inventory, and as much as we all like the 6.5, 6.8, etc. at the end of the day they aren't NATO standard- 7.62 is. A NATO caliber change at this point is inconcievable. Not saying that it's right, just what it is.
The M-14 idea is a bad joke. If the M110 is not delivering - and lets remember is a DM gun not a MMG, then solicit a new system.
Remember what the KAC system comes with before you throw the cost into it as well...
Small parts that meet or exceed GI spec are in production and have been for a few years.
Trigger housings are low on the list of priorities - bolts and op rods are high on the list of priorities.
I feel a modernized M14 in a configuration that is similar to my M21A5/C-IED E2 EBR would be ideal.
The Magpul CTR with a snap on cheek riser would work well with optics.
http://www.athenswater.com/images/NightFighter.jpg
Trigger housings need to go into production for complete M14s to be made again, like what you said.
A trigger housing is one of the main components of the rifle.
The M14 in the tactical stock is not a solution. It is an attempt to drag an obsolete, open top receiver rifle into the modern era.
The M14 in the tactical stock is not a solution. It is an attempt to drag an obsolete, open top receiver rifle into the modern era.
Bingo
I hear they're hit or miss in terms of reliability, but getting a LOT better as time goes on. The problem with the 417 is cost and availability right now. It's my understanding that most of the weapons in the field now are still in somewhat prototype phase, and are therefore very expensive and hard to get. IMO, if LWRC or any of the other piston AR makers can step up the quality of their barrels to match that of HK, the 417 will become low hanging fruit.
As far as cost goes, keep in mind the initial 417's were hand built and thus, very expensive. I think the availability problem goes for a few platforms in addition to the 417, to include the SCAR, SABR, Massoud, etc...
It will be interesting to see what Big Army does with this.
Tspeis
As far as cost goes, keep in mind the initial 417's were hand built and thus, very expensive. I think the availability problem goes for a few platforms in addition to the 417, to include the SCAR, SABR, Massoud, etc...
It will be interesting to see what Big Army does with this.
Tspeis
I absolutely agree. The only difference is that people don't assume the SCAR, SABR, Massoud or others are ready to rock like they do the 417. I think that is partially the fault of HK (they probably want that perception), and partially the fault of an ignorant public.
Big Army may have something up their sleeves, but another new semi-auto .308 may be tough to justify after the recent SASS program. It'll be interesting to see who, if anyone, takes the lead on this.
True, the new one will be better than GI spec.
Economic sensibilities dictate putting two or three modernized
M14s into action for about the same cost of just one SR25.
Can our government actually do the correct, cost effective thing just once?
We shall see.
Actually your modernized M14s would probably be in the same price range FOR THE GOVERNMENT as the the KAC M110 rifle. The costs of selling to the government are not just physical materials and manufcturing costs (and R&D etc), but rather the documentation that must be generated and follow the gun and follow-on service that must be provided amongst other things.
Any M14 that is tuned to be an 800 meter gun will be down for maintenance every time the gun is handled roughly or *gasp* dropped.
Not true!
Trigger housings need to go into production for complete M14s to be made again, like what you said.
A trigger housing is one of the main components of the rifle.
The M14 in the tactical stock is not a solution. It is an attempt to drag an obsolete, open top receiver rifle into the modern era.
No, the SAGE EBR stock increases accuracy and much more.
As for the trigger housings, there are plenty available and new ones can be made.
They are not in short supply, so there is no rush to produce new ones.
Jay Cunningham
08-05-08, 17:42
Not true!
H2O MAN,
I need to interject something - all opinions are welcome here but some are obviously more informed than others and some are MUCH more informed than others. You may not be aware of Failure2Stop's background or experience but I am and his opinion is much more informed on this matter than yours, or dare I say most individuals on this board.
Simply saying "not true" in response to his statement is not a valid counter. You (and several others) are being wistful and nostalgic for an obsolete relic of a rifle.
Littlelebowski
08-05-08, 18:15
He's got an argument going on against my brother who used the SR25 in combat (http://longrangeinternational.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=128). Argument here (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=382926&page=2)
I've seen M1s with a ton of work done to them shoot almost as well as a stock DPMS .308 or AR10. Cost effective, the M1 ain't compared to the AR10 types.
I'll ask again.
Why not use a MK12?
No, the SAGE EBR stock increases accuracy and much more.
As for the trigger housings, there are plenty available and new ones can be made.
They are not in short supply, so there is no rush to produce new ones.
The SAGE and Troy stocks bolt rails onto a relic and create something that was never meant to be.
The Troy even goes so far as to use the rear sights holes for mounting the rail and creating a huge, tall, and bulky monstrosity.
The M110 and the SCAR are light years ahead of this.
H2O MAN,
I need to interject something - all opinions are welcome here but some are obviously more informed than others and some are MUCH more informed than others. You may not be aware of Failure2Stop's background or experience but I am and his opinion is much more informed on this matter than yours, or dare I say most individuals on this board.
Simply saying "not true" in response to his statement is not a valid counter. You (and several others) are being wistful and nostalgic for an obsolete relic of a rifle.
If he is referring to fragile bedded and individually tuned rifles of days gone by as I suspect he is ... then he is wrong.
Old school bedded M14s are not part of this discussion.
My personal MK14 Mod 0 is tuned for 800 meters, it has been handled a little on the rough side and it has been dropped.
If he is referring to fragile bedded and individually tuned rifles of days gone by as I suspect he is ... then he is wrong.
Old school bedded M14s are not part of this discussion.
My personal MK14 Mod 0 is tuned for 800 meters, it has been handled a little on the rough side and it has been dropped.
Over 1500 sub moa accurate rounds fired and it's still ticking along with nothing more than a bore snake cleaning.
This is irrelevant how accurate or durable the M14 is in the SAGE stock.
This is about moving forward on the areas of:
Modularity
Straight Insert Magazines
Closed Top Receiver
Optics Mounting
Suppressor Mounting
Weight
The M14 fails at each one of these miserably.
The SAGE and Troy stocks bolt rails onto a relic and create something that was never meant to be.
Of the two, the SAGE is my favorite. It is a simple robust design that tension beds the action and semi free floats the barrel forward of the op rod guide block.
The bedding never wears out and group sizes are usually cut in half just by replacing a standard USGI stock with a SAGE EBR.
The M14 moves forward.
I like the M14, I like the HK G3, I love the FAL, but they are relics of a time gone by 50 years ago.
There's a reason why the US military dropped the M14 as a standard issue rifle as quickly as they did.
The ones pulled out of inventory for GWOT are a stop gap at best and while they did fill a role, and performed well, they aren't going to carry the US military into the next century.
There are and will be much better choices that are designed from the ground up to perform light years ahead of their predecessors.
The M1 Garand was one of the top 3 rifles issued in it's day. The M14 was a mediocre battle rifle (and yes I hear the gnashing of teeth for the utterance of this heresy) that has done more than it was ever designed to do, but it's time is past, as is the FAL's and the G3's.
The modern incarnation of AR-10 type rifles are also problematic.
There are better designs out there now, and more coming.
This is coming from a guy who really does like the old warhorses, but my eyes have seen the light.
The modern incarnation of AR-10 type rifles are also problematic.
There are better designs out there now, and more coming.
This is coming from a guy who really does like the old warhorses, but my eyes have seen the light.
Yeah, the modern AR-10 is not the super rifle many think it is.
Until the new and better designs are available in large numbers we have to make do with what we have.
The M14 and SR25 warhorses will continue to be modernized and serve many roles as long as needed.
H20Man,
Why not use a MK12?
Jay Cunningham
08-05-08, 21:09
I am temporarily locking this thread.
Not to jump over The Katar
The Mk12 is a 5.56mm weapon - and while the 77gr Mk262 does do the job nicely to 600m, and can under good conditions do 800m. It does not give the penetration into some types of targets that 7.62x51 does.
I really cant have a serious conversation about using weapons in combat with someone who is a M14 hobby guy - sorry. I've seen Smith guns shit the bed with all the new bells and whistles, and frankly I just don't understand the romancing of an archaeic museum piece but some segments of society.
I see M14's here, and I just shake my head.
Jay Cunningham
08-06-08, 08:38
I re-opened this thread.
Please read KevinB's words above carefully and consider them. If you are a devotee of the M-14/M1A platform that is wonderful but please consider your enthusiasm in its proper context - does your "love" of the rifle jive with your personal experience with the rifle in actual combat use?
Please continue.
He's got an argument going on against my brother who used the SR25
There is no argument going on, just an friendly exchange of information and opinions.
I realize that the Hk417, SCAR-H and that Magpul 7.62x51 rifle will be better weapons
than the 110, SR25 and M14, but when will civilian versions be available and at what cost?
Littlelebowski
08-06-08, 09:39
I think that the proof will be in the pudding with the newer rifles coming out and since the SR25 has been in the supply system since the 90's and it's intrinsically familiar to the troops and armorers, it has a lot going for it.
I believe in the right tool for the job and to be honest, I have an emotional attachment to my FAL. It's rock solid reliable, simple, and easy to use. However, said emotions don't prevent me from grabbing my M4gery (Sabre middy) for when I want to win a contest and the M4gery is certainly the first rifle I'd grab if I needed a rifle (I'm a nasty civilian now, former Marine).
It seems to me that you have either an emotional or financial investment in the SEI. You haven't detailed how it's better than the issue M14s and you haven't addressed the real world observations straight from Iraq that contradict your statements. Not to mention the design differences and overall cost to the gov't brought up right here in this thread.
Logic can be clouded by nostalgia. That is self evident every time you hear someone mentioning "poodle shooters" and M14s.
It seems to me that you have either an emotional or financial investment in the SEI.
Your assumption is incorrect on both points. I'm just a nasty civilian.
You haven't detailed how it's better than the issue M14s and you haven't addressed the real world observations straight from Iraq that contradict your statements.
Not to mention the design differences and overall cost to the gov't brought up right here in this thread.
There are real world observations straight from Iraq and Afghanistan that also support my statements.
It's up to the reader to research and verify or disprove both sides of the story for themselves.
Logic can be clouded by nostalgia. That is self evident every time you hear someone mentioning "poodle shooters" and M14s.
Funny, I never use the term you just quoted.
Littlelebowski
08-06-08, 09:53
I didn't mean you per se, it was an observation. I do think you have an emotional attachment going on.
Please link to or at least quote the real world observations for us. KevinB has already chimed in straight from Iraq and he disproved your statements.
KevinB has already chimed in straight from Iraq and he disproved your statements.
I wouldn't go that far.
KevinB stated his experience and opinion and these should not be taken lightly, but his words neither prove or disprove a thing.
I'm sure he has seen every type of rifle shit the bed at one time or another...
As for linking to quotes, I'll see what I can dig up - in the mean time, feel free to conduct a search of your own.
Littlelebowski
08-06-08, 10:12
I'm sure he'll elucidate but his statement should be taken at least as seriously as the statements you're going to cite for us.
How much does an SEI that will shoot under 1MOA cost for a civilian?
Jay Cunningham
08-06-08, 10:13
I wouldn't go that far.
KevinB stated his experience and opinion and these should not be taken lightly, but his words neither prove or disprove a thing.
I'm sure he has seen every type of rifle shit the bed at one time or another...
While the above is a true statement as a stand-alone it would be wise to consider the majority opinion from people with a similar experience level. There will always be dissenting opinions, even among SME's. That doesn't make their majority opinion invalid.
Clarifying explanations are welcomed by all.
How much does an SEI that will shoot under 1MOA cost for a civilian?
The total depends on the glass and stock you choose to use, but you can expect to spend about $5K.
Littlelebowski
08-06-08, 10:23
Then I'll take a DPMS .308 with glass for $2k or less. That would seem to be the thinking man's choice.
Then I'll take a DPMS .308 with glass for $2k or less.
That's the beauty of an open market.
Buy what you like, buy what you can afford.
I happen to like the M14 and I can afford them.
I think many have it the high points. TheKatar, KevinB, Lebowski, etc.
Why this ongoing love affair with a weapon that has the second shortest service life as a front line weapon in the US Military, continues is beyond me.
I think its a combination of romance, nostalgia, and myth. There are those that believe only big bores, blued or parked steel and walnut make true fighting weapons, including pistols(ask me about that recent discussion), and no amount of reality will change there mind.
Long ago, when I was private in the 82nd, I wanted an M14, why? Because my friends dad and Guns and Ammo said so, that's all. I bought an SA NM, hardly shot it though. After awhile of actually being an Infantryman, I saw the flawed logic in the M14 and why it died a quick death. It never delivered what was wanted by the Army, a true assault rifle. And while we can debate if the M16fow and the 5.56 was the answer, its certainly closer then the M14/7.62
When my Army days ended long ago, I worked at a facility that issued three different long guns, depending on post, one of which was an M1aNM, what a waste. It may be passable in a support type role, but once you actually have to close with the enemy, your screwed, and forget about any serious CQB.
They are slow to bring into action, shoot, manipulate, etc.
I don't see the point of all those new style stocks, trying to make the M14, something its not. They still suffer the major flaws of the gun.
The SR25 type gun is obviously a better solution to pursue. If they are not delivering, it should be researched and corrected. Training crossover, parts etc all make this the way to go.
A good friend of mine, recently retired, took a company of the 101st to Iraq, they were issued 18 M14's(forced on them, is how he describes it). His comments are , they were almost universally left at the FOB, and his DM's did the majority of their killing with M4's. What was wanted was a DMR based on the M16fow, in 5.56.
Lebowski,
I read that thread, and I have to wonder, how will I get that time back?
Really, do some of those guys have any idea about Infantry combat, or the reality of the military, and training?
While spouting cliches about the right tool for the job, the tool box, mixing weapons, the Thompson is not obsolete, etc all sound good, they fail to past reality.
Just how many weapons are we to issue our troops, they do not have gun bearers. Picking weapons based on the individual mission, which can and does change mid stream. How about training time, while us being gun guys, we like to shoot, Joe on the other hand needs to be trained on so many different things its mind boggling. Land nav, mines, radios, AT weapons, sensitivity training, etc. The less the better. I'd rather be, and have troops trained extensively in a do all weapon system, and be truly proficient in it, then be and have troops 1/2 assed trained in a lot of different weapons.
And what of the rest of the squad, while your engaging the enemy at 800mtrs, just stand there and watch? What of you with the heavy M14 in CQB? Its far easier to deploy troops, even at the squad level, when they have the same or at least overlapping capabilities.
There was an interesting thread not to long ago over at LFer. It linked to a paper documenting the results of a study done by an Army research center of Marines(weird huh?). While there is a lot of interesting info, whats pertinent to this discussion, is the amount of complaints about the M14, and the desire for the M16. While not every Marine expressed this desire, its far more then the the M14 lovers would have you believe. To hear most former Marines of that era tell it, every one of them loved the M14, hated the M16, refused to turn them in, procured another M14, etc etc. That document, certainly puts some of that in perspective. Not to mention the numerous Soldiers I've talked to, who are VN vets, that loved the M16 and 5.56
Whats more, two of the most recognized names in military weapons and training, LAV and PR, agree the M14 was a failure. PR having carried the gun in VN, and shot matches with it. That's a clue right there.
As has been stated, whats needed is a complete overhaul of our weapons, calibre, platform and mag. Unfortunately, that's not gonna happen, because as much as us gun guys hate to admit it, pure ballistic and mechanical efficiency, is not the only thing driving the train.
Hows that sayin go:
Amateurs study tactics, professional study logistics.
Bob
Littlelebowski
08-06-08, 11:31
I don't know how someone choosing to spend over double the amount to get a less accurate, less ergonomic rifle can be construed as anything other than making a decision based on emotion.
I don't know how someone choosing to spend over double the amount to get a less accurate, less ergonomic rifle ...
My SEI builds shoot MOA or better with Portuguese surplus ammo and the ergonomics of the SAGE are better than the M1 Garand I first learned to shoot - YRMV.
Personally, I would never buy a Springfield Armory, Inc. M1A unless it was an older model with the original heel stamp and only if it had all USGI parts.
Even if the SA, Inc. met my criteria, I would probably spring for another custom rifle built on a Chinese receiver - it's a better logistical fit for me.
Littlelebowski
08-06-08, 12:21
Bob, make it out to Northern Virginia and I'll buy you a drink for wasting your time with that thread :D
Got a link to that study?
Appreciate your input, man.
These days, Coke is my drink, but threads like that will drive me back to ShinerBock:D
Linking is way past my paygrade, its on like the third page of the Primary weapons section, look for "small arms use in VietNam".
Bob
Over at Lightfighter and SOCNET there where threads on this - and Professional Soldiers.
One of the best comments are on SOCNET with Rick B who posts as LongRange47 or something like that. He has experience with pretty much all of the systems and a true SME.
I can appreciate people who have emotional attachment to a weapons sytem, but it needs to pass a reality check before one hit the bricks to start trying to pimp it as a weapons system for a military.
I carry a 16" middy with a Short Dot - I can do 600m with it as long as I can hold my cool, further than that -> 240 or .50
We also have AR10T's and some M110's -- they come out if you have time and a static location - other than that -- you run what you brung...
RogerinTPA
08-06-08, 15:12
All reports seem to indicate that the KAC unit is a pile. They are failing and being returned, if posts online are any indication.
That said, the SPR shoots flatter and is a lot cheaper. I don't get it.
The M14 isn't an 800M weapon anyway. Not with M80 ball.
It will with match ammo. All the way to 1000 meters, but only if it's a match grade piece. I've done it at Camp Perry back in the day, with match grade M1A1's several times. I think if you try to make a weapon a swiss army knife (read SCAR), it's not going to do everything that well. Unless they add match grade trigger controls, the longer barrels are match grade and match grade ammo added to boot, you won't get the superb accuracy require. Adequate, maybe above adequate, but not superb. Just my .02 cents.
Understood WRT match ammo.
I have 10,000 rounds of 168 grain M852 in my garage and no 7.62 rifle. I understand that the Army has the opposite problem.
WRT your sig line. I find it ironic that that isn't how Grant fought. He would cut his opponent off from supply and hound him until his enemy was in an unfavorable position, then he would hit them. When he violated this principle or was caught on ground not of his own choosing he performed poorly.
RogerinTPA
08-06-08, 15:35
Sounds like Grant's tactics were closer to Sun Szu's than his quoted saying/tactic!:)
I have 10,000 rounds of 168 grain M852 in my garage and no 7.62 rifle.
I could help you out ;)
Send me a number. I'd be glad to help... if the offer is right.
M852 and FGMM. 168. Might be 500 173s too.
Grant, Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, they all have one thing in common. You focus your full might on the smallest enemy element that you can. This technique has been a hallmark of these Generals, and I'm convinced that people make up their own theories and attribute them to others more often than not.
Back to the topic at hand, I've always wondered about the possibilities of 5.56 if you could fit an 80 grain VLD in a magazine.
Keep this fact in mind . . .
I'm not looking for more M14s, Big Army is.
If you don't agree, take it up with them - I have more M14s than I'll every need :cool:
Jay Cunningham
08-06-08, 17:02
Big Army supposedly wanted the XM8 as well...
;)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.