How does the M14 hold up in adverse conditions? [Archive]

Esh325

02-08-12, 15:59

I've read and seen some stuff that shows the M14 doesn't do too well in adverse conditions. I remember a guns and ammo TV show they had a fat guy crawling around in mud and the M14 failed pretty bad. And then I've read some reports that said the M16 outperformed the M14 in sand. To quote "Comparsison tests of the M16 and M14 before Desert Storm confirmed the superiority of the Stoner system in sand and dust tests" Armalite document of course provide no such reference to the document they mention. And being they sell AR15 rifles, it's fishy to accept it as a valid source. I think it's all bs and slander though.
http://www.armalite.com/images/Tech%20Notes%5CTech%20Note%2054,%20Gas%20vs%20Op%20Rod%20Drive,%20020815.pdf

Rydiak

02-08-12, 17:06

In that video you are referring to, if I recall correctly the host dragged the M14 through mud with the bolt open, and then only wiped his finger across the bolt face to "clean it". The gun fired normally, but would not extract due to the cases getting stuck in the chamber.

Comparatively, another M14 video (I believe from the same show) had an M14 dragged on a rope behind a jeep with the bolt closed. The gun fired and cycled perfectly despite being dragged through mud, across rocks, etc. I know Larry Vickers did a similar video with an M4 and the gun also performed flawlessly.

Basically, there is no such thing as a completely mud-immune gun. Especially when the chamber starts to get dirty like it did in the one video, things can go wrong.

Vitor

02-08-12, 21:25

Isn't the M14 insides very similar to the Garand? The Garand has always been considered a reliable rifle.

steve--oh

02-09-12, 01:19

Both'll do you right. I've never done any extreme torture tests but a real M14 with real M14 magazines will run well.

http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j6/steve__oh/062.jpg

bondmid003

02-09-12, 05:48

I'm pretty sure the M14's the Marine Corps and Army have been using in Iraq and Afghanistan have been holding up just fine

Failure2Stop

02-09-12, 08:37

I'm pretty sure the M14's the Marine Corps and Army have been using in Iraq and Afghanistan have been holding up just fine

You would be incorrect.
There has been a large push to get these stopgap weapons replaced with something more suitable to mission.

DMR

02-09-12, 08:45

The Army has some preety strict policies about cycling thier M-14 EBR's through Rock Island to be maintained.

We realy need to move on and follow elements of SOCOM, the British, Italians, French, Germans, Kiwi's, Aussies, and others in fielding a modern capablity. Be it a 5.56 M-12 like capablity built on an exsisting MIL TDP or a M-110K the US military has two differant modern capablities availible to meet this requirement which would take 4-6 pounds off the soldiers back, vs the damned M-14 EBR.

Dano5326

02-09-12, 09:26

A while ago... NSW winter warfare teams used 18" m14's w/ choate folding stocks. As compared to the m4, the more violent action enabled use in over the beach operations in freezing wx. Larger bore wouldn't retain water. Ballistic advantage of larger caliber.

For the time an ok solution. Compared to modern offerings, the m14 isn't so ergonomic, and is more maintainance intensive... at a higher level of repair facility.

Battle rifle OK.. As a sniper/marksman rifle, it is a pain to get or keep accurate. The 7.62 AR offerings, Larue, LMT, KAC are much better in all regards.

Esh325

02-09-12, 11:18

You would be incorrect.
There has been a large push to get these stopgap weapons replaced with something more suitable to mission.
I don't know a lot about how the US procures equipment, but it seems odd that they would buy EBR chasis that cost nearly as much as an AR10 type weapon. Why wouldn't they have bought AR10's instead if there was something wrong with the M14?

The_War_Wagon

02-09-12, 11:47

The troops LOVED them in Vietnam. Those seemed to be nominally 'adverse' conditions...

RyanB

02-09-12, 11:49

Isn't the M14 insides very similar to the Garand? The Garand has always been considered a reliable rifle.

The Garand had issues when fielded. Look for a 1942 article in Time.

ICANHITHIMMAN

02-09-12, 11:51

You would be incorrect.
There has been a large push to get these stopgap weapons replaced with something more suitable to mission.

Is this baised on accuracy or the guns are actualy breaking?

ICANHITHIMMAN

02-09-12, 11:54

I've read and seen some stuff that shows the M14 doesn't do too well in adverse conditions. I remember a guns and ammo TV show they had a fat guy crawling around in mud and the M14 failed pretty bad. And then I've read some reports that said the M16 outperformed the M14 in sand. To quote "Comparsison tests of the M16 and M14 before Desert Storm confirmed the superiority of the Stoner system in sand and dust tests" Armalite document of course provide no such reference to the document they mention. And being they sell AR15 rifles, it's fishy to accept it as a valid source.
http://www.armalite.com/images/Tech%20Notes%5CTech%20Note%2054,%20Gas%20vs%20Op%20Rod%20Drive,%20020815.pdf

Anytime I see a springfield M1A evaluated for anything I cry there are shit im my book.

DMR

02-09-12, 14:19

I don't know a lot about how the US procures equipment, but it seems odd that they would buy EBR chasis that cost nearly as much as an AR10 type weapon. Why wouldn't they have bought AR10's instead if there was something wrong with the M14?

Long story, so I won't go there. At the time, 2005/6ish the Army did not have a fielded 7.62mm semi auto. USASOC had various MK-11 and MK-12 rifles, but not big green. A requirement was written to "PIP" M-14s and a product = to what is now the M-14 EBR was discribed. Various forms of which had been crafted by units since at least 2003, two years into the war.

The "X"M-110 was still in testing so it was not an "valid" option at the time. Several individuals attempted to bury the EBR for something better, but the COMMANDERS asked for a modified M-14, which was all they knew, so they got it.

The rest is history. Variuos folks want to fix the problem, but since the EBR exsists, commanders still ask for IT, vs. some weapon like the OBR they saw on the errornet.

To me the M-14 EBR is also known as a self licking ice cream cone.

Is this baised on accuracy or the guns are actualy breaking?

They folks I work with is because of weight and weapon handling/profile differances. I believe the USMC has effectively removed the M-39 from service. It was replaced by MK-12's built by the COrps. MARSOC is also using M-110K conversion kits on their M-110s.

Esh325

02-09-12, 14:40

Even though I like my M1A and it's a very iconic rifle, I'd have to agree that it's outdated and there's better choices out there. It would be nice if the rifle replaced it with was just an accurized AR in 5.56 with the heavier bullet so they could simplify logistics, but I'm not so sure the 5.56x45 really cuts it for DM work.

Raven Armament

02-09-12, 14:49

Isn't the M14 insides very similar to the Garand? The Garand has always been considered a reliable rifle.
Yes, quite simply the major changes can be summed up by this: Take the Garand, give it a 20rd box magazine, keep the ability to charge the weapon with stripper clips, and chamber it in 7.62 NATO. That's the M14.

There maybe have been minor tuning of the op rod to accomodate the smaller case capacity and gas volume of the 7.62 versus the .30-'06 which changed the forend configuration as well, but that's the jist of it.

Esh325

02-09-12, 15:17

Yes, quite simply the major changes can be summed up by this: Take the Garand, give it a 20rd box magazine, keep the ability to charge the weapon with stripper clips, and chamber it in 7.62 NATO. That's the M14.

There maybe have been minor tuning of the op rod to accomodate the smaller case capacity and gas volume of the 7.62 versus the .30-'06 which changed the forend configuration as well, but that's the jist of it.
It's not as simple as that. The Garand has the operating rod combined with the piston similar to that of the AK, where with the M14 has the piston as a separate unit. The bolt lockup is that of the Garand though. I'm sure there are probably reliability differences between the two.

BUBBAGUNS

02-09-12, 17:49

I've read and seen some stuff that shows the M14 doesn't do too well in. adverse conditions I remember a guns and ammo TV show they had a fat guy crawling around in mud and the M14 failed pretty bad. And then I've read some reports that said the M16 outperformed the M14 in sand. To quote "Comparsison tests of the M16 and M14 before Desert Storm confirmed the superiority of the Stoner system in sand and dust tests" Armalite document of course provide no such reference to the document they mention. And being they sell AR15 rifles, it's fishy to accept it as a valid source.
http://www.armalite.com/images/Tech%20Notes%5CTech%20Note%2054,%20Gas%20vs%20Op%20Rod%20Drive,%20020815.pdf

I once shot 15 mags of Norinco ball through mine as fast as I could pull the trigger..... Does that count as Adverse conditions?

;)

wetidlerjr

02-09-12, 19:00

Mention M14; cue the haters. :D
The M14 (based on a near 100 year old design) has done well but it is obviously dated with weight and overall size being two detriments that come quickly to mind. I have an SA M1A and I love it but I would hate to have to "hump the hills" of Camp Pendleton with one like I did over 45 years ago. That said, they can be damn deadly at ranges well over 500 meters in the right hands and farther in expert ones. :D

ermac

02-09-12, 19:37

I once shot 15 mags of Norinco ball through mine as fast as I could pull the trigger..... Does that count as Adverse conditions?

;)
He probably meant exposed to the elements.

Esh325

02-09-12, 19:50

He probably meant exposed to the elements.
Yes, that's what I meant. 15 magazines of Norinco ball is impressive though. I assume it fired without a hitch?

Kokopelli

02-09-12, 19:58

I really like my SOCOM16.. A rocking bit-o-nostalgia.. Foe me anyhow.. It's short, light and points real good.. Ron

Heavy Metal

02-09-12, 20:28

I own an M1A. Competed with an M-14 in the yellow-glasses areana.

On a certain level, I like an M-14 but I feel like I am carrying a pole vault. I made the mistake of taking it deer hunting once. Not a good rifle to navigate Rhododendron thickets with.

ST911

02-09-12, 20:44

I once shot 15 mags of Norinco ball through mine as fast as I could pull the trigger..... Does that count as Adverse conditions? ;)

A genuine M14 will run through mags of GI ammo on auto when in spec, serviced, and well lubed. The problem is keeping it in that spec, the service intervals, maintainability away from the bench and depot. Further, the overall efficiency and suitability to the tasks assigned which can exacerbate issues.

BUBBAGUNS

02-09-12, 23:27

Yes, that's what I meant. 15 magazines of Norinco ball is impressive though. I assume it fired without a hitch?

It ran like scalding water through a muzzle loader. I still wish I had it.

Raven Armament

02-09-12, 23:35

It's not as simple as that. The Garand has the operating rod combined with the piston similar to that of the AK, where with the M14 has the piston as a separate unit. The bolt lockup is that of the Garand though. I'm sure there are probably reliability differences between the two.
If you would have bothered to read my post carefully you would have noted my list was of major differences between the two and even hinted at op rod reconfiguration between the two.

rojocorsa

02-09-12, 23:37

QuickStrike

02-10-12, 03:42

I might as well ask here right now:

How big of an issue is it that M1As are cast rather than forged (as guns to spec are)?

I've always bagged on M1As for being cast, but does it matter at the end of the day?

I don't recall reading of receiver failures with the investment casting method. The shoddiness of quality seems to be from using inferior parts after the real GI stuff from TRW, winchester, etc dried up.

It is interesting that the bolt impact area on the receiver heel is actually slightly thicker on the cast receiver...

train of abuses

02-10-12, 03:57

ICANHITHIMMAN

02-10-12, 06:48

It will out last yoy

streck

02-10-12, 06:55

It will out last yoy

Now the real question is, "Who is Yoy?".

rojocorsa

02-10-12, 13:47

I have seen the "cast vs forged" debate in other online gun forums dedicated to the FAL or M14 end up more heated than 45 vs 9mm or AK vs AR. I have seen good arguments presented for both sides, and honestly don't know enough one way or the other.

I'm not really an M-14 guy, so I had no idea that there were receiver wars like there are caliber wars. Wow!

I was just under the impression that the M1As were cast because the company was trying to cheap-out and that they are overpriced too.

misanthropist

02-10-12, 21:10

I spent several years tuning and shooting M14s recreationally, so I don't have any "hard use" information.

What I did find was that I liked them quite a bit, but once you get used to AR modularity, the optics mounting solutions are all very annoying.

It's also difficult, in my experience, to get them reliably much under 2 MOA without compromising reliability a bit.

All of the guns I built were on Norinco barrels and receivers, of a generation later than the ones available in the US, some of which I believe to have been heat-treated poorly. The ones we have up here are often quite good. They are forged of a steel that I believe to be 8620? But it has been a few years since I looked in to that.

ICANHITHIMMAN

02-10-12, 21:16

Now the real question is, "Who is Yoy?".

you. sorry sent that on the ipod

Alaskapopo

02-11-12, 02:24

I am thinking of getting a M1A for three gun now instead of a SCAR or a PredatOBR at least for now. Partly because of the lower cost and if I get the M1A I won't put optics on it. Down the road I will still get a PredatOBR or SCAR. The main reason I want a M1A is for the nostalga and lower cost.
Pat

Different

02-11-12, 09:25

I've always bagged on M1As for being cast, but does it matter at the end of the day?

Assuming the receiver is properly heat treated, being machined from an investment casting doesn't matter for practical purposes.

Different

02-11-12, 09:47

I've read and seen some stuff that shows the M14 doesn't do too well in adverse conditions.

Uncle Sam did a lot of field testing of the M14 rifle in various comparison trials between 1956 and 1977. The following text is representative of the results in these tests. Reproduced with permission from the author, from M14 Rifle History and Development Fifth Edition:

"In January 1968, the U. S. Department of Defense Weapon Systems Evaluation Group (WSEG) tested the reliability of the M14 and M16A1 rifles at Fort Sherman in Panama under field conditions designed to simulate the environment faced by American troops in the Republic of Viet Nam at the time. Both rifles were tested in beach, swamp, rain forest and dry climate conditions by a total of 302 U. S. Marines divided into four platoons. The M14 rifles and M62 tracer and M80 ball ammunition were included in the test as a control against three versions of the M16A1 and various 5.56 mm ammunition compositions. The M14 rifles were shot alternately in semi-automatic and automatic mode. Each M14 rifle was shot with magazines loaded to twenty cartridges except for one in each of the sixteen squads was fired with magazines filled with eighteen rounds. Each of the M14 rifles used in the test was shot approximately 5,700 rounds with only cleaning at noon each of the twelve days of firing.

The WSEG test recorded the following Mean Rounds to First Malfunction for the M14 rifle in each of the four field environments: 1) 1,039 for salt water, spray and sand 2) 1,248 for swamp water and mud 3) 707 for rain forest and 4) 952 for uplands and dust. When the M14 rifle did malfunction, 42 % of the time it was on the first or second round of the magazine. The likelihood of malfunction is highest with the first two rounds in either magazine loading, eighteen or twenty cartridges. This is due to the slightly lower cyclic rate of fire with a full or nearly-full magazine."

Moose-Knuckle

02-11-12, 14:57

xcibes

02-12-12, 05:48

My mind says get the SCAR17S but my heart says M14 to the grave. The SCAR17S is much more modern, probably more reliable, a much better optics platform, much more versatile, in all truth a better gun. The M14 is a much more elegant weapon from a more civilized era.

I do not use my M14S in adverse conditions but if I had to use it in real life I would certainly replace the wood with at least a GI synthetic stock as I cannot afford the modular chasis being made for it. One thing I see a lot here, is people complaining that it's hard to keep it sub 2 MOA without a lot of work and without sacrificing relliability. Well, not all of us are intreersted in 1/2 MO accuracy out of our M14s, most of us are not snipers and are more interested in a practical rifle, which in my non-expert opinion the M14 can be. keep it well lubed, don't put mud in the chamber, and use a synthetic stock or if you can swing it spend big bucks on a chasis. However, if you re thinking about geting the chasis, for the same amount of money you would be spending on that get a SCAR17S and be done with it. But like I said, just my opinion and I will let the experts talk now.

I know that was slightly off topic, but going back to what was posted about WSEG. Those numbers are interesting, but how do they compare with the M16 that was also tested? Also, the quote seems to suggest automatic fire. Wonder if it would be different in semi-auto only.

Different

02-12-12, 06:40

Regarding accuracy on the M14, 2.5 " to 3.0 " groups were typical for five round groups of M80 ball at 100 meters at the TRW factory in 1962. From 2008 to 2010, TACOM retrofitted 5,000 rack grade rifles into M14 EBR-RI configuration (Sage stock, Leupold scope, reamed flash suppressor). The average five shot group for these 5,000 rifles was 0.89 " at 100 yards with M118LR ammunition. The barrels were not replaced, both M14 and M14 EBR-RI have the 1960s vintage standard contour chromium plated barrel.

xcibes

02-12-12, 07:11

That's impressive...at least to me. Did they do any other work to them other than reaming the FH, changing the stock and adding a scope? Well of course, better ammo as well.

Different

02-12-12, 07:18

I know that was slightly off topic, but going back to what was posted about WSEG. Those numbers are interesting, but how do they compare with the M16 that was also tested? Also, the quote seems to suggest automatic fire. Wonder if it would be different in semi-auto only.

The 1965-66 CDEC-SAWS field experiment at Fort Ord answers this question well. Eight U. S. made weapons and three Soviet weapons were tested over a fourth month period by 975 soldiers. 2.4 million rounds of ammunition were expended in this experiment. Some very good data was developed regarding weapons reliability, among other things. The eight U. S. weapons tested were the M14, M14E2, M16E1, Colt Automatic Rifle, Stoner Rifle, Stoner Automatic Rifle, and Stoner Machine Gun. Of the eight U. S. made weapons, the M14E2 was the most reliable with the mean number of rounds between parts replacement (MRBPR) at 7,017. The MRBPR for the M14 was 4,372 and 4,394 for the Stoner Rifle. The M16E1, not at all reflective of today's platform, had the lowest MRBPR at 2,170.

FWIW and purely anecdotal, I can believe the failure rate for the M14E2. I have over 11,000 rounds through my NFA registered select fire Springfield Armory, Inc. M1A. I've only had one part break. After 8,300 rounds, the chromium plated firing pin broke at the tip. I put in a new chromium plated firing pin and it continues to run like a champ.

Different

02-12-12, 07:23

That's impressive...at least to me. Did they do any other work to them other than reaming the FH, changing the stock and adding a scope? Well of course, better ammo as well.

The gas cylinder was shimmed at first with stainless steel shims but beginning in mid-2009 a crush washer was used in lieu of the shims. That's about it.

xcibes

02-12-12, 08:50

Thanks for that information.

ICANHITHIMMAN

02-12-12, 10:07

So just to re focuse the rifles are not breaking they just aren as good as an AR pattern riffle and not as easy to maintail which we all knew. I still own, its still my favorate rifle of all time.

mstennes

02-12-12, 13:07

Kchen986

02-12-12, 13:14

Just as an FYI, Different is considered *the* Guru on M14s..

Uncle Sam did a lot of field testing of the M14 rifle in various comparison trials between 1956 and 1977. The following text is representative of the results in these tests. Reproduced with permission from the author, from M14 Rifle History and Development Fifth Edition:

"In January 1968, the U. S. Department of Defense Weapon Systems Evaluation Group (WSEG) tested the reliability of the M14 and M16A1 rifles at Fort Sherman in Panama under field conditions designed to simulate the environment faced by American troops in the Republic of Viet Nam at the time. Both rifles were tested in beach, swamp, rain forest and dry climate conditions by a total of 302 U. S. Marines divided into four platoons. The M14 rifles and M62 tracer and M80 ball ammunition were included in the test as a control against three versions of the M16A1 and various 5.56 mm ammunition compositions. The M14 rifles were shot alternately in semi-automatic and automatic mode. Each M14 rifle was shot with magazines loaded to twenty cartridges except for one in each of the sixteen squads was fired with magazines filled with eighteen rounds. Each of the M14 rifles used in the test was shot approximately 5,700 rounds with only cleaning at noon each of the twelve days of firing.

The WSEG test recorded the following Mean Rounds to First Malfunction for the M14 rifle in each of the four field environments: 1) 1,039 for salt water, spray and sand 2) 1,248 for swamp water and mud 3) 707 for rain forest and 4) 952 for uplands and dust. When the M14 rifle did malfunction, 42 % of the time it was on the first or second round of the magazine. The likelihood of malfunction is highest with the first two rounds in either magazine loading, eighteen or twenty cartridges. This is due to the slightly lower cyclic rate of fire with a full or nearly-full magazine."

Were there also mean rounds to first failure results for the M16A1?

DireWulf

02-12-12, 15:09

I've used an M14 in the DM role overseas and my former agency had several variants in the armory for use as spotter weapons in two man marksmanship teams. When properly set up, they are reliable and robust weapons. As has been stated, they require more armory maintenance, particularly when compared to the Mark 11's that have been replacing the M14. I had one rifle that had repeated headspace issues and after two different armorers tried their hand at it, it was shipped off and I was given a replacement. I know that's just one rifle, but having seen the amount of time the rifles spent on armorer's benches, I'm convinced that the newer rifle is a better choice. The M14 in the DMR role is a fine weapon, but there are better choices that offer accuracy, commonality of many parts with other issued rifles, lighter weight and a similar malfunction clearance and operating procedures as other weapons. I'd still take an M14 over a lot of other rifles, but time has moved on and F2S is correct when he says that the M14 was a stopgap system that addressed an immediate need.

Different

02-12-12, 15:39

Were there also mean rounds to first failure results for the M16A1?

For the WSEG field experiment in Panama, the M16A1 Mean Rounds to First Malfunction rates were: 1) salt water, spray and sand - 883 for ball powder, 395 for IMR powder 2) swamp water and mud - 1337 for ball powder, 190 for IMR powder 3) rain forest - 1204 for ball powder, 1629 for IMR powder and 4) uplands, dust - 1133 for ball powder, 494 for IMR powder.

Each M16A1 rifle in the Panama testing fired about 5,700 rounds.

Reference: Department of the Army, Aberdeen Research and Development Center. Technical Report No. 1 M16 Rifle System Reliability and Quality Assurance Evaluation. Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: July 1968.

Different

02-12-12, 15:41

I never thought it was the fact of the M14's reliability was'nt in question, but more of the fact, that it requires more armory level maintainance, to keep it running as good as others requiring less armory level maintaiance?

FWIW, in October 1968, the U. S. Army Materiel Command reported the following reliability figures for the M14 rifle in Technical Report 68-4 M14 Rifle Cost Analysis Report:

Mean Time To Overhaul (average time to overhaul a M14 rifle) - 1.5 hours
Time Between Overhaul (TBO) - 5 years
Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF or average time between any failure requiring repair)
- 270 days
Mean Time To Repair (MTTR) - 0.6 hours
Average annual ammunition usage as of November 1965 - 810 cartridges (610 rounds
ball, 50 rounds tracer and 150 rounds blank).

Esh325

02-12-12, 16:15

Different

02-12-12, 16:28

I find it really hard some times to trust those old reports. Some things in them are true, some aren't. In one instance, one of those old reports even went out of its way to say the M14 was completely inferior to the M1 Garand. Come on really?
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA044796&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

I agree with you 1000%. I've read the linked report and dozens of other DOD reports from the 1950s onwards. The bias in each report, forward lookinig or backward looking, is pretty easy to pick up on. The 1965-1966 CDEC-SAWS is the most comprehensive and least biased report of all the small arms tests, in my opinion, but I still roll my eye balls through some of its passages. As you mention, there are some nuggets of truth in them and if you let the testing data speak for itself, you can come to your own conclusions.

S.E.R.T.

02-16-12, 00:08

we have a few springfield armory M14's in our inventory for memebers of our s.e.r.t. team. while it is an excellent round and excellent reliable action we find the weight and ergonomics are a hinderance. we "tortured" one as as a test basis with underpowered ammo, dirt thrown onto the action, and purposefully didnt clean it. it was boringly reliable, but i havent witnessed the same with the M1A clones. i love the weapon and it is a true american steel and walnut classic but do believe a 7.62x51, 6.5 grendell, or .260 in an ar platform would be a better investement for a dedicated operators rifle but we have no worries about reliability.

Heckler&Coke

02-16-12, 11:21

I cannot vouch for the M14, but I will say my springfield M1a was pretty good. It had a hiccup every now and again, but it was a great rifle, and it was generally reliable. I won't say it was totally reliable, I did have some issues, but you could certainly do worse...

Esh325

02-16-12, 11:39

Heckler&Coke

02-16-12, 12:30

Was it a recently made M1A or older model with GI parts? They should be totally reliable.

Maybe that was it, but I ended up selling it...I do miss the ergos, bho, and "feel" of the M1A from time to time, but I rather love the downgrade I made...

I think the M1A (if properly built??) will do as good as the owner will let it. It seems obvious that the action may not be as up to withstanding some "battlefield" conditions as some other choices, but I think that usually falls on how it's treated in those situations. Maybe it was just me, but the m1a seems prone to foreign material invading the action, a problem I've never really had with anything else...I want to say I did not treat my M1a as a safe queen or range paper puncher, I kept her clean, but she was used as a general purpose/ranch rifle with exposure to the real world...so YMMV.

Esh325

02-16-12, 12:34

Maybe that was it, but I ended up selling it...I do miss the ergos, bho, and "feel" of the M1A from time to time, but I rather love the downgrade I made...
I understand. Nobody wants to fool around with something expensive that doesn't work right.

Failure2Stop

02-16-12, 12:40

I don't know a lot about how the US procures equipment, but it seems odd that they would buy EBR chasis that cost nearly as much as an AR10 type weapon. Why wouldn't they have bought AR10's instead if there was something wrong with the M14?

Because bringing a new weapon into service requires a lot of time and work. Taking an old one and dropping it into in improved stock requires a lot less work and gets the item to the user group in need. Adoption of a new platform takes years, followed by years of fixes.

You can't apply common sense and logic to military procurement.

The troops LOVED them in Vietnam. Those seemed to be nominally 'adverse' conditions...

And plenty of troops also loved the M16
and the 1911
and grease guns

The M14 wasn't replaced after the shortest stint as the service weapon of the US Armed Forces because it filled it's job better than the M16. The fact that we are still using the M16 FOW is pretty good evidence that the right decision was made.

Is this baised on accuracy or the guns are actualy breaking?

Maintaining the precision level required of a DM weapon with the reliability of a combat use weapon.

I really like my SOCOM16.. A rocking bit-o-nostalgia.. Foe me anyhow.. It's short, light and points real good.. Ron

The SOCOM 16s are the most frequently busted/broken/lacking precision of the line. If you like yours, good on ya, but they are too inconsistent to get a thumbs up.

I am thinking of getting a M1A for three gun now instead of a SCAR or a PredatOBR at least for now. Partly because of the lower cost and if I get the M1A I won't put optics on it. Down the road I will still get a PredatOBR or SCAR. The main reason I want a M1A is for the nostalga and lower cost.
Pat

Best reason to get an M14.
Hell, I have one hanging on my wall.

I cannot vouch for the M14, but I will say my springfield M1a was pretty good. It had a hiccup every now and again, but it was a great rifle, and it was generally reliable. I won't say it was totally reliable, I did have some issues, but you could certainly do worse...

We all have our own requirements of how reliable/durable/robust our weapons are. If it meets your standards, super.

Esh325

02-16-12, 12:57

Because bringing a new weapon into service requires a lot of time and work. Taking an old one and dropping it into in improved stock requires a lot less work and gets the item to the user group in need. Adoption of a new platform takes years, followed by years of fixes.

You can't apply common sense and logic to military procurement.

And plenty of troops also loved the M16
and the 1911
and grease guns

The M14 wasn't replaced after the shortest stint as the service weapon of the US Armed Forces because it filled it's job better than the M16. The fact that we are still using the M16 FOW is pretty good evidence that the right decision was made.

Maintaining the precision level required of a DM weapon with the reliability of a combat use weapon.

The SOCOM 16s are the most frequently busted/broken/lacking precision of the line. If you like yours, good on ya, but they are too inconsistent to get a thumbs up.

Best reason to get an M14.
Hell, I have one hanging on my wall.

We all have our own requirements of how reliable/durable/robust our weapons are. If it meets your standards, super.
The reason alone to avoid problems is a valid reason to retain the M14. The AR10 hasn't seen nearly as much combat experience as the M14, and hasn't been subjected to the refinement its smaller caliber cousin the M16/M4 has seen. Putting unproven equipment can cost people lives, and we had to learn the hard way with the M16. Most troops probably prefered the M14 back in Vietnam. It's a different story today though.

TXBob

02-16-12, 14:09

From comments elsewhere (mainly on Lightfighter) the M-14 is a solid weapon--its biggest drawback is its not an M-16/DI gun.

Why is that such a big deal? Because our army is set up to field M-16pattern firearms. The support is there--The biggest gripe I picked out of the reports is no one knows how to use the things. FWIW the M-16 vs M-14 is a dead issue--the only remaining is the DMR rifle.

SO its not about 1 M-14 vs 1 M-16. Its about fielding HUNDREDS of M-14s in an enviroment ment to handles HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of M-16s. The advantage of a AR-10/SR-25 rifle in the DMR is HUGE when you take this into account. Now they are not truly interchangable--but the manual of arms for the "big brother" M-16 is a lot more like the M-16.

The Manual of arms for the M-14 is 40 years old and neglected. its not so much about the rifle as it is the system we have in place. The armed forces isn't just about whether the M-14 is better than the M-110. Its about whether 10,000 M-14s are better than 10,000 M110 systems in an area that has ZERO M-14 Experience and sizeable DI experience. No one said life was fair.

Failure2Stop

02-16-12, 15:15

The reason alone to avoid problems is a valid reason to retain the M14. The AR10 hasn't seen nearly as much combat experience as the M14, and hasn't been subjected to the refinement its smaller caliber cousin the M16/M4 has seen. Putting unproven equipment can cost people lives, and we had to learn the hard way with the M16. Most troops probably prefered the M14 back in Vietnam. It's a different story today though.

Might want to do some research on that.

The M14 served from 1957 (though it only got widely distributed years later) to 1970 (when it was completely phased out by the M16, though that replacement began much earlier), at which point it was essentially shelved. Production was halted in 1963.
1957 to 1970: 13 years (6 years of production).

The earliest users of the M16 were some of the first active troops in the theatre (1963), with full replacement in 1970, with widespread distribution beginning well before that (1965).

The need for a semi-automatic precision weapon pushed the KAC Mk11 into the hands of Special Forces in the early 90s, then to the USMC Sniper community, and then as the M110 to the US Army in 2005.
The advancement of the SR25/Mk11/M110/along with several other .308 AR manufacturers continues to this day with more than just different stocks to drop an obscolescent action into.
1993 to 2012(+): 19 years (+).
And those 19 years have occurred in a time with exceptional record-keeping, data gathering, testing, and demanded performance.

So, I fail to see how the M14 has significantly more combat time than AR10 variants, or what problems would be avoided by dropping the SR25/Mk11/M110 in favor of M14 based weapons.
Precision semi-automatic weapons with a sufficient degree of robustness for combat operations are hard to pull off, no doubt, but the AR10 types do it far better than the costumed M14s do when all aspects of employment are taken into account.

Littlelebowski

02-16-12, 15:27

Esh325

02-16-12, 15:37

The SR25 has been serving with the SEALs for over a decade. Going on ten years with the Corps. The Brits love their LMTs.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk
I'll give it to you about the SR-25, but the LMT hasn't really been fielded long enough.

Might want to do some research on that.

The M14 served from 1957 (though it only got widely distributed years later) to 1970 (when it was completely phased out by the M16, though that replacement began much earlier), at which point it was essentially shelved. Production was halted in 1963.
1957 to 1970: 13 years (6 years of production).

The earliest users of the M16 were some of the first active troops in the theatre (1963), with full replacement in 1970, with widespread distribution beginning well before that (1965).

The need for a semi-automatic precision weapon pushed the KAC Mk11 into the hands of Special Forces in the early 90s, then to the USMC Sniper community, and then as the M110 to the US Army in 2005.
The advancement of the SR25/Mk11/M110/along with several other .308 AR manufacturers continues to this day with more than just different stocks to drop an obscolescent action into.
1993 to 2012(+): 19 years (+).
And those 19 years have occurred in a time with exceptional record-keeping, data gathering, testing, and demanded performance.

So, I fail to see how the M14 has significantly more combat time than AR10 variants, or what problems would be avoided by dropping the SR25/Mk11/M110 in favor of M14 based weapons.
Precision semi-automatic weapons with a sufficient degree of robustness for combat operations are hard to pull off, no doubt, but the AR10 types do it far better than the costumed M14s do when all aspects of employment are taken into account.
I wouldn't count the M16 and AR10 as having the same operational experience. They are very similar rifles, but the operating characteristics will be some what altered by firing different rounds.

Deuce

02-16-12, 15:44

Might want to do some research on that.

The M14 served from 1957 (though it only got widely distributed years later) to 1970 (when it was completely phased out by the M16, though that replacement began much earlier), at which point it was essentially shelved. Production was halted in 1963.
1957 to 1970: 13 years (6 years of production).

The earliest users of the M16 were some of the first active troops in the theatre (1963), with full replacement in 1970, with widespread distribution beginning well before that (1965).

The need for a semi-automatic precision weapon pushed the KAC Mk11 into the hands of Special Forces in the early 90s, then to the USMC Sniper community, and then as the M110 to the US Army in 2005.
The advancement of the SR25/Mk11/M110/along with several other .308 AR manufacturers continues to this day with more than just different stocks to drop an obscolescent action into.
1993 to 2012(+): 19 years (+).
And those 19 years have occurred in a time with exceptional record-keeping, data gathering, testing, and demanded performance.

So, I fail to see how the M14 has significantly more combat time than AR10 variants, or what problems would be avoided by dropping the SR25/Mk11/M110 in favor of M14 based weapons.
Precision semi-automatic weapons with a sufficient degree of robustness for combat operations are hard to pull off, no doubt, but the AR10 types do it far better than the costumed M14s do when all aspects of employment are taken into account.

Very solid points on all accounts but you're also leaving out over a decade of M14 use in the GWOT.

Sent from my SPH-M930BST using Tapatalk

Failure2Stop

02-16-12, 16:06

Very solid points on all accounts but you're also leaving out over a decade of M14 use in the GWOT.

What advancements to the M14 system has resulted from their use other than few different stocks (though it is now in vogue to refer to them as a "chassis")?
The AR10 platform continues to evolve, it is a "living" platform.
The M14 was pulled out of it's grave and put into a new weelchair as a stopgap until the Army can figure out what they want and what they want it to do. The USMC and SOCOM community already figured it out, and the M14 didn't make the cut.

I wouldn't count the M16 and AR10 as having the same operational experience. They are very similar rifles, but the operating characteristics will be some what altered by firing different rounds.

I never used the M16 as a reference other than to illustrate where it replaced the M14 for real use.

I'll give it to you about the SR-25, but the LMT hasn't really been fielded long enough.

The LMT is heavily based on the SR25.

xcibes

02-16-12, 16:29

M14 is an 80+ year old design. Things have moved on since then. It has done pretty well, but there are better options out there. It seems to be solid but outdated. Can we at least agree on that?

Esh325

02-16-12, 16:45

M14 is an 80+ year old design. Things have moved on since then. It has done pretty well, but there are better options out there. It seems to be solid but outdated. Can we at least agree on that?
The M14 is a 57 year old design. I can agree that it's outdated though. If people think we can do better then the M14 by fielding an AR10, then I think we can do better then the AR10.

xcibes

02-16-12, 16:53

The M14 is basically a modernized M1 Garand which dates back a bit longer than the 1950s. If I remember correctly the whole point if the M14 was to be able to use existing tooling from the M1, so really it is an 80 year old design, though modernized somewhat in the 50s. With that said, it is my favorite rifle though I am a realist regarding it's modern day suitability.

TXBob

02-16-12, 17:03

Define better thsn AR-10.

The trials for Britsh DMR took all comers.

The LMT won. please enlighten us as to the faults and cures.
Don't like the LMT? Ask why the OBR wins matches. But we use the M110!
Ask the local rep about the snafus in procurement thst contributed to problems. No rifle is bureacrat proof.

The AR-10/SR-25 has beaten the competition. Repeatedly. Let it go.

Esh325

02-16-12, 17:07

Failure2Stop

02-16-12, 18:30

[Pics]

What?

The trials for Britsh DMR took all comers.

The LMT won.

Eh...
Lots of weirdness in the UK selection, especially with what was submitted by who.
FWIW, all submissions were AR10-ish.

TXBob

02-16-12, 18:58

No argument there on the trials, but my point was between the LMT, the OBR, and the SR-25/M110--the "AR-10" is pretty dominant in the DMR role.
also that 2nd pic looks rather like a DI gun....

Before the tradmark nazis come by: AR-10 as in DI 308 System, not the Armalite brand rifle in particular--current or 1950s version.

mkmckinley

02-16-12, 19:15

I've seen a bunch of ancient M14s in the Philippines that were still running. Some of them had jerry rigged repairs and various amounts of rust but in general they were all serviceable.

Failure2Stop

02-16-12, 20:08

I've seen a bunch of ancient M14s in the Philippines that were still running. Some of them had jerry rigged repairs and various amounts of rust but in general they were all serviceable.

I'm not saying that it isn't a usable system.
The problem comes in when people come in insisting that they are all "match-grade", pointing to their use in the military as testament to their superiority, without understanding why they are there in the first place.

The M14 is a decent 7.62 launching platform (further evidenced by their use in conditions that choked other weapons), as long as reasonable expectation is applied and real data is passed on.

xcibes

02-16-12, 20:45

BINGO! That's exactly it.

Abraxas

02-16-12, 21:19

Esh325, you really might want to listen to F2S, he is not some internet ninja. He has direct experience and knowledge on this subject.

ST911

02-16-12, 21:30

In a precision application the M14 is particularly quirky and irksome. LESO put M21s in the hands of a bunch of LE agencies over the years. The attraction of "free" guns for sniper elements was too much to resist. Those that actually trained and shot them quickly realized how much "free" was going to cost them, and how tough it was to find truly competent people who could support the guns and keep them up to snuff. Few I saw stayed in the field. Most went back to LESO or sit in racks.

Headspace issues were popular in a bunch of regular M14s. A couple of other M4C members here wrestled with those and more false economy.

wild_wild_wes

04-19-12, 05:57

nabO

04-19-12, 15:30

Not sure why so many people want to cling to the M-14. It seems like that mentality is based more on some romantic notion of "steel and wood".

Modern manufacturing methods and materials have obsoleted the M-14 design. I don't believe it's even a viable platform (M1A) for the private citizen/civilian any longer due to expensive magazines and maintanence parts. You can't just work on these things in your garage like you can an AR-10, SR-25 or an FAL for that matter.

Though it's kinda nice to have one sitting around in the safe I guess...

wild_wild_wes

04-19-12, 15:43

Modern manufacturing methods and materials have obsoleted the M-14 design.

It was obsolete before it even entered service.

I own one though.

Charlie Don't Surf

04-19-12, 22:07

Lots of thread drift here. A question about the M14 holding "up in adverse conditions": If you put a M14 and a M110 in Iraq and fire them until a failure which is more likely to choke first?

Not about which is the better DMR, which is easier to keep accurate, maintain, lighter, better logistically. I think the answer to that has been beaten to death.

Heckler&Coke

04-19-12, 23:34

The "AR10" has more operational use than many people know.

The original model was used by the Portuguese in their colonies in Africa and saw intense combat use there in the 1960s. The troops that used them were mostly elite (paratroopers, naval commandos), who relied on them for their lives. They considered their AR10s to be the best combat rifle ever- they were very reliable and extremely accurate.

We just never hear about this experience because they speak a different language.

I think we never hear about this experience because it was pretty much obscure and meaningless...but blatantly exaggerated by AR10 fanboys...(and thus ignored)

The fact is only a handful of portugese paratroop units were issued AR10s in 1960. Less than 5,000 were even produced, less than that ever issued. The part of the story noone likes to repeat is that they were actually replaced by the G3A4 by those same units, and even more insult to injury is that this phasing out occurred before things actually got really heated in "Guerra do Ultramar" in the late 60s and early 70s... Though admittedly, some did infact see combat early on, and yes, their accuracy was considered great, but who didn't know that already? That has never been a question of the design...

The fact is that Portuguese combat history in Africa was completely and unquestionably dominated by the G3...the Ar10 and G1 both were fairly minsiscule by comparison, and both were actually phased out of service and replaced by the G3. But to be fair, I never read anything negative of the AR10 or G1, other than the exact same criticisms I found of the G3...that is "can't carry enough ammo" and "too big/long for close engagements"...

An interesting note is that the Portugese still cling to the G3, even "elite" soldiers that are actually deployed...despite several more modern options available to them...(i.e Brigada de Reacção Rápida/Comandos) Even the German "elite" KSK and Fallschirmjägers in Afghanistan have still been using obsolete G3s by choice, as have many regular soldiers.

One fanboy post to the other, have a nice day. :p

wild_wild_wes

04-19-12, 23:59

I think we never hear about this experience because it was pretty much obscure and meaningless.

I doubt the experience was obscure and meaningless to the man in the fight.

The fact is only a handful of portugese paratroop units were issued AR10s in 1960. Less than 5,000 were even produced, less than that ever issued.

Then that would be 2,500 rifles issued to the guys doing the most intense fighting at the time.

The part of the story noone likes to repeat is that they were actually replaced by the G3A4 by those same units, and even more insult to injury is that this phasing out occurred before things actually got really heated in "Guerra do Ultramar" in the late 60s and early 70s... Though admittedly, some did infact see sporadic combat early on, and yes, their accuracy was considered great, but who didn't know that already? That has never been a question of the design.

That's like the SCAR being phased out by Big army because of economy of scale. But thanks for the admission of the positive qualities of the AR10.

The fact is that Portuguese combat history in Africa was completely and unquestionably dominated by the G3...the Ar10 and G1 both were fairly minsiscule by comparison, and both were actually phased out of service and replaced by the G3. But to be fair, I never read anything negative of the AR10 or G1, other than the exact same criticisms I found of the G3...that is "can't carry enough ammo" and "too big/long for close engagements"...

7.62 rifles for general infantry issue is ca-ca :D

Heckler&Coke

04-20-12, 00:21

I doubt the experience was obscure and meaningless to the man in the fight.

Of course not, but that goes for every weapon and man combination, ever.

ermac

04-20-12, 10:20

I doubt the experience was obscure and meaningless to the man in the fight.

Then that would be 2,500 rifles issued to the guys doing the most intense fighting at the time.

That's like the SCAR being phased out by Big army because of economy of scale. But thanks for the admission of the positive qualities of the AR10.

7.62 rifles for general infantry issue is ca-ca :D
I don't know much about the AR10 regarding its history in combat, but 2500 is very small.