G&R Tactical
Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 104

Thread: Teething issues with the M14?

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    SWMT
    Posts
    7,076
    Feedback Score
    32 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by halfmoonclip View Post
    We've wandered more than a little afield. The competition for the Trapdoor was the '73 Winchester; it was a less powerful round, but could fire much faster, as Custer learned to his peril. The extractor on the Trapdoor, paired with soft (copper?) cartridge casings, had many of Custer's guys trying to pry spent cartridges out of the breech with a Barlow knife. I'm sure some of the issue with the Trapdoor was the cutback after the huge expenditures of the Civil War.
    MistWolf, nice summary and pictures.
    'RAven, great explanation about magazines, and concerns about the troops losing them. Oddly, I had read (here) that a trained man could stuff another 8 round clip in a Garand faster than another magazine in an M14.
    BTW, it's not hard to imagine how some of these things could have gone entirely different directions. I agree that military pigheadedness was the cause of some of our problems, but then they threw caution to the winds by thrusting the M16 into VietNam without extensive field testing or supplies.
    I will say that in-spec ARs make headspacing a non-issue.
    Moon
    Phuc Long demonstrates:
    " For Augustus, and after him Tiberius, more interested in establishing and increasing their own power than in promoting the public good, began to disarm the Roman people (in order to make them more passive under their tyranny)[.] "
    - Niccolò Machiavelli, 1520 -
    Dell'Arte della Guerra (The Art of War)

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    7,936
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Yeah, I was a little off on my timeline concerning the adoption of the Trap Door, but the US held on to them much longer than they should have because the Ordnance Dept. was pinching pennies.

    John C. Garand wanted to develop his new rifle with a detachable box magazine from the start but the Ordnance Office quashed the idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by MountainRaven View Post
    ...the FN FAL isn't a rifle that needs to be, "head spaced by hand." You screw the barrel in, throw a gauge in the barrel, and then pick the locking shoulder the gauge indicates. FN FALs are also quite capable of shooting better than 4 MOA - I know and know of people I consider credible who have FALs that are easily capable of sub-2 MOA accuracy. And at least one G1 rifle that regularly puts in sub-moa groups.
    That is headspacing a rifle by hand. The assembler must fit the barrel to the receiver, slide in the bolt with a headspace gauge, fit pin gauges until you get the lockup you're looking for, then fit the right locking shoulder. I've assembled and headspaced a small number of FALs. I don't claim to be an expert, but I am familiar with the process. I built a couple before assembling my first AR. The AR was child's play, in comparison

    Most FALs can produce the occasional 2 moa 5 shot group from the magazine, but very few will shoot 2 moa on a regular basis. Falfile member paulo.orange fixed up an Aussie to shoot NM competitions in Italy and got decent groups and even won his class in 2013. But that's the exception, not the rule.
    INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
    1. ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
    2. MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
    3. MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
    4. BOOM!
    5. HA-HA!!

    -WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    7,936
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MountainRaven View Post
    Phuc Long demonstrates:
    Classic!
    INSIDE PLAN OF BOX
    1. ROAD-RUNNER LIFTS GLASS OF WATER- PULLING UP MATCH
    2. MATCH SCRATCHES ON MATCH-BOX
    3. MATCH LIGHTS FUSE TO TNT
    4. BOOM!
    5. HA-HA!!

    -WILE E. COYOTE, AUTHOR OF "EVERYTHING I NEEDED TO KNOW IN LIFE, I LEARNED FROM GOLDBERG & MURPHY"

    http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n289/SgtSongDog/AR%20Carbine/DSC_0114.jpg
    I am American

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    847
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    M14 EBR = Excessively Beefy Rifle How true.
    “The Trump Doctrine is ‘We’re America, Bitch.’ That’s the Trump Doctrine.”

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    SWMT
    Posts
    7,076
    Feedback Score
    32 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MistWolf View Post
    Yeah, I was a little off on my timeline concerning the adoption of the Trap Door, but the US held on to them much longer than they should have because the Ordnance Dept. was pinching pennies.
    Ordnance pinched because the Army pinched because Congress pinched. Because there simply wasn't much money to spend, especially not on the US's microscopic standing military (c. 39,000 in 1890 - Germany and France both had militaries with half a million men each and the Brits probably haven't had an army that small since Oliver Cromwell). This was back when the US government's chief income was from tariffs - at a time when the US produced and exported much more than the US imported and consumed.

    ETA:
    Quote Originally Posted by MistWolf View Post
    That is headspacing a rifle by hand. The assembler must fit the barrel to the receiver, slide in the bolt with a headspace gauge, fit pin gauges until you get the lockup you're looking for, then fit the right locking shoulder. I've assembled and headspaced a small number of FALs. I don't claim to be an expert, but I am familiar with the process. I built a couple before assembling my first AR. The AR was child's play, in comparison
    Actual factory FAL assembly doesn't involve fitting barrels or adjusting headspace: You install the barrel, drop a gauge into the chamber which indicates exactly which locking shoulder to use, pull that locking shoulder out of its parts bin and install. And IMBEL, at least, just torques the barrel into the receiver until it times correctly.
    Last edited by MountainRaven; 05-23-19 at 14:49.
    " For Augustus, and after him Tiberius, more interested in establishing and increasing their own power than in promoting the public good, began to disarm the Roman people (in order to make them more passive under their tyranny)[.] "
    - Niccolò Machiavelli, 1520 -
    Dell'Arte della Guerra (The Art of War)

  6. #56
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    54
    Feedback Score
    0
    The real problem with the M14 program was the people in charge of it where too focused on their own experiences and what they thought would make the best next generation of battle rifle. It was even part of the problem of choosing what gun to go with. Instead of looking at the whole problem and taking more input from people fighting the battles around them. They end up designing a rifle for what they wanted not what the military needed. When the Air Force started looking at rifle to replace the carbine, they were open enough to look at different designs and ideas without being so set in their ways. It's the same things the Military has done over and over in time. Like thinking the next war is going to be a repeat of WW1 trench warfare and building your military to fight trench warfare again. It's why people like Rommel and Guderian where so successful in warfare by looking things in a different ways then people around them do. It's a fine line as to decide what to take for lessens out of the last war you fought. You have to be open enough to look at the whole problem honestly without being biased.

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    6,596
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by oddballmkg View Post
    The real problem with the M14 program was the people in charge of it where too focused on their own experiences and what they thought would make the best next generation of battle rifle. It was even part of the problem of choosing what gun to go with. Instead of looking at the whole problem and taking more input from people fighting the battles around them. They end up designing a rifle for what they wanted not what the military needed. When the Air Force started looking at rifle to replace the carbine, they were open enough to look at different designs and ideas without being so set in their ways. It's the same things the Military has done over and over in time. Like thinking the next war is going to be a repeat of WW1 trench warfare and building your military to fight trench warfare again. It's why people like Rommel and Guderian where so successful in warfare by looking things in a different ways then people around them do. It's a fine line as to decide what to take for lessens out of the last war you fought. You have to be open enough to look at the whole problem honestly without being biased.
    Correct. That is why you have some suggesting a caliber increase due to 300 or 500 meter shootouts in Afghanistan, hillside to hillside. While it is pertinent now, that may not be the distances/environment we face in the next war. Vietnam was the opposite but still illustrates the point: Korea (especially the last part) was hillside to hillside, kind of like Afghanistan in that regard. The next time the balloon went up it was in Vietnam with in-your-face distances.
    11C2P '83-'87
    Airborne Infantry

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    4,848
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    I owned a National Match that ran like a top. Shot NRA matches with it and the whole ball of wax. For its time, it was a great gun.

    But heavy and scope mounting options are beefy projects. I took mine to Smith Enterprises and let them work it over with a Crazy Horse package, sorta.

    PB
    "Air Force / Policeman / Fireman / Man of God / Friend of mine / R.I.P. Steve Lamy"

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    SWMT
    Posts
    7,076
    Feedback Score
    32 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by ABNAK View Post
    Correct. That is why you have some suggesting a caliber increase due to 300 or 500 meter shootouts in Afghanistan, hillside to hillside. While it is pertinent now, that may not be the distances/environment we face in the next war. Vietnam was the opposite but still illustrates the point: Korea (especially the last part) was hillside to hillside, kind of like Afghanistan in that regard. The next time the balloon went up it was in Vietnam with in-your-face distances.
    Except in Korea, the lessons learned weren't that you needed a 30-06 to shoot from hillside to hillside: It was that you needed an M2 carbine (or maybe an M1 rifle, fired as fast as possible, when conditions were such that the M1s or M2s weren't working - although those conditions often meant the rifles weren't working, either) to hose human wave attacks by Norks and Chinese who've made it past the arty, mortars, tanks, machineguns, &c. in the defense, or to clear Norks and Chinese out of their positions on the assault. If it was on an opposite hillside, it was going to be taken care of by artillery, mortars, tanks, machine guns, &c. Maybe by the odd sniper with an '03 or an M1C/M1D. AFAIK, there were zero attacks by the communists that were driven off by disciplined marksmanship from UN infantry armed with Garands or SMLEs - they were all defeated by massed artillery, mortar, and machine gun fire.

    And the Army knew it. And Ordnance knew it. Which made the M14's adoption all the more stupid (even if they did earnestly believe that the M14 in full-auto could be used as successfully as M2 carbines or PPShs and M3 grease guns at close range). This is undoubtedly a large part of why Hal Moore - who cut his teeth in Korea using M2 carbines - was such a fan of the XM16E1 at Ia Drang.
    " For Augustus, and after him Tiberius, more interested in establishing and increasing their own power than in promoting the public good, began to disarm the Roman people (in order to make them more passive under their tyranny)[.] "
    - Niccolò Machiavelli, 1520 -
    Dell'Arte della Guerra (The Art of War)

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    1,118
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MountainRaven View Post
    Except in Korea, the lessons learned weren't that you needed a 30-06 to shoot from hillside to hillside: It was that you needed an M2 carbine (or maybe an M1 rifle, fired as fast as possible, when conditions were such that the M1s or M2s weren't working - although those conditions often meant the rifles weren't working, either) to hose human wave attacks by Norks and Chinese who've made it past the arty, mortars, tanks, machineguns, &c. in the defense, or to clear Norks and Chinese out of their positions on the assault. If it was on an opposite hillside, it was going to be taken care of by artillery, mortars, tanks, machine guns, &c. Maybe by the odd sniper with an '03 or an M1C/M1D. AFAIK, there were zero attacks by the communists that were driven off by disciplined marksmanship from UN infantry armed with Garands or SMLEs - they were all defeated by massed artillery, mortar, and machine gun fire.

    And the Army knew it. And Ordnance knew it. Which made the M14's adoption all the more stupid (even if they did earnestly believe that the M14 in full-auto could be used as successfully as M2 carbines or PPShs and M3 grease guns at close range). This is undoubtedly a large part of why Hal Moore - who cut his teeth in Korea using M2 carbines - was such a fan of the XM16E1 at Ia Drang.
    Its almost like you know something about how rifles are only part of how wars are fought....
    RLTW

    “That is why there isn't an AK chart.” -SteyrAUG

Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •