Teething issues with the M14?

[Firefly]

In all honesty and fairness, I did carry a DRMO M14 as a patrol rifle in the mid 00s. I only had two mags for it and never put optics on it. For what I was doing at the time it wasn’t the worst choice (not the best either given that M4s and ARs were very much available) but it had cool points and the times it was deployed; it was certainly intimidating “Whoa do you see that GUN he has!”

But in current year and knowing now what I didn’t know then; I doubt I would carry one again.

I will never forget felony stopping a car and whipping that thing out. All thuggy knew was it was big, long, and looked mean. Sometimes the psychological factor helps.

Otherwise it’s a rather impractical rifle even by 1950s standards and I really would hate to have been a guy in Vietnam in the tropical heat carrying such a long pike.

These days everyone is “pounds equals pain” but the average age of a paratrooper in WWII was 19 and the average height was 5’7” and they just kept on going with a Garand and bandoliers of 30-06 or BARs.

Makes you think

[Krazykarl]

If we would have adopted the FAL instead of the M14, would the FAL been in US military use for the extent of Vietnam? Or would have the salvo project doomed the FAL as well?

[TexHill]

If we would have adopted the FAL instead of the M14, would the FAL been in US military use for the extent of Vietnam? Or would have the salvo project doomed the FAL as well?

I think any rifle using a full sized cartridge would have met a similar fate to that of the M14

[halfmoonclip]

By 'salvo', are you referring to the burst system that never came online? The M16 itself was supposed to be a short term fix for the conditions in VietNam, and the small statured allies there.
Of course, salvo never came to be, but Krazy', you raise an interesting question. The FAL wouldn't have solved the weight problem; with a full powered round, it wasn't ideal for the up close and personal fighting in 'Nam.
In the current situation in the sandbox, it's not clear (to me, at least) if greater range is needed than offered by the M4. And it is also hard to tell if this is a legitimate problem, or a last echo of the Army's desire for a more manly caliber.
Moon

[mark5pt56]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_FAL

As stated, was supposed to be the .280 and I think IIRC that the Garand was .276?

[Krazykarl]

The salvo project was the research and testing done to evaluate the combat effectiveness of smaller, higher velocity projectiles.

[mack7.62]

I think any rifle using a full sized cartridge would have met a similar fate to that of the M14

I agree with this, if they had gone with an intermediate cartridge like the .280 British I believe any rifle adopted would have lasted in service much longer, maybe not to present day but much longer than the M14.

But having said this Aussie and NZ SAS troops in Nam did use a lot of FAL's with a few M16's and 203's mixed in. Of course they were more recon than large fighting formations.

[MountainRaven]

If we would have adopted the FAL instead of the M14, would the FAL been in US military use for the extent of Vietnam? Or would have the salvo project doomed the FAL as well?

I think a number of the M14's problems - expense, slow development and adoption, poor production numbers - would have been remedied with the FAL and mitigated some of the impetus for the M16. The FAL being a modern rifle, albeit still quite heavy, would have mitigated some of the Air Force's push for the M16, too.

Nevertheless, the Air Force would still want a more direct replacement for the M1/M2 Carbines. The Armalite rifles would have still be available. And I think the Air Force would have still pushed for the AR-15. But given that it wouldn't be as rushed in development before adoption by the Army and pressure from the Vietnam War (from a lack of production capability of the M14) and therefore given that the US Army wouldn't be pushing as hard for a cartridge that could punch through a steel helmet at 400 meters...

I would predict that the AR-15 would have been developed with a lower pressure 222 Remington derivative. Probably more akin to the 5.45x39mm in velocity and pressure. I would predict that the AR-15 in 5.56mm Lite would have been adopted as the M16 and never would have gotten an external forward assist and would have replaced the M1 and M2 Carbine in use with the USAF, SOF, Airmobile infantry, &c. and would have been used in limited numbers by regular US infantry (effectively replacing both Carbines and Grease guns), as the AR-15 and M16 were used by US allies such as Australia in Vietnam (with whom the M16 replaced Owen guns and F1 SMGs).

The more limited issue would have also meant that the M16's problems would have had less of a chance to crop up: the soldiers armed with M16s could have been easily covered by their buddies armed with FALs and M60s in the event that their M16 did go down, and there would not be the push to replace the cartridge's powder with leftover ball powder intended for M80. And the lower pressure/velocity cartridge would have (hypothetically) reduced some of the M16's cyclic rate being sensitive to the powder type being used in the ammunition. So the stink surrounding the M16's development in Vietnam never would have arisen.

But having said this Aussie and NZ SAS troops in Nam did use a lot of FAL's with a few M16's and 203's mixed in. Of course they were more recon than large fighting formations.

Aussie and Kiwi combat troops were deployed in significant numbers in Vietnam and used L1A1s, M16s, M60s, M79s, M203s, &c.

They fought in a different way to the US: Where the US would send out large numbers of heavily armed, well-supported troops, daring the VC to attack them, the Aussies and Kiwis sent out smaller, sneakier patrols to attack the VC. Where the US used ambushes to defend their positions (and largely at night), the Anzacs used ambushes offensively to attack VC where-ever they were encountered. In essence, the US operated under the assumption that the Vietnamese countryside belonged to the VC while the Anzacs treated the Vietnamese countryside like it belonged to the Anzacs and the VC were unwelcome intruders. The US was basically developing counter-insurgency from scratch, though, with an army with increasing morale problems while the Anzacs had developed their COIN strategy during fighting in Malaya. (And documents from North Vietnam and the VC suggest that the Anzac strategy was working extremely well.)

The Malayan Emergency also saw troops drawn from what would become Rhodesia, who also took what they learned back to that country and used it to fight ZANLA and ZIPRA, founding the Selous Scouts, Grey's Scouts, Rhodesian Light Infantry, &c.

[crusader377]

I don't think the M14 was a bad rifle, it simply was too expensive and was functionally obsolete when it was fielded in the early 1960s. The U.S. Army for the M14 should have simply modified the M1 in a similar way that the Italians did with the BM59 rifle which offered similar capability to the M14 for a fraction of the price. Such a rifle if fielded in the mid-late 1940s would have served the Army well in Korea and the early Cold War.

[MountainRaven]

I don't think the M14 was a bad rifle, it simply was too expensive and was functionally obsolete when it was fielded in the early 1960s. The U.S. Army for the M14 should have simply modified the M1 in a similar way that the Italians did with the BM59 rifle which offered similar capability to the M14 for a fraction of the price. Such a rifle if fielded in the mid-late 1940s would have served the Army well in Korea and the early Cold War.

If you'd asked Ordnance about the M14, they would have told you that was what they did. In fact, that was one of the major reasons cited in the selection of the T44 (M14) instead of the T48 (FAL).