11-14-2011, 05:34 AM
Guys, I didn't mean to start a war, especially since this forum is known for being gentlemanly. If I stepped out of line, I'm sorry.
I have used the M14 quite a bit, so I am not unfamiliar with its capabilities and weaknesses. It saw the shortest amount of service than any other rifle in US history as the primary service rifle, and for good reason. Despite the entrenched military resistance to the adoption of the 5.56/AR15, for once, a better rifle/caliber was pushed via outside the normal chain sources, like SF and The President himself, when it was learned that memos stated to conduct testing, as long as the AR15 was shown NOT to be superior.
I used M14's on a daily basis in my first unit, in my second unit sometimes (we had National Match M14's, without optics in 1/506th Scouts), as well as in the civilian world. It is an aficionado's rifle for sure, but not a reliable system in the field, and it takes a dedicated gun guy, not some entry-level soldier with an MOS assigned to him, to keep an M14 up and running. The bolt is totally exposed for one, as is the opening to the receiver, which the magazine fits under. Add sand to that equation and you get a much lower MTBF than the AR15, which is exactly what happened in the tests back in 1955 against the AR10 and FAL, as well as the tests against the AR15 in the early 1960's, and that was with a sinister Army Ordnance Corps sabotaging the AR10 and doctoring the tests against the AR15 to make the M14 look better, and they still couldn't do it. Read the 5.56x45 Timeline by D. Waters...very interesting and educational info there.
As for Camp Perry, the AR15 has been smoking the M14 for decades now, especially after the AMU showed up and spanked the Marine Marksmanship Unit with AR15's. Take 2 rack-grade weapons, an M14 and an AR15. You might get a good shooter with the M14, and then again, you're more likely to get a lemon. I was spoiled with National Match M14's that were tricked beyond what any Army is going to do for a standard service rifle, and they still were finicky, even with glass-bedding, polished cam slots, unitized gas blocks, hooded peep sights, select barrels, trigger work, reamed flash suppressors, etc. Then look at maneuverability...yeah they ain't.
The argument that SF chooses 5.56 because it's what's in the system ignores that they were the first units to demand it before most soldiers had even heard of it, and that is SF units in the US and the UK. A West Coast SEAL Team even purchased a bunch of AR15's with unit funds in the early 1960's before they had even officially adopted them.
I'll be the first to admit that I have at least one friend with more real-world deployments than I ever could have, who loved his M14 dropped into an Italian BM-59 paratrooper stock that he used on his 2nd OIF deployment, but I wouldn't consider the gun due to the reliability issues it faces in that environment, the lack of armorer support, and lack of ammo capacity. He was using it in the DM role, which I would prefer to have a 5.56 SPR or floated M4A1 SOPMOD Block II with Mk262 in anyway. Interchangeability with the team/squad, mag capacity, can kick in doors and shoot out to distance when necessary...what's not to like?
I've engaged in this debate with a lot of different guys in a lot of different units, and I tend to find that the ones who have higher volume shoot schedules and practice hitting their targets in realistic shooting scenarios usually don't complain about caliber, but complain about units that don't shoot enough, with competent marksmanship programs driven at the unit-level. Of all the units I was in, lack of good marksmanship programs was common, although we do it better than any nation that comes anywhere near our size.
I would suggest reading Plaster's recent interviews with snipers from different walks of life in the military, especially since they all favored the M4/Mk262 platform over all others. That speaks volumes gents, in addition to the other data.
I have used the M14 quite a bit, so I am not unfamiliar with its capabilities and weaknesses. It saw the shortest amount of service than any other rifle in US history as the primary service rifle, and for good reason. Despite the entrenched military resistance to the adoption of the 5.56/AR15, for once, a better rifle/caliber was pushed via outside the normal chain sources, like SF and The President himself, when it was learned that memos stated to conduct testing, as long as the AR15 was shown NOT to be superior.
I used M14's on a daily basis in my first unit, in my second unit sometimes (we had National Match M14's, without optics in 1/506th Scouts), as well as in the civilian world. It is an aficionado's rifle for sure, but not a reliable system in the field, and it takes a dedicated gun guy, not some entry-level soldier with an MOS assigned to him, to keep an M14 up and running. The bolt is totally exposed for one, as is the opening to the receiver, which the magazine fits under. Add sand to that equation and you get a much lower MTBF than the AR15, which is exactly what happened in the tests back in 1955 against the AR10 and FAL, as well as the tests against the AR15 in the early 1960's, and that was with a sinister Army Ordnance Corps sabotaging the AR10 and doctoring the tests against the AR15 to make the M14 look better, and they still couldn't do it. Read the 5.56x45 Timeline by D. Waters...very interesting and educational info there.
As for Camp Perry, the AR15 has been smoking the M14 for decades now, especially after the AMU showed up and spanked the Marine Marksmanship Unit with AR15's. Take 2 rack-grade weapons, an M14 and an AR15. You might get a good shooter with the M14, and then again, you're more likely to get a lemon. I was spoiled with National Match M14's that were tricked beyond what any Army is going to do for a standard service rifle, and they still were finicky, even with glass-bedding, polished cam slots, unitized gas blocks, hooded peep sights, select barrels, trigger work, reamed flash suppressors, etc. Then look at maneuverability...yeah they ain't.
The argument that SF chooses 5.56 because it's what's in the system ignores that they were the first units to demand it before most soldiers had even heard of it, and that is SF units in the US and the UK. A West Coast SEAL Team even purchased a bunch of AR15's with unit funds in the early 1960's before they had even officially adopted them.
I'll be the first to admit that I have at least one friend with more real-world deployments than I ever could have, who loved his M14 dropped into an Italian BM-59 paratrooper stock that he used on his 2nd OIF deployment, but I wouldn't consider the gun due to the reliability issues it faces in that environment, the lack of armorer support, and lack of ammo capacity. He was using it in the DM role, which I would prefer to have a 5.56 SPR or floated M4A1 SOPMOD Block II with Mk262 in anyway. Interchangeability with the team/squad, mag capacity, can kick in doors and shoot out to distance when necessary...what's not to like?
I've engaged in this debate with a lot of different guys in a lot of different units, and I tend to find that the ones who have higher volume shoot schedules and practice hitting their targets in realistic shooting scenarios usually don't complain about caliber, but complain about units that don't shoot enough, with competent marksmanship programs driven at the unit-level. Of all the units I was in, lack of good marksmanship programs was common, although we do it better than any nation that comes anywhere near our size.
I would suggest reading Plaster's recent interviews with snipers from different walks of life in the military, especially since they all favored the M4/Mk262 platform over all others. That speaks volumes gents, in addition to the other data.