M14 video

[Lee]

For all the many M14 fans, check out this video of an M14 being fired in Iraq. Nice close-up look at the weapon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCn0HnBLBmk&feature=related

[radioman999]

Cool, M14 is one of my favorite US rifles. It's pretty amazing some special forces still use it today considering how long ago it entered into US arsenal. I wonder why there isn't much develpment in ARs with calibers larger than 5.56. There have been many criticisms about the ineffectiveness of 5.56.

[Inkompetent]

Special forces 'still use it' because they are good enough to have any use of the rifle. A rank and file soldier who is there to put out fire volume doesn't need a perfectly accurate, powerful, mastercrafted weapon to do his job, and he is a too bad shot to really get the most out of the rifle's attributes.

Special forces however who have much more training with their weapons can have use of the rifle's accuracy and power, and in the right group and at longer ranges accuracy is more important for squad level fire power than fire volume is.

And heck, if you want to see a long time service weapon, check the M2 heavy machine gun. Probably has the world record in longest time in service.

[Apocal]

Cool, M14 is one of my favorite US rifles. It's pretty amazing some special forces still use it today considering how long ago it entered into US arsenal.

Most of our small arms are fairly old, the M240 from the 50s, the M2HB from the 1920s, the M249 is essentially a M240 scaled down into 5.56 NATO, the Mk.19 from the 60s. Firearms are a mature technology and most of the improvements are either window dressing or rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

I wonder why there isn't much develpment in ARs with calibers larger than 5.56.

The SR-25/Mk. 11/M110 are 7.62 NATO ARs. The Mk.11 is replacing or has replaced the M40A3 as the USMC's sniper rifle, beginning around the time of the Battle of Fallujah. The M110 is slated to do the same with the Army's M24.

There was actually a specific recommendation from a Stryker Brigade commander in Infantry magazine, circa 2005, that while M14s were good, his teams would've preferred the SR-25.

There have been many criticisms about the ineffectiveness of 5.56.

Not many have come from actual trigger-pullers. You look through stacks and stacks of after action reports and it becomes clear that shots to the center mass generally put down the target. Exceptions are just that, except in cases when a muj was hopped up on drugs. My personal favorite of that bunch was Bosnian who had his chest ventilated by two .50BMG slugs, but countinued firing on a TCP, so another burst caused him to wear one leg backwards, to which he still continued his attack. It took at string of 40mms to take him out of the fight.

[Lee]

Yeah, it's very true. Two of the most sought after weapons in Iraq and Afghanistan by our soldiers are the great M14 and Colt 1911 .45, they always try to get those issued to them any chance they get. Weapon effectiveness has nothing to do with age, a great weapon is a great weapon, and works just as well now as it did when it first came out. The Browning M2 .50 cal is one of the very finest weapons we have, super deadly and hugely popular with the troops, and we've been using that forever. We still have the 1911 pistols in inventory and issue them, so I guess it would have to have the record, at least in the U.S., for the longest used weapon by our military.

Below is a good way to practice with an M14 or a Colt .45, tests not only your marksmanship skills, but the steadiness of your hands when the shot counts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZn2l1tOcHg

[Lee]

Cool video of an M14 being fired full auto.

[Lee]

Apocal: The SR-25 uses the same basic direct impingement system as the M16, so it's going to have the same problems of reliability when it gets dirty, which it will get fast when fired. As far as the M110 version of the SR-25, if I recall correctly, SEAL's who have used it in combat have reported that it was a pretty good rifle, when it worked, but was not reliable with heavy fire (this is critical in a combat weapon).

Why go to a weapon with inferior reliability? The M14 is extremely reliable, deadly accurate (especially with a match barrel), and is readily available with plenty of accessories. Sounds like another one of these mindless procurements the military makes (like buying more M4's when the H&K 416 was proven clearly superior in testing) to ensure career advancement ("Yeah, the M110 was *my* weapons program, and it got approved, when do I get promoted?") or a job after they leave the military ("Welcome the new military sales rep of Knight's Armament!").

[Alan8325]

I was under the impression that the FN SCAR, which comes in 5.56 and 7.62 NATO versions, was the new rifle in service with special forces. Does anyone have up-to-date info on whether these are actually in the field? Wikipedia says 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_SCAR

[Apocal]

Good lord, man, I posted that nine months ago! Anyway...

Apocal: The SR-25 uses the same basic direct impingement system as the M16, so it's going to have the same problems of reliability when it gets dirty, which it will get fast when fired.

I can honestly say the M16 hasn't given me any problems with reliability, excluding one ludicrously clapped-out weapon that should have been occupying vacant space at a scrap heap. When it does when it get a click instead of a bang, I pull SPORTS and two seconds later it goes bang again. Very early in my career I was issued the M14, it did give me problems with reliability, possibly due to age... but the first impression is the lasting one.

The various malfunctions I get rarely have anything to do with the gas system, I mean, it looks horrible after a good day's work, but the majority of the problems are the ****ing magazines. I buy my own nowadays. Pretty sure most guys do. Had next to no problems since then.

As far as the M110 version of the SR-25, if I recall correctly, SEAL's who have used it in combat have reported that it was a pretty good rifle, when it worked, but was not reliable with heavy fire (this is critical in a combat weapon). Why go to a weapon with inferior reliability?

Yeah, it (allegedly) had or has issues with overheating. Never heard about the reliability issue though.

The M14 is extremely reliable, deadly accurate (especially with a match barrel), and is readily available with plenty of accessories. Sounds like another one of these mindless procurements the military makes (like buying more M4's when the H&K 416 was proven clearly superior in testing) to ensure career advancement ("Yeah, the M110 was *my* weapons program, and it got approved, when do I get promoted?") or a job after they leave the military ("Welcome the new military sales rep of Knight's Armament!").

Well, that one possibility. The other is that it's legitimately a more effective weapon. I don't know either way, I've never fired it.

Found the link I referred to so many moons ago... http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IAV/is_1_94/ai_n27864822/pg_4/

However, they felt the M-14 provided the capability to be used in the support by fire role and did not take away from the primary rifleman mission. Their recommendation was to use the SR 25 rifle.

[ScubaSam]

Believe it or not, one of the reasons standard riflemen found their rifles switched from 7.62 to 5.56 (like when the British SLR was dropped in favour of the SA80) is actually because of the fact 5.56 is "less" effective.

If you put a 5.56 round in someone and they are wounded, any conventional force will have casevac procedures to be followed. So you've neutralised one enemy, plus another one or two giving him first aid, plus others helping to extract him, plus that enemy squad's mission is going to be interrupted until they get the casualty evacuated.

With a 7.62 round, theres a greater chance the enemy will be killed outright. That results in one less enemy, but by making the enemy evacuate a casualty you have a greater effect on their operations.

Of course, today, when the main enemy are insurgent forces (who really aren't so worried about casevac procedures, lets face it) you're probably better off just dropping them, especially if they are doped up and willing to die for their cause.

[akd]

Apocal: The SR-25 uses the same basic direct impingement system as the M16, so it's going to have the same problems of reliability when it gets dirty, which it will get fast when fired. As far as the M110 version of the SR-25, if I recall correctly, SEAL's who have used it in combat have reported that it was a pretty good rifle, when it worked, but was not reliable with heavy fire (this is critical in a combat weapon).

All weapons can fail if the are not maintained properly. If I recall, reported problems with the M110 in the field stem from an issue with the trigger group that has been corrected. SEALs don't use the M110, but rather the Mk. 11.

Why go to a weapon with inferior reliability? The M14 is extremely reliable, deadly accurate (especially with a match barrel), and is readily available with plenty of accessories. Sounds like another one of these mindless procurements the military makes (like buying more M4's when the H&K 416 was proven clearly superior in testing) to ensure career advancement ("Yeah, the M110 was *my* weapons program, and it got approved, when do I get promoted?") or a job after they leave the military ("Welcome the new military sales rep of Knight's Armament!").

The M14 is actually difficult to maintain and requires a lot more specialized armorer support than the AR system. It is also no more accurate than Mk. 11/M110 and is pretty darn heavy. There are many disadvantages to the M14 system, but there is one great advantage: we have (or had) thousands of them sitting unused.

I was under the impression that the FN SCAR, which comes in 5.56 and 7.62 NATO versions, was the new rifle in service with special forces. Does anyone have up-to-date info on whether these are actually in the field?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_SCAR

Yes they are.

[Rustman]

Special forces 'still use it' because they are good enough to have any use of the rifle. A rank and file soldier who is there to put out fire volume doesn't need a perfectly accurate, powerful, mastercrafted weapon to do his job, and he is a too bad shot to really get the most out of the rifle's attributes.

Special forces however who have much more training with their weapons can have use of the rifle's accuracy and power, and in the right group and at longer ranges accuracy is more important for squad level fire power than fire volume is.

And heck, if you want to see a long time service weapon, check the M2 heavy machine gun. Probably has the world record in longest time in service.

That is a "rank and file" soldier using it. Depending on the unit commanders and the funding they are willing to spend, some squad designated marksmen are issued M14's. During pre deployment trainup, I was picked to be on the team designing and implimenting our company advanced marksmanship program, part of which included how we would go about selecting and outfitting the DM's. I really really really wanted M-14's and we faught that one all the way up until the day we deployed, but ultimately our CO decided that it would be more cost effective to issue M16A4's (which we already had) with ACOG's. I understand his point, but, still, damnit....I really wanted an M14.

[Lee]

ScubaSam: Yes, that's exactly the problem, this whole wounding theory might work ok if you're in open field combat with a real army that actually makes an effort to evacuate the wounded. When you're in close quarters combat, especially with these terrorist low lives, all that matters is putting the enemy down fast, wounding is a non-issue, you just want to kill them as fast as you can so they can't shoot at you. The 7.62x51/.308 does that very nicely. It also penetrates intermediary obstacles way better.

Apocal: May have been an ammo problem or magazine issue, maybe needed a routine going over before it was fired, not sure. But everything I've ever seen about combat reports on the M14 was that it was very reliable, even when used in very dirty conditions like in Vietnam. Yeah, those flimsy M16 mags aren't so great. Another nice thing about the M14, nice strong steel magazines.

akd: The M110 is just a variant of the Mk11, no significant functional differences. As to maintenance, these direct impingement systems not only dirty the functioning part of the weapon very quickly, they also build up heat like crazy, which leads to parts wearing/deteriorating and needing to be replaced more frequently, not exactly convenient or inexpensive from an armorer standpoint.

Rustman: That's in line with the stuff I've heard/read on the subject of combat troops and the M14, anyone that can get an M14 issued to them jumps at the chance. They have proven to be deadly effective in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and are much sought after (also much in demand is the 1911 .45 pistol, which some troops have been issued). With a 16-17 inch barrel configuration, it's great for storming buildings and putting the bad guys down hard and fast. See the link below for an example of an M14 set up in a CQB assault configuration that you (and the Army/Marines) can buy now.

http://www.springfield-armory.com/armory.php?model=18

[dan/california]

Almost the entire original rationale for the 5.56, as I understand it, was that you could carry more bullets for the same weight. Whether or not this is the correct primary consideration in the current conflicts is a different question.

[Lee]

Yeah, that was the other part (aside from the wounding theory), you can carry more rounds. But what difference does it make if you have to keep shooting the enemy to take him out, especially if you are in close quarters and you can't afford to have delays in getting results? With the 7.62x51 they go down fast and with less rounds.

[akd]

ScubaSam: Yes, that's exactly the problem, this whole wounding theory might work ok if you're in open field combat with a real army that actually makes an effort to evacuate the wounded. When you're in close quarters combat, especially with these terrorist low lives, all that matters is putting the enemy down fast, wounding is a non-issue, you just want to kill them as fast as you can so they can't shoot at you. The 7.62x51/.308 does that very nicely. It also penetrates intermediary obstacles way better.

But you carry half the ammo. Not a small issue.

Apocal: May have been an ammo problem or magazine issue, maybe needed a routine going over before it was fired, not sure. But everything I've ever seen about combat reports on the M14 was that it was very reliable, even when used in very dirty conditions like in Vietnam. Yeah, those flimsy M16 mags aren't so great. Another nice thing about the M14, nice strong steel magazines.

It is very reliable, but armorer maintenance can be a problem. Even the most reliable weapons still have to go to the armorer.

akd: The M110 is just a variant of the Mk11, no significant functional differences. As to maintenance, these direct impingement systems not only dirty the functioning part of the weapon very quickly, they also build up heat like crazy, which leads to parts wearing/deteriorating and needing to be replaced more frequently, not exactly convenient or inexpensive from an armorer standpoint.

The problem I referred to was specific to the issued M110s.

We have had some instalition issues with the triggers and they have been coming out of adjustment in the field. The users are also used to a single stage trigger and they are having to get used to the two stage trigger on the M-110. We are working hard to correct these issues. Part of it is the triggers were not able to be broken in as much on the M-110 because the rifle is painted prior to shipment and the acceptance test is not as extensive as the Mk-11. We are accepting full responsibility for these issues and will repair the problems.

_________________

C Reed Knight III

Knight's Armament Company

http://www.knightarmco.com/

http://www.lawmens.net/

Heat build-up in the receiver due to direct impingement should not be a significant issue in a precision semi-auto rifle, or if it is, then it is not an issue specific to the AR gas system (which is proven capable of full-auto fire). Maybe something related to prolonged rapid fire with the suppressor on, but I have never heard of "overheating" as an issue with the Mk.11 family.

Anyways, no sniper systems are particularly convenient or inexpensive (save maybe the SVD).

Rustman: That's in line with the stuff I've heard/read on the subject of combat troops and the M14, anyone that can get an M14 issued to them jumps at the chance. They have proven to be deadly effective in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and are much sought after (also much in demand is the 1911 .45 pistol, which some troops have been issued). With a 16-17 inch barrel configuration, it's great for storming buildings and putting the bad guys down hard and fast. See the link below for an example of an M14 set up in a CQB assault configuration that you (and the Army/Marines) can buy now.

http://www.springfield-armory.com/armory.php?model=18

\

There is no question that NATO 7.62mm is an effective round, but the M14 does nothing special or magical with the ammo.

[ScubaSam]

Yeah, that was the other part (aside from the wounding theory), you can carry more rounds. But what difference does it make if you have to keep shooting the enemy to take him out, especially if you are in close quarters and you can't afford to have delays in getting results? With the 7.62x51 they go down fast and with less rounds.

I think in CQB its a balancing act, really. With 7.62 you have greater spotting power and the ability to penetrate obstacles, but the recoil makes automatic fire difficult and you carry a lot less ammo. 5.56 gives you the opposite - less weight, a lighter recoil, but reduced power.

I mentioned the switch from SLR to SA80, and on balance I think this was actually one of those unusual good calls for procurement, in the sense that they foresaw a lot of wars in the future would be fought in build up areas. Going from a single-shot, 20 round mag, 7.62 full-size rifle to a fully automatic, 30 round mag, 5.56 bullpup rifle was probably a good call.

Having said that, things like the LSW may not be around much longer. A friend of mine in an Infantry unit says they dont even use that weapon after training - its far too large and cumbersome for CQB, and its mag size is too small for a support role (despite the name...). Using it as a DMR is an idea that has caught on in some regiments more than others. Glad to see it make an appearance in game though.

[Apocal]

But what difference does it make if you have to keep shooting the enemy to take him out, especially if you are in close quarters and you can't afford to have delays in getting results? With the 7.62x51 they go down fast and with less rounds.

If every round carried found it's way into a target, you'd have a point.

[dan/california]

The vast percentage of small arms ammunition just gets sprayed in the general direction of the enemy, and that is for very well trained troops. The hit rate for poorly trained troops must infinitesimal. So there is a real debate to be had on the merits of both sides of weight vs lethality. The Army seems to be trying to put the whole argument off until DARPA or somebody like them comes up with a truly revolutionary "something".

[Lee]

akd: Ah, then you were referring to something else. The problem I was talking about with the SEAL's were combat reports that the weapon was nice enough when it worked, but had functional reliability problems during heavy fire conditions in combat (this, of course, would cause such a DI weapon to foul very heavily and very quickly).

The heat issue I was referring to is not something that is exclusive to the SR-25 and variants, it happens with the M16 and M4 just as much, those hot gases get vented back into the weapon and cause internal temperatures to quickly soar during rapid semi-auto fire or full-auto fire. This causes accelerated wear and thus the need for more frequent parts replacement. The H&K 416, for example, doesn't have this problem and it's one of the main advantages it has over the M16. It saves a lot of maintenance hassle and money over time, but the Army chose to ignore that fact (as well as the superior reliability). So as of now, pretty much only the special forces use the 416 (they know it's better, and so they use it).

No, the M14 doesn't do anything magical with the 7.62x51, but it's rugged and reliable, even when very dirty, it's very accurate, you can smash the enemy in the face with the butt stock and it will not break the recoil spring (quite handy when you have lots of CQB, like in Iraq), it's been heavily battle tested and it's already in service and doing a great job. Trying to re-invent the wheel and buy another DI rifle like the M16 makes no sense.

Now, for a dedicated sniper rifle, who knows. But for a main battle rifle that can be used in the DMR role as well as variants for general combat/assault purposes, the M14 is the way to go. For a true dedicated semi-auto sniper rifle, I'd rather have the PSG-1.

Check out this cool video of an M14 in an assault configuration (Socom II) being fired. Bear in mind this guy is new to the rifle (I think he just bought it), but you can see it in action. Our English friend seems rather impressed with it.

ScubaSam: As far as controllability goes, check out this video. And this isn't even an active duty soldier who trains on the weapon constantly.

By the way, if you want to see lots of great pictures of all kinds of AR-15's (the design does have certain drawbacks, but it's still a cool assault rifle! ), check out this video.

[akd]

akd: Ah, then you were referring to something else. The problem I was talking about with the SEAL's were combat reports that the weapon was nice enough when it worked, but had functional reliability problems during heavy fire conditions in combat (this, of course, would cause such a DI weapon to foul very heavily and very quickly).

Mk. 11s were never intended as assault rifles. They are precision weapons meant to replace an M-24 or M-40. If these guys managed to fire their rifles to the point of failure (which would take an incredible amount of rounds) in combat, imagine the spot they would have been in with bolt-action rifles.

[jenrick]

The M14 is an improved Garand, no more no less. It was designed under a bunch of political red tape that led to it being less then it could have been, though more then it should have been.

As a DMR rifle it works well due to the soldiers it's issued to. I would argue that give the same guys M16A4's and they'd be just as effective. The M14 is not a particularly accurate gun (we're talking factory built brand new, not reworked or tweaked) compared to say the M24. They are designed and spec'd to shoot approximately 2-2.5 MOA, just like the M16 family. Getting one down to 1 MOA or better requires at a minimum glass bedding, and often truing the receiver and fitting a new new barrel.

Far as overheating/reliability the modern M16 is arguably more reliable when maintained correctly. Which contrary to all "wisdom" is almost dripping wet with lube when in a dusty or sandy environment. Will your rifle attract dirt and dust like nobodies business? Yes, but it will run just fine too. I does suck to clean later though.

The M14 is a solid rifle, but it should not be consider as a direct replacement for the the M16. All of the worlds military's went to an intermediate power cartridge after WW2 due to the success it had during that conflict. Going back to a full power rifle cartridge for the main issue weapon is a step backward.

-Jenrick

[Yair Iny]

You can't be seriously suggesting that the US Army and Marines would be better off having M14 instead of the M4/M16s they currently have? That would be like suggesting the M113 is the best APC in the world and should be used for ever more...

[lomir]

That would be like suggesting the M113 is the best APC in the world and should be used for ever more...

Some politicians here think so... cough, cough... Sweet Lord! I think I'm getting a cold...

[Dietrich]

If I were in a unit where I had my choice of long arm, I would ask for an AR-type weapon chambered in 6.5mm Grendel -- better range and better terminal ballistics than 5.56mm, yet without the decreased ammo load capacity of 7.62mm.