Why the M14 sucks. And the sins of the US Army Ordinance Corps.

[DoD1776]

One of the major problems with the deployment of the M16 in Vietnam was that they just came by and took your M14 and gave you an M16 and said figure it out...

They jammed easily A lil dirt and you’re trying to clean your gun while bullets are flying at you. I was watching in a documentary soldiers didn’t know how to properly clean the gun. They did really have any cleaning parts, no manuals, etc. it was a complete failure.

 

[Robin]

M-16: A Bureaucratic Horror Story - The Atlantic

The AR-15/M16: The rifle that was never supposed to be

 

[Mosinitis]

They jammed easily A lil dirt and you’re trying to clean your gun while bullets are flying at you. I was watching in a documentary soldiers didn’t know how to properly clean the gun. They did really have any cleaning parts, no manuals, etc. it was a complete failure.

We were issued Vietnam era M16's in Officer Candidate School. It took about 10 minutes for the instructor to show us how to detail strip the rifle (it would even take less if he wasn't doing it on stage). Cleaning wasn't even discussed, it was self evident. Very simple task. We had people with different mechanical aptitudes, I don't remember anyone having problems or asking for help with that part of training. Rolling up a poncho to rock hard cylinder was another story.

 

[Gonzobird]

I have a feeling that you already went through BCT before you got to OCS right?

Might have helped the speed of the field stripping lesson. Different from being trained on one rifle and then given a new rifle that no one really had any experience with while in the field with people shooting at you.

 

[Mosinitis]

I have a feeling that you already went through BCT before you got to OCS right?

Might have helped the speed of the field stripping lesson. Different from being trained on one rifle and then given a new rifle that no one really had any experience with while in the field with people shooting at you.

I went to OCS a year after graduating college. Never had any prior training or experience with firearms. Shot air rifles in a gallery as a kid, but that's all.

 

[meketrefe]

The guy in the video... It "Bended" the metal... lol.

One issue with many 5.56 ammo, is that while it is a good penetrator ( no doubt about that) there is substantial deflection due
to the lack of mass and momentum.
I have shot through two cars and go through 3 doors but after the first one will see all sort of spreads from several impacts.
Automotive glass is one of the worse, specially modern sports cars and shallow angles.
This can be somewhat mitigated by choosing the right ammo like heavier solid bullet or bonded and also the latest
and most modern infantry ammunition. The 62gr The M855A1(Army) and MK318 (Marines) provide a huge improvement
with barrier work vs. earlier ammunition.

In any case the 5.56 will defeat many types of body armor and barrier where other calibers like the 7.62x39 and obviously
the rather mild blackout will simply fail.

 

[meketrefe]

I put this in the General forum because this topic also touches on caliber and procurement politics.
Let the feather ruffling begin!

IMO he is right in may points but not in all of them.
The M14 and M1A are not accurate. Even after spending a fortune in one, these guns will not be consistent.
Reliability is not bad with quality receivers and components and can make a trusty rifle but definitively not
something that should have been deployed like they did in Vietnam.

But lets talk about cartridges for a second....

I agree that the best possible projectile for a "do it all" cartrige is the 7mm (284 bore).
I also agree that for an intermediate denomination a shorter high pressure casing would have done better
than any other combination for almost anything.

But I also do not agree the 7.62x51 was such a bad decision and let me explain why.

No one single cartrige was perfect not even the 280 British (That would have probably evolved anyway).

The early large cartriges were there for a role and the 30-06 took down airplanes in some cases.
Like mosinittis pointed out there was a time those cartriges where designed to take down horses
and or infantry sometimes across hundreds of yards. This is very different than the jungles of vietnam.

The Kurtz was a great concept but the round was not that great ballistically talking.
The Russians came up with their own version but the 7.62x39 is also less than ideal ballistically talking.
The 7.62x39 would have been the perfect round in 6mm and if this was done at the time the entire
world would be using the 6mm or something very similar to a 7.62x39 in 6mm. Perhaps a 6.8mm case
with a 6mm bullet.

The 5.56 was a much better concept ballistically talking. It is unfortunate that they didn't go with the
6mm in a similar size cartrige. That would be the ideal cartrige today just like the 6x45 is a decent
improvement basically using the same case.

Any of these would have kept a very small round similar to the 5.56, only a slight increase in weight
that is not that much, similar fire power, but a noticeable increase on range, versatility and lethality, just because of the extra selection, range of possibilities of the 6mm bore.

Since no one single cartridge can do everything well in every possible scenario this brings us back to the
7.62x51.
So why the 308 was not such bad decision? Well for onced it allowed to provide lots of power similar
to the 30-06 in a much shorter cartridge. A 30 caliber projectile can house a decent number of terminal
designs in the projectiles that were available at the time. Not just tracers but AP, API, long range
and several other specialty projectiles. Again the 7mm could have done the same but better but
not w/o the extra powder of the 308 case that was not available in the 280 British.

Perhaps if we look at the modern casings a 6.5x47 lapua in 7mm version is an amazing cat that can
be safely pumped to 63k psi.

So in my opinion the problem was not so much that they chose the 308 only but that they chose
the wrong projectile for the main role / MBR.

IMO a solid, 120 to 130gr bullet with a fragmentation design
would have reduced the weight, reduced recoil, be better penetrator and more versatile ammo even
with shorter barrels. That is what the enhanced lead free army round does today.

At the other hand long range ammunition can basically reproduce the same trajectories of the best
6.5 mm bullets but with a tad extra grain and momentum on the target.
We are talking about a 160gr solid that can deliver a trans-sonic range of 1600 yards at sea level.

your thoughts?


Bottom line, don't trust the government or old army barnacles to make the right decisions.
Look into the civil solutions both firearms, projectiles and ammunition where the true innovation
is constantly happening. On that I agree 100% with the video guy.

After all it was the Army who stole the M885A1 design from liberty ammunitions and they got
sued for that and they lost. A bill all taxpayers had to pay too.

 

[Podmonkey]

 

[Edwardteach72]

I was waiting for this video

 

[Podmonkey]

Gun Jesus has spoken.

 

[Edwardteach72]

Gun Jesus has spoken.

We had 1 F/A M-14 on our ship, a few of us line coaches got a chance to shoot it ones in FA. Useless but smiles from ear to ear

 

[Robin]

Never fired one on Rock n' roll. Looks about like an AK.
Robin

 

[Podmonkey]

Never fired one on Rock n' roll. Looks about like an AK.
Robin

Numerous similarities to an AK actually. Similar 2 lug rotating bolt with similar lock up, long stroke gas piston action, the rock and lock mags with a paddle release. Not suprising since Kalashnikov has stated that the M1 Garand was an inspiration to his later design.

 

[96coal449]

you know when the M14 really sucks?

When your facing a loaded muzzle.

 

[Marine Cpl]

you know when the M14 really sucks?

When your facing a loaded muzzle.

Not if the selector switch is set to full auto and you are 50 yards away!

 

[96coal449]

Not if the selector switch is set to full auto and you are 50 yards away!

I'd rather face a 9mm than a .45

 

[Marine Cpl]

I'd rather face a 9mm than a .45

Are you sure? You'd rather face a younger man with good eyesight than an older man with bad eyesight?

Me personally, I'd rather face the old man with the .45. His reflexes wouldn't be as good as the younger guy with the 9mm.

 

[Podmonkey]

Are you sure? You'd rather face a younger man with good eyesight than an older man with bad eyesight?

Me personally, I'd rather face the old man with the .45. His reflexes wouldn't be as good as the younger guy with the 9mm.

Well, you know what they day about old age and treachery beating youth and bravery.

 

[Podmonkey]

IMO he is right in may points but not in all of them.
The M14 and M1A are not accurate. Even after spending a fortune in one, these guns will not be consistent.
Reliability is not bad with quality receivers and components and can make a trusty rifle but definitively not
something that should have been deployed like they did in Vietnam.

But lets talk about cartridges for a second....

I agree that the best possible projectile for a "do it all" cartrige is the 7mm (284 bore).
I also agree that for an intermediate denomination a shorter high pressure casing would have done better
than any other combination for almost anything.

But I also do not agree the 7.62x51 was such a bad decision and let me explain why.

No one single cartrige was perfect not even the 280 British (That would have probably evolved anyway).

The early large cartriges were there for a role and the 30-06 took down airplanes in some cases.
Like mosinittis pointed out there was a time those cartriges where designed to take down horses
and or infantry sometimes across hundreds of yards. This is very different than the jungles of vietnam.

The Kurtz was a great concept but the round was not that great ballistically talking.
The Russians came up with their own version but the 7.62x39 is also less than ideal ballistically talking.
The 7.62x39 would have been the perfect round in 6mm and if this was done at the time the entire
world would be using the 6mm or something very similar to a 7.62x39 in 6mm. Perhaps a 6.8mm case
with a 6mm bullet.

The 5.56 was a much better concept ballistically talking. It is unfortunate that they didn't go with the
6mm in a similar size cartrige. That would be the ideal cartrige today just like the 6x45 is a decent
improvement basically using the same case.

Any of these would have kept a very small round similar to the 5.56, only a slight increase in weight
that is not that much, similar fire power, but a noticeable increase on range, versatility and lethality, just because of the extra selection, range of possibilities of the 6mm bore.

Since no one single cartridge can do everything well in every possible scenario this brings us back to the
7.62x51.
So why the 308 was not such bad decision? Well for onced it allowed to provide lots of power similar
to the 30-06 in a much shorter cartridge. A 30 caliber projectile can house a decent number of terminal
designs in the projectiles that were available at the time. Not just tracers but AP, API, long range
and several other specialty projectiles. Again the 7mm could have done the same but better but
not w/o the extra powder of the 308 case that was not available in the 280 British.

Perhaps if we look at the modern casings a 6.5x47 lapua in 7mm version is an amazing cat that can
be safely pumped to 63k psi.

So in my opinion the problem was not so much that they chose the 308 only but that they chose
the wrong projectile for the main role / MBR.

IMO a solid, 120 to 130gr bullet with a fragmentation design
would have reduced the weight, reduced recoil, be better penetrator and more versatile ammo even
with shorter barrels. That is what the enhanced lead free army round does today.

At the other hand long range ammunition can basically reproduce the same trajectories of the best
6.5 mm bullets but with a tad extra grain and momentum on the target.
We are talking about a 160gr solid that can deliver a trans-sonic range of 1600 yards at sea level.

your thoughts?


Bottom line, don't trust the government or old army barnacles to make the right decisions.
Look into the civil solutions both firearms, projectiles and ammunition where the true innovation
is constantly happening. On that I agree 100% with the video guy.

After all it was the Army who stole the M885A1 design from liberty ammunitions and they got
sued for that and they lost. A bill all taxpayers had to pay too.

My thoughts? Only a few: It seems the Army partially agrees with you given that the new M80A1 round is a 130gr bullet with the same construction as it's little brother the M855A1.
As to your points regarding heavy 6mm class projectiles I think its important to remember that overall cartridge weight and controlability under fully automatic fire are parameters just as important to a military cartridge as ballistics. I say a 110gr 6mm bullet at a relatively modest velocity is good, the external ballistics don't have to be any better than the 7.62x51.

 

[96coal449]

Are you sure? You'd rather face a younger man with good eyesight than an older man with bad eyesight?

Me personally, I'd rather face the old man with the .45. His reflexes wouldn't be as good as the younger guy with the 9mm.

Some old men are still excellent shooters.

 

[meketrefe]

My thoughts? Only a few: It seems the Army partially agrees with you given that the new M80A1 round is a 130gr bullet with the same construction as it's little brother the M855A1.
As to your points regarding heavy 6mm class projectiles I think its important to remember that overall cartridge weight and controlability under fully automatic fire are parameters just as important to a military cartridge as ballistics. I say a 110gr 6mm bullet at a relatively modest velocity is good, the external ballistics don't have to be any better than the 7.62x51.

Yes the ballistics coudld be similar but it is going to have more range that the current offerings just because of the 6mm and how efficient it is.
This w/o increasing the weight like crazy (or the recoil as you said) and also providing a noticeable increase in punch but w/o going nuts.
In the end ballistics is a world of trade offs so if you want to gain too much then you pay the price in other forms.

That is why the 6mm stands today as a perfect bore following some of the same directives as the original 223 that provided so many advantages
at the time it was introduced. It was a mistake not going 6mm but it was a very smart move at the time nevertheless.

No military in the world wants a light for caliber SLOW 30 bore that is for sure. It has no purpose for any serious MBR.

It was Stone who told General Kalashnikov... I had 3 requirements from the Army, 1-Weight 2-Weight 3-Weight. They both got a big laugh.