The M-14 rifle, and use and deployment of in USMC

[Prune_Juice]

I just talked to The Dad. Asked him about his sidearm, as asked in the second post of this thread. He had to recall, but said it was NOT 1911.. but WAS a .45, I asked what kind he settled on "I think it was Remington," asked if it was special outfitted for USMC he said "Yes, absolutely." ?

7.62 sounds like some great stopping power.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
The M16 just feels more fragile.


It is. So much so the Army was forced to delete a test all battle rifles must pass, to be able to get it on line. Up until the introduction of the M-16, one requirement any service rifle must accomplish, was to be able to boost a soldier over an obstacle, with one man holding the butt stock, and the other the muzzle. With the soldier placing his foot in the middle of the weapon, be boosted up and over a wall. When this was tried with the M-16, the rifle promptly broke in half.

 

[Robenstein]

Originally Posted By: Prune_Juice
I just talked to The Dad. Asked him about his sidearm, as asked in the second post of this thread. He had to recall, but said it was NOT 1911.. but WAS a .45, I asked what kind he settled on "I think it was Remington," asked if it was special outfitted for USMC he said "Yes, absolutely." ?

7.62 sounds like some great stopping power.


If it was a Remington....it was a Remington Rand 1911A1. The 7.62 NATO has some power, but it is limited due to being only FMJ (required by the Hague Accords). It would blow through a person at short range and just keep going.There was worry about the power of the round when it was new, but that was quickly dispelled. But compared to the other "intermediate length" cartridges, it was the most powerful. The 7.62x39mm Soviet, the 8mm Kurz (7.92x33mm), and the .280 Enfield (7x43mm) were all much weaker cartridges. The Europeans had a different idea on what a cartridge had to do. We still wanted something that could really reach out and touch you from a distance, the Europeans were looking at more short ranges like 150-200 meters. We pushed for the adoption of our cartridge as the NATO standard in trade for us adopting the Belgian FAL rifle. We went back on our end of the deal because it was "not made here" and chose the M14

 

[Robenstein]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Robenstein
The M16 just feels more fragile.


It is. So much so the Army was forced to delete a test all battle rifles must pass, to be able to get it on line. Up until the introduction of the M-16, one requirement any service rifle must accomplish, was to be able to boost a soldier over an obstacle, with one man holding the butt stock, and the other the muzzle. With the soldier placing his foot in the middle of the weapon, be boosted up and over a wall. When this was tried with the M-16, the rifle promptly broke in half.


I also heard something about trying to use it as a club was out the window too, that the upper and lower would bust apart. That was just the price you pay for aluminum alloy, plastic/polymer, and modular construction in the late 50's.

 

[Prune_Juice]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Originally Posted By: Prune_Juice
I just talked to The Dad. Asked him about his sidearm, as asked in the second post of this thread. He had to recall, but said it was NOT 1911.. but WAS a .45, I asked what kind he settled on "I think it was Remington," asked if it was special outfitted for USMC he said "Yes, absolutely." ?

7.62 sounds like some great stopping power.


If it was a Remington....it was a Remington Rand 1911A1. The 7.62 NATO has some power, but it is limited due to being only FMJ (required by the Hague Accords). It would blow through a person at short range and just keep going.There was worry about the power of the round when it was new, but that was quickly dispelled. But compared to the other "intermediate length" cartridges, it was the most powerful. The 7.62x39mm Soviet, the 8mm Kurz (7.92x33mm), and the .280 Enfield (7x43mm) were all much weaker cartridges. The Europeans had a different idea on what a cartridge had to do. We still wanted something that could really reach out and touch you from a distance, the Europeans were looking at more short ranges like 150-200 meters. We pushed for the adoption of our cartridge as the NATO standard in trade for us adopting the Belgian FAL rifle. We went back on our end of the deal because it was "not made here" and chose the M14


Ahhh, ok. He must have been remembering the Remington part. He DID say "The .45" and that was going to be my next question: There was more than one?

 

[ammolab]

Originally Posted By: user52165
I still remember the serial number of my M14 (Winchester) issued in basic training Jan 1968. Yes, a very fine rifle. Got a brand M16 (Colt) in VietNam. The M14AI is auto capable. The M14 is easily modded to auto which is one reason you can't buy one.

Interesting link:

http://www.smithenterprise.com/index.html


All US issue M14 rifles were capable of full automatic fire. Often the actuator bar and selector switch were removed from issue rifles and stored with the unit ordinance people. This then made the rifle semi auto only. I carried an M14 in VietNam and did fire it in full auto, but it is way to light to be an effective machine gun. I gave my full auto parts to ordnance with no regrets. Some times I carried a .45 and yes, a POS worn 1911A1.

 

[HM12460]

IIRC, the Air Force was the first branch of the Armed Forces to adopt the M-16, but I forget what year. Early-mid 60's I would imagine.

 

[Robenstein]

Originally Posted By: HM12460
IIRC, the Air Force was the first branch of the Armed Forces to adopt the M-16, but I forget what year. Early-mid 60's I would imagine.


Yes it was the USAF adopted in in 1963 if I recall. They pushed for it as early as 61, but found resistance. The bean counters were concerned with the logistics of having two separate rifle platforms with two different rounds.

 

[Astro14]

You can thank General Curtis LeMay, of Strategic Air Command. He acted as he saw fit, and that included buying rifles for his nuclear security forces. He bought the M-16.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Astro14
You can thank General Curtis LeMay, of Strategic Air Command. He acted as he saw fit, and that included buying rifles for his nuclear security forces. He bought the M-16.


You have to respect a guy who burned down half of Tokyo, in the time it took him to smoke a couple of his cigars.

 

[ALS]

I own several versions of the AR-15 as well as M1A's (Semi auto M-14) and Armalite AR-10's.

My favorite are my M1A's. The Armalite M4 and the SuperSASS both .308 7.62x52 are OK and yes they do hit everything you point them at, there is just something about the M1A's that just make them my favorites.

My first M1A was a Springfield Super Match I bought back in the mid 1980's. The original Douglas Barrel on the Super Match was replaced a few years ago with a Kreiger. I had a special super accurate M1A built by an U.S.M.C. MOS 2112 Armorer that I know. All NM match parts and even the barrel has U.S.M.C. Match stamped on it.

 

[Reg# 43897]

Nothing like an M-14. Have a Mini of my own & an M-14. Have an SKS-D as well as an un-issued No.4 Rifle in .303 Br (all matching serials). The M-14 is king. Got it off a fellow that was dying of cancer about fifteen or so years ago. My buddy bought his Garand & I wanted the M-14. Had a pile of old GI mag pouches & magazines of all makes & sizes. Some were rusty & rough (but functional!) while some looked to have never been used - ever.

To the point: I have had the pleasure of being trained up on the latest Colt (Diemaco-licenced) C8IUR & it is a great system. Given a choice, I'd take the M-14. The obvious downsides are there: heavier firearm & heavier ammunition for a lesser overall round count. BUT, you have 7.62 Nato versus 5.56 Nato & one of the more robust, mag-fed, semi-automatic battle rifles ever made. It's FAR more accurate than it has a right to be & w/ a red-dot like the current C8IUR has, it would be amazing. Mine is straight iron still but I love that thing. I will never part w/ it.

 

[Robenstein]

I have a Garand, have shot an M1A, and own and FAL. While the M1A (M14 civilian clone) is cool, I do prefer the FAL. It may not be as accurate, but darn are they durable and pretty darn reliable. One fellow a few years back had shot 13k rounds through a metric FAL with no cleaning other than throwing it in mud puddles. When he finally did clean it, he had to chisel carbon out in order to remove the piston. It was that dirty and was still working.

 

[Reg# 43897]

Yeah, no arguments concerning the FAL. Friend has an inch-pattern L1A1 (Aus). It is a tack-driver of a gun & very durable. So yeah, you are right. Would have loved to have been able to get a C1A1 but, alas, that train has LONG since left the station.

Will have to be content w/ the M-14.

John.

 

[sgtrockjoe]

We still used the M14s into the later part of the 70s when I was stationed at the Marine Barracks in Norfolk VA. THEY were not just used for ceremonies as matter of fact.

 

[sgtrockjoe]

OH one other thing. The 1-1-1 you talked about may have ment 1st battalion 1st regiment of the 1st division.

 

[Robenstein]

Originally Posted By: sgtrockjoe
We still used the M14s into the later part of the 70s when I was stationed at the Marine Barracks in Norfolk VA. THEY were not just used for ceremonies as matter of fact.


They were slow to be pulled from certain theaters of operation. Bases at home early during the transition to the M16 would train people on the M14, and then they would arrive in Nam and get an M16 with almost no training on the weapon.

The war in Nam chewed up a massive amount of rifles, so the M14 continued on as the service rifle in places like West Berlin and in South Korea as most production of new M16 rifles were destined for southeast Asia.

The Marines also largely did not care for the rifle, and adopted it much more reluctantly. For a while they pushed for the adoption of the Stoner 63 rifle made by Cadillac- Gauge.

 

[john_pifer]

Great thread. Appreciate all the contributions!

You guys are making me want to go buy a 7.62x51mm rifle. I have a Mini-30, but it's no SOCOM-16.

A guy at the range the other day had an M-14. He said he'd bought it from a guy who had assembled it from parts.

 

[pkunk]

I have and adore a M-14. In Vietnam ('65-66) I was issued a M-14 and a Colt 45 as a crew chief on a B model Huey Cobra gunship. My door gun was a M-60, stripped and free held. Late in '65 I traded the M-14 for a Thompson as it was shorter, and shared ammo with my sidearm. I rarely shot the .45's - they were just backup if we had to ditch.
An aside, I was older than my pilots by a few years at 24 and they respected my opinion and went with the Thompson too.

 

[Nickdfresh]

Originally Posted By: Robenstein
Originally Posted By: CT8
There is something about the M1 or the M14 that is missing in the M16. It is not a bad or good just a certain I don't know exactly. The look? The feel? Wood and steel? like a harley there is just something about them.



I am going to go with the feel. Not only is the M16 light and "toylike" in comparison, that 5.56x45mm cartridge just doesn't recoil much and you have that weird recoil feel to the gun with the buffer spring in the stock. The M16 just feels more fragile.


The M-16A1 seems almost to clank and vibrate rather than recoil. I had a very, very worn one in Basic and assumed that all bolt carriers had deep grooves in them. It wasn't until I was issued one full time that I realized there should have been NO grooves or scratches whatsoever...