Go Back   CMP Forums > CMP Sales > M1A/M14
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 04-14-2017, 09:52 AM
missilegeek missilegeek is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: AL
Posts: 1,917
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OKC_Jim View Post
Why does every thread about the M-14 turn in to an argument?
That's a religious question.
__________________
Service Rifle: 1884-2015 RIP.
Service Pistol: 1903-2014
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-14-2017, 03:00 PM
missilegeek missilegeek is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: AL
Posts: 1,917
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bandhunter31 View Post
I don't see how training has anything to do with someone disliking a gun that they need to trust there life with and having the gun's barrel and Magazine springs rusting out.....I think the issue for many who served during the transition period from M-14 to M-16 was the politics involved and rush to replace a solid time tested killing instrument with a gun that was unproven and early on did experience a good deal of issues WHILE IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR!!!!.........and from all accounts of the time, it is reasonable to surmise that it caused the untimely death of SOME of our fighting men........
If the M1 Garand had been pushed into service in 1941 instead of 1936, giving operational time to get the bugs out, it would be viewed similarly by many vets of the period.

As it stands, a number of the issues were not due to the M16 design itself, but to Ordnance thinking they knew better and - allegedly - Springfield Armory test sabotage.
__________________
Service Rifle: 1884-2015 RIP.
Service Pistol: 1903-2014
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-14-2017, 05:55 PM
JimF JimF is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 872
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by missilegeek View Post
. . . . As it stands, a number of the issues were not due to the M16 design itself, but to Ordnance thinking they knew better . . . . .
I quite agree . . . .

Similarly, when the army decided to turn the M1 Carbine into an OFFENSIVE weapon, it got a bad rap . . . .

That little gun was DESIGNED for DEFENSIVE use . . . . . NOT offensive use!!
__________________
--Jim
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-14-2017, 09:20 PM
FX41 FX41 is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Colorado
Posts: 294
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bandhunter31 View Post
.......all things equal, 2 guys slugging it out at 500 yards, I think the .308 wins every day of the week over the 5.56........yes with less ammo......
Agree 100%.

Two guys going room to room? M4.

What do I really want? My 60mm Morter :P
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-14-2017, 09:42 PM
Gewehr43 Gewehr43 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 2,330
Default

".......all things equal, 2 guys slugging it out at 500 yards, I think the .308 wins every day of the week over the 5.56........yes with less ammo......"

What is ironic about saying this sort of thing is the Camp Perry CMP matches like the P100, EIC (NTI) and "Rattle Battle" are ABSOLUTLEY DOMINATED by the AR......... like 99% of shooters...........

And those are shot at 600yds..............

One of the reasons is the AR is FAR more accurate than the M14 ever was........

Even more ironic is the M1A match is only shot at 300yds...................
__________________
Service Rifle.... RIP .... 1884-2015

Last edited by Gewehr43; 04-14-2017 at 09:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-15-2017, 01:19 AM
Rock Rock is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 961
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bandhunter31 View Post
I think the issue for many who served during the transition period from M-14 to M-16 was the politics involved and rush to replace a solid time tested killing instrument with a gun that was unproven and early on did experience a good deal of issues WHILE IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR!!!!
That's a question that has never been answered as far as I know. Were M14 armed combat troops demanding a better rifle because they thought they were outclassed by enemy small arms? Historically, there are multiple cases of countries halting a caliber switch because of an imminent war. We changed the caliber and the rifle in the middle of a war. That defies common sense.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-15-2017, 02:17 AM
Gewehr43 Gewehr43 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 2,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bandhunter31
I think the issue for many who served during the transition period from M-14 to M-16 was the politics involved and rush to replace a solid time tested killing instrument with a gun that was unproven and early on did experience a good deal of issues WHILE IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR!!!!

That's a question that has never been answered as far as I know. Were M14 armed combat troops demanding a better rifle because they thought they were outclassed by enemy small arms? Historically, there are multiple cases of countries halting a caliber switch because of an imminent war. We changed the caliber and the rifle in the middle of a war. That defies common sense.


But these statements contradict what was going on with the M14 at the time.........

Without a doubt Politics was running amuck but the M14 struggled from the get go.......... (Read "US Rifle M14" Collector Grade Publications by Stevens). Missed production numbers, faulty parts, subpar exploding rifles, inaccurate rifles, ammunition problems, senate hearings, investigations, etc............. The rifle was doomed from the start. Now again.... alot of that was due to the politics being played.

So it wasn't a "solid time tested killing machine."

Instead the military went with the M16 (and suffered the same political induced problems) but instead eventually worked them out............
and they dumped the M14.

The best example of the failure to properly field the M16 at the time was, apparently provide no training on or equipment for cleaning the rifle
and then being confused as to why they were failing............and why GI's didn't like them.
__________________
Service Rifle.... RIP .... 1884-2015

Last edited by Gewehr43; 04-15-2017 at 02:28 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-15-2017, 02:58 AM
GGaskill GGaskill is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Arizona
Posts: 2,666
Default

I think the M14's times of trouble were history when the Viet Nam war was escalated in 1965.
__________________
Only hits count.

"The trouble with most people is that they think with their hopes or fears or wishes rather than with their minds."--Will Durant
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-15-2017, 11:18 AM
Gewehr43 Gewehr43 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 2,330
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGaskill View Post
I think the M14's times of trouble were history when the Viet Nam war was escalated in 1965.
Yes.......... They were starting to get "their act together" but instead of "sticking it out" with the M14, it was dumped.

In reading his book, what is frustrating is in retrospect, is they @#$%'d around in the 50's with the M14, instead of getting it done and fielded in large numbers.

Instead the nagging problems continued and slowed the fielding.

That opened the door (right or wrong) for the M16 to take it's place.

And the M16 did.......... including the "start up problems" just like the M14.

Both rifles suffered from politics being played by the Army and Govt.
__________________
Service Rifle.... RIP .... 1884-2015
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-15-2017, 10:29 PM
MarkV MarkV is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Port Clinton Ohio
Posts: 486
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by condor View Post
I still don't understand why the Army didn't just tell Stoner to let the Air Force to have their 223 plinkster and to instead issue AR-10s to the Army and Marine Corps.

An AR10 is plenty light.
The AR10 was indeed the best option.

Fact is that the M14 was Springfield Armoires last possible life line to delay their closure and they sabotaged AR10 testing heavily protect their baby.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:13 PM.