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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 02-20-2014, 03:33 PM
tttttt tttttt is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7
Default Criticisms of the effectiveness of the M4/M16 continues

No explicit mention of the M14 in this story but the familiar refrains of jams, underpowered cartridge and lack of range continue.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-was-w/?page=1
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 02-20-2014, 04:36 PM
Quicksilvergoat Quicksilvergoat is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 604
Default

Just think if the M14 had been kept in production or hadn't been cut to pieces by the thousands. It's the same lame story for years since the adoption of the M16. Sad really.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 02-20-2014, 05:22 PM
7.62 Nitro Express 7.62 Nitro Express is offline
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 393
Default

Yawn.

Whatever issues the M4/M16 system may have in 2014, going back a 1950s era update of a design from 1936 is not the answer.

The M14 was a total failure as a general issue infantry weapon.

Get over it.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 02-21-2014, 06:56 PM
Roadkingtrax Roadkingtrax is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 8,614
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 7.62 Nitro Express View Post
Yawn.

Whatever issues the M4/M16 system may have in 2014, going back a 1950s era update of a design from 1936 is not the answer.

The M14 was a total failure as a general issue infantry weapon.

Get over it.
It would appear all rifles get a little bad press in their day

Whole article here: http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/...un&msg=3520.28

THE U.S. ARMY'S BLUNDERBUSS BUNGLE THAT FATTENED YOUR TAXES - John S. Tompkins, TRUE MAGAZINE, April, 1963 - Washington, D.C.

If you haven't heard about the M14 or its troubled history don't be surprised. The Army has been rather quiet about it lately, and with good reason.

Last edited by Roadkingtrax; 02-21-2014 at 07:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 02-20-2014, 05:37 PM
MyTurn MyTurn is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Northern Detroit, Michigan, Suburbs
Posts: 2,641
Default

The problem will always be that no one 'general issue' weapon will be right for every task. And the military has never been very good at getting everything right the first time (for that matter, few have). Having several different 'special purpose' weapons just complicates procurement and supply issues dramatically and, in some cases, will raise the risk of battlefield accidents.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 02-20-2014, 08:19 PM
Quicksilvergoat Quicksilvergoat is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Birmingham, AL
Posts: 604
Default

Hmmm...let's see the 1911 and the madeuce seem to be holding their own. I don't see how the M14 was a total failure. It never had a chance. It was being replaced before it was even fully fielded. It's not some romantic notion that leads me to believe that the US would have been better off keeping it around. The very article in the OP lays out problem after problem the M14 doesn't suffer from. Well sticking with a 1950's era design that still exhibits a multitude of the same problems it has suffered since day one doesn't make much sense now either does it?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 02-20-2014, 08:33 PM
GGaskill GGaskill is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Arizona
Posts: 2,664
Default

The M14 was supposed to be an automatic rifle and it never could achieve that status operationally (although I think that is a flawed requirement.) As mentioned above, the one size fits all philosophy doesn't work in this case any better than it does elsewhere.

It would seem to me that a new infantryman could be trained in AIT on both the M14 and M16 platforms and then be issued and receive pre-deployment refresher training on whichever weapon was considered appropriate for the deployment. While there are some supply considerations involved in having multiple calibers deployed, I can't see it would be much different than issuing .30-06 and .30 Carbine during WW II which was spread over a much wider distribution than any of our current/recent conflicts.
__________________
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
  #8  
Old 02-21-2014, 02:00 PM
MyTurn MyTurn is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Northern Detroit, Michigan, Suburbs
Posts: 2,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GGaskill View Post
The M14 was supposed to be an automatic rifle and it never could achieve that status operationally (although I think that is a flawed requirement.) As mentioned above, the one size fits all philosophy doesn't work in this case any better than it does elsewhere.

It would seem to me that a new infantryman could be trained in AIT on both the M14 and M16 platforms and then be issued and receive pre-deployment refresher training on whichever weapon was considered appropriate for the deployment. While there are some supply considerations involved in having multiple calibers deployed, I can't see it would be much different than issuing .30-06 and .30 Carbine during WW II which was spread over a much wider distribution than any of our current/recent conflicts.
Pretty hard to confuse .30 Carbine and .30-06 even in the heat of combat, though. The M14 has certainly proven itself to be a good weapon and is better for long range use, although the 5.56 round has seen steady improvement, as seen in Afghanistan, for example. The rationale supporting a weapon that uses lighter weight ammo and thus allows the ordinary rifleman to carry more rounds is still very compelling, however, when you look at the studies that show how many rounds are expended for every enemy kill. A lot of guys think the 7.62x39 is much better as a 'do everything' round than the 5.56 so it is interesting to see that the Russians went to a round more like the 5.56 to use in the AK-74.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-21-2014, 02:21 PM
Kestrel4k Kestrel4k is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,991
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MyTurn View Post
[...] A lot of guys think the 7.62x39 is much better as a 'do everything' round than the 5.56 so it is interesting to see that the Russians went to a round more like the 5.56 to use in the AK-74.
My theory on that is that it simply comes down to, 'Troops hate what they're being shot at with'.
  • We're shooting 5.56 but getting hit by 7.62x39, so that seemed more effective.
  • The other side was shooting 7.62 & getting hit by 5.56, same thing.
Just a theory, I haven't been shot at by either and I have every intent for it to stay that way.

Last edited by Kestrel4k; 02-21-2014 at 02:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-21-2014, 05:05 AM
nf1e nf1e is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 2,682
Default

We have always used multiple caliber choices in our fire teams. In my time it was .45,.30,30-06,.30 carbine,M79, laws and then of coarse the biggest goof of all, the .223. The only libturd that would think that one could do it all is one that never had to use any. The M14 would be my choice from any of the above for the ability to get the job done as best as possible with one weapon. It may be, in some opinions, an old design, but there is a reason it is still in service today after many moons. There has not been anything to replace its effectiveness or dependability since it's inception. You may not agree with me, but you would be wrong, no matter how many books you have read. This is my opinion only.

Semper Fi
Art
USMC 66-72 RVN 67 -68
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 01:29 AM.