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 02-20-2014, 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
  #5  
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
  #6  
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
  #7  
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
  #8  
Old 02-21-2014, 08:47 AM
mainsailantiques mainsailantiques is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Florida, south-east coast
Posts: 77
Default

In 2000 I participated in the Dayton Peace (?) Accords implinintation deal in Bosnia with the IPTF.
The houses and buildings there laughed at the .223 round.
The homes had soilid poured concrete walls in and out.
Most of us, and because we operated outside the military "ROE", were able to discarded our pathetic .223-throwers and moved to the 7.26 x 39 AK, or the 308 M1A.
Much more effective with the jack-bags behind the walls....
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 02-21-2014, 10:16 AM
M14 M14 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: south mississippi
Posts: 874
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.
Yawn ?...Really ? Seen much combat have you, with both rifles ? I can assure you the M14 was not a failure. It was the "infantry" that was the failure. Any weapon is only as good as the man using it. Draft all the Joe Blows off the street and that's what you get....failure of character and determination. A man's heart has to be committed to his task, especially in war. He has to believe in what he is doing. That was not the case during the Viet Nam police action. Not a war. It went all the way back to the late 50's and early 60's in Laos and our government had troops and advisors in there telling us it was to stop communism and the catastrophe of the Plane of Jars. There is a big difference to the men actually engaged in those cases. It was not about communism at all, but about sugar and other natural resources, massive plantations left behind by the French, and America's power structure deciding to just go and take it, just like they did to the American Indians here. Real men know a lie when they hear it. Would you fight as hard for a lie, as you would for something like the freedom of a people ?

Our brothers in arms are dying, they are dead, gone, buried, because of this McNamara debacle and corruption from way back in the leadership in Washington. I wish more people would show a little respect to those men and their families, who give their lives for this country so you have the right to say what you wish. We would not object to you changing your username to 2.23 Nitro Express you know.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quicksilvergoat View Post
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?
Plus 1.

I think we will eventually find the 9mm in the new sidearms will be a failure too....maybe not, unless we run out of air cover and missiles and troops start actually firing their sidearms in combat. It's a little late at that point.

The original M14 design is exactly the answer, with some receiver refinements we are working on now for socom. The White, gas cut-off system is all they had to do to the M16 back then, along with a cartridge similar to the 7.62x39, if little guys complained of weight issues with the M14.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nf1e View Post
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
Well said Art !
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 02-21-2014, 10:57 AM
Roadkingtrax Roadkingtrax is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 8,614
Default

Going forward would certainly make the most sense. Time to design a rifle for the desert, high sierra environment if we plan to be in the Middle East for oil and Israeli flareups for the next 50 years.

Going backward makes as much sense as moonlight acquisitioning all the VFW tanks for spare parts.

Last edited by Roadkingtrax; 02-21-2014 at 11:00 AM.
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 12:45 AM.