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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-22-2020, 07:14 PM
Gewehr43 Gewehr43 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 3,272
Default Found a Study of the M14 in Vietnam

FWIW........
Sortta odd the Army conducted the Study but had 83? Marines answer?

Not alot of respondents but ........ ?

Also done in 1967.......

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/649517.pdf
__________________
Service Rifle.... RIP .... 1884-2015
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-22-2020, 08:03 PM
Kansasbobcat Kansasbobcat is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Texas
Posts: 602
Default

Thank you. Interesting read.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-22-2020, 09:56 PM
6 Ring 6 Ring is online now
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: South of Atlanta, Ga
Posts: 3,590
Default

I need to zero at 200 yards and carry at least 200 rounds.
Very good information, Thank-You.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-23-2020, 10:09 AM
milprileb milprileb is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Saigon, RVN
Posts: 3,093
Default

I have read this report and it comes of no surprise regarding comments on M14. First, I carried a M14 in Panama (on equator in dense jungles, rains all the time) and corrosion was an issue but the weapon always functioned. While that was Jungle School and not combat, the conditions mirrored Viet Nam exactly.

Secondly, I lived the life as a prime mover of the M16 in I Corps, RVN. THe time period of the Marines reporting in this report was Monsoon Season 66 which is not unlike Monsoon season 69 which my Infantry platoon had to occasion to enjoy. All the drama of wet conditions on gear and weapons I saw first hand. The M16 was better for those conditions as I could compare that to what I experienced in Panama with M14. All the negative things in this report about weight were the same...thankfully we had 556 ammo that weighed less and carried more of it because in Monsoon, your re supply birds did not fly, you had what you had ...so being able to carry more ammo which weighed less was an advantage.

This is not to say there were not times I wished I had a 762 Nato caliber rifle and I did day dream of cutting a M14 barrel and having what today is Springfield M1A Scout ....but
there was no way I could have done such a modification. We lived in the bush the entire year long tour, the 101st Abn Division kept us "gainfully employed".

As to why the report used Marines, I can only surmise I Corps was the hottest AO in 1966-67 as in that time period the NVA were stacking units there. Doesn't really matter, Marine or Army Infantry would tell you the same answers under those conditions.

PS: Monsoon Season in I Corps, is damned cold plus being always soaking wet. Any Infantry grunt will tell you it really sucked ! Miserable conditions but in no way worse than the cold of WWII and Korean War Infantry had to endure ...their conditions were catastrophic.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-23-2020, 11:06 AM
Random Guy Random Guy is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 1,824
Default

A couple of quotes on pages 10 and 11 sums it up well circa Vietnam 1966:

Quote:
I think we should have a weapon as accurate as the M14 if not more that wouldn't rust as easy as the M14.

Wood on rifle stocks for M14 is swelling too muck in rain. After taking rifle apart It Is impossible to put it back together without drying the stock first.

AR 15's are outstanding for jungle fighting.

Need a weapon which would stand-up under a very hard beating. The M 14 is not strong enough made for Jungle fighting (my translation: it rusted too much/too easily in Vietnam), But in the open terrain the M-14 is a very good weapon.
Short engagement distances in the jungle with wet monsoon climate favors the M16 (in full auto mode) - vs long engagement distances in open terrain without all the moisture issues favors the M14 (in semi-auto mode).

Last edited by Random Guy; 12-29-2020 at 12:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-23-2020, 11:54 AM
JimF JimF is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Guy View Post
. . . .Short engagement distances in the jungle with wet monsoon climate favors the M16 - vs long engagement distances in open terrain without all the moisture issues favors the M14.
In other words, best compromise would be an AR type in .308 cal.?

Already been done . . . .shoulda’ been adopted long ago.
__________________
--Jim
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-23-2020, 03:08 PM
Gewehr43 Gewehr43 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 3,272
Default

There are a lot of different opinions posted there in the report:
What I find interesting is that they are "from the moment" and from field soldiers.....

If you read the responses to question:
#5 Normally, how far away is the enemy when you shoot? ..... the respondents figured only 15% of their engagements were over 300yds.
#17 Which would you rather have?..... only 1% wanted "more distance." 71% wanted "more accurate rifle."

One post is this: "...
Smaller caliber than the 7.62 NATO but larger than the M16 with more
accuracy. Ilhe weapon should be made of a more rust resistant alloy...…"
__________________
Service Rifle.... RIP .... 1884-2015

Last edited by Gewehr43; 12-23-2020 at 03:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-24-2020, 01:32 AM
rickgman rickgman is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,205
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gewehr43 View Post
Which would you rather have?..... only 1% wanted "more distance." 71% wanted "more accurate rifle."
Since the rifle being evaluated was the M14, I am not surprised that only an insignificant amount of respondents felt they needed greater range. I am actually surprised that such a large percentage felt they wanted more accuracy. At that point in time, the M14 was superior to the M16 in terms of accuracy. The M16/M16A1 had very lame sights.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-26-2020, 09:19 AM
milprileb milprileb is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Saigon, RVN
Posts: 3,093
Default

Just a note to current generation of M1A or M1 Rifle owners. In military service the wood stocks would swell. Take a rain drenched such rifle, tear it down to clean it and that stock is going to have to dry out before trigger assembly will go back in fully.

Just a comment of what we knew back when the Infantry carried these models in all weather conditions.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-26-2020, 09:24 AM
Tommiep54 Tommiep54 is online now
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Sylvania, Ohio
Posts: 465
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by milprileb View Post
Just a note to current generation of M1A or M1 Rifle owners. In military service the wood stocks would swell. Take a rain drenched such rifle, tear it down to clean it and that stock is going to have to dry out before trigger assembly will go back in fully.

Just a comment of what we knew back when the Infantry carried these models in all weather conditions.
Interesting to know!

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
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 02:18 PM.