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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 12-29-2020, 08:56 AM
Gewehr43 Gewehr43 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 3,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M1A Rifleman View Post
I agree with you in the wish for greater numbers. But the survey is suspect to me because of some of the responses. Also I'm biased as I prefer the M14.
Yep..... don't forget to tie down your tin-foil hat, don't want to lose it in the wind.

Especially when some of the comments are: "... Everything that I have here meets my needs. No other weapon can compete with the M14...…."
__________________
Service Rifle.... RIP .... 1884-2015

Last edited by Gewehr43; 12-29-2020 at 09:00 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-30-2020, 10:32 PM
Col. Colt Col. Colt is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 461
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gewehr43 View Post
Yep..... don't forget to tie down your tin-foil hat, don't want to lose it in the wind.

Especially when some of the comments are: "... Everything that I have here meets my needs. No other weapon can compete with the M14...…."
The writer of that was probably a Marine expert MARKSMAN - not a conscripted Draftee - who knew how to hit a man at 500 yards with iron sights with his M14, on demand. He understood that a poodle shooter could not do that as well, and didn't mind the weight. Lots of Marines (and some Army) resisted the change to the M16 - but they were Riflemen, not temporary Grunts.

The early M16 reliability problems may have been a factor, too. I knew a Marine Major who still would not have anything to do with an AR in the 1980's - had found too many of his men dead on the field attempting to fix their jammed M16s, cleaning rods strapped to the weapon to punch stuck cases out, etc. My arguments that it was fixed did not lighten his bitterness, one bit. To him the switch was a betrayal that got his Men KILLED - and with the M14 they would have survived and won. CC
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-30-2020, 11:39 PM
Gewehr43 Gewehr43 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 3,272
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Col. Colt View Post
The writer of that was probably a Marine expert MARKSMAN - not a conscripted Draftee - who knew how to hit a man at 500 yards with iron sights with his M14, on demand. He understood that a poodle shooter could not do that as well, and didn't mind the weight. Lots of Marines (and some Army) resisted the change to the M16 - but they were Riflemen, not temporary Grunts.

The early M16 reliability problems may have been a factor, too. I knew a Marine Major who still would not have anything to do with an AR in the 1980's - had found too many of his men dead on the field attempting to fix their jammed M16s, cleaning rods strapped to the weapon to punch stuck cases out, etc. My arguments that it was fixed did not lighten his bitterness, one bit. To him the switch was a betrayal that got his Men KILLED - and with the M14 they would have survived and won. CC
I can guess about the Respondents as well, if you like.
And if you like, I can quote one of several less-than-flattering comments about the M14.

The study is about the M14 and M1911 in 1967.
I didn't link (or find yet) the study which deals with the M16.
So this thread is about the M14 and M1911, not M16........

Since according to the study 67% of the Respondents were armed with the M14.......and none with the M16.......
__________________
Service Rifle.... RIP .... 1884-2015

Last edited by Gewehr43; 12-30-2020 at 11:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-30-2020, 11:59 PM
Rock Rock is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Col. Colt View Post
To him the switch was a betrayal that got his Men KILLED - and with the M14 they would have survived and won. CC
I still don't know why the Army switched to a new rifle and ammunition during a war. Doing that was said to be unwise. Were the troops clamoring for a better rifle or was this the whim of Pentagon bureaucrats?
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-31-2020, 05:29 AM
ihc53 ihc53 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Louisville, KY.
Posts: 747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock View Post
I still don't know why the Army switched to a new rifle and ammunition during a war. Doing that was said to be unwise. Were the troops clamoring for a better rifle or was this the whim of Pentagon bureaucrats?
The Brits knew not to switch to a new rifle / ammo during a war (WW1 Pattern 13-14 rifle and .276 ).
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-31-2020, 09:36 AM
Random Guy Random Guy is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 1,824
Default

Quote:
I still don't know why the Army switched to a new rifle and ammunition during a war. Doing that was said to be unwise
Historically speaking, the U.S. was not at war when the M14 program was canceled (for various reasons that are beyond the scope of this thread). Here’s the 2 key dates re M14 program's demise:

1. January 21, 1963, Sec of Defense Robert McNamara announces the cancelation the M14 program, with final deliveries to be completed by the vendors at the end of the 1964 fiscal year.
2. June 30th, 1964 TRW delivered its last 200 M14 rifles to the U.S. Army. (A total of 1.38M M14s were made, but originally up to 5 million were supposed to be made as 1-for-1 replacements of the M1 Garands).

So all M14 production had ended before what historians describe as the “official” beginning of the Vietnam War from the U.S. perspective, which was the somewhat murky Gulf of Tonkin event that occurred in early August 1964, which suggested NVA assets had attacked two US Navy ships at night (I think based on radar activity).

In essence, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was authorized on August 7, 1964, which was the authority that Lyndon Johnson used to slowly escalate the conflict in Vietnam without a formal Declaration of War by Congress. The military orders for the M16 were only just beginning in 1965...but the decision to replace the M14s in the mid-to-late 1960s was a fait accompli by 1963. (The unexpected cancellation of the M14 program is also why the military scrambled to re-build tens of thousands of M1 Garands in the mid-1960s, but that's another topic altogether).

Bottom line: The decision to replace the M14 took place before the obscure conflict in Southeast Asia escalated into a full-scale war, but it is correct to say that the subsequent transition from M14 to M16 took place in the mist of war and mistakes were made along the way regarding the quick adoption of the M16 and the new 5.56mm ammo.

(On EDIT: It should be noted that the development of what became known as the M14 took place over a dozen years with a lot of changes over time b/t 1945 and 1957, and same went for the ammo that was developed throughout the 1950s into the M59 and then M80 ammo (ie, 7.62x51mm NATO). The M16 and its ammo was pressed into service with comparatively limited testing over a few years and a lot of the problems encountered with both the rifle - and especially the powder in early 5.56mm ammo - were due to the very short timeline b/t evaluation and deployment of the weapon. IMO, that is what contributed to poor reputation in the early years. So the mistake was cancelling the M14 program before its replacement was sufficiently tested, evaluated, and the ammo production specs ironed-out). Good article: http://www.nramuseum.org/media/940585/m14.pdf

Last edited by Random Guy; 01-25-2021 at 08:57 PM. Reason: Added info
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-31-2020, 10:17 PM
Rock Rock is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Guy View Post
The military orders for the M16 were only just beginning in 1965...but the decision to replace the M14s in the mid-to-late 1960s was a fait accompli by 1963. (The unexpected cancellation of the M14 program is also why the military scrambled to re-build tens of thousands of M1 Garands in the mid-1960s, but that's another topic altogether).
During WW2 the Army restarted production of 1903 Rifles. They had also restarted M1 production for the Korean War, so I wonder if the Army considered restaring M14 production. On the other hand, there were millions of M1 Rifles in their inventory and they probably figured it was more economical to rebuild the M1s.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-31-2020, 10:34 PM
nf1e nf1e is online now
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 2,665
Default

My M14 served me well in Vietnam 1967 and 1968 till it was taken away, whether wet or dry, we were trained how to take care of them. If a stock was swollen in the rain, someone was not paying attention.
__________________
Semper Fi
Art
Sgt USMC 66 -72
RVN 67-68
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-31-2020, 10:55 PM
USMC-Nav USMC-Nav is online now
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 1,181
Default

Nf1e, Serious question, how were you trained to care for the M1 in rain weather?

Keep under poncho?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 01-01-2021, 08:59 AM
nf1e nf1e is online now
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 2,665
Default

Poncho was the easy part. Carried butt high with condom over muzzle and front sight.
Linseed oil on both the interior and exterior of the wood and metal cleaned and oiled daily same as the M14.
__________________
Semper Fi
Art
Sgt 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 12:32 PM.