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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 01-01-2021, 06:35 PM
milprileb milprileb is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Saigon, RVN
Posts: 3,080
Default

I had zero issues with my XM16, XM177E2, later on a M16a1. I served in I, III and IV Corps. I was an Infantry Grunt doing Grunt work in Viet Nam. Would a M14 be better...sure if we could have lopped off the long barrel, it might have been a great weapon for Viet Nam. Since we had what we had...the M16/ AR did fine. I am sure that is true of those of us who served 1968 on wards in that war.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 01-01-2021, 07:42 PM
missilegeek missilegeek is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: AL
Posts: 1,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Col. Colt View Post
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

If the M1 had been accepted in 1941 instead of 1936, there would be similar stories about it. 7 round jams, unreliable gas system.....
__________________
Service Rifle: 1884-2015 RIP.
Service Pistol: 1903-2014
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 01-02-2021, 09:56 AM
milprileb milprileb is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Saigon, RVN
Posts: 3,080
Default

I too would be un appreciative of the M16 had I suffered thru its failures in the early years of the Viet Nam War and I'd be bitter about it had my men died because of ammo and weapon defects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nf1e View Post
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.
That might work for you, being in aviation but Marine & Army Infantry did not carry weapons under a poncho or carry weapons over shoulder with muzzle to ground in dry season or monsoon season ...never never never.


Your weapon is exposed to weather 24/7 if you were Infantry in Viet Nam. You carried your weapon ready to fight. Not so for those in the rear with the gear .

Just the facts.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-21-2021, 12:05 AM
jmsilvia jmsilvia is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: CA
Posts: 5
Default

They asked Marines because they wanted to know about the M14, Army units had the 16 by that time. As they stated they had a separate study on the 16.
On the stock swelling I wonder why I don't recall hearing much about that with the M1. I don't disbelieve the complaint but I just haven't heard that about the Garand. Same goes with all the to big to heavy comments. Seems like New Guinea, the Solomon Islands etc were pretty wet and jungle terrain. Having said that, the 14 was ill suited to RVN. It was designed to replace a rifle that was designed to win a war in Europe.The caliber and lots of other stuff about its replacement had everything to do with bureaucracy and little with practicality.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-21-2021, 09:07 AM
milprileb milprileb is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Saigon, RVN
Posts: 3,080
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmsilvia View Post
They asked Marines because they wanted to know about the M14, Army units had the 16 by that time. As they stated they had a separate study on the 16.
On the stock swelling I wonder why I don't recall hearing much about that with the M1. I don't disbelieve the complaint but I just haven't heard that about the Garand. Same goes with all the to big to heavy comments. Seems like New Guinea, the Solomon Islands etc were pretty wet and jungle terrain. Having said that, the 14 was ill suited to RVN. It was designed to replace a rifle that was designed to win a war in Europe.The caliber and lots of other stuff about its replacement had everything to do with bureaucracy and little with practicality.
I will comment on my Army Infantry experience in Viet Nam and in training prior to that which included the M1 Rifle and M14 Rifle.

a. I was not in WWII. I did lots of field training with M1 in pouring down rain on field exercises and upon end of training, as we field stripped the M1 and detail cleaned it (and removed moisture), by the time we finished addressing all of that , the water logged stock swelled and we could not fully seat the trigger group. Rifles went into the racks with trigger guards not snapped down.

b. I found the M14 rifle rather long and difficult to navigate the jungles of Panama while in Jungle School. I found the M16a1 far superior for operating in jungles of Viet Nam but had I access to a M14 that was like todays M1A Scout or Socom `16', I'd have been far happier because the 556 caliber IMHO..is not ideal for combat in Viet Nam. I like 762 Nato penetration thru vegetation. Yes, I liked the weight reduction of 556 ammo and more rounds at hand and with logistics as they were in Viet Nam, you had to carry enough ammo till you did get re supplied. That said, I wish I had a M14 or AR10 in 243 Winchester and that pipe dream was on my mind all my time in Viet Nam.

c. They lied in Jungle School when they said the jungles there were far worse than we'd find in Viet Nam. I found that out on the very first minutes after landing on my first combat operation in I Corps in Phu Loc District.

d. My first weapon was a XM16E1 in Viet Nam and later a M16a1, and finally a XM177E1. All functioned flawlessly, well lubricated with LSA medium or heavy grade, all maintained . All magazines kept clean and functional. Later in my career post Viet Nam the M16a2 and M4 functioned flawlessly. Talc Dust in Iraq was brutal but did not stop M4.

c. M1 nor M14 water logged never ceased to function , stock swelling only happened once barreled action and trigger group removed for cleaning post operations in wet conditions. I think that is why you never hear of M1's failing in any conditions of weather in combat. Soldiers in combat don't field strip their weapons. If the M14 were to become inoperative due to stock swelling, it would have happened in my 3 weeks in Jungle School in Panama. It poured endless rain there.

Last edited by milprileb; 05-21-2021 at 09:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-21-2021, 11:12 AM
ZvenoMan ZvenoMan is offline
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: AL
Posts: 4,408
Default

Milprileb, thanks greatly for posting those details.

I think a common issue in discussing milsurps is non-veterans focusing on a specific noted fault or complaint and equating it to a significant deficiency.

According to you experience, the M1 stock swelling was a problem, but did not remove the rifle from service or cause significant failures in use.
The M14 was designed with the fiberglass stock, if I recall, to address that issue, but was not used as much as the wood, so there is that.
Many detailed accounts of some of the M-16's early problems were attributed less to the design and more to the non-sanctioned switch of powder spec, and significant training and operational changes (cleaning!). Either way, fan or not of that platform, clearly it has moved past any growing pains.

The UH-60's 1st major combat appearance was, if I recall, Operation Just Cause in Panama. I heard of major reports of blade tip delamination (humidity?) and fixes with 100mph tape! A concern, one that needed attention yet the aircraft remained in service, in support of troops, and 32 years later it seems they were worked out. Hummers had overheating problems initial, a few decades in the desert shows those issues have been addressed.

Every weapon system is an exercise in compromise. A basic load of 400 rds of 338 Lapua in a carbine with accuracy to average soldiers out to 600-1000 yards would be ideal, hopefully most understand why we don't have that.
The truly great weapon systems are easily seen by looking at service length, directly related to adaptability.
C-47, B-52, F-16, M-16, 1911, AK, M1/M2 browning, M1910 system of field gear, M1941 field jacket, 7.62x54r,......

JH
__________________
Zvenoman

Zvenoman's Feedback Thread
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-21-2021, 05:33 PM
kenneth kenneth is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Goose Creek, SC
Posts: 153
Default

Interesting. I remember my father who served in WW11. with the 41st division (186 RGT) Spoke of old guys (probably regulars) that carried Jap rifles. And since they wouldn't speak to the NG troops he said he had no idea why. I did twenty years and he asked me if all regulars were strange. And of course I asked what ever do you mean?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-22-2021, 03:06 PM
jmsilvia jmsilvia is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: CA
Posts: 5
Default

[QUOTE=ZvenoMan;2047138]Milprileb, thanks greatly for posting those details.

I think a common issue in discussing milsurps is non-veterans focusing on a specific noted fault or complaint and equating it to a significant deficiency.

My apology gentleman. I was commenting more on the Study than the Rifle.
The general tone and common phrasing of the very limited response causes concern to me. I read it as likely being a sample drawn from a very concentrated group.
These studies are educational and interesting but should be evaluated with at least a pinch of skepticism. Look up the ORO Studies series for some very interesting conclusions.
I mentioned the size and swelling issue for this reason.
On my first tour I carried the same variety as did milprileb and also as he had no issues with the 16 platform. Similarly I was a firearms person and prone to
proper level of maintainence.
Second tour I worked primarily with indigenous troops and none of the above referenced issues arose. I had Cambodes and Montagnards armed with M1s and BARs near as big as they were. Swelling was not a significant issue in our operations but we did not field strip in the field as a matter of SOP.
Simply a different perspective than the Studies respondents.
Joe

Last edited by jmsilvia; 05-24-2021 at 04:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-22-2021, 06:23 PM
Louisxllx Louisxllx is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 453
Default

Many really wanted W.P. rounds for the M79 grenade launcher.
__________________
Louis
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-24-2021, 08:24 PM
dalek dalek is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 34
Default

I would like to mention that by then the AR10 had already been proven in African and South American jungles and savannas. Even Che Guevara and Raul Castro liked them. It had the same reach the M14 had, at least comparable accuracy, and came from day 1 with plastic stock.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gewehr43 View Post
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..."
Sounds like the original argument for the 280 British, which was canned by Colonel Rene Studler.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmsilvia View Post
Second tour I worked primarily with indigenous troops and none of the above referenced issues arose. I had Cambodes and Montagnards armed with M1s and BARs near as big as they were.
That reminds me of pictures of Gurkhas carrying Brens in the jungle. They are not known to be lightweight.
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 07:09 AM.