Army wants More M14's...

[hardeyes]

Hello;

Here's a Link to What the Army is asking for. Hope they get it done, 800meters. Now that's a long shot.

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/land/jdw/jdw080801_1_n.shtml

[Andrewsky]

I wonder if Smith Entreprise has anything to do with this.

I'm guessing they'll use Leupold Mk IVs and SAGE stocks.

[Sniperfox]

They need to recall all of the M14s that are in Law Enforcement use all over the country. The Dept. that I retired from had 8 and the agency that I work for now has 4 of them. There is no telling how many are consigned to Law Enforcement agencies. I like the idea of an M14 if I need it, but I would have no hesitation in boxing them up to send back for the military if they requested them. The one that I am issued is a Springfield Armory with a 4 digit serial number.

[Puppy]

As much as I like M14's - for taking an 800 yard shot I would be reaching for a bolt action instead.

[hardeyes]

I wonder if Smith Entreprise has anything to do with this.

I'm guessing they'll use Leupold Mk IVs and SAGE stocks.

Hello;

There's Always a 'catch' isn't there.

If they do go with the Above set up, They'll have a purty good system indeed.

take care

hardeyes

[hardeyes]

As much as I like M14's - for taking an 800 yard shot I would be reaching for a bolt action instead.

Hello;

Yeap, That sure is a long way to be shooting, But if they can get good hits, I like that better.

Maybe there's a more than 1, And they favor the 'speed' of the Gas Op M14.

More 'stored kills', Than the Bolt.

take care,

hardeyes

[AK_Stick]

I some how doubt the validity of this.......


Everything I've seen and read, the army re-issued the M-14 because they perceived the need for a longer range DMR rifle, and then filled it with a accurized M-16 and started withdrawing the M-14 again, for the last time..... Esp since the M110 SASS AR-10 is now in the field, why would they be trying to field a second 7.62 weapon that requires a whole different training, and part regime

They don't have an 800m weapon, because you don't see 800m engagements in Iraq, other than by snipers.

As for shooting IED's I never saw that approach, EOD usually defused, or blew in place....

[HKMark23]

"Without this additional funding, units in the fight will not receive the long-range engagement capability they urgently need to engage improvised explosive device (IED) teams at long range and immediately respond to attacks from rocket-propelled grenades and crew-served weapon emplacements outside the range of the M4/M16 rifle"

[Rakkasan]

"Without this additional funding, units in the fight will not receive the long-range engagement capability they urgently need to engage improvised explosive device (IED) teams at long range and immediately respond to attacks from rocket-propelled grenades and crew-served weapon emplacements outside the range of the M4/M16 rifle,"

I can see the need to engage IED teams with them... but RPG's outside the range of M16s :rofl:, they have a hard time hitting anything 100m away, let alone 500-800m away

[AK_Stick]

eh, still calling BS. Though I did mis-read that, your average infantry squad or platoon, isn't going to engage a IED team at 800m. You don't see those ranges in citys.


And the M110 system is coming online right now. Funny they'd pull more old guns out, instead of issuing the new one....

[hardeyes]

I can see the need to engage IED teams with them... but RPG's outside the range of M16s :rofl:, they have a hard time hitting anything 100m away, let alone 500-800m away

Hello;

Maybe they want something with more 'THUMP', And they quoted it wrong.

Maybe it's a way to 'push' for something a bit 'heavier' than the 5.56 :whistling:

Hardeyes

[AK_Stick]

or more likely, its being pushed by someone who perceives a need based on inaccurate info

[Rakkasan]

Hello;

Maybe they want something with more 'THUMP', And they quoted it wrong.

Maybe it's a way to 'push' for something a bit 'heavier' than the 5.56 :whistling:

Hardeyes

I was talking about the accuracy of RPGs, not M14s :wavey:

[hardeyes]

Hello;

Opps, My Bad...

take care.

hardeyes

[HKMark23]

In spite of what the :drink: believe, there is a need (and desire) for the platform.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v345/hkuspelite45/GT/I03-21edit.jpg

[Rakkasan]

In spite of what the :drink: believe, there is a need (and desire) for the platform.

Yes, I agree there is a place for the M14s in Iraq and Afghanistan. They pack a nice punch at longer ranges.

[Javelin]

IDK. I am going to say no. Everyone knows that the firearm thats fought after the most in an 11 series platoon is the shotgun.

[DFin]

I thought I read that the U.S. Gov gave thousands of M-14's to Lithuania, or some country like that, and now was going to "BUY" them back.

[Gino]

Why not just buy a bunch of FN FALs?

[Andrewsky]

Why not just buy a bunch of FN FALs?

:rofl:

Alright everyone.

Should I buy a FAL, M1A, AR-10, or G3?:supergrin: What are the worst aspects of each platform? I'm new.

[Broylz]

i wish i could get a m14. not that i engage at 800m but its nice to have the punch out to 500 maybe. moreso in afghanistan.

[hardeyes]

:rofl:

Alright everyone.

Should I buy a FAL, M1A, AR-10, or G3?:supergrin: What are the worst aspects of each platform? I'm new.

Hello;

FN/Fal, Comes in two styles Metric & Inch, Metric being more popular, User Friendly controls, Reliable.

Worst-- Not as Accurate (overall), As the M14/M14 or The AR-10.
Sights are basic, Not readily 'Scope Adaptable', Feels like a Stick (IMO), But has a Nice balance.


M14-- Good Sights, Accurate, Reliable, Sage Stock makes it more user friendly

Worst-- Alot of Moving parts, Accuracy is affected by it's many moving parts. May be a little heavy. Needs to be more modular, Sadlak makes a good sighting system for a Scope.


AR-10, Accurate, & User Friendly (This is the only one I haven't shot), So i'll let others give thier thoughts.


HK-91/G3

Reliable, Nice Sights (up to 400yrds), German workmanship, Built like a Tank, Steel Mags, Good Accuracy.

Worst-- More recoil, Heavy, Charging Handle.

That's a simple overall, If I had a Choice I would take;
1) FN, 2) AR-10 3) Tie between HK91 & M14/M1A.

All are Good Battle Rifles, I like them ALL.

Hardeyes

[Hef]

:rofl:

Alright everyone.

Should I buy a FAL, M1A, AR-10, or G3?:supergrin: What are the worst aspects of each platform? I'm new.

FAL - very reliable, but not inherently accurate. The AK of the .308 MBR world.

M1A - very reliable (even in very adverse conditions), wood stock not as durable as synthetic, heavy, accurate.

AR-10 - direct gas impingement fouling issues similar to AR15, excellent modular platform that is easily serviced. All the same pros and cons of the AR15, without the drawbacks of being chambered in 5.56mm.

G3 - not reliable in adverse conditions, easily fouled by sand, dirt, and mud, capable of great accuracy when tuned for such (PSG-1 or PTR). Better for LE work than military.

[Forgoten214]

FAL - very reliable, but not inherently accurate. The AK of the .308 MBR world.

M1A - very reliable (even in very adverse conditions), wood stock not as durable as synthetic, heavy, accurate.

AR-10 - direct gas impingement fouling issues similar to AR15, excellent modular platform that is easily serviced. All the same pros and cons of the AR15, without the drawbacks of being chambered in 5.56mm.

G3 - not reliable in adverse conditions, easily fouled by sand, dirt, and mud, capable of great accuracy when tuned for such (PSG-1 or PTR). Better for LE work than military.

What do you think will last longer? A FAL or M1A? Witch could withstand a higher round count and abuse?? If so, What is the margin?

Thanks,

I'm New

[Paul7]

Too bad the moron Clinton destroyed several hundred thousand M14s.

[Hef]

What do you think will last longer? A FAL or M1A? Witch could withstand a higher round count and abuse?? If so, What is the margin?

Thanks,

I'm New

My opinion? FAL. It's built like a tank. Not sure by how much though.

[Forgoten214]

My opinion? FAL. It's built like a tank. Not sure by how much though.

Oh, I just HEARD from someone that the receiver on the M14 or M1A will outlast the FAL receiver.

[Andrewsky]

Oh, I just HEARD from someone that the receiver on the M14 or M1A will outlast the FAL receiver.

Yes, and it's been tested.

[D3S3RT_P3NGU1N]

What do you think will last longer? A FAL or M1A? Witch could withstand a higher round count and abuse?? If so, What is the margin?

Thanks,

I'm New

Both are fine rifles, and are plenty durable, but I'd have to give it to the FAL(purely my opinion). Couldn't say by how much though, all I can really say is that if I was told I was being sent to Iraq tomorrow and had to pick one to bring with me, I'd take my para-stocked FAL every time. That being said I also remember hearing about an M14 that had 450,000 rounds put through it.

[Andrewsky]

Both are fine rifles, and are plenty durable, but I'd have to give it to the FAL. Couldn't say by how much though, all I can really say is that if I was told I was being sent to Iraq tomorrow and had to pick one to bring with me, I'd take my para-stocked FAL every time.

A FAL receiver is good for 40 to 80 thousand rounds. An M14 receiver is good for 400 to 450 thousand rounds.

The die-hard FAL guys don't disagree with these numbers. Usually when this is brought up they will argue that if you shoot that many rounds you can just buy another receiver since you've spent about $20,000 on ammo.

[390ish]

A buddy of mine told me the feds took back all the select fire m-14s from the montana state police.

[Forgoten214]

A buddy of mine told me the feds took back all the select fire m-14s from the montana state police.

Why? That bad huh? :rofl:

J/k

[slewfoot]

I was issued a select fire M14 during my first tour in Nam. I fired it once on auto without being prone with the bipod down. Once.:rofl:

[Forgoten214]

I was issued a select fire M14 during my first tour in Nam. I fired it once on auto without being prone with the bipod down. Once.:rofl:

How did you like the M14?

What happened when you tried to fire it on FA?

[slewfoot]

How did you like the M14?

What happened when you tried to fire it on FA?

The barrel reached for the sky. I could not keep it horizontal on full auto in a kneeling or standing position.

I loved the M14 until I made the switch over to the 16. Life was better with a lighter weapon and lighter ammo.

[ChrisVV]

how do they plan on paying for it, the united states government is broke.

[chowchow]

Contact the Taiwanese, they have the tooling and machineries to make M 14s. I bet they have them ready to ship if called upon.

Or if they really need clones, the Norinco factories can fill in the need.

[RWBlue]

No need for more M14s. If they want some they can get them back from the cops.
But I think the better sniper platform is the AR-10 or Knight AR-10 clone in all but beach landings.

But if you want non-snipers to be able to reach out and touch people planting IEDs, give them more M240Bs. They are accurate enough, and you can fire a pile of ammo at a time.

[HKMark23]

No need for more M14s. If they want some they can get them back from the cops.
But I think the better sniper platform is the AR-10 or Knight AR-10 clone in all but beach landings.

But if you want non-snipers to be able to reach out and touch people planting IEDs, give them more M240Bs. They are accurate enough, and you can fire a pile of ammo at a time.
-There is a need
-There is a desire
-They do not want another "sniper" platform (>2,000m)
-They are seeking a DMR to fill the DM role (<800m)
-The M14 platform is reliable, proven, and available
-Easily Transition to a long range rifle platform they want that only weighs a couple pounds more than current issue and that is capable of <1moa.
-Or slow down an already overloaded soldier (and his squad) with a suppressive fire platform they don't want that weighs nearly 30 pounds and is capable of minute-of-spray
:dunno:

[HKMark23]

Why not just buy a bunch of FN FALs?
Ever hear the sound when thousands of AR lovers start sobbing uncontrollably?
:notlistening:

[TacticalBling]

Ever hear the sound when thousands of AR lovers start sobbing uncontrollably?
:notlistening:

What, you don't like music? :supergrin:

[fnfalman]

A FAL receiver is good for 40 to 80 thousand rounds. An M14 receiver is good for 400 to 450 thousand rounds.


Okay, which laboratory conducted the experiment that resulted in the above claim?

[GAU-8]

Too bad the moron Clinton destroyed several hundred thousand M14s.


I was wondering when someone would mention this. The American taxpayer should make that treasonous bastard get out his checkbook to pay for retooling to build the weapons that were destroyed under his order. That SOB did everything he could to weaken the military strength of this country, destroying the m14s was just one on a long list of crimes against the American people.

Do you think the radical media would mention the fact that the Military now needs or could use more of the weapons that were deliberately destroyed by Clinton? Do you think they would talk about it if a republican president had destroyed our military hardware?

As far as collecting them from law enforcement. What the heck were peace officers doing with select fire m14s anyway? Is this the same logic that DSA uses when making belt fed M240s available to LEOs? Wow just wow.....


rant off

[rem700ltr]

As far as collecting them from law enforcement. What the heck were peace officers doing with select fire m14s anyway?

A free government lending program of weapons to LE that has been around for over 100 years. ALL the true M-14's are full auto altho most are pinned to semi. Other issued over the years are tommy guns, M1 carbine, M1 Grands, BARs, Grease Guns, M-16A1, M-14, The one's that I got for my dept. were pinned to semi. Would you turn down free guns if avalable to you?

[chowchow]

Clinton had done more harm than good. WOnder how many M 14s were cut to pieces during his tenure ?

[Gino]

Sorry guys, I'm just not buying that the M14 is the best 308 platform out there right now. Sounds like a lot of you are suffering from "not made here" syndrome. :tongueout:

JMHO,
Gino

[Griff in VA]

'Nice to see M14 fans around here, including a few who actually know about the platform they comment on.

For those who remember when we had to deal with preban and post ban magazines ordeal (which wasn't that long ago), we M14 / M1a-types had to scurry to find reliable USGI 20 round magazines. I wish I could have kept mine from Sandbox 1. Well then 9/11 and Sandbox 2, and the USGI magazines became even harder to find. Want to know why?

Well, there were many reasons. One of them, and this comes direct to my ears from a real-live military supplies contractor here in Virginia, is that the military was buying all the USGI M14 magazines they can find.

Yes, the M14 is alive and well. It's a bit heavy, but it always has, and remains, an excellent platform. Those who know, understand.

An no, Komrade Klinton should have had them destroyed.

[degoodman]

-There is a need
-There is a desire
-They do not want another "sniper" platform (>2,000m)
-They are seeking a DMR to fill the DM role (<800m)
-The M14 platform is reliable, proven, and available
-Easily Transition to a long range rifle platform they want that only weighs a couple pounds more than current issue and that is capable of <1moa.
-Or slow down an already overloaded soldier (and his squad) with a suppressive fire platform they don't want that weighs nearly 30 pounds and is capable of minute-of-spray
:dunno:

You ever made an honest to God sub-moa M14/M1A? Ever tried to keep it that accurate for more than a few thousand rounds?

There's a reason all the competetive service teams have switched to AR's, Even for long range service rifle, up to and including 1000 yards. The AR's spank the pants off the M14 at any range you want to shoot it at, and bob the mechanic can keep it shooting that good. The M14 doesn't shoot that good out of the gate (even stock "national match" rifles are only good for about 1.5 MOA out of the box) to shoot as well as it does requires a rear-lugged or dual-lugged receiver, which is NOT mil-spec, and a glass bedding job that destroys its bulletproof reliability under field conditions because the rifle becomes too tight. And on top of that all of this stuff requires a real gunsmith as an armorer, not a "technician" who turns a wrench and all is well.

The M14 was dusted off because it was the only thing available in the inventory for a specific job. It's an expensive platform to maintain in the field, compared to AR15/M16 or AR10/SR25 based DMR rifles especially for absolutely no advantage other than we owned some already. Oh, and the ones we owned, most were made prior to the early 60's. The day of the M14's retirement has come and gone. The M110 SASS is the way of the future, and it is and will be the Sniper / DMR system we lean on going forward. That's right, the M24's are history too.

[RWBlue]

As far as collecting them from law enforcement. What the heck were peace officers doing with select fire m14s anyway? Is this the same logic that DSA uses when making belt fed M240s available to LEOs? Wow just wow.....


rant off

Same reason they handed out M16s after the LA bank robery.
The Gov. has them, the cops think they MIGHT need them and I don't have any problem LOANING them some tools.

You will also find some Howitzers on loan.

[Andrewsky]

You ever made an honest to God sub-moa M14/M1A? Ever tried to keep it that accurate for more than a few thousand rounds?

There's a reason all the competetive service teams have switched to AR's, Even for long range service rifle, up to and including 1000 yards. The AR's spank the pants off the M14 at any range you want to shoot it at, and bob the mechanic can keep it shooting that good. The M14 doesn't shoot that good out of the gate (even stock "national match" rifles are only good for about 1.5 MOA out of the box) to shoot as well as it does requires a rear-lugged or dual-lugged receiver, which is NOT mil-spec, and a glass bedding job that destroys its bulletproof reliability under field conditions because the rifle becomes too tight. And on top of that all of this stuff requires a real gunsmith as an armorer, not a "technician" who turns a wrench and all is well.

The M14 was dusted off because it was the only thing available in the inventory for a specific job. It's an expensive platform to maintain in the field, compared to AR15/M16 or AR10/SR25 based DMR rifles especially for absolutely no advantage other than we owned some already. Oh, and the ones we owned, most were made prior to the early 60's. The day of the M14's retirement has come and gone. The M110 SASS is the way of the future, and it is and will be the Sniper / DMR system we lean on going forward. That's right, the M24's are history too.

So how do you like FALs?

[RWBlue]

You ever made an honest to God sub-moa M14/M1A? Ever tried to keep it that accurate for more than a few thousand rounds?

There's a reason all the competetive service teams have switched to AR's, Even for long range service rifle, up to and including 1000 yards. The AR's spank the pants off the M14 at any range you want to shoot it at, and bob the mechanic can keep it shooting that good. The M14 doesn't shoot that good out of the gate (even stock "national match" rifles are only good for about 1.5 MOA out of the box) to shoot as well as it does requires a rear-lugged or dual-lugged receiver, which is NOT mil-spec, and a glass bedding job that destroys its bulletproof reliability under field conditions because the rifle becomes too tight. And on top of that all of this stuff requires a real gunsmith as an armorer, not a "technician" who turns a wrench and all is well.

The M14 was dusted off because it was the only thing available in the inventory for a specific job. It's an expensive platform to maintain in the field, compared to AR15/M16 or AR10/SR25 based DMR rifles especially for absolutely no advantage other than we owned some already. Oh, and the ones we owned, most were made prior to the early 60's. The day of the M14's retirement has come and gone. The M110 SASS is the way of the future, and it is and will be the Sniper / DMR system we lean on going forward. That's right, the M24's are history too.

+1

And then tack on how many military personel can actually shoot sub MOA.
and the 240B becomes a valid option.

[Indy_Guy_77]

My brother-in-law's police department has at least one re-issued M-14. That sucker is pretty sweet.

Uncle Sam took the fun switch off, though. Only semi-auto. :-(

-J-

[Infallible]

You ever made an honest to God sub-moa M14/M1A? Ever tried to keep it that accurate for more than a few thousand rounds?

There's a reason all the competetive service teams have switched to AR's, Even for long range service rifle, up to and including 1000 yards. The AR's spank the pants off the M14 at any range you want to shoot it at, and bob the mechanic can keep it shooting that good. The M14 doesn't shoot that good out of the gate (even stock "national match" rifles are only good for about 1.5 MOA out of the box) to shoot as well as it does requires a rear-lugged or dual-lugged receiver, which is NOT mil-spec, and a glass bedding job that destroys its bulletproof reliability under field conditions because the rifle becomes too tight. And on top of that all of this stuff requires a real gunsmith as an armorer, not a "technician" who turns a wrench and all is well.

The M14 was dusted off because it was the only thing available in the inventory for a specific job. It's an expensive platform to maintain in the field, compared to AR15/M16 or AR10/SR25 based DMR rifles especially for absolutely no advantage other than we owned some already. Oh, and the ones we owned, most were made prior to the early 60's. The day of the M14's retirement has come and gone. The M110 SASS is the way of the future, and it is and will be the Sniper / DMR system we lean on going forward. That's right, the M24's are history too.


This man speaks the truth. Quoted for prosperity. The M14, FAL, and G3 were all fine rifles 50 years ago, time has moved on.

[TxGun]

The M14 is still a viable platform. It is a rugged, dependable, battle proven design that is accurate and chambered for a hard-hitting cartridge. I'm an AR guy...have 5 at the moment. But I recognize the continued viability of the M14 design. 50 years old? Time has moved on? Well, I guess the AK is completely obsolete...surely it couldn't be a viable battle weapon! And the 1911? That obviously has to go! It couldn't be a worthwhile weapon after all these years. No way. The M2 .50? Junk it! Ma Duece is 90+ years old! (and it continues to be one of the most dependable and effective weapons on the battlefield). But it's obsolete...has to be. The 870 Remington? Too old! It's obsolete too. Stop making that out-of-date sucker! All these weapons (and many others) need to go! Yeah. Uh huh. OK. :whistling:

[slewfoot]

Same reason they handed out M16s after the LA bank robery.
The Gov. has them, the cops think they MIGHT need them and I don't have any problem LOANING them some tools.

You will also find some Howitzers on loan.

http://www.marines.mil/units/mciwest/mclbbarstow/Pages/2004/MCB%20Howitzers%20augment%20avalanche%20battle.aspx

[Solid]

I was wondering when someone would mention this. The American taxpayer should make that treasonous bastard get out his checkbook to pay for retooling to build the weapons that were destroyed under his order. That SOB did everything he could to weaken the military strength of this country, destroying the m14s was just one on a long list of crimes against the American people.

Do you think the radical media would mention the fact that the Military now needs or could use more of the weapons that were deliberately destroyed by Clinton? Do you think they would talk about it if a republican president had destroyed our military hardware?

As far as collecting them from law enforcement. What the heck were peace officers doing with select fire m14s anyway? Is this the same logic that DSA uses when making belt fed M240s available to LEOs? Wow just wow.....


rant off
Don't forget Bush senior who banned the importation of certain weapons and ownership by name. Sounds pretty anti-constitutional to me.

I guess your right about Republicans being good for the military since they give them work to do. :dunno:

[Infallible]

The M14 is still a viable platform. It is a rugged, dependable, battle proven design that is accurate and chambered for a hard-hitting cartridge. I'm an AR guy...have 5 at the moment. But I recognize the continued viability of the M14 design. 50 years old? Time has moved on? Well, I guess the AK is completely obsolete...surely it couldn't be a viable battle weapon! And the 1911? That obviously has to go! It couldn't be a worthwhile weapon after all these years. No way. The M2 .50? Junk it! Ma Duece is way too old! (Although it continues to be one of the most dependable and effective weapons on the battlefield). The 870 Remington? Too old! It's obsolete too. Stop making that out-of-date sucker! All these weapons (and many others) need to go! Yeah. Uh huh. OK. :whistling:

How much time do you have in the field? I did 6. Time has indeed moved on for the SDM, and there are better platforms utilizing the heavier 7.62 nato round such as the above mentioned M110. Ak47? Is it still viable weapon platform? Absolutely. Its what made rifles like the M14 G3 and FAL obsolete. Its not a full power battle rifle. Russia got it right with a reduced power cartridge not designed to take people down at 1000m. As you're well aware, of course :upeyes: Russia (the principle of the AK47) changed from the 47 to the 74 quite some time ago. You can love the M14 as much as you like, but there are better weapons available and being issued. Any other questions?

Everytime these posts come out, the M14 aficianados rise up out of their lawn chairs and scream heresy. What does the M14 do better than any of the other current made SDM weapons?

[Forgoten214]

How much time do you have in the field? I did 6. Time has indeed moved on for the SDM, and there are better platforms utilizing the heavier 7.62 nato round such as the above mentioned M110. Ak47? Is it still viable weapon platform? Absolutely. Its what made rifles like the M14 G3 and FAL obsolete. Its not a full power battle rifle. Russia got it right with a reduced power cartridge not designed to take people down at 1000m. As you're well aware, of course :upeyes: Russia (the principle of the AK47) changed from the 47 to the 74 quite some time ago. You can love the M14 as much as you like, but there are better weapons available and being issued. Any other questions?

Everytime these posts come out, the M14 aficianados rise up out of their lawn chairs and scream heresy. What does the M14 do better than any of the other current made SDM weapons?

Like what kind of weapons?

[TxGun]

How much time do you have in the field? I did 6. Time has indeed moved on for the SDM, and there are better platforms utilizing the heavier 7.62 nato round such as the above mentioned M110. Ak47? Is it still viable weapon platform? Absolutely. Its what made rifles like the M14 G3 and FAL obsolete. Its not a full power battle rifle. Russia got it right with a reduced power cartridge not designed to take people down at 1000m. As you're well aware, of course :upeyes: Russia (the principle of the AK47) changed from the 47 to the 74 quite some time ago. You can love the M14 as much as you like, but there are better weapons available and being issued. Any other questions?

Everytime these posts come out, the M14 aficianados rise up out of their lawn chairs and scream heresy. What does the M14 do better than any of the other current made SDM weapons?


I did 4 so I guess you got me there :whistling:. Not sure that even plays here, though. If so, wait until the guy with 7 years chimes in and listen to and do everything he says. :whistling: (Chill out, I'm just messing with you :cool:). The 74 is basically a 47 re-do. I don't "love" the M14. And I certainly do not advocate wide-scale deployment. I'm saying the design remains viable for specialized use. The military seems to agree. I'm not "rising up out of my lawn chair" about it. I don't really have any skin in the game... I do not own an M14. I never have. I've shot them. They work and work well. But, as I said...I'm an AR guy. But to infer a design has been passed by just based on age is clearly not defensible, either. Many older designs remain viable while newer ones come and go.

[RWBlue]

The M14 is still a viable platform. It is a rugged, dependable, battle proven design that is accurate and chambered for a hard-hitting cartridge. I'm an AR guy...have 5 at the moment. But I recognize the continued viability of the M14 design. 50 years old? Time has moved on? Well, I guess the AK is completely obsolete...surely it couldn't be a viable battle weapon! And the 1911? That obviously has to go! It couldn't be a worthwhile weapon after all these years. No way. The M2 .50? Junk it! Ma Duece is way too old! The 870 Remington? Too old! It's obsolete too. Stop making that out-of-date sucker! All these weapons (and many others) need to go! Yeah. Uh huh. OK. :whistling:

I wrote more, but deleted it.
You might want to sort the facts before making broad statement.

[TxGun]

I wrote more, but deleted it.
You might want to sort the facts before making broad statement.

Actually, I didn't even read your post. I wasn't responding to you at all. Now that I read it I don't necessarily disagree with it. Well OK, maybe in part. I think the M14 can still play a role. Granted, it's a specialized role. And granted there are probably other options.

My point was, and apparently not very well stated, is that there are older designs that remain very viable. And age is not necessarily an accurate determinant of design viability. Clearly. I pointed out several that continue to withstand the time test, and there are many more. Many "newer", and initially thought to be "better", designs fall flat.

Jeez, you guys do get touchy!

[Not Simple]

Here are some Smith Enterprises rifles destined to get some use in the sand pit........ pictures of a build for the the US Army's Second Infantry Division (2ID), currently employed in both Iraq and in Korea.





http://www.smithenterprise.com/images02/11-CH-005.02.jpg
Before and after pictures of a build for the the US Army's Second Infantry Division (2ID), currently employed in both Iraq and in Korea.


http://www.smithenterprise.com/images02/Navy-2-M-14-004.02.jpg
Some of the M14SE's that were built for the Navy, to be used on surface combatants.

http://www.smithenterprise.com/images02/MK14-3.02.jpg
The MK14 SEI variant

[Zombie Steve]

What does the M14 do better than any of the other current made SDM weapons?

Appeals to those of us who are suckers for classic rifle design.



To the original question in the title... I doubt they want more M-14's, but it's what's available... if they were given their druthers, I'd bet they'd pick a SR-25 or some other AR type .308 platform.

[RWBlue]

Actually, I didn't even read your post. I wasn't responding to you at all. Now that I read it I don't necessarily disagree with it. Well OK, maybe in part. I think the M14 can still play a role. Granted, it's a specialized role. And granted there are probably other options.

My point was, and apparently not very well stated, is that there are older designs that remain very viable. And age is not necessarily an accurate determinant of design viability. Clearly. I pointed out several that continue to withstand the time test, and there are many more. Many "newer", and initially thought to be "better", designs fall flat.

Jeez, you guys do get touchy!

Not touchy, I just like facts. As an owner of an AR, AK, M1A, 870, 1911, I know something about the subject.

Just because a design is old doesn't make it obsolete. But I expect changes of the years to improve things.

[TxGun]

Not touchy, I just like facts. As an owner of an AR, AK, M1A, 870, 1911, I know something about the subject.

Just because a design is old doesn't make it obsolete. But I expect changes of the years to improve things.


OK. No problems here. I'm still not entirely sure what "facts" I missed or what broad statement I made that was so erroneous. But OK. People can make up their own minds re: what I may have been wrong about. I'm cool with everything and respect your opinion. On some small point(s), we may just have to agree to disagree.

[NDGlock]

In spite of what the :drink: believe, there is a need (and desire) for the platform.



http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v345/hkuspelite45/GT/I03-21edit.jpg

Photos like these are dated, probably OIF2 or 3 at the latest, based on the uniform pattern.

The M110 is coming online and while the request for more M-14’s may have been valid in the 2002-2005(?) timeframe, the M110 is being fielded as a harder hitting at longer ranges alternative to the M16 A4 SDM setup.

I think it is dated info, regurgitated.

[NDGlock]

Here are some Smith Enterprises rifles destined to get some use in the sand pit........ pictures of a build for the the US Army's Second Infantry Division (2ID), currently employed in both Iraq and in Korea.





http://www.smithenterprise.com/images02/11-CH-005.02.jpg
Before and after pictures of a build for the the US Army's Second Infantry Division (2ID), currently employed in both Iraq and in Korea.


http://www.smithenterprise.com/images02/Navy-2-M-14-004.02.jpg
Some of the M14SE's that were built for the Navy, to be used on surface combatants.

http://www.smithenterprise.com/images02/MK14-3.02.jpg
The MK14 SEI variant


good looking rifles no doubt - do you happen to have dates on the pics and when the 2nd ID received them?


I just see a lot of old info passed around as new with acquisitions and am curious what is current....

[AZ Jeff]

Okay, which laboratory conducted the experiment that resulted in the above claim?

FN themselves stated that the "Type 3" reciever is good for NO MORE than 80K rounds. (This is straight from R. Blake Stevens book.)

The FORGED M14 reciever has REPEATEDLY demonstrated life expectancies of OVER 150K rounds.

Even the Springfield, Inc. CAST recievers have life expectancies of over 100K rounds. Just ask the old-time High Power rifle shooters.

[Forgoten214]

FN themselves stated that the "Type 3" reciever is good for NO MORE than 80K rounds. (This is straight from R. Blake Stevens book.)

The FORGED M14 reciever has REPEATEDLY demonstrated life expectancies of OVER 150K rounds.

Even the Springfield, Inc. CAST recievers have life expectancies of over 100K rounds. Just ask the old-time High Power rifle shooters.

This goes for the DSA rifles as well?

[Rakkasan]

The Army is getting M14s because there is a good supply of them. They are good rifles with pretty good accuracy out past 500m. They aren't THAT heavy :rofl:. Why are FALs even being brought up? This thread is about M14s in the Army.

[fnfalman]

FN themselves stated that the "Type 3" reciever is good for NO MORE than 80K rounds. (This is straight from R. Blake Stevens book.)

The FORGED M14 reciever has REPEATEDLY demonstrated life expectancies of OVER 150K rounds.

Even the Springfield, Inc. CAST recievers have life expectancies of over 100K rounds. Just ask the old-time High Power rifle shooters.


Over 150K rounds is a lot different than 450K rounds.

[fnfalman]

They aren't THAT heavy :rofl:

You're right. They aren't THAT heavy. I swear, every time I hear about how the Mattel toy is superior because it's "lighter", I wanna say just being a bunch of nancy boys and do some PT!!!

If you're a GI and you can't hack a 10-lbs rifle, maybe it's time to change MOS to a cook or something.

[HKMark23]

Click HERE (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11242448&postcount=48) for the sound of someone missing the point.

Click HERE (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11242874&postcount=51) for the sound of someone reeeeeealy missing the point.

"valid" :rofl:

[HKMark23]

You're right. They aren't THAT heavy. I swear, every time I hear about how the Mattel toy is superior because it's "lighter", I wanna say just being a bunch of nancy boys and do some PT!!!

If you're a GI and you can't hack a 10-lbs rifle, maybe it's time to change MOS to a cook or something.
Not to mention that the weight difference between the M14, FAL, and the fantastic plastic in 7.62x51 is what, about a whopping 1-2 pounds? I guess the knowledge that your carrying such a modern rifle design like the AR10 gives you extra strength.

FAL~1953
M14~1954
AR10~1956
M16~1957

:wavey:

[Rakkasan]

Not to mention that the weight difference between the M14, FAL, and the fantastic plastic in 7.62x51 is what, about a whopping 1-2 pounds? I guess the knowledge that your carrying such a modern rifle design like the AR10 gives you extra strength.

FAL~1953
M14~1954
AR10~1956
M16~1957

:wavey:

Also not to mention the tons of stuff the Army likes to hang off it's M16/M4s. M68/Eotech, AN/PAQ4-AN/PEQ2, Taclight, Bipod, 2x magazines.

That takes them right out of the ultralight category.

[AK_Stick]

-There is a need
-There is a desire
-They do not want another "sniper" platform (>2,000m)
-They are seeking a DMR to fill the DM role (<800m)
-The M14 platform is reliable, proven, and available
-Easily Transition to a long range rifle platform they want that only weighs a couple pounds more than current issue and that is capable of <1moa.
-Or slow down an already overloaded soldier (and his squad) with a suppressive fire platform they don't want that weighs nearly 30 pounds and is capable of minute-of-spray
:dunno:



The "need" is questionable at best. Funny that you don't see the Marines who issue more of the ACOG's than M68's never had this huge need for DMR weapons.

They are not seeking a DMR weapon, its already been fielded, its an accurized M-16 with a free floated barrel. the M-14 re-issue was nothing more than a stop gap, that was questionable at best, and hard to maintain MOA ability with.

As for slowing down people, the infantry squads have machine guns, already, and the 240, is pretty much loved by everyone when the shooting starts.

[Andrewsky]

Over 150K rounds is a lot different than 450K rounds.

The 400 to 450k figure is according to Lee Emerson and is in his book M14 Rifle History and Development. R Blake Stevens wrote a book on the M14 as well, you could check there.


What is meant by "traditional?" The M14 was originally designed as a "lock, stock, and barrel" rifle of course. It's ironic that the M14 can use these new stocks like the SAGE because it is a "lock, stock, and barrel" rifle, and the stock can be changed out.

M14s are being used because they're available (there's about 170,000 in the military's possession) and they're a known quantity. This new M110 was just adopted. It might be a little too early to start saying it's absolutely superior to the M14. To start, they're $10,000 each. No one knows how durable or reliable they will be over the long haul. They're not more accurate by any significant measure than certain M14s. By certain M14s I mean the latest Smith Enterprise rifles. The Army tested a Smith Enterprise rifle that shot a 1 moa group at 1,000 yards! And that was with an unbedded USGI synthetic stock!

There have been comments that the M14 was maybe used at the beginning of this Iraq War, and maybe this was a mistake made by the higher echelons of the military, and they're not in use anymore. If this were true then I wouldn't see images less than a year old of Army infantry in the field with M14s, I wouldn't see videos with one M14 per squad, and there would be documents that show the M14 is being withdrawn. I haven't seen any real evidence to show that the M14 is fading away. Smith Enterprise is still modifying M14s for the military, and the USMC has recently adopted what is basically an M14 in a SAGE stock as their M39 DMR.

Frustration on the internet over the whole DMR issue isn't going to lead to our troops using M240s instead of DMRs. The reasons for this are obvious. A GPMG or M240 weighs over 25 pounds, the ammunition weighs over 7 pounds per 100 rounds, and doesn't have the same precision as a scoped rifle does, which might come in handy in an urban environment with a hundred thousand civilians in range of the weapon.

Now all I own are a couple of M1As. I don't own a FAL, G3, AK, AR, or anything, but I am trying to unbiased here. Which is the best rifle? I'd say the AR is, but I don't really care. I bought the M1As because I got a good deal on them, and they work. There's nothing more to it. If I had two of any other kind of common semi-automatic rifle instead of my M1As, I wouldn't care. They all basically do the same thing, have their advantages and disadvantages, and I believe that the Indian is more important than the arrow. These arguments really are about as stupid as two illegal immigrant maids arguing over whether they like the broom with the blue handle or one with the red handle. The reason I'm posting here isn't to tell all of you how great the M14 is, it's really to reply to comments that are biased, illogical, or not supported by evidence.

[AK_Stick]

M14s are being used because they're available (there's about 170,000 in the military's possession) and they're a known quantity. This new M110 was just adopted. It might be a little too early to start saying it's absolutely superior to the M14. To start, they're $10,000 each. No one knows how durable or reliable they will be over the long haul. They're not more accurate by any significant measure than certain M14s. By certain M14s I mean the latest Smith Enterprise rifles. The Army tested a Smith Enterprise rifle that shot a 1 moa group at 1,000 yards! And that was with an unbedded USGI synthetic stock!

There have been comments that the M14 was maybe used at the beginning of this Iraq War, and maybe this was a mistake made by the higher echelons of the military, and they're not in use anymore. If this were true then I wouldn't see images less than a year old of Army infantry in the field with M14s, I wouldn't see videos with one M14 per squad, and there would be documents that show the M14 is being withdrawn. I haven't seen any real evidence to show that the M14 is fading away. Smith Enterprise is still modifying M14s for the military, and the USMC has recently adopted what is basically an M14 in a SAGE stock as their M39 DMR.








The M-14 was brought in as a stop gap. And is only issued to some units. It depends completely upon the unit as to who, if any get them. There is no question, the M-14 is on the way out, yes, it is still in some limited use. The M110 and the DMR M-16, will replace it. And yes, its a better weapon.

It is more accurate, it requires almost zero additional training, and it has all the upsides of the M-16 family. Yes, an M110 is more accurate than even Smith Enterprises rifles. Look no further than Camp Perry SE weapons have been there, and they're still bested by AR's day in and day out. And SE weapons are not in the hands of every DMR carrying an M-14.

Yes, you can still find pictures of soldiers with AK's on the net, less than 6 months old, but that doesn't mean that soldiers are carrying them on combat patrols every day either.

[Andrewsky]

The M-14 was brought in as a stop gap.

And is only issued to some units. It depends completely upon the unit as to who, if any get them. There is no question, the M-14 is on the way out, yes, it is still in some limited use. The M110 and the DMR M-16, will replace it. And yes, its a better weapon.

It is more accurate, it requires almost zero additional training, and it has all the upsides of the M-16 family. Yes, an M110 is more accurate than even Smith Enterprises rifles. Look no further than Camp Perry SE weapons have been there, and they're still bested by AR's day in and day out. And SE weapons are not in the hands of every DMR carrying an M-14.

Yes, you can still find pictures of soldiers with AK's on the net, less than 6 months old, but that doesn't mean that soldiers are carrying them on combat patrols every day either.

I appreciate your comments. I am actually not going to respond this time, because by now I think we're familiar with each other's arguments.

[hardeyes]

Hello;

So what role is the Military seeing (as far as the 308's), In Combat??

Do the Troops like the Rifle/Cal, Or is it only limited to SASS.

Thanks

hardeyes

[hardeyes]

Hello;

Here's some M1A's in the Sage stock configuration.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d70_1190084229

[Forgoten214]

Hello;

Here's some M1A's in the Sage stock configuration.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d70_1190084229

Ewww a silenced M14?

[Rakkasan]

Hello;

So what role is the Military seeing (as far as the 308's), In Combat??

Do the Troops like the Rifle/Cal, Or is it only limited to SASS.

Thanks

hardeyes

Our company had 2 M14s per platoon. Interestingly enough, I was a team leader and a designated marksman. The only time I took out the M14 was on OPs and certain missions, on those missions I carried my M4 with my M14 slung.
My M14 consisted of a SAGE stock and A Leupold Mark 4 LR/T scope.
I've never heard any soldier talk down about the 7.62 Nato.

[mastrbloata]

how do they plan on paying for it, the united states government is broke.The United States government is not broke. They can print as much money as often as they like and, they do.

[hardeyes]

Our company had 2 M14s per platoon. Interestingly enough, I was a team leader and a designated marksman. The only time I took out the M14 was on OPs and certain missions, on those missions I carried my M4 with my M14 slung.
My M14 consisted of a SAGE stock and A Leupold Mark 4 LR/T scope.
I've never heard any soldier talk down about the 7.62 Nato.

Hello;

Thank you for the Info, And Thanks for you'r Service.

hardeyes

[AK_Stick]

Everyone loves the 7.62's power.


I do not like carrying the extra weight of it.



The M-14 is seeing use as a DMR rifle, basically, its getting issued to sharpshooters as an extra tool in the armory incase they need more power.

[Valdrin]

From that article it seems the army wants to have one 800m range weapon in each rifle squad. I think that makes sense in the types of terrain our soldures have to fight in. It also says that they want to use the requested funds to pay for bipods, scopes and stocks to modify M14 rifles -- which is probably a whole lot cheaper than buying them each a new M110 SASS.

[Glolt20-91]

So, Belleau Wood has come full circle after all these decades. :)

Bob :cowboy:

[HKMark23]

The 400 to 450k figure is according to Lee Emerson and is in his book M14 Rifle History and Development. R Blake Stevens wrote a book on the M14 as well, you could check there.


What is meant by "traditional?" The M14 was originally designed as a "lock, stock, and barrel" rifle of course. It's ironic that the M14 can use these new stocks like the SAGE because it is a "lock, stock, and barrel" rifle, and the stock can be changed out.

M14s are being used because they're available (there's about 170,000 in the military's possession) and they're a known quantity. This new M110 was just adopted. It might be a little too early to start saying it's absolutely superior to the M14. To start, they're $10,000 each. No one knows how durable or reliable they will be over the long haul. They're not more accurate by any significant measure than certain M14s. By certain M14s I mean the latest Smith Enterprise rifles. The Army tested a Smith Enterprise rifle that shot a 1 moa group at 1,000 yards! And that was with an unbedded USGI synthetic stock!

There have been comments that the M14 was maybe used at the beginning of this Iraq War, and maybe this was a mistake made by the higher echelons of the military, and they're not in use anymore. If this were true then I wouldn't see images less than a year old of Army infantry in the field with M14s, I wouldn't see videos with one M14 per squad, and there would be documents that show the M14 is being withdrawn. I haven't seen any real evidence to show that the M14 is fading away. Smith Enterprise is still modifying M14s for the military, and the USMC has recently adopted what is basically an M14 in a SAGE stock as their M39 DMR.

Frustration on the internet over the whole DMR issue isn't going to lead to our troops using M240s instead of DMRs. The reasons for this are obvious. A GPMG or M240 weighs over 25 pounds, the ammunition weighs over 7 pounds per 100 rounds, and doesn't have the same precision as a scoped rifle does, which might come in handy in an urban environment with a hundred thousand civilians in range of the weapon.

Now all I own are a couple of M1As. I don't own a FAL, G3, AK, AR, or anything, but I am trying to unbiased here. Which is the best rifle? I'd say the AR is, but I don't really care. I bought the M1As because I got a good deal on them, and they work. There's nothing more to it. If I had two of any other kind of common semi-automatic rifle instead of my M1As, I wouldn't care. They all basically do the same thing, have their advantages and disadvantages, and I believe that the Indian is more important than the arrow. These arguments really are about as stupid as two illegal immigrant maids arguing over whether they like the broom with the blue handle or one with the red handle. The reason I'm posting here isn't to tell all of you how great the M14 is, it's really to reply to comments that are biased, illogical, or not supported by evidence.

Yeaaaaaa! Someone in this thread that "gets it". Good informed post Andrewsky. :cheers:

I'm always entertained by these threads and how the kool-aid drinkers.... err... I mean military experts come out of the wood work to let everyone know that X is better than Y not as an opinion but as a fact. I'm also surprised that the military has not yet swooped down in the dark of night, slapped some stars on 'em and put them in charge. It's like a star being born in Hollywood, one minute your spinning a wrench dreaming of glory and the next your surround by generals eagerly awaiting your next command.

A 240 issued to every squad in place of a DMR :rofl:

[Swamprat]

I was issued a M14 in the army during the mid 60's. At this time I have both. For a battle rifle my personal preference is the FAL (L1A1).