Author Topic: How Come? Why not? Alter and reissue the M-14? (Read 1829 times)

mannyrock · « **on:** October 21, 2009, 05:32:25 AM »

Dear Guys,

I'm a civilian, and have never been much for infantry rifles, but I have to wonder. Why can't "they" just reissue the M-14, with a .243 Winchester barrel, and a few space age parts to make the rifle lighter, and a select fire system that only allows firing a single round, or three-round bursts. Wouldn't that be a totally kick-ass infantry rifle, especially with a 105 grain bullet? Wouldn't that be extremely simple, and wouldn't it be far more effective than the M-16 in places like Iraq?

Just my thoughts.

Regards,
Mannyrock

woodchukhntr · « **Reply #1 on:** October 21, 2009, 05:48:13 AM »

Great idea, mannyrock, too bad it's so logical! The government would rather spend millions developing a rifle that will have a lot of "growing up" problems before it becomes fit for use.

Lloyd Smale · « **Reply #2 on:** October 22, 2009, 01:28:38 AM »

probably to many women that couldnt tote around a 11 lb gun and the heavy ammo that goes with it.

Dee · « **Reply #3 on:** October 22, 2009, 06:09:15 AM »

Lloyd has hit on the key with the weight of the weapon, and ammo. I have humped everything from the A2, which is now the M4, to the M14, to even the mini14, and I even once decided that a Thompson in 45acp would look good on me in the marijuana patches along the Texas-Oklahoma river bottoms. The weight of the Thompson was a real eye opener about 2 hours into the insertion.
The M4, M16, AR15, their all the same really is the best of all worlds when one puts into perspective that it was designed to hunt the thinnest skinned animal (man) on the planet.
Having put thousands of rounds thru the AR platform rifles (including the M16), AND the M14, it is hard for me to imagine the M14 being more reliable in blowing sand given the reality that the Garand action is an OPEN UNPROTECTED action. Imagine dropping it in a sand dune, and it immediately filling the action with fine sand. How long do you really think it will operate? Right now the M14 is being used in "speciality" assignments, and there is obviously time to maintain.
Maintenance is the key with any weapon, and the same number of M14s against a like number of M4s, in IDENTICAL roles with IDENTICAL conditions, I wonder how the M14 in Iraq would actually fair. Now I'm not saying I'm right, I am saying the test has not been given to determine that. There will be some that will squawk about the Vietnam transition but, that has long since been put to rest with a change of gun powders. JM2C

zeke08 · « **Reply #4 on:** October 22, 2009, 06:35:14 AM »

i agree with Dee the M14 is a great weapon and has its place but in the sand is not it in my humble beliefs. I have carried M4's and M14's and after a long standoff or long "hike" in hill country a shortie M4 (11.5" barrel) I choose the M4 hands down and maintenance is the key to ANY weapon functioning as designed. In the world of DEFENSIVE shooting failure is just not an option unless you loose the will to win.

mannyrock · « **Reply #5 on:** October 23, 2009, 01:50:33 PM »

OK,

Well, then just make the receiver of the A4 out of titanium, instead of aluminum, and hook up that .243 Winchester barrel to it. :-)

Manny

Reverend Recoil · « **Reply #6 on:** October 29, 2009, 03:44:52 AM »

If you want a bigger rifle, why not consider the AR-10?

stubshaft · « **Reply #7 on:** October 29, 2009, 04:00:19 PM »

Would still have to contend with the weight of the weapon and the weight of the ammo.

Swampman · « **Reply #8 on:** October 29, 2009, 04:08:23 PM »

The .223 is a good combat round. It just needs a good rifle to go with it.

Pinkerton · « **Reply #9 on:** November 02, 2009, 06:52:00 PM »

Why the 243?? and I'm not convinced it would be better than the existing 223. It wouldn't save much ammo weight over the existing 308, same case smaller bullet. The cost of retooling and resupply would be huge when the 308 is a much better round and already in use in several military arms. While the M-14 is an excellent battle rifle, the current M4 is better suited to the environment. I would like to see a piston driven 6.5 Grendel as the next re-incarnation of the M-16 in military use.

Dee · « **Reply #10 on:** November 03, 2009, 03:45:20 AM »

I have read some on the "piston option", and although it keeps the bolt cleaner, it seem to have other traits that are making it harder to determine which is better.
The round itself (223) is more than enough to take down the very thin skinned animal referred to as man.

LCR · « **Reply #11 on:** November 18, 2009, 03:53:10 PM »

Quote from: Dee on October 22, 2009, 06:09:15 AM

Lloyd has hit on the key with the weight of the weapon, and ammo. I have humped everything from the A2, which is now the M4, to the M14, to even the mini14, and I even once decided that a Thompson in 45acp would look good on me in the marijuana patches along the Texas-Oklahoma river bottoms. The weight of the Thompson was a real eye opener about 2 hours into the insertion.
The M4, M16, AR15, their all the same really is the best of all worlds when one puts into perspective that it was designed to hunt the thinnest skinned animal (man) on the planet.
Having put thousands of rounds thru the AR platform rifles (including the M16), AND the M14, it is hard for me to imagine the M14 being more reliable in blowing sand given the reality that the Garand action is an OPEN UNPROTECTED action. Imagine dropping it in a sand dune, and it immediately filling the action with fine sand. How long do you really think it will operate? Right now the M14 is being used in "speciality" assignments, and there is obviously time to maintain.
Maintenance is the key with any weapon, and the same number of M14s against a like number of M4s, in IDENTICAL roles with IDENTICAL conditions, I wonder how the M14 in Iraq would actually fair. Now I'm not saying I'm right, I am saying the test has not been given to determine that. There will be some that will squawk about the Vietnam transition but, that has long since been put to rest with a change of gun powders. JM2C

Maybe we should issue the troops slingshots, they weigh alot less than an an M4. And boy howdy, could they carry an ass load of ammo! Just think of the advantages, light weight weapon, light weight ammo, all that junk like magazines, cleaning kits and heavy cartridges would be a thing of the past! Just think of all the 95 pound weaklings, liberals wanting a free ride to Berkley and video game junkies we could recruit due to the fact that they wouldn't have to exert themselves! Brilliant!.......Operator.....Get me the president.

teamnelson · « **Reply #12 on:** November 18, 2009, 07:17:29 PM »

I figure we should pick weapons by the necessity of the task not the limitations of the operator.

mauser98us · « **Reply #13 on:** November 19, 2009, 12:02:33 PM »

The last issue M-14 was in a glass stock,and was much lighter than the current series M-16. I'm sure 2 factors take over at this point. You can carry much more 5.56 than 7.62. The training in the military does not stress marksmanship,but a more spray and pray philosphy. Carrying more ammo comes into play. Political correctness. Most women recruits and a lot of the men,cannot handle the recoil of the 7.62. The 5.56 corrects this issue. Just the ramblings of an old guy.

mechanic · « **Reply #14 on:** November 19, 2009, 12:10:19 PM »

Just improve on the AK and issue that. Dang thing seems to work regardless. A little better accuracy and it should be a hit. Make it in 5.56. Carry the same 240 rounds of ammo.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #15 on:** November 19, 2009, 12:14:18 PM »

Mechanic contrary to popular belief, many AK's jam. Especially in the sand, the loose fitting allows more grains of sand in to bind up the action. I'm sure those here who have experiance in this field have seen plenty of jammed AK's. Maintenance, maintenance, maintenance.

teamnelson · « **Reply #16 on:** November 19, 2009, 12:35:19 PM »

Recoil, weight and capacity have proven to be lower priorities in weapons selection ... the AR has helped us figure that out. Push now is to go to a 6-7mm caliber, with a more durable action. I know one of the guys that was working the issue for the USMC, and replacing uppers on the AR with a piston system was seriously looked at, as well as anything without a buffer tube. Iron sights may go away as well since nearly all combat arms at least are using RCOs and lasers (for directing guided munitions), and marksmanship went up with the RCO. Most folks carry 6-8 magazines outside the wire. Very rarely are they expected to carry more, so weight of ammo is negiligible when you recognize how heavy the PPE is now.

All that said, an updated M14 would fill the bill.

torpedoman · « **Reply #17 on:** November 19, 2009, 01:30:08 PM »

Amazing how we won two world wars shooting a 45 cal. pistol and a 30-06 cal rifle and then we downsized the guns and ammo now please tell me what we have actually won since? How did they manage to carry thast heavy gun from normandy and salerno all the way to berlin? That said the best combat rifle in the world is the AK47.

mechanic · « **Reply #18 on:** November 19, 2009, 01:33:16 PM »

I have a relative that I won't identify further, who is S.F. On most missions he carries an AK. He can carry just about anything he wants.......

BBF · « **Reply #19 on:** November 19, 2009, 03:37:45 PM »

I'm curious, somebody weigh a 243 Win with a 100 gr bullet and a 6.5X55 with a 120 gr bullet.

Lloyd Smale · « **Reply #20 on:** November 19, 2009, 10:29:34 PM »

ive been hunting deer this year with my 16 inch dpms ar10. Its a hell of a good gun and extreamly accurate but after a week of toteing it around i think that if it were going to be a daily thing id want something a few lbs lighter. Problem is going to a 243 you have even more weight.

blackpowderbill · « **Reply #21 on:** November 19, 2009, 11:10:42 PM »

No service rifle is perfect. Some are better than others but still not perfect. Aks have accuracey limitations that would not satisfy western troops and M14s have durability issues.The M16 family is as good as anything out there right now. With a modicum of care it is nearly as reliable as the AK and far more accurate. The M14 is no more accurate than the M16 on average (within the range limitation of the rounds) and is harder to handle for smaller troops.

LCR · « **Reply #22 on:** November 23, 2009, 02:43:34 PM »

Quote from: blackpowderbill on November 19, 2009, 11:10:42 PM

No service rifle is perfect. Some are better than others but still not perfect. Aks have accuracey limitations that would not satisfy western troops and M14s have durability issues.The M16 family is as good as anything out there right now. With a modicum of care it is nearly as reliable as the AK and far more accurate. The M14 is no more accurate than the M16 on average (within the range limitation of the rounds) and is harder to handle for smaller troops.

I can't find one single true statement in this entire post. B.S. like this is why young Americans are so confused these days.

Oldshooter · « **Reply #23 on:** November 23, 2009, 03:03:57 PM »

Quote from: TeamNelson on November 18, 2009, 07:17:29 PM

I figure we should pick weapons by the necessity of the task not the limitations of the operator.

There is your answer!!

It worked for our Fathers, the M14 with proper ammunition(not that 7.62 has anything wrong with it, heck its my go to rifle now) but maybe something lighter like 243 or 30 rem, or 6.8 would be a good thing AFAIAC. If they cant tote it/ handle it they can join the coast guard! ( I know not fair to the coast guard) I apologize..............Not!!!! make em tough! The Germans in WW1 called the American riflemen Devils! make em know why they are afraid of the dark!

This could be part of my Gen. Sherman approach to the war on Terror. Leave no rock unbroken and no landscape not a parking lot!

LCR · « **Reply #24 on:** November 24, 2009, 03:16:12 PM »

Quote from: Oldshooter on November 23, 2009, 03:03:57 PM

Quote from: TeamNelson on November 18, 2009, 07:17:29 PM
I figure we should pick weapons by the necessity of the task not the limitations of the operator.

There is your answer!!

It worked for our Fathers, the M14 with proper ammunition(not that 7.62 has anything wrong with it, heck its my go to rifle now) but maybe something lighter like 243 or 30 rem, or 6.8 would be a good thing AFAIAC. If they cant tote it/ handle it they can join the coast guard! ( I know not fair to the coast guard) I apologize..............Not!!!! make em tough! The Germans in WW1 called the American riflemen Devils! make em know why they are afraid of the dark!

This could be part of my Gen. Sherman approach to the war on Terror. Leave no rock unbroken and no landscape not a parking lot!

You're my new buddy.

Oldshooter · « **Reply #25 on:** November 24, 2009, 03:29:15 PM »

Well thats refreshing and original! I've been called several things here but never anything like "Buddy"

blackpowderbill · « **Reply #26 on:** November 25, 2009, 12:07:12 PM »

LCR: I worked around and on them for 22 years. If you want to believe they are perfect have at it. It's nNo skin off my butt.

Oldshooter · « **Reply #27 on:** November 25, 2009, 01:28:52 PM »

Quote from: Lloyd Smale on November 19, 2009, 10:29:34 PM

ive been hunting deer this year with my 16 inch dpms ar10. Its a hell of a good gun and extreamly accurate but after a week of toteing it around i think that if it were going to be a daily thing id want something a few lbs lighter. Problem is going to a 243 you have even more weight.

Lloyd, I am assuming your AR 10 is 308, why would a 243 be more weight? Im confused about that difference.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #28 on:** November 25, 2009, 02:14:51 PM »

The 243 would be heavier because the smaller diamiter bore means there is more metal in the barrel.

Oldshooter · « **Reply #29 on:** November 25, 2009, 02:21:13 PM »

Well ok thats simple enough, but wouldn't the barrel be smaller? do they use the same blank and just drill a smaller hole?