M-14




 
--
 
June 8th, 2004  
ruger322003
 
 

Topic: M-14


I heard the S.f are using the m-14 again is this true.
June 8th, 2004  
Marksman
 
 
well its a very good rifle,course its steel in use by SF,at least here
June 8th, 2004  
Sgt. Nick Fury
 
A picture is worth a thousand words......

Admin edit: Images removed. Nice pictures, but it's easiest to follow the link below..

and so on and son and so on........still the baddest in the valley of death.......if there was any sanity in the brass insteadof the Pentagon Incorperated twits we would have never gone to the crappy m16 widowmaker hunk of junk.........many revisions and still no where near as tough and functional as an m14.


More here.....

http://www.imageseek.com/m1a/


I let my Rifle do my talking for me.
--
June 9th, 2004  
Snauhi
 
that looks like m-21 or iam wrong?


http://world.guns.ru/sniper/sn09-e.htm
June 9th, 2004  
Pogue
 
yes some still choose to use the M-14, and I don't blame them; they're accurate as all hell, they pack a punch (you try gettin hit with a .308), and they have INCREDIBLE range.
June 9th, 2004  
SHERMAN
 
 
Sgt. Nick Fury wrote:
Quote:
A picture is worth a thousand words......
Correct, and thats why its a serious over-kill to post so many images.....
Try to avoid that in the future....
2-3 images would have made the point just fine!!!
June 9th, 2004  
Rotty261
 
 
As most of the pictures show it is still in use as a sniper rifle by a lot of units. There are tons of them still in the inventories and for good reason....


June 9th, 2004  
RnderSafe
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt. Nick Fury
and so on and son and so on........still the baddest in the valley of death.......if there was any sanity in the brass insteadof the Pentagon Incorperated twits we would have never gone to the crappy m16 widowmaker hunk of junk.........many revisions and still no where near as tough and functional as an m14.
Have you used either in combat?

The M-16, while problematic, is hardly a failure. The 5.56 is the biggest problem, but it is still an effective weapon. This weapon is not unreliable, it is the unreliable users that have given it that reputation within the civilian and certain parts of the military community.

The M-14 is not used in place of the M-16, it a Designated Marksman Rifle. (not a Sniper rifle (SWS) as someone else suggested).

Attempting to compare them in terms of use on the battlefield is ridiculous, different weapons, different objectives.
June 10th, 2004  
Sgt. Nick Fury
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Admin
Admin edit: Images removed. Nice pictures, but it's easiest to follow the link below..
Fair nuff......
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snauhi
that looks like m-21 or iam wrong?
M21 is nothing but a match grade m-14.........same goes for m25 cept more modified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sherman105
Sgt. Nick Fury wrote:
Quote:
A picture is worth a thousand words......
Correct, and thats why its a serious over-kill to post so many images.....
Try to avoid that in the future....
2-3 images would have made the point just fine!!!
allllllllright.....but I had about 10,000 words to say.....=)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RnderSafe
Have you used either in combat?
Most astronomers can't say they have been to the Moon but I imagine a few know a thing or two more about it then Neil Armstrong....Are you saying that unless I have used a m-16 and a m-14 rifle in combat I can not study the reports, use my own firearms knowledge or have any opinion whatsoever on these weapons? In that case how often have you used an m-14 in combat?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RnderSafe
The M-16, while problematic, is hardly a failure. The 5.56 is the biggest problem, but it is still an effective weapon. This weapon is not unreliable, it is the unreliable users that have given it that reputation within the civilian and certain parts of the military community.
While...problematic.......? That's my point.....it is has been always will be problematic. The m-14 was superior in every way cept the weight of the ammo, and if it were my life on the line I'd carry that extra weight....the only problem with the m-14 is it wasn't lining teh right wallets in the pentagon in the 60's.....

Granted....today's M-16 is a far far far cry improvement over it's early "widowmaker" reputation. That said, you still have several major flaws for a battlefield weapon. One it requires a LOT of maintenance, this especially is true in any area with alot of grime and dirt......aka any combat area outside of the freshly cleaned test labs.... The only good thing abotu this is it takes some amount of discipline and undisciplined enemy won't have much use for it for long. Men died because of it's problems with jamming on anything but IMR powder loads....I think that justifies me calling it a failure......if only for during the period of the Vietnam war.

Two...the "light" ammo doesn't always let you know you got the guy on impact, meaning you may continue firing when you should be siting your next target. The feedback from an m-14 direct hit alone is worth more to me then the idea of conserved weight. Using less ammo conserves weight too! The 7.62 round has better knockdown power then the 5.56

Quote:
Originally Posted by RnderSafe
The M-14 is not used in place of the M-16, it a Designated Marksman Rifle. (not a Sniper rifle (SWS) as someone else suggested).

Attempting to compare them in terms of use on the battlefield is ridiculous, different weapons, different objectives.
The objective is to kill the enemy right? not just to wound them? I understand that only one per squad was issued among the 101st but why? Certainly a lot more then sniper teams got them, who are using the m21s and m-25's if they're going to use a non bolt action. It is never ridiculous to compare weapons and ballistics.......

Look as far as I am concerned (and I realise my opinions mean nil to the powers that be) the m-16 is only in the military for political reasons based on greed in the 60's the difference then was between night and day and they washed right over the reliability problems despite the fact it was killing our soldiers. Once you convince peopel to invest in a new weapon system people will not admit it is not an improvement let alone more dangerous.........they're careers depend on it being better. Gee no brass ever backed a weapon because of their personal careers or massaged test data did they? nooooo of course not.

Is today's m-16 better? By leaps and bounds......but only because of constant revisions that have cost vast sums of money......I have no illusions about the m-14 being a viable main field rifle it has seen it's time, and surely in these number of years we can make something better.....that said if they're gonna spend billions on a new weapon system I think they should really reconsider the 5.56 round....or else once again we'll have to issue m-14's to some squad so one guy can actually reach out and touch someone.

(sorry for the lengthy post, but this is very important to me)
June 10th, 2004  
RnderSafe
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt. Nick Fury
Most astronomers can't say they have been to the Moon but I imagine a few know a thing or two more about it then Neil Armstrong....Are you saying that unless I have used a m-16 and a m-14 rifle in combat I can not study the reports, use my own firearms knowledge or have any opinion whatsoever on these weapons?
No, actually I just wanted to know if you had used either in combat. I will assume by your uh .. reply, your answer would be "no."
While you may study reports, and play on the range - it by no means gives you the same first hand experience than those that have carried and used these weapons to dispatch the bad guys. I wanted to know where your opinions were coming from to better understand your perspective, now I do.

Quote:
In that case how often have you used an m-14 in combat?
I have been playing in the dirt for 28 years, I have had reason to carry the M-14 a time or two or more.

Quote:
While...problematic.......? That's my point.....it is has been always will be problematic. The m-14 was superior in every way cept the weight of the ammo, and if it were my life on the line I'd carry that extra weight....the only problem with the m-14 is it wasn't lining teh right wallets in the pentagon in the 60's.....
It is and has been my life on the line, and I have had no major problems with the M-16 when used. The majority of my people have had no major problems with the M-16 when used. I have, however, noticed the biggest problems seem to be from the operator NOT hitting his intended target, not maintaining his weapon properly, and generally lacking in weapons discipline.

Very few weapons work 100% of the time, that's life, mechanics, the elements and Murphy's Law.

And btw, that "except the weight of the ammo" (don't forget rifle, it's heavier) is not something to simply brush over. Infantrymen get very moody when they have to hump heavy things up big tall rocks in the snow. And I can assure you, you feel every OUNCE of weight after awhile.

Quote:
Granted....today's M-16 is a far far far cry improvement over it's early "widowmaker" reputation. That said, you still have several major flaws for a battlefield weapon. One it requires a LOT of maintenance, this especially is true in any area with alot of grime and dirt......aka any combat area outside of the freshly cleaned test labs.... The only good thing abotu this is it takes some amount of discipline and undisciplined enemy won't have much use for it for long. Men died because of it's problems with jamming on anything but IMR powder loads....I think that justifies me calling it a failure......if only for during the period of the Vietnam war.
Most weapons, save a few (AK for instance) need regular maintenance, and the accurized M-14s are maintenance pigs. I've never fired an M-16 in a freshly cleaned test lab, but I have fired it in the deserts, swamps - you know, the general shit holes of the world with other angry little guys trying to kill me.

Quote:
The 7.62 round has better knockdown power then the 5.56
Obviously. The 5.56 has an advantage to recoil management for rapid follow on shots while the 7.62mm will win in the "punch a hole in it" catagory. However, it still comes down to shot placement in the long run.

Quote:
The objective is to kill the enemy right? not just to wound them? I understand that only one per squad was issued among the 101st but why? Certainly a lot more then sniper teams got them, who are using the m21s and m-25's if they're going to use a non bolt action. It is never ridiculous to compare weapons and ballistics.......
Why? Not everyone is a marksman, that is why. A small fraction of soldiers can be trained to become adept at snap-shooting in a reasonable amount of time, using average rifleman as instructors.

The M-14 is a poor mounting platform. Too much needs to be done with bedding and other modifications to keep the rifle accurate. In other words, it SUCKS as a sniper rifle and is not used as nor considered a SWS.

Quote:
that said if they're gonna spend billions on a new weapon system I think they should really reconsider the 5.56 round....
I've already ranted about this at length in the X-M8 thread, so won't get back into it here.

Quote:
or else once again we'll have to issue m-14's to some squad so one guy can actually reach out and touch someone.
That's why we implement DMs.

I love the M-14, I think it is a great rifle. I carried an M14 for years (had a folding choate stock/18"barrel/rail mounted 3moa aimpoint and other variants) yes we still use them, and I fully appreciate the benefits of the 7.62, but it is hardly a rifle that is going to, or even should replace the M16.