Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Thread: The rumors are true. The US M-14 is/was uncontrollable & probably dangerous on full auto

  1. #11
    Professor Court Jester's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:06 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,252

    Re: The rumors are true. The US M-14 is/was uncontrollable & probably dangerous on full auto

    Quote Originally Posted by gino View Post
    The recoil on an M1A is unpleasant enough. I'll pass on a full auto M14.
    As a select fire weapon the M14 was never a great infantry rifle from the get go. For it to have had any chance at being comfortable to fire it would have needed to be as heavy as the BAR--- which is actually very shootable.

    Going from a 7.62x51mm (M14) infantry rifle to a 5.56x45mm (M16) infantry rifle meant soldiers had a lighter weapon and could carry more ammo than they did during WW2 and Korea.
    ___________________________
    ALL LIVES MATTER
    Yours, mine, everyone's.
    https://www.debatepolitics.com/signaturepics/sigpic35398_1.gif

  2. #12
    Sage
    Cordelier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    6,214

    Re: The rumors are true. The US M-14 is/was uncontrollable & probably dangerous on full auto

    Quote Originally Posted by ModerationNow! View Post
    Yeah, but its news to me that the 7.6239mm would be capable of overpenetration and less internal harm than 5.5645, considering 7.6239 IS an intermediate cartridge, with much lower energy and velocity than 7.6254 etc.

    Although i cant seem to find it now, I watched a documentary about a decade ago that compared different military cartridges on soft targets at close range. The most powerful cartridges like .30-06 went clean through, in and out, like you said, without doing much internal damage. But the .30 M1 carbine bullet remained in the target, dumping all of its energy within, causing more internal damage, despite having lower muzzle velocity and much lower overall muzzle energy. I may have the next one incorrect, but im pretty sure it was the older 8mm Lebel cartridge that also outperformed the faster, more powerful cartridges like .30-06 at those closer ranges..
    True... but look at how the 7.62x39 mm gets it's energy... the bullet is about twice as heavy and only has about 2/3 the muzzle velocity of the 5.56x45 mm. So when it impacts the target, it's going to be a lot more stable and pass through it in a straighter line. In comparison, the NATO round just goes buzz-sawing all over the place inside the target.
    "He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know." --- Lao Tzu

  3. #13
    Professor
    ModerationNow!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,952

    Re: The rumors are true. The US M-14 is/was uncontrollable & probably dangerous on full auto

    Quote Originally Posted by Court Jester View Post
    As a select fire weapon the M14 was never a great infantry rifle from the get go. For it to have had any chance at being comfortable to fire it would have needed to be as heavy as the BAR--- which is actually very shootable.

    Going from a 7.62x51mm (M14) infantry rifle to a 5.56x45mm (M16) infantry rifle meant soldiers had a lighter weapon and could carry more ammo than they did during WW2 and Korea.

    Its mindboggling to me that, even 10-20 years after WW2, after it was PROVEN that full power battle rifle cartridges were NO LONGER practical in modern infantry rifles, that the top brass in the US military would INSIST upon continuing to use battle rifles and full powered cartridges in them! It had been decisively proven throughout WW2 that full power cartridges were NOT practical or necessary at typical ranges of modern combat! The Germans figured it out in 1944, the Russians by 1945ish, the Brits by 1945, Belgians by the late 40s, and most everyone else understood the basic concept.

    The only stubborn fools were America's ultra-mega-conservative procurement officers, who screwed up the original FAL, and helped nix a seemingly really good, early British bullpup rifle that "would've been" chambered for a sensible intermediate cartridge.. It wasnt til the mid 60s that McNamara made his 1 smart decision, FORCING the morons to accept a new concept in infantry weapons and ammo! Of course that wasnt long after he tried to delete the Ford Mustang before it was released, recommending instead that Ford forgo interesting, sexy cars for more Falcons! He and LBJ were made for each other.....
    BLACK ---- WHITE
    AMERICAN!!
    STOP the divisive, racist, identitarian intersectionality nonsense!

  4. #14
    Professor
    ModerationNow!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,952

    Re: The rumors are true. The US M-14 is/was uncontrollable & probably dangerous on full auto

    Quote Originally Posted by gino View Post
    I'm just an old plinker at the range. I love to shoot an M1, but I hated shooting the M1A. The Garand has enough weight to soak up the recoil. The M1A is, to me, just unpleasant to shoot. I'm sure a soldier was not going to be able to tame the recoil of an M14 on full auto. It's too bad they didn't listen to Mr. Garand, didn't he originally design the M1 to shoot a .270 round?
    My uncle on my father's side gave my father a REALLY nice SMLE MkIII produced in 1918 about the time i was born in 1967. My uncle was a gun collector and had served in marines. He had a LOT of different guns in the 70s-80s. That SMLE sat in the closet at whichever house we happened to be living in at any given time(we were transferred a lot). I remember checking out the SMLE all the time, but as a pre-teen i assumed ammo for it wasnt produced any longer.

    But in 1981-82, the teacher who led our 8th grade "rifle and shotgun safety club", gave me a handfull of .303 British cartridges, and i fired it for the first time that day. I was 13 or 14 years old and weighed no more than 125lbs, but i dont recall the recoil being excessive, even with the hard butt plate. Later i figured out they definitely still made/make .303 ammo. I wish I still had that rifle. It was lovely, and the 1918 SMLE mark looked better than the ww2 era mark.

    It was .276 Pederson(approx 751mm) that the Garand was originally supposed to use. It fired a 125gr bullet @ 2,740fps or 150gr @ 2,400fps. Similar to .280 British made for the EM-2 bullpup. Or the 6.552mm Carcano and 6.5 Arisaka from Japan.
    Last edited by ModerationNow!; 07-28-20 at 08:15 PM.

  5. #15
    Sage
    Cordelier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    6,214

    Re: The rumors are true. The US M-14 is/was uncontrollable & probably dangerous on full auto

    Quote Originally Posted by ModerationNow! View Post
    Its mindboggling to me that, even 10-20 years after WW2, after it was PROVEN that full power battle rifle cartridges were NO LONGER practical in modern infantry rifles, that the top brass in the US military would INSIST upon continuing to use battle rifles and full powered cartridges in them! It had been decisively proven throughout WW2 that full power cartridges were NOT practical or necessary at typical ranges of modern combat! The Germans figured it out in 1944, the Russians by 1945ish, the Brits by 1945, Belgians by the late 40s, and most everyone else understood the basic concept.

    The only stubborn fools were America's ultra-mega-conservative procurement officers, who screwed up the original FAL, and helped nix a seemingly really good, early British bullpup rifle that "would've been" chambered for a sensible intermediate cartridge.. It wasnt til the mid 60s that McNamara made his 1 smart decision, FORCING the morons to accept a new concept in infantry weapons and ammo! Of course that wasnt long after he tried to delete the Ford Mustang before it was released, recommending instead that Ford forgo interesting, sexy cars for more Falcons! He and LBJ were made for each other.....
    Nothing ever really changes... look at how long they stuck to the notion that Battleships were the core of modern naval power - even long after Billy Mitchell demonstrated that it was air power that was going to win the day.

    We never seem to miss a chance to keep preparing for the last war.
    "He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know." --- Lao Tzu

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •