• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

ModerationNow!

ModerationNow!

I identify as "non-Bidenary".
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
2,693
Reaction score
1,350
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here, Ian finally gets his first-ever opportunity to fire a rare, real M-14(because full auto weapons are almost impossible to get). Thats saying something for a guy who's whole career is based around reviewing military small arms! This was the US military infantry rifle from the 50s through mid 60s, when replaced by the AR-15/M-16.

Watching him fire it on full auto, and hearing his commentary on the subject makes it clear that the M-14 was NOT a good option as a selective fire infantry weapon for the US military, that was supposed to be used on full auto in battle from time to time.

The civilian variant(the Springfield M1A) is a great target rifle, because it fires 1 shot at a time, and has NO full auto capability. However, its kinda expensive(over $1,000). But a REAL M-14 is probably going to cost you over $25,000 - $40,000, as is the case with most full auto weapons, IF you have the special permits, which arent easy to get! But even then, theres an incredibly limited number of full auto guns of ANY type available in the US....

 
Last edited:
ModerationNow! said:
Here, Ian finally gets his first-ever opportunity to fire a rare, real M-14(because full auto weapons are almost impossible to get). Thats saying something for a guy who's whole career is based around reviewing military small arms! This was the US military infantry rifle from the 50s through mid 60s, when replaced by the AR-15/M-16.

Watching him fire it on full auto, and hearing his commentary on the subject makes it clear that the M-14 was NOT a good option as a selective fire infantry weapon for the US military, that was supposed to be used on full auto in battle from time to time.

The civilian variant(the Springfield M1A) is a great target rifle, because it fires 1 shot at a time, and has NO full auto capability. However, its kinda expensive(over $1,000). But a REAL M-14 is probably going to cost you over $25,000 - $40,000, as is the case with most full auto weapons, IF you have the special permits, which arent easy to get! But even then, theres an incredibly limited number of full auto guns of ANY type available in the US....

Click to expand...


thanks for the video..
a friendly reminder: the M-16 is Not an AR15.
 
Thom Paine said:
thanks for the video..
a friendly reminder: the M-16 is Not an AR15.
Click to expand...

The original AR-15 was the basis from which the M-16 was developed. There are many different variants of the M-16, and the civilian AR-15 comes in many variants as well, except it doesnt come in full auto or burst fire modes. Only semi-auto for 99.99% of regular folks who buy one.
 
ModerationNow! said:
Here, Ian finally gets his first-ever opportunity to fire a rare, real M-14(because full auto weapons are almost impossible to get). Thats saying something for a guy who's whole career is based around reviewing military small arms! This was the US military infantry rifle from the 50s through mid 60s, when replaced by the AR-15/M-16.

Watching him fire it on full auto, and hearing his commentary on the subject makes it clear that the M-14 was NOT a good option as a selective fire infantry weapon for the US military, that was supposed to be used on full auto in battle from time to time.

The civilian variant(the Springfield M1A) is a great target rifle, because it fires 1 shot at a time, and has NO full auto capability. However, its kinda expensive(over $1,000). But a REAL M-14 is probably going to cost you over $25,000 - $40,000, as is the case with most full auto weapons, IF you have the special permits, which arent easy to get! But even then, theres an incredibly limited number of full auto guns of ANY type available in the US....

Click to expand...


Without full auto the m-14 is nothing more than a magazine fed and modified m-1. You are right the m1-a is the semi auto version, took the updates the m-14 made over the m-1 but left out full auto.

However versions of the m-14 were used during the early invasion of iraq in 2003-2004, and much later for the sniper version of the m-14(m21) albeit in very small numbers. Currently I do not know of anyone still using the m21 on regular issue and the m-14 only held on so long as a specialty rifle because the marines more than anyone else as special issue.


Also fun fact the m-14 is the longest serving rifle currently in the us military, but also has the distinction of being the second shortest tmeframe of a main issued rifle only beaten by the krag.
 
beerftw said:
Without full auto the m-14 is nothing more than a magazine fed and modified m-1. You are right the m1-a is the semi auto version, took the updates the m-14 made over the m-1 but left out full auto.

However versions of the m-14 were used during the early invasion of iraq in 2003-2004, and much later for the sniper version of the m-14(m21) albeit in very small numbers. Currently I do not know of anyone still using the m21 on regular issue and the m-14 only held on so long as a specialty rifle because the marines more than anyone else as special issue.


Also fun fact the m-14 is the longest serving rifle currently in the us military, but also has the distinction of being the second shortest tmeframe of a main issued rifle only beaten by the krag.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there were at least 3 variants of the M-14 used as dedicated sniper rifles by 3-4 different US military services(army, marines, Coast Guard and Navy). There's the M21, M25 and the coolest of them all, the M14 Enhanced Battle Rifle(EBR). Mk 14 Enhanced Battle Rifle - Wikipedia

You can buy an M1A match rifle, then buy the specific EBR aftermarket stock kit, but you'll likely spend a few thousand dollars to put it all together. That stock kit isnt cheap, neither is the rifle.. But the M14/M1A EBR is quite possibly the coolest looking rifle of all time, and it should be a great long range target/match gun.

PEO_M14_EBR.jpg
 
Last edited:
The recoil on an M1A is unpleasant enough. I'll pass on a full auto M14.
 
gino said:
The recoil on an M1A is unpleasant enough. I'll pass on a full auto M14.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but imagine how "unpleasant" it is was for the guys on the "other end" of the 7.62×51mm! Same with the .30-06 of the M14's immediate predecessor(and a whole lot of other pre-1950s American military guns dating back to 1906-ish). The .30-06 may be an ever-so-slight bit worse on EITHER end in 'unpleasantness' category.

Clearly, the 5.56×45mm standard NATO infantry rifle cartridge is significantly less unpleasant for people on either end. Although its NEVER "pleasant" to be shot by anything, just ask my brother, who still has a BB lodged in his butt cheek from a neighbor girl who shot him there with my multi-pump BB gun in the early 80s! Lol
 
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?
 
ModerationNow! said:
Yeah, but imagine how "unpleasant" it is was for the guys on the "other end" of the 7.62×51mm! Same with the .30-06 of the M14's immediate predecessor(and a whole lot of other pre-1950s American military guns dating back to 1906-ish). The .30-06 may be an ever-so-slight bit worse on EITHER end in 'unpleasantness' category.

Clearly, the 5.56×45mm standard NATO infantry rifle cartridge is significantly less unpleasant for people on either end. Although its NEVER "pleasant" to be shot by anything, just ask my brother, who still has a BB lodged in his butt cheek from a neighbor girl who shot him there with my multi-pump BB gun in the early 80s! Lol
Click to expand...

Actually, the 7.62x51 mm is too powerful... which paradoxically means it usually ends up doing less damage - to a human target anyway. You tend to get cleaner wounds and more through-and-throughs. The ideal type of round for inflicting human casualties is an Intermediate Cartridge, which usually has a muzzle energy in the 979-1811 ft-lbf range, compared to the NATO 7.62's muzzle energy of of 2,500 ft-lbf.

It's all about terminal ballistics... an intermediate cartridge will impart all of it's energy into a typical human-sized target, and therefore it tends to cause more damage.

AK-47 wound over an M4 - Business Insider
 
Cordelier said:
Actually, the 7.62x51 mm is too powerful... which paradoxically means it usually ends up doing less damage - to a human target anyway. You tend to get cleaner wounds and more through-and-throughs. The ideal type of round for inflicting human casualties is an Intermediate Cartridge, which usually has a muzzle energy in the 979-1811 ft-lbf range, compared to the NATO 7.62's muzzle energy of of 2,500 ft-lbf.

It's all about terminal ballistics... an intermediate cartridge will impart all of it's energy into a typical human-sized target, and therefore it tends to cause more damage.

AK-47 wound over an M4 - Business Insider
Click to expand...

Yeah, but its news to me that the 7.62×39mm would be capable of overpenetration and less internal harm than 5.56×45, considering 7.62×39 IS an intermediate cartridge, with much lower energy and velocity than 7.62×54 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..
 
Last edited:
gino said:
The recoil on an M1A is unpleasant enough. I'll pass on a full auto M14.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ModerationNow! said:
Yeah, but its news to me that the 7.62×39mm would be capable of overpenetration and less internal harm than 5.56×45, considering 7.62×39 IS an intermediate cartridge, with much lower energy and velocity than 7.62×54 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..
Click to expand...

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.
 
Court Jester said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.....
 
gino said:
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?
Click to expand...

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 7×51mm) 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 6.5×52mm Carcano and 6.5 Arisaka from Japan.
 
Last edited:
ModerationNow! said:
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.....
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom