No Vietnam- M14 as standard rifle?

The Vulture · Dec 7, 2009

Without a protracted war in a wet hot climate, would the selective-fire M14 have been adopted as a standard rifle for the United States for a longer period of time? Or were its design flaws too overwhelming for such an event?

BlairWitch749 · Dec 7, 2009

I don't know if it would have been changed out by then but there a few annecdote complaint's from black hawk down that the tungsten cored ball ammo for the m-16 didn't do enough damage to the miltia men (ie it just punched right through so unless you hit them in the spine or the head they would keep comming at you)

M-14 in semi auto wouldn't have that problem although due to the weight the ammo the troops would run out much faster than they did in otl (maybe get overrun?)

Wolfman · Dec 7, 2009

Speaking of the M-14, it's been making a comeback as a Designated Marksman's rifle because of it's stopping power.

CalBear · Dec 7, 2009

The M-14 was a very good weapon for the troops in Germany facing the Soviets and not bad in Korea. It was too damned heavy for extensive patrolling or LRRP and the Ammo was twice the weight of the 5.56.

Without a Vietnam the M-14 would probably have lasted into the 80s and wind up replaced by a 6.5-6.8mm (which is what's happening now).

Paul MacQ · Dec 7, 2009

So something more in the line of 6.5 mm Grendel or 6.8 mm Remington SPC probably would have been picked in the 1980's. Would be interesting what weapons would have been developed if the choice of a new Round was delayed till then.

What developments would have happened in Britain and Germany as both had been experimenting with smaller rounds, I am not sure NATO as a whole would have waited till the 1980's for a new Round

I had no problem lugging a SLR around in my time as a Gunner. But being an Arty sig (Regimental HQ Bty ) and having to Carry that plus Radio plus spare Batteries was best described as a bitch. Hated Forward Ops Duty. Being a in a mixed gender unit. the dear ladies got the light M16's and got to stay in rear lines and the Land Rovers

Not sure how long it would be before a G3, SLR MAS49 and M14 would wait for replacement round and weapon in NATO,

Lord Brisbane · Dec 7, 2009

What if instead, the AR-10 had been adopted?

It seems to have given good service in the Portugese African brushwars.

Ward · Dec 7, 2009

The M-1 Carbine was used in the Jungles During WWII it was light you could carry 2 x the amount of ammo as you could for the M-14 , Plus you have to rember the USMC and the Army went to nam carring the M-14

Stephen · Dec 7, 2009

The M-14 was also trialed against the FN-FAL which is a simpler and more reliable design.

Zanford · Dec 7, 2009

I know the big complaint against the M-14 was the fact it was uncontrollable(by most) in full auto. I know the Japanese Self Defense Force had a similar problem with their Howda Type 64 Rifle(both 7.62 x 51 NATO). They got around it by issuing a lower powered round(color coded with purple tips). It brought the recoil down to something more like an AK-47. I could see the US adopting a system like this in the interim. It could also lead to the adoption of a new submachine, to provide better firepower. Maybe a beefed up MP 5 in .45 auto.

Cash · Dec 7, 2009

Ward said:
The M-1 Carbine was used in the Jungles During WWII it was light you could carry 2 x the amount of ammo as you could for the M-14 , Plus you have to rember the USMC and the Army went to nam carring the M-14

My father used to say that the only thing an M1 carbine was good for was to stick in the ground and hold the helmet of the guy who got killed using it. He hated them with a passion, even more than the Grease Gun. No stopping power, no range, and pretty much useless in general. Pistols, Thompsons, and Grease Guns were more useful in house to house, altho he favored a 12-gauge himself. In the field, the M1 was everyone's choice. Since he landed the day after D-Day and was pretty much continuously on the sharp end until an arty round ruined his day in Germany just before New Year's Day, I listened to him.

HMS Warspite · Dec 8, 2009

In terms of natural development of weapons, the M-14 would naturally have been replaced by the smaller, lighter M-16 anyway. This weapon was designed to become an assaultriffle, with lighter ammunitions, for the basical reason, the infantryman carrying it, could carry more ammo, making him more effective in a shootout. The 5.56 mm cartridge had been developped accordingly to be mass produced and to become today's Standard NATO caliber riffleround.

Alternatively, the M-14 would be downscaled to carry the new lighter round, but this showed to be too difficult, or expensive. Therefore the user friendly M-16 and its offshoot were developped, although the troubles it encountered in Vietnam, first looked to downgrade the riffle, which was actually a very good weapon, but the servicemen using it lacked training to keep the weapon clean at all times. When the proper care is taken to maintain the weapon, the M-16 is an excelent and very accurate riffle.

Altough on some occasions the cartridge of teh 5.56 riffle is a bit too weak to do the job, alternative weapons exist to get the objective done, but always at the expense of the quantity of ammunitions carried by the individual serviceman. Normally a standard platoon uses a mixture of different calibers of riffles, just for this reason. The majority though remains the standard 5.56 mm round weapon.

tehShifty · Dec 8, 2009

Wolfman said:
Speaking of the M-14, it's been making a comeback as a Designated Marksman's rifle because of it's stopping power.

The M14 is coming back as the M21 DMR because of new ranges expienced in the open desert. The 556 round acually cause more internal damage than 762.

The American Army's situation would probably resemble the British Army's after the Falklands.

Wolfman · Dec 8, 2009

The way I hear it, the NATO 5.56 round goes right through targets with no armor (bulletproof vests and the like) without causing much in the way of damage... at least with the 7.62 NATO you don't have to worry about that, 'cause when you hit someone with that round and they're most likely not gonna get up.

tehShifty · Dec 8, 2009

Wolfman said:
The way I hear it, the NATO 5.56 round goes right through targets with no armor (bulletproof vests and the like) without causing much in the way of damage... at least with the 7.62 NATO you don't have to worry about that, 'cause when you hit someone with that round and they're most likely not gonna get up.

Nope. 556 round tumbles on impact.

BlairWitch749 · Dec 8, 2009

tehShifty said:
Nope. 556 round tumbles on impact.

it depends on the sort of 5.56 round used... the jacketed tungston cored ball ammo have had complaints made against them especially in somalia (good ability to pierce armor and light obstacles but too much velocity causing the bullets to pass through enemies with little damage at short and medium range)

DD951 · Dec 8, 2009

tehShifty said:
Nope. 556 round tumbles on impact.

Lack of stopping power has become an increasingly common complaint in Iraq & Afghanistan- apparently the current 5.56 rounds are optimized for the full-length M-16 barrel, & with the short carbine-length barrels currently in favor, they don't achive enough velocity to tumble properly.

Although a smaller round probably would have been developed and issued, I don't think that it would have been the 5.56/M-16. The M-16 was origninally developed as a carbine for AF military police types using what was essentially a hopped-up 'varmint round' (derived from the .222 Remington). Early in Vietnam, Special Forces acquired a few for testing, and found it to be useful in jungle warfare, handier than an M-14 & more powerful than a M-1/M-2 carbine & based on those reports, MacNamara essentially forced the weapon on an Army & Marine Corps that really did not want it. (US Army experiments with smaller rifle cartridges in the late 1950s suggested a 6.6 mm round)

G.Fieendish · Dec 10, 2009

Does this mean the the .280 Enfield round gets adopted, in the 1960's, by the U.S Army...?

Nikephoros · Dec 10, 2009

CalBear said:
Without a Vietnam the M-14 would probably have lasted into the 80s and wind up replaced by a 6.5-6.8mm (which is what's happening now).

As an aside, which do you prefer? 6.5 Grendel, or 6.8 SPC?

Not having used either round, my preference is 6.8 SPC.

Theodoric · Dec 10, 2009

Nikephoros said:
As an aside, which do you prefer? 6.5 Grendel, or 6.8 SPC?

Not having used either round, my preference is 6.8 SPC.

This talk about 6.5/8mm rounds makes me think of that British .280 experiment. Now, that would've been great if they pulled it off.

Wolfman · Dec 10, 2009

tehShifty said:
Nope. 556 round tumbles on impact.

BlairWitch749 said:
it depends on the sort of 5.56 round used... the jacketed tungston cored ball ammo have had complaints made against them especially in somalia (good ability to pierce armor and light obstacles but too much velocity causing the bullets to pass through enemies with little damage at short and medium range)

DD951 said:
Lack of stopping power has become an increasingly common complaint in Iraq & Afghanistan- apparently the current 5.56 rounds are optimized for the full-length M-16 barrel, & with the short carbine-length barrels currently in favor, they don't achive enough velocity to tumble properly.

Although a smaller round probably would have been developed and issued, I don't think that it would have been the 5.56/M-16. The M-16 was origninally developed as a carbine for AF military police types using what was essentially a hopped-up 'varmint round' (derived from the .222 Remington). Early in Vietnam, Special Forces acquired a few for testing, and found it to be useful in jungle warfare, handier than an M-14 & more powerful than a M-1/M-2 carbine & based on those reports, MacNamara essentially forced the weapon on an Army & Marine Corps that really did not want it. (US Army experiments with smaller rifle cartridges in the late 1950s suggested a 6.6 mm round)

Nice to know I can get a conversation about a subject going with just a few words. What I know about the 5.56 round comes from stuff like 'Deadliest Warrior' and programs on the Military and History Channels.