WI: U.S. Military Retains M-14 Rifle
- Thread starter Laqueesha
- Start date
Delta Force
Banned
The reason the M-14 ended up relegated to a supporting role (similar to the full sized rifles from the 1890s that served in World War I and were cut down to become the new service rifles of World War II) is because while it is incredibly accurate it is just too much of a weapon. Sure it is incredibly precise, but most combat takes place at 300 yards or less where you do not need a full length rifle to hit the target or a full power cartridge to ensure lethality. Its range advantage is more or less an extra feature you are paying for with a heavier and more bulky weapon and heavier ammunition and unlikely to really use. The long length and large bullets that you are not getting much use out of in real world combat distances also are bad for close quarters. The gun is quite long, heavy, and has heavy recoil, exactly what you do not want for close quarters or mechanized fighting.
One advantage that a large caliber rifle has though is that a 7.62mm has higher armor penetration than a 5.56mm rifle and so can better damage light vehicles and penetrate walls, to the point where the M-14 has seen something of a resurgence. There have also been rumors (not sure if any have been confirmed) that the 5.56mm cartridge can be lacking in stopping power in certain situations, especially if the enemy being shot is under the influence of powerful drugs. I heard a few years ago about insurgents in Iraq getting high off of some kind of drug before going out to attack soldiers, and it allowed those shot by the 5.56mm to continue fighting with fatal wounds. A 7.62mm packs a much heavier punch and so some analysts looking at the situation have proposed bringing back the 7.62mm or adopting 6.8mm, which would be an intermediate rifle cartridge.
Regarding the scenario itself, perhaps Bill Clinton avoids destroying the millions of stockpiled M-14s in the 1990s, and when the Iraq and Afghan wars occur they are brought out of storage, refurbished, and issued as battle rifles. They would be useful for sentries and other soldiers who are more concerned with stopping power than moving it around a vehicle or inside a building or other close quarters environment.
One advantage that a large caliber rifle has though is that a 7.62mm has higher armor penetration than a 5.56mm rifle and so can better damage light vehicles and penetrate walls, to the point where the M-14 has seen something of a resurgence. There have also been rumors (not sure if any have been confirmed) that the 5.56mm cartridge can be lacking in stopping power in certain situations, especially if the enemy being shot is under the influence of powerful drugs. I heard a few years ago about insurgents in Iraq getting high off of some kind of drug before going out to attack soldiers, and it allowed those shot by the 5.56mm to continue fighting with fatal wounds. A 7.62mm packs a much heavier punch and so some analysts looking at the situation have proposed bringing back the 7.62mm or adopting 6.8mm, which would be an intermediate rifle cartridge.
Regarding the scenario itself, perhaps Bill Clinton avoids destroying the millions of stockpiled M-14s in the 1990s, and when the Iraq and Afghan wars occur they are brought out of storage, refurbished, and issued as battle rifles. They would be useful for sentries and other soldiers who are more concerned with stopping power than moving it around a vehicle or inside a building or other close quarters environment.
Exactly. The M14 is too much weapon for normal infantry combat, especially in urban settings. Rather like having a minigun in a bar brawl.
However, the M14 is still in service in the US military as a sniper rifle, in which capacity it is a fine weapon.
It should be noted that in Afghanistan, where engagement ranges tend to be longer than normal, that the M14 is enjoying something of a resurgence.
If the early M16 troubles arent fixed maybe the full power rifle lobby in the USArmy wins the argument.
Cause God knows the US won't adopt the FN SCAR-H like they should.
It's a good first step in the right direction. Now if we could only re-equip the entire US Army and Marine Corps with it.
Not realizing that the only reason they were alive to complain is the the other guy wasn't able to kill them because the "damn rifle" took the baddie out first.
It is really hard to see the original M-14 continuing. A modified version with an "assault" stock and a three round burst selector replacing full auto is possible (The 7.62 is pretty much impossible to keep under control in a weapon as light as the M-14), but even that is unlikely with the patrolling requirements of Vietnam. As much of a pain in the ass as the early M-16 was, the fact that you could carry 50% more ammo for the weight (20 round M-14 mag = 1.75 pound, 30 round M-16 mag = 1.6 pounds, plus the fact that the weapon itself is 2.8 pounds lighter than the M-14) was a huge difference on long patrols.
The only way the M-14, even modified as I suggest above, survives is if the Army decides that it really needs it retain a battle rifle for Europe and brings in the M-16 as a "jungle carbine". That is pretty unlikely, although it would make complete sense.
I remember this discussion on here earlier... basically, isn't the M14 like 'midway between the M16 and a sniper rifle', rather useful in Afghanistan's mountain-dominated terrain?
Getting back to the original question...
Alexander Rose's book "American Rifle, A Biography" has quite a bit of fascinating insight into this question. There are many opportunities for divergence and the M-16's adoption is actually pretty unlikely (except in retrospect.) When it was adopted we had only a few combat advisors in Vietnam, far less than we had troops deployed in West Germany, South Korea, etc. with much longer shooting ranges and an expectation of moving by truck or armored personnel carrier rather than walking dozens of miles through heavy woods or jungle every day. 7.62 NATO was the standard round for our allies and we expected to be fighting side by side with them against the Soviets, Stalin's death and Gene Stoner's development of the AR-15 overlap and/or Chinese Communists (10 years after Korea.) Vietnam's expectations at the time of the rifle adoption are far in the future (and the M-1 and M-2 carbines (M-2 having full-automatic capacity and a 30 round clip often attached to a second for 60 rounds capacity were extremely popular in Vietnam and many of it's original use as the gun for non-frontline combat infantrymen.) Retention of the M-14, a triumph of Army Ordnance and Springfield Armory (who'd usually won these contests against externally designed, lighter, high volume carbines since the Volcanic, Spencer, Henry, etc.) would be the most likely scenario with the Thompson submachine gun, the "grease gun" submachine gun, and the M-1/M-2 carbine family filling the short/handy/automatic fire requirement...already owned in quantity, deployed all over the world, already in the ammunition and parts supply system as well as training.
The original application of the M-16's/AR-15 is General Curtis LeMay of the Air Force ordering these for his SAC-base/installation guards, not for Army jungle advisors. If Colt's barrel rifling twist rate not gotten misunderstood for the original test batch of the M-16's sent to Vietnam for combat testing, a rate of 1 in 16" instead of 1 in 7-9" that sent the bullets tumbling end over end for horrific wound effectiveness at close range, the rifle probably wouldn't have passed field testing. Soldiers deployed in Iraq were reporting not only 5-8 rounds often being required to kill an opponent but not penetrating heavy layers of clothing or car windshields, let alone mud brick walls, wooden doors, conventional civilian vehicles' doors, etc. has brought back M-14's into greater deployment as well as combat shotguns and interest in the 6.8mm SPC and other heftier cartridges for the platform.
Would have been a less desirable fit for Vietnam, just as no used M-1 Garands or 1903 Springfields in the Pacific Island campaigns against the Japanese, right? Just as the early days of Vietnam saw the same mix of 18" barrel/extended mag pump 12 gauge shotguns, M-1/M-2 carbines, Thompsons, etc. as the Pacific War saw so heavily, it would have just continued. The 17 pound Browning Automatic Rifle and 1919 A6 .30 Caliber Browning light machine gun on a bipod were extremely popular with jungle fighting in World War II so weight, length, and ammunition weight get a tradeoff many soldiers are willing to make. Probably wouldn't have changed Vietnam significantly although the soldiers would have had more confidence in their weapons which matters a lot in combat performance and a significant advantage in penetrating all of the forms of cover, like tree trunks, in those jungles while outranging the AK where there were clear areas. Being able to shoot the charging enemy long before they can shoot you is really handy, especially when overrunning a position is the standard approach.
While it's an easy point of divergence, the consequences aren't really coming to mind for the era, other than some American soldiers who died would have lived, come home and made their own impacts in the timestream so one could argue a key leader, inventor, etc. among them as there have certainly been tens of thousands of very high potential people lost in every war to chance.
Alexander Rose's book "American Rifle, A Biography" has quite a bit of fascinating insight into this question. There are many opportunities for divergence and the M-16's adoption is actually pretty unlikely (except in retrospect.) When it was adopted we had only a few combat advisors in Vietnam, far less than we had troops deployed in West Germany, South Korea, etc. with much longer shooting ranges and an expectation of moving by truck or armored personnel carrier rather than walking dozens of miles through heavy woods or jungle every day. 7.62 NATO was the standard round for our allies and we expected to be fighting side by side with them against the Soviets, Stalin's death and Gene Stoner's development of the AR-15 overlap and/or Chinese Communists (10 years after Korea.) Vietnam's expectations at the time of the rifle adoption are far in the future (and the M-1 and M-2 carbines (M-2 having full-automatic capacity and a 30 round clip often attached to a second for 60 rounds capacity were extremely popular in Vietnam and many of it's original use as the gun for non-frontline combat infantrymen.) Retention of the M-14, a triumph of Army Ordnance and Springfield Armory (who'd usually won these contests against externally designed, lighter, high volume carbines since the Volcanic, Spencer, Henry, etc.) would be the most likely scenario with the Thompson submachine gun, the "grease gun" submachine gun, and the M-1/M-2 carbine family filling the short/handy/automatic fire requirement...already owned in quantity, deployed all over the world, already in the ammunition and parts supply system as well as training.
The original application of the M-16's/AR-15 is General Curtis LeMay of the Air Force ordering these for his SAC-base/installation guards, not for Army jungle advisors. If Colt's barrel rifling twist rate not gotten misunderstood for the original test batch of the M-16's sent to Vietnam for combat testing, a rate of 1 in 16" instead of 1 in 7-9" that sent the bullets tumbling end over end for horrific wound effectiveness at close range, the rifle probably wouldn't have passed field testing. Soldiers deployed in Iraq were reporting not only 5-8 rounds often being required to kill an opponent but not penetrating heavy layers of clothing or car windshields, let alone mud brick walls, wooden doors, conventional civilian vehicles' doors, etc. has brought back M-14's into greater deployment as well as combat shotguns and interest in the 6.8mm SPC and other heftier cartridges for the platform.
Would have been a less desirable fit for Vietnam, just as no used M-1 Garands or 1903 Springfields in the Pacific Island campaigns against the Japanese, right? Just as the early days of Vietnam saw the same mix of 18" barrel/extended mag pump 12 gauge shotguns, M-1/M-2 carbines, Thompsons, etc. as the Pacific War saw so heavily, it would have just continued. The 17 pound Browning Automatic Rifle and 1919 A6 .30 Caliber Browning light machine gun on a bipod were extremely popular with jungle fighting in World War II so weight, length, and ammunition weight get a tradeoff many soldiers are willing to make. Probably wouldn't have changed Vietnam significantly although the soldiers would have had more confidence in their weapons which matters a lot in combat performance and a significant advantage in penetrating all of the forms of cover, like tree trunks, in those jungles while outranging the AK where there were clear areas. Being able to shoot the charging enemy long before they can shoot you is really handy, especially when overrunning a position is the standard approach.
While it's an easy point of divergence, the consequences aren't really coming to mind for the era, other than some American soldiers who died would have lived, come home and made their own impacts in the timestream so one could argue a key leader, inventor, etc. among them as there have certainly been tens of thousands of very high potential people lost in every war to chance.
MacCaulay
Banned
I remember talking to my dad about training on the M-14. He was in the National Gaurd in the 60s, and the two rifles they trained with were the M1 and the M-14. He said once that an instructor had actually shown them how to fire the M-14 on full automatic: it required the guy to hold the rifle at his hip, place his hand over the top of the gun to keep it level, and then basically just LEAN on it as he fired to keep the thing from kicking up.
On the Military Channel's 'Top 10 Rifles' thing, as much BS as those 'rankings' were, when they had a segment on the FAL, they showed a film clip of somebody demonstrating it on full-auto, holding one in the same way to keep it under control.
Anyways, reading this & having that little flashback got me thinking, that since one of major issues with the M-14 is that that 7.62 NATO is too much cartridge for the gun & the way infantry weapons developed post WW2, would a better POD to save the M-14 involve the US Army correctly understanding the purpose & reasoning behind intermediate cartridges instead of seeing it as a way to shrink the .30-06 into something a bit more compact & lighter with the same ballistics, and instead, the US & NATO standardize on a true intermediate cartridge, such as the British 7x43, or something else akin to the 7.62x39, the 7.92x33, or one of those 6.5 or 6.8 mm rounds that are being tossed about as possible replacements for the current 5.56 round? Perhaps if a smaller cartridge is adopted, this alt M-14 can be a bit smaller than lighter than the OTL version as well.
It's an idea that's been floating around at the back of my mind- whether the M-14 would have been a better rifle with a smaller cartridge (and if so, how much), but never got around to asking about it.
Yeah, that's why most countries had FALs without full-auto capability as main rifles. A few, including the Netherlands IIRC, had full-auto-capable FALs, but they were SAWs, with a heavy barrel, bipod and usually 30-round mags.
Even those FN FAL SAWs were meant to be awful. Personally, I would have preferred for the British .280 to come into use post war. Many Junior U.S. commanders were impressed by it but the higher ranking ranking officers and the established gun lobby were all for the big calibers. Personally, I think an AR-10 in .280 would be the business.
Russell
The British 7mm cartridge would have been the way to go in either the M-14 or the FN FAL.