What if NATO decided to adopt the M14 and the M1911A1 in order to standardize weaponry?

[Deleted member 1487]

All they had to do, was to look in the Springfield Armory Pattern Room for Garand's early rifles, that used a BAR magazine, M1919,and the later T20 Garand derivative that also used one.

If you don't mind keeping the .30-06 in service. If they adopt the 7.62x51 NATO round then they need a new design. Forgotten Weapons just did a video on the conversion of the MAS49 to 7.62 NATO and the huge problems they had getting it to work right because the higher pressure and faster burning powder threw off the gun's mechanism quick badly, as it wasn't designed to handle the specs on the newer cartridge. That despite both the French and NATO cartridges being roughly the same size and performance.

 

[marathag]

If you don't mind keeping the .30-06 in service. If they adopt the 7.62x51 NATO round then they need a new design. Forgotten Weapons just did a video on the conversion of the MAS49 to 7.62 NATO and the huge problems they had getting it to work right because the higher pressure and faster burning powder threw off the gun's mechanism quick badly, as it wasn't designed to handle the specs on the newer cartridge. That despite both the French and NATO cartridges being roughly the same size and performance.

Maybe not.
The FN version of the BAR

You don't need radically different powder to go between the 30-06, 300 Savage or 308 NATO for similar powder loads. IMR 4895 was a WWII era service powder that works fine in all three

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Maybe not.
The FN version of the BAR

You don't need radically different powder to go between the 30-06, 300 Savage or 308 NATO for similar powder loads. IMR 4895 was a WWII era service powder that works fine in all three

It will fit in all three, but 7.62 NATO uses a different powder in service.

As it is though it looks like he had problems with the functioning on the middle stack of magazines. Not only that, but he's also switching out a lot of the rifle to run the different calibers.

 

[marathag]

It will fit in all three, but 7.62 NATO uses a different powder in service.

As it is though it looks like he had problems with the functioning on the middle stack of magazines. Not only that, but he's also switching out a lot of the rifle to run the different calibers.

It's not rocket science. He's not switching out the gas system or buffers. He's doing it in a field with non factory , modified parts. Doing it in an armory is a different matter when doing a permanent conversion

For powder, you can use WC846 in the three calibers I listed as well, and that was the spec powder for the Lake City loaded rounds

 

[Deleted member 1487]

It's not rocket science. He's not switching out the gas system or buffers. He's doing it in a field with non factory , modified parts. Doing it in an armory is a different matter when doing a permanent conversion

For powder, you can use WC846 in the three calibers I listed as well, and that was the spec powder for the Lake City loaded rounds

K, but if you're using the same powder and roughly the same loads, then the gas system won't need to be adjusted. Problem was that the 7.62 NATO military load used a different powder and load than the .30-06 military load.

 

[marathag]

K, but if you're using the same powder and roughly the same loads, then the gas system won't need to be adjusted. Problem was that the 7.62 NATO military load used a different powder and load than the .30-06 military load.

Unlike some, both the M14 and M1 gas system is/was fairly tolerant of different powders, single and doublebase, spherical, extruded and even flake. Lot of guys handloading since WWII, and no gas adjusters on those rifles. Still reliable

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Unlike some, both the M14 and M1 gas system is/was fairly tolerant of different powders, single and doublebase, spherical, extruded and even flake. Lot of guys handloading since WWII, and no gas adjusters on those rifles. Still reliable

Why was the M14 so bad then? Even beyond the problems with the original build quality.

 

[marathag]

Why was the M14 so bad then? Even beyond the problems with the original build quality.

That is much of it right there Terrible QC ontop of rotton builds, besides the folly of .308 full auto from a 10 pound rifle. At least the T20 series had increasing large muzzle brakes added in

 

[Crowbar Six]

The Italian BM59 was effectively a modified Garand in 7.62 NATO with a box mag and it worked perfectly. It was also developed in a fraction of the time M14 program.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

That is much of it right there Terrible QC ontop of rotton builds, besides the folly of .308 full auto from a 10 pound rifle. At least the T20 series had increasing large muzzle brakes added in

That also probably helped prevent the rifle from shaking itself apart.

The Italian BM59 was effectively a modified Garand in 7.62 NATO with a box mag and it worked perfectly. It was also developed in a fraction of the time M14 program.

It also had an integral muzzle brake to deal with the recoil. I was just researching another rifle that was adapted to a bigger, heavier round, the Hakim rifle (8mm Mauser), which was based on the AG-42 6.5mm Swedish rifle; to deal with the substantially increased recoil and IIRC pressure it had to use a substantial muzzle brake to prevent the rifle from shaking itself apart. Overgassing a gas piston system will see it break itself, which was an issue with the Gewehr 43 and potentially an issue for the AK47 too depending on the ammo load; it increases reliability, but could result in 'long' term damage to the weapon. The MAS49 conversion I mentioned before suffered from exactly that. I imagine that over conversions to 7.62 NATO did as well if they were overgassed.

Also AFAIK the BM59 was never used in combat, so it is hard to say how perfect it actually was. The M14 Program in part took so long because they looked at so many options for a new rifle, including a new short stroke gas system, which it eventually adopted, making it significantly different than the M1 Garand and BM59.

 

[marathag]

I do have to say, one of the favorite rifles I ever owned was the M1A, the civilian version of the M14, and mine was in .243 Winchester, not 308.
A perfect combination.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I do have to say, one of the favorite rifles I ever owned was the M1A, the civilian version of the M14, and mine was in .243 Winchester, not 308.
A perfect combination.

I'd imagine that'd be a really nice rifle. Who did the conversion?

Edit: NVM found out they sold them in .243 in the 1980s. Not clear if they converted them or did new builds though...
But did find they are doing new builds in 6.5 Creedmoor, which the military has adopted for some sniper applications and an 'assault MG'. That is something I'd like to see, it might be the perfect battle rifle cartridge out there right now.

 

[marathag]

I'd imagine that'd be a really nice rifle. Who did the conversion?

Edit: NVM found out they sold them in .243 in the 1980s. Not clear if they converted them or did new builds though....

Springfield Armory, from 1990 or so. Was like a $40 option to rebarrel, overall cost with tax was like $650

 

[Deleted member 1487]

If anyone is interested the M1A was reviewed by a youtuber with match grade ammo and did not get good results:

 

[HistoryGunsFreedom1776]

I thought the thread I created died awhile ago but I just noticed that some posts were added

Apologies for being missing in action guys, just had circumstances going on at my end but regardless I definitely have some catching up here then might see if I can possibly revive this

 

[Crowbar Six]

Also AFAIK the BM59 was never used in combat, so it is hard to say how perfect it actually was. The M14 Program in part took so long because they looked at so many options for a new rifle, including a new short stroke gas system, which it eventually adopted, making it significantly different than the M1 Garand and BM59.

The BM59 saw some combat use with the Argentinians in the Falklands, with Indonesia and by several former Italian colonies in Africa including Ethiopia and Eritrea. The weapon was also well regarded by the Italian army.

 

[HistoryGunsFreedom1776]

Well, speaking of the Falklands, the Argentinians had the M14 at the Battle of Goose Green according to this article:
https://web.archive.org/web/20081001234312/http://www.imageseek.com/m1a/M14RHAD060113 web site.doc

Also, a local variant of the M1911 in .45 Caliber was popular for the Argentinians.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2010/9/17/guns-of-the-falklands-war/

 

[CalBear]

Why was the M14 so bad then? Even beyond the problems with the original build quality.

M-14 was/is actually an excellent weapon, especially in the hands of a well trained rifleman. In WW II or Korea with would have kicked ass. Had the Red Army tried the Fulda Gap it would have been the right weapon. The complaints about it being unstable on full auto are sort of silly, good luck controlling any rifle as you burn through 20 rounds. Best you can do is start firing low and keep the barrel pointing at the target as the the muzzle walks the rounds up (hence the comment about well trained rifleman; they can snap off 2-3 rounds, even in a full auto weapon, diring the 2003 Iraq War you could always tell when the U.S. or UK troops were firing: "bip-bip or bip-bip-bit" Iraqi Army AQAP "rat-at-at-at-at-at-at..." spray & pray until the bolt locked open)

Unfortunately a 9.2 pound wooden stock battle rifle with a loaded magazine weighing in at 1.5 pounds each wasn't the right weapon for Vietnam where you had LURPing and even basic patrols out of contact for a couple days at a time in the jungle. M-16 came in under 6.5 pounds, with each mag coming in at 1.2 pounds. An M-16 and 60 rounds weighs less than an M-14 and 20 rounds. With a standard load of 120 rounds an M-14 carrier has a total weight of over 18 pounds, the M-16 comes in at under 14. That's two frag and two smokes, or two quart canteens or a full days rations or...

Four pounds is a LOT if you are humping bush. Even if all you do is carry three more mags you are way ahead and those extra rounds may just bring you home.

 

[CalBear]

I thought the thread I created died awhile ago but I just noticed that some posts were added

Apologies for being missing in action guys, just had circumstances going on at my end but regardless I definitely have some catching up here then might see if I can possibly revive this

We will never stop... having frank discussions about the M-14 and NATO 7.62 round.

Oh, and the .45APC is the best pistol round ever created.

 

[HistoryGunsFreedom1776]

We will never stop... having frank discussions about the M-14 and NATO 7.62 round.

Oh, and the .45APC is the best pistol round ever created.

It’s going to be interesting to see the revival of the ‘Great Rifle Controversy’ here but in all seriousness I think a timeline might be a good idea for this thread, especially since one of the reasons why the ‘14 fell from glory was a major steel strike. I’ll attempt to make it as interesting as possible based on the sources from the time