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

[Deleted member 1487]

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)

Modern accurized models are fine, which is why the US military uses them today (and because they were they were left over). But by all accounts the 1960s version left a LOT to be desired compared to say the Garand.
As to controllability in full auto, the FG42 achieved that with a more powerful cartridge than the M14 and one with heavier bullets, which means more recoil. Of course trying to make it a stand in for the BAR was a mistake, but with an efficient muzzle brake it was achievable. The US military should have known that given how much they tested the FG42 and worked on a comparable design.

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...

The Aussies apparently were just fine with their equivalent SLRs:
https://www.wearethemighty.com/gear-tech/australian-sawed-off-machine-gun
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog...nough-the-australian-btch-variant-of-the-slr/
They went even harder and cut off the barrel to make it loud and nasty sounding.
The South Africans and Rhodesians apparently loved the FAL (and G3) while fighting in pretty tough bush against guys with AK47s:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/gun-nato-loved-meet-fn-fal-rifle-52362
https://www.kommandoblog.com/2017/0...rief-history-and-how-to-spot-one-in-the-wild/

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.

Indeed, which is why the M16 was the military's preferred rifle for decades, though it had it's how hideous issues in the jungle. It would have been better in .270 or .280 British, but we don't always get what we want.

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.

Did the Italians use it in combat?
BTW doesn't seem to helped the Argentinians in the Falklands...just saying.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

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

How dare you, everyone knows that was the Colt SCAMP.

 

[CalBear]

How dare you, everyone knows that was the Colt SCAMP.

I'd say pistols at dawn, but we'd freakin' kill each other with these things.

 

[HistoryGunsFreedom1776]

I'd say pistols at dawn, but we'd freakin' kill each other with these things.

Need a second? I think a matching set of high quality match models from Les Baer should do.

 

[CalBear]

Modern accurized models are fine, which is why the US military uses them today (and because they were they were left over). But by all accounts the 1960s version left a LOT to be desired compared to say the Garand.
As to controllability in full auto, the FG42 achieved that with a more powerful cartridge than the M14 and one with heavier bullets, which means more recoil. Of course trying to make it a stand in for the BAR was a mistake, but with an efficient muzzle brake it was achievable. The US military should have known that given how much they tested the FG42 and worked on a comparable design.


The Aussies apparently were just fine with their equivalent SLRs:
https://www.wearethemighty.com/gear-tech/australian-sawed-off-machine-gun
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog...nough-the-australian-btch-variant-of-the-slr/
They went even harder and cut off the barrel to make it loud and nasty sounding.
The South Africans and Rhodesians apparently loved the FAL (and G3) while fighting in pretty tough bush against guys with AK47s:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/gun-nato-loved-meet-fn-fal-rifle-52362
https://www.kommandoblog.com/2017/0...rief-history-and-how-to-spot-one-in-the-wild/


Indeed, which is why the M16 was the military's preferred rifle for decades, though it had it's how hideous issues in the jungle. It would have been better in .270 or .280 British, but we don't always get what we want.


Did the Italians use it in combat?
BTW doesn't seem to helped the Argentinians in the Falklands...just saying.

The problem with the initial issue of the weapon was, literally, the issue of it.

I once worked with a Force Recon Nam Vet. His experience (never forget when he told me this story) when they changed over from the M-14 to M-16 went like this:

Helo comes into the advanced base. Marines are ordered to line up. One by one they turn in their M-14. Go to the next folding table the REMF have set up, are issued a M-16 recite the serial number on the weapon and sign for it. 1st Sargent who had flown in show them how to load/unload/clear the weapon (note that the word CLEAN is not in there). Each Marine take a turn putting one magazine into a tree.

"Congratulations. You are now qualified on the M-16." M-14s are loaded on the Huey, and away they go.

No cleaning kit, no specific instructions on disassembly, tips to keep the weapon functional, nada. Left the weapons, some cases of loaded magazines and a stack of manuals. Now that was the GD Marine Corps, and a Special Operations unit at that, where you have to be able to recite every single bolt nut screw and spring of the weapon you receive in basic before you can qualify. Imagine how they did it in the army, especially with guys who never went outside the firebase wire.

Less than two months after he got his M-16 my buddy and his platoon were di di mau out the back gate of their camp as two of the tanks the North Vietnamese didn't have came through the front gate. Happy Tet.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The problem with the initial issue of the weapon was, literally, the issue of it.

Without a doubt that was part of the problem, but there were more including from the powder change that put it out of spec and the lack of chrome plating in the barrel and IIRC the gas tube.

 

[HistoryGunsFreedom1776]

Without a doubt that was part of the problem, but there were more including from the powder change that put it out of spec and the lack of chrome plating in the barrel and IIRC the gas tube.

SecDef McNamara, who killed off the M14, decided that the M16 didn’t need chrome plating.

Goes to show that he should’ve stuck with Ford

But it also wasn’t entirely his fault. Colt marketed it as a self-cleaning rifle albeit with the specific powder and then the Army went with ball while throwing away the concept of cleaning rods out the window.

 

[SsgtC]

I will say this for the M-16, it was a better rifle as originally designed than what the DOD ordered. My grandfather was a machinist at Colt while the M-16 was being prototyped and trialed by the army. He configured the various machine tools to actually build the thing. And said numerous times that the gun Colt built was better than anything on the market. The gun the Army ordered was not the gun they were offered

 

[Not James Stockdale]

M-14 was/is actually an excellent weapon, especially in the hands of a well trained rifleman.

The M14 was an unmitigated disaster. Third party QC testing revealed awful accuracy issues (as bad as Great War Mausers) and parts breakage problems caused by tolerance issues that had been covered up by Springfield and its cronies at the manufacturers.

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

The best *blackpowder* pistol round ever created.

Modern accurized models are fine, which is why the US military uses them today (and because they were they were left over).

The QC issues meant that the pool of 'accurizable' M14s and parts was so small that ten years in Iraq and Afghanistan as a specialist weapon basically ran the entire stock dry.

As to controllability in full auto, the FG42 achieved that with a more powerful cartridge than the M14 and one with heavier bullets, which means more recoil. Of course trying to make it a stand in for the BAR was a mistake, but with an efficient muzzle brake it was achievable. The US military should have known that given how much they tested the FG42 and worked on a comparable design.

Full-auto controllability is always a nebulous topic. SAWs are supposed to be fired from a bipod and they had accuracy issues, but that was at long range. Does "controllable on full-auto" mean a man-sized target at 5 yards? 10 yards? 25 yards?

The Aussies apparently were just fine with their equivalent SLRs:
https://www.wearethemighty.com/gear-tech/australian-sawed-off-machine-gun
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog...nough-the-australian-btch-variant-of-the-slr/
They went even harder and cut off the barrel to make it loud and nasty sounding.
The South Africans and Rhodesians apparently loved the FAL (and G3) while fighting in pretty tough bush against guys with AK47s:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/gun-nato-loved-meet-fn-fal-rifle-52362
https://www.kommandoblog.com/2017/0...rief-history-and-how-to-spot-one-in-the-wild/

The FAL had almost 2 lbs on the M14 and the G3 can shoot literally anything that fits in the chamber. They can run circles around an M14.

Indeed, which is why the M16 was the military's preferred rifle for decades, though it had it's how hideous issues in the jungle. It would have been better in .270 or .280 British, but we don't always get what we want.

SCHV was and always will be the future.

But it also wasn’t entirely his fault. Colt marketed it as a self-cleaning rifle albeit with the specific powder and then the Army went with ball while throwing away the concept of cleaning rods out the window.

The self-cleaning marketing referred specifically to the ability of the AR gas piston system to blast debris out of the receiver and ejection port. Springfield Armory changing the powder, deleting the chrome, and taking away the cleaning kits was part of a conspiracy to sabotage the deployment of the M16 to combat units, regardless of how many soldiers would die, and force the Army to return to Springfield's prized M14.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Full-auto controllability is always a nebulous topic. SAWs are supposed to be fired from a bipod and they had accuracy issues, but that was at long range. Does "controllable on full-auto" mean a man-sized target at 5 yards? 10 yards? 25 yards?

Since you asked for it

It's not KAC LAMG, but what is?

Compare it to the M14 in full auto:

Here is Rhodesian muzzle braked FAL just because with bonus no brake shooting:

The FAL had almost 2 lbs on the M14 and the G3 can shoot literally anything that fits in the chamber. They can run circles around an M14.

No argument there, but even heavier guns still were better liked than the M14. Though the G3 does have some rough recoil.

SCHV was and always will be the future.

For certain things sure. Within 300m in the open it is king. Beyond that is pushing things until the M855A1 cartridge was optimized for the M4 and even now the military is adopting the 6.5mm Creedmoor for sniper rifles and SAWs, while the next generation weapons will use a higher powered 6.8mm cartridge.

The self-cleaning marketing referred specifically to the ability of the AR gas piston system to blast debris out of the receiver and ejection port. Springfield Armory changing the powder, deleting the chrome, and taking away the cleaning kits was part of a conspiracy to sabotage the deployment of the M16 to combat units, regardless of how many soldiers would die, and force the Army to return to Springfield's prized M14.

Do you have a source on that?

 

[Bureaucromancer]

My big question around the M14 really is how diffusion the picture is once you get polymer furniture and compare to the FAL rather than the M16. End of the day 5.56 just does make a lot of sense... But if we're talking 7.62 already I really do start to like the M14.

 

[marathag]

My big question around the M14 really is how diffusion the picture is once you get polymer furniture and compare to the FAL rather than the M16. End of the day 5.56 just does make a lot of sense...

FN started out with Wood furniture, so it's not a dealbreaker. 6 to 6.5mm makes much more sense than 5.56 or 7.62mm for your typical Squaddie

 

[Deleted member 1487]

My big question around the M14 really is how diffusion the picture is once you get polymer furniture and compare to the FAL rather than the M16. End of the day 5.56 just does make a lot of sense... But if we're talking 7.62 already I really do start to like the M14.

Check out the videos of shooting both the FAL and M14 I posted above...the M14 is a rough one to handle. The Cetme/G3 might be a better option due to the reliability in just about any condition and the lack of a ready AR-10.
The AR-10 would have been vastly better IMHO, but we can't always have what we want (like an AR-10 in 6.5x51mm NATO, the cartridge the Belgians proposed for a Swedish contract). The modern AR-10 in 6.5 Creedmoor is supposed to be pretty nifty.

 

[marathag]

The modern AR-10 in 6.5 Creedmoor is supposed to be pretty nifty.

My not so modern AR-10 in .243 is still pretty nifty, and that could have been done decades ago, had barrel makers offered faster twist barrels for 100+gr. Bullets, rather than slower twist for lightweight 55 gr. ones

 

[Deleted member 1487]

My not so modern AR-10 in .243 is still pretty nifty, and that could have been done decades ago, had barrel makers offered faster twist barrels for 100+gr. Bullets, rather than slower twist for lightweight 55 gr. ones

You should get a modern one: https://www.wilsoncombat.com/243-winchester/

 

[marathag]

You should get a modern one: https://www.wilsoncombat.com/243-winchester/

The Old DPMS is doing fine. The growth in AR 10s is not as great as the -15, but enough for decent upgrades over the years

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Any chance we can change this to "What if NATO decided to adopt the AR-10"?

Failing that as least the M14 gets a decent muzzle brake? Apparently there are some good ones out there:

 

[fastmongrel]

"What if NATO decided to adopt the AR-10"?

Yes please and in .270 British.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Yes please and in .270 British.

They already have that, the AR-15 in 6.8 SPC.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

The 6mm and 7mm cartridges are too heavy for infantry rifles and too light for machine guns. Even cartridges like .280 British would basically lock you into a battle rifle rather than assault rifle platform. They also lack the battle sight range of SCHV and cause more recoil. Big muzzle brakes have no place on anything but race guns.