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

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by HistoryGunsFreedom1776, Mar 15, 2019.

?

Is this even possible?

  1. Possible, despite how unlikely this scenario was due to backroom politics. Also 45= knock down!

    10.2%
  2. Hell no! Bill Clinton was correct in destroying M14s and the FN FAL will reign in the free world!

    30.7%
  3. Hell yes, America, Patriotism, Apple Pie, FREEDOM!!!

    7.3%
  4. Thanks, but no thanks Uncle Sam, I like to keep my 9mm Hipower.

    16.1%
  5. America should have adopted the FN FAL and perhaps they would have kept Saigon from falling

    40.9%
  6. M14 yes, M1911A1 no (We don't need a Forty Five Caliber cartridge with the Wild West in mind)

    2.9%
  7. M14 no, M1911A1 yes (FN FAL would have won out)

    24.1%
  8. I want no teenage drama queen, I want my M14!

    2.2%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. wiking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    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.
     
  2. marathag Well-Known Member with a target on his back

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2013
    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
     
  3. wiking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    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.
     
  4. marathag Well-Known Member with a target on his back

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2013
    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
     
  5. wiking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    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.
     
  6. marathag Well-Known Member with a target on his back

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2013
    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
     
  7. wiking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Why was the M14 so bad then? Even beyond the problems with the original build quality.
     
  8. marathag Well-Known Member with a target on his back

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2013
    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 likes this.
  9. Crowbar Six Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2014
    Location:
    Left Hand of Darkness
    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.
     
  10. wiking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    That also probably helped prevent the rifle from shaking itself apart.

    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.
     
    FleetMac likes this.
  11. marathag Well-Known Member with a target on his back

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2013
    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.
     
  12. wiking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    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.
     
    Last edited: May 29, 2019
  13. marathag Well-Known Member with a target on his back

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2013
    Springfield Armory, from 1990 or so. Was like a $40 option to rebarrel, overall cost with tax was like $650
     
    stephen the barbarian and wiking like this.
  14. wiking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    If anyone is interested the M1A was reviewed by a youtuber with match grade ammo and did not get good results:
     
  15. HistoryGunsFreedom1776 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2019
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana, United States of America
    I thought the thread I created died awhile ago but I just noticed that some posts were added:eek:

    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 ;)
     
  16. Crowbar Six Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2014
    Location:
    Left Hand of Darkness
    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.
     
  17. HistoryGunsFreedom1776 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2019
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana, United States of America
  18. CalBear Your Ursus arctos californicus Moderator Moderator Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2005
    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.
     
    Mike D and SsgtC like this.
  19. CalBear Your Ursus arctos californicus Moderator Moderator Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2005
    We will never stop... having frank discussions about the M-14 and NATO 7.62 round. :p

    Oh, and the .45APC is the best pistol round ever created.
     
  20. HistoryGunsFreedom1776 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2019
    Location:
    Indianapolis, Indiana, United States of America
    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:p