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!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Jan 19, 2006
    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:
    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:

    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.
  2. wiking Well-Known Member

    Jan 19, 2006
    How dare you, everyone knows that was the Colt SCAMP.
  3. CalBear Your Ursus arctos californicus Moderator Moderator Donor

    Oct 4, 2005
    I'd say pistols at dawn, but we'd freakin' kill each other with these things. :D
  4. HistoryGunsFreedom1776 Well-Known Member

    Feb 13, 2019
    Indianapolis, Indiana, United States of America
    Need a second? I think a matching set of high quality match models from Les Baer should do. :p
  5. CalBear Your Ursus arctos californicus Moderator Moderator Donor

    Oct 4, 2005
    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.
  6. wiking Well-Known Member

    Jan 19, 2006
    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.
  7. HistoryGunsFreedom1776 Well-Known Member

    Feb 13, 2019
    Indianapolis, Indiana, United States of America
    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:mad:

    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.
    FleetMac likes this.
  8. SsgtC Ready to Call it a Day

    May 14, 2017
    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
    Zen9 and HistoryGunsFreedom1776 like this.
  9. Not James Stockdale Those Protestants... Up to no good, as usual

    May 3, 2016
    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.
    The best *blackpowder* pistol round ever created.
    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.
    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 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.
    SCHV was and always will be the future.
    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.
  10. wiking Well-Known Member

    Jan 19, 2006
    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:

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

    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.

    Do you have a source on that?
  11. Bureaucromancer Well-Known Member

    Apr 12, 2011
    Toronto, Canada
    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.
  12. marathag Well-Known Member with a target on his back

    Feb 2, 2013
    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
    SwampTiger, SsgtC, Zen9 and 1 other person like this.
  13. wiking Well-Known Member

    Jan 19, 2006
    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.
    Zen9 likes this.
  14. marathag Well-Known Member with a target on his back

    Feb 2, 2013
    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
    SwampTiger and Zen9 like this.
  15. wiking Well-Known Member

    Jan 19, 2006
    You should get a modern one: https://www.wilsoncombat.com/243-winchester/
    SwampTiger likes this.
  16. marathag Well-Known Member with a target on his back

    Feb 2, 2013
    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
  17. wiking Well-Known Member

    Jan 19, 2006
    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:
  18. fastmongrel Well-Known Member

    Aug 5, 2008
    Lancashire UK
    Yes please and in .270 British.
  19. wiking Well-Known Member

    Jan 19, 2006
    They already have that, the AR-15 in 6.8 SPC.
  20. Not James Stockdale Those Protestants... Up to no good, as usual

    May 3, 2016
    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.