The Rise and Fall and Rise of America’s Last Battle Rifle (M-14)

War is Boring ^ | November 13, 2014 | Paul Richard Huard

[C19fan]

Critics said the M-14 was what happened when the U.S. government took many years and spent millions of dollars designing a rifle that was really just a glorified M-1 Garand from World War II.

The M-14 was the U.S. military’s last battle rifle. It appeared in 1959—the contemporary of the Pentagon’s first jet fighters and ICBMs. With its heavy steel parts and walnut stock, the M-14 looked positively archaic.

It was hardly a Space Age weapon. And it only endured as America’s battle rifle until 1970, when the M-16 completely superseded it—the shortest service record of any U.S. military rifle in the 20th century.

Yet, the M-14 has come and gone and come back again. Its accuracy and power—it fires the 7.62 x 51 millimeter NATO round—have given it a new lease on life as a weapon for snipers and designated marksmen.

The M-14 refuses to surrender.

[onedoug]

Trained in Basic with an M-14. Beautiful rifle. Wish I had it now.

[DCBryan1]

thought the Johnson M1941 had the shortest service

Gorgeous rifle:

Less gorgeous LMG from Johnson...but a mighty fine shooter!

[dangerdoc]

the closest thing I will ever get to fire.

[Poison Pill]

I’ve shot M1s but never a Johnson so I can’t go by anything other than the specs. But I’ve always wondered why the Johnson never was more popular. You had more rounds, could top the mag off in the middle of a fight and didn’t tell the enemy you were out by going PINNNNNNNNNNNG.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Have you ever seen a decent rendition of the Manual of Arms on a Mattel, er, uh, Colt M-16?

Why does the Old Guard and the USMC Drill Teams still use the M-14?

The Drill Teams at Texas A&M (Fish Drill Team and Ross Volunteers) use the classic 30-06 1903A3. Similar to the M14, they have a good balance, few over-hanging and extended parts to catch hands, arms, clothes and gloves, and have a good solid “tone” when caught and thrown hard as a glove hits the wood. Plastic just doesn't sound the same.

The smooth wood makes safer, easier catches and tosses to the other drill team members. As a weapon spins during a throw or a spin, you need to be able to grab it and stop it even if it is thrown a few inches (or feet) out-of-position or out-of-rotation.

[DCBryan1]

Johnson was fine, but was harder to clean in sandy environments. What was a TERRIBLE gun was the Reising M55 SMG, darn near useless in sandy environments in which the Marines were fighting. Johnson still worked with a little cleaning. Reising SMGs got thrown in the ocean until Army showed up with their M1921Navy/M1928/M1928a1 Thompsons.

[wastoute]

With the same ballistics!

[lacrew]

We used the M-14 for parades at USMA...and manual of arms.

On one occasion, we road marched 17k with them...somewhat absurd since they were missing firing pins.

We live fired and did blank training with the M-16, and usually carried it in the field.

The most obvious difference is the weight....and the general consensus at the time was that the growing number of females in the Army made it impractical to keep the M-14 - that 17k road march gave me a keen appreciation of how only a few extra lbs can wear you down, when carrying a rifle ‘at the ready’ (btw, I’ve noticed in Iraq footage that the carry ‘at the ready’ with a sling, and a pivot device on their chest, to take the weight off of their arms).

Although I never fired the M-14, the superior quality was obvious - we did have to take them apart to clean for inspection, and the parts are heavy and well machined. Taking apart an M-16, especially the A1, looks almost comical - you have to wrestle some spring loaded collar to get the plastic guards off, and it just goes downhill from there.

I would love to have one some day.

[Stormdog]

“I would like to obtain one.”
Chances are you’re not going to find a select fire model. But, if you really want an M1A, start here http://www.springfield-armory.com/m1a-series/

[CodeToad]

“last battle rifle”.

Just another ignorant opinion.

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

The first .223 rifle designed by Winchester for the army looked like an M1 carbine.

It was rejected.

[painter]

My son in-law bought a new M-14 a few years back. Before he bought it he asked me what caliber to get it in. I told him 30-06 probably would be the best. The 308 is just about as good of a round and if the SHTF there would be more 308 ammunition "laying" around where 30-06 might be hard to find.

Well he bought the rifle in 308 and I shot it a few times. What a great rifle to shoot, accurate as hell right out of the box. We were shooting 2 liter soda bottles at 100 yards with Open sights.

[elcid1970]

The M-14’s carried by the Old Guard at Arlington Cemetery have straight grip stocks to make the manual of arms even snappier. Quite a story behind those.

I qualified with the M-14 in 1969 in basic. The next year I fired the M-16A1. Somebody compared it to a large noisy toothbrush. Have never liked it.

After I retired I bought an M1A. Most comfortable rifle I have ever fired & accurate to a T. A pleasure after years of qualifying with the M-16A2.

[WayneS]

I don’t want to go through the paperwork, expense and body cavity searches required to obtain the required, but clearly unconstitutional, “license” needed to “legally” obtain and own a select fire model, but even a semi-auto is a bit out of my price range right now.

[WayneS]

No. It is not. It is a variant, as was stated in his post.

[WayneS]

I did not do it then because at the time I did not have a spare $400.

[RipSawyer]

I could have bought new Garands and M-1 carbines in the sixties for something like sixty bucks apiece, why didn’t I buy a dozen of each?

[Charles Martel]

Oh, and the FN FAL is a 7.62mm, like the M-14.

Yep, due to NATO's insistance on staying with a battle rifle cartridge. FN originally prototyped the FAL in 8mm Kurz.

[central_va]

What cost $60 in 1965 would cost $437.41 in 2013.

So what iw the going rate for an M1 carbine in today's dollars?

[Blood of Tyrants]

The Garand was originally developed to fire the .276 Pedersen but the generals wanted to keep the logistics at a minimum. Plus the US still had billions of rounds of .30-06 left over from WWI.