Winchester Proto-M14 Rifle

Am Shooting Journal ^ | 2/7/2017 | J Hines

[w1n1]

In the aftermath of World War II, the United States spent 12 years looking for a successor to the M1 Garand rifle. The new standard infantry arm was expected to be select-fire, lightweight, accurate, controllable, and fire a heavy .30-caliber projectile. It would replace not just the M1, but also the BAR and perhaps the M1 Carbine as well – a true universal weapon. Of course, these requirements were complete fantasy, unachievable in the real world – but that did not prevent Remington, Springfield Arsenal, and Winchester from trying to meet them.

Winchester produced a proto M14 with select fire weapon complete with a removable bipod. It was extremely light and made from an ordinary Winchester M1 Garand Rifle with many modifications.

This rifle is a Winchester prototype, which has been substantially lightened from the M1 it began life as. A pistol grip has been added, along with a fire selector lever and a box magazine system. A detachable lightweight bipod allows it to be used for supporting fire. It is chambered for the T65 or 7.62 NATO cartridge, which dates it as definitely post-WWII.

The mighty M14 rifle is a battle rifle that refuses to be shelved. It has been dusted off and implemented in the war against terror in current times. See the video here.

[Chainmail]

Thank you, Buddy!

[Lurker]

I’m torn. I have a very early National Match M1A, (serial number under 25,000) that I’ve had for years. All TRW parts, the works. But it weighs a ton.

It’s topped with an original SA Gen 2 range finder scope, glass bedded in a tiger birch stock. If I could get the right price I’d sell it and get an FN.

If you know anyone....

Best,

L

[meyer]

Lurker, are you a Tennessean?

[Lurker]

No, I’m in Illinois.

Why do you ask?

L

[43north]

And the rifle was too light to make a useful club.

[Chainmail]

I actually saw a Marine shatter an M16 stock by hitting a VC in the head with it.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

Good advice. Thanks. I’ve owned firearms since I was young but still have a lot to learn.

[TomasUSMC]

I believe they had the right powder but somebody decided they could save money by using a different one....oh well.

[quadrant]

agreed the m14 functioned well; but the stock tended to warp due to the humidity; and the attempt to switch to a composite stock did not work as the new stock changed the balance of the weapon.

[Chainmail]

Wow - where'd that come from? I carried a wood stocked M-14 for 17 months in combat - including fording rivers, monsoon rains and at least one typhoon and warping was never an issue. My rifle always hit what I aimed at; that's why I kept it.

I never heard anybody complain about "warping" with either the birch or the walnut stock.

I never wanted or carried the fiberglass stock because it was a heavy pig. The government only went to fiberglass to save money because hardwood was getting too expensive to find and maintain.

[Chainmail]

Me, circa 1966 with my M-14, serial number 188366. Just back from a security patrol and a half hour firefight. My last magazine is in the weapon.

[quadrant]

my reports come from two Army infantry officers, both of whom served two tours in S Vietnam.

[Chainmail]

I don’t mean to imply anything negative about the reports you have gotten from those gentlemen but those of us who actually carried and used them never saw a warped stock.

I think that you need to research further. We habitually used linseed oil in thin layers over the life of our rifles. Waterproofed the wood quite effectively. I can’t imagine that the army didn’t do the same. The wood from the wrist back was too thick to warp and the wood surrounding the receiver had steel reinforcement. From the receiver forward to the stock ferrule was thick and U-shaped for rigidity. Where exactly were the warps supposed to occur?

My life literally depended on that rifle at it never failed any of us - it also never failed to drop whoever we shot, first try.

[quadrant]

I never carried the M-14, except in boot camp. I found it a fine weapon that would fire under almost any circumstances.
But I do have great faith in the opinions (and experiences) of my friends. If you say that the use of linseed oil would reduce the tendency to warp, I accept your recommendation as truth. But I also know that neither Pat (who served in the 9th Infantry Division) nor Tony (who served in the 25th) would not make such a statement unless they believed it to be true. Neither has any need to lie or misstate after all these years. Pat did say that M-14 would have been a fine rifle for Korea or the Fulda Gap, but not for the heat, humidity, and muck of the Mekong Delta.

[Chainmail]

I would love to talk to Pat and Tony (mainly because I just enjoy talking to fellow vets) but I guess I'd ask them "what wood stock warping problems did we have with M-1s? M-1 Carbines? Springfield '03s and Krags and Lee-Navy's and M1884s?"

The M-14 stock wasn't in any way different from those rifles as far as thickness or material or shape goes - and they all were used in hot, humid environments.

I think that some of our guys have to think up problems with the M-14 to explain or justify the mess that was the M-16.

The '14 was reliable, accurate and extremely effective. It was longer and heavier than later rifles and if you had the thing slung when you entered a GP tent, the bayonet lug would always catch on the cable above the entry and it'd yank you off your feet ("carrier qualifications")- but if your life depended on having a rifle that killed effectively at 10 meters to 500 meters and always fired when you wanted it to, that was the rifle to have.