Replies

Also, at one time there was an article posted here re:the dismal results of M4A1 carbine in Afghanistan. It didn't reach out to 500 meters-ACOG or not. In fact story said Taliturds were mocking the US troops as they new they couldn't be hit.

Right. That "Story" was written by one of the dentist's butt boys from one of those gun-nut websites. There are a number of details in it that show that it was not written by anybody in Afghanistan, or in special ops (or, probably, in the military. Maybe in MI, QM or some other paramilitary activity). The after-action report from Operation Anaconda documented 500m kills with the M4, "a range it is not even designed for." I'll believe an official AAR before I believe stuff written by 400 lb. wannabees that hang around gun-nut sites and talk about how bad they be.

I have access to all the official AARs and lessons learned and have never heard of TB "mocking" our guys... and the thing about them being out of range proves that it was written by some gun goon, and not an actual soldier. Because only some drooling wannabe would not realise that there are plenty of things that can reach out and touch the guy you can't hit with your rifle: sniper rifles, machine guns, mortars, helicopter gunships, and jets to name a few. Most SF teams have at least one guy that can drop a first- or second-round 60mm mortar shell on a guy in the open, direct lay, at 500-1500m ranges. That tends to diminish any taunting the guy plans.

Then, an issue M14 is not accurate to 500m. Not even close. In fact, it's usually less accurate than an issue M16-series weapon. And a National Match M14 is not reliable in field conditions. The various imitation M14s sold to civilians are mostly REAL junk with cheap Chinese cast receivers that won't hold up to regular shooting (the issue military weapons have forged receivers, but these receivers were never released to the civilian market. The early Springfield Armory (Geneseo) M-1As had forged receivers, but later ones didn't -- and the very earliest ones didn't either. Caveat emptor.

The only reason that the US adopted the M14 is that we had to justify the national armory that developed it. No foreign nation adopted it except Taiwan, which did -- briefly -- for political reasons only. I have a friend who carried one because he could hit at long range with it, and he thought it looked cool, and he had the option. I had the option too, and carried an M4A1 and was quite happy with it.

For an issue weapon it was a bad choice even in the fifties, with little improvement over the Garand it replaced. At the same time we made the even worse choice of the M60, which piece of dung we are only finally disposing of (the only ones I saw still in use were chopper door guns).

Finally, don't mistake the custom-smithed weapons that some special operations units use for issue weapons. Apples and oranges. And don't mistake any movie for reality.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

And a National Match M14 is not reliable in field conditions. The various imitation M14s sold to civilians are mostly REAL junk with cheap Chinese cast receivers that won't hold up to regular shooting (the issue military weapons have forged receivers, but these receivers were never released to the civilian market. The early Springfield Armory (Geneseo) M-1As had forged receivers, but later ones didn't -- and the very earliest ones didn't either. Caveat emptor.

I went through basic with the M14, carried one frequently, not always, during border tours in Germany in 1967, at a time while I was also giving the NATO weapons familiarization courses to 7th Army NCO Academy students at Bad Toelz...which freed up a *real* Q-school trained SF trooper for something more worthy. I generally preferred an M14 for accuracy work, [best sights and a scope mount] the L1A1 FAL for a barebones grunt rifle, and the German G3 if 7.62 full-auto or a compact para buttstock was required. Later, during my visit to the spas and health resorts of Southeast Asia, I pretty soon wound up detailed as a *have gun[s] will travel* sniper, covering for units who had their guys off to the 9th Infantry's sniper school at at Bear Cat. I had 4 M14s to pick from, including a pair of XM21A1's with Redfield autoranging scopes, and the one I preferred, with a Starlight scope reworked to mount a 2-7 Redfield that a pal brought back from his R&R in Japan; he didn't like it- I did. I eventually turned up a couple of other rifles too, including an Australian L1A1 FAL and an L42 Enfield boltgun. They worked too.

The worst thing about a NM tuned M14 was that if you disassembled it for cleaning, you lost the snug fit of the glass-bedded stock fit to the receiver and trigger group. Neither was wet weather moisture good for the ones with the wood stocks. And if fired full-auto, unless REALLY well lubricated [grease, not oil, dri-slide or LSA] the bolt roller would crack and split, also if it developed the slightest rust on the roller. Sights broke a lot, front sling swivel rivets tore out of the stocks, and safety springs snapped sometimes, requiring a wind of green tape to keep 'em from flopping back to the safe position. Sometimes firing pins rusted in the bolt channel but I took better care of my rifle than that, and eventually chrome-plated firing pins were issued.

The M14/M21 is a good rifle, though it's not perfect- nothing is. It's a much better sniper's rifle or *designated marksman's rifle* than a grunt-issue piece, though keeping Marines from stealing your M14 was always a problem, one reason I liked the L1A1 SLR I eventually picked up from the Aussies working about as far south of saigon as we were north. It liked their ammunition better than either our M80 ball or M118 National Match rounds.

I qualified as expert every time I fired with it except for once when we fired for record with gas masks on. Two weeks later, we got a chance to fire again for score and most everyone improved their score considerably. After I got back to the states in 1970, I got to both work as armorer support of the 5th Army matches at Ft Riley as well as compete in that match. By May I was out of the Army, but I still got to and shot at Camp Perry that year, the 4th time I'd shot at Perry.

As for an issue M14 being capable of COM hits on human-sized targets at 500m, that was a standard distance for the far targets on the pop-up range back then. I could do it almost every time, certainly getting a hit more often than not. With a scope and a good supported rest, it's even easier. And the 600-yard NM stage with a issue rifle isn't terribly difficult either if you've got match ammo; it's keeping your shots in the Xs on the 200 and 300 yard targets that's the trick. On the 600-yard NM target, the ten ring is 12 inches in diameter. It's reasonably easy meat for a Garand. A thousand yards is LOTS harder.

If a soldier cannot shoot an M-14 accurately to 400 meters-then perhaps he should find another avocation. 500 meters? No problem that I can see, for me. And not talking NM.

Article I referenced was not from some "400 pound wannabee" off the gun boards. It was over two years ago. Was it accurate? I wasn't there. The incident was finally resolved by mortars. Works for me.

I cited the book Black Hawk Down. Not the movie. From p.208..."They used to kid Randy Shughart because he shunned the modern rifle and ammunition and carried a Vietnam era M-14. "...His rifle may have been heavier and comparatively awkward and delivered a mean recoil, but it damn sure knocked a man down with one bullet..."

Civilian versions? Not talking Chinese knockoffs. I have had no problems with SA weapons.

Few nations adopted M-14. True. It was in our inventory briefly. Most choose FN-FAL. 91 nations IIRC. Taiwan etal may have been for "political purposes." But same can be said of M-16. Israel comes to mind. Britain may change as well, due to the accursed SA-80. "Recalled" more times than a Ford Pinto.

A couple articles I did find here on FR attest to some problems with the M-4 version of M-16. "Marines choose M-16A4 as infantry rifle." And "Troops who fought in Afghanistan list benefits, troubles of weapons." Aug.4,2002

I'll dismiss your last para off-hand. Hardly need to have the differences between custom weapons and issued weapons explained to me. And as stated, my info came from book-not the movie. And the book was based on interviews of the actual participants.

I carried an M-14 all over Ft.Polk in the 60s. Later Germany. Then I was issued an M-16A1 enroute to VN. Did I prefer the M-14 to the M-16A1? Yes. Do I prefer the M-14 to my Colt MT6700? Toss-up. This Colt is by far the best of the "AR series" that has ever graced my gun safe. A far cry from the M-16A1 I was issued in VN...over two hundred improvements. Accurate as hell.Both work for me.

I am an "old fashioned" kind of guy. Just to many bells and whistles on M-4 for me. But it's whatever one is comfortible with.