Graybeard Outdoors banner
1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,450 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Dear Guys,

I'm a civilian, and have never been much for infantry rifles, but I have to wonder. Why can't "they" just reissue the M-14, with a .243 Winchester barrel, and a few space age parts to make the rifle lighter, and a select fire system that only allows firing a single round, or three-round bursts. Wouldn't that be a totally kick-ass infantry rifle, especially with a 105 grain bullet? Wouldn't that be extremely simple, and wouldn't it be far more effective than the M-16 in places like Iraq?

Just my thoughts.

Regards,
Mannyrock
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
24,003 Posts
probably to many women that couldnt tote around a 11 lb gun and the heavy ammo that goes with it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,845 Posts
Lloyd has hit on the key with the weight of the weapon, and ammo. I have humped everything from the A2, which is now the M4, to the M14, to even the mini14, and I even once decided that a Thompson in 45acp would look good on me in the marijuana patches along the Texas-Oklahoma river bottoms. The weight of the Thompson was a real eye opener about 2 hours into the insertion.
The M4, M16, AR15, their all the same really is the best of all worlds when one puts into perspective that it was designed to hunt the thinnest skinned animal (man) on the planet.
Having put thousands of rounds thru the AR platform rifles (including the M16), AND the M14, it is hard for me to imagine the M14 being more reliable in blowing sand given the reality that the Garand action is an OPEN UNPROTECTED action. Imagine dropping it in a sand dune, and it immediately filling the action with fine sand. How long do you really think it will operate? Right now the M14 is being used in "speciality" assignments, and there is obviously time to maintain.
Maintenance is the key with any weapon, and the same number of M14s against a like number of M4s, in IDENTICAL roles with IDENTICAL conditions, I wonder how the M14 in Iraq would actually fair. Now I'm not saying I'm right, I am saying the test has not been given to determine that. There will be some that will squawk about the Vietnam transition but, that has long since been put to rest with a change of gun powders. JM2C
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
237 Posts
i agree with Dee the M14 is a great weapon and has its place but in the sand is not it in my humble beliefs. I have carried M4's and M14's and after a long standoff or long "hike" in hill country a shortie M4 (11.5" barrel) I choose the M4 hands down and maintenance is the key to ANY weapon functioning as designed. In the world of DEFENSIVE shooting failure is just not an option unless you loose the will to win.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
16,821 Posts
The .223 is a good combat round. It just needs a good rifle to go with it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
282 Posts
Why the 243?? and I'm not convinced it would be better than the existing 223. It wouldn't save much ammo weight over the existing 308, same case smaller bullet. The cost of retooling and resupply would be huge when the 308 is a much better round and already in use in several military arms. While the M-14 is an excellent battle rifle, the current M4 is better suited to the environment. I would like to see a piston driven 6.5 Grendel as the next re-incarnation of the M-16 in military use.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
23,845 Posts
I have read some on the "piston option", and although it keeps the bolt cleaner, it seem to have other traits that are making it harder to determine which is better.
The round itself (223) is more than enough to take down the very thin skinned animal referred to as man.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Dee said:
Lloyd has hit on the key with the weight of the weapon, and ammo. I have humped everything from the A2, which is now the M4, to the M14, to even the mini14, and I even once decided that a Thompson in 45acp would look good on me in the marijuana patches along the Texas-Oklahoma river bottoms. The weight of the Thompson was a real eye opener about 2 hours into the insertion.
The M4, M16, AR15, their all the same really is the best of all worlds when one puts into perspective that it was designed to hunt the thinnest skinned animal (man) on the planet.
Having put thousands of rounds thru the AR platform rifles (including the M16), AND the M14, it is hard for me to imagine the M14 being more reliable in blowing sand given the reality that the Garand action is an OPEN UNPROTECTED action. Imagine dropping it in a sand dune, and it immediately filling the action with fine sand. How long do you really think it will operate? Right now the M14 is being used in "speciality" assignments, and there is obviously time to maintain.
Maintenance is the key with any weapon, and the same number of M14s against a like number of M4s, in IDENTICAL roles with IDENTICAL conditions, I wonder how the M14 in Iraq would actually fair. Now I'm not saying I'm right, I am saying the test has not been given to determine that. There will be some that will squawk about the Vietnam transition but, that has long since been put to rest with a change of gun powders. JM2C
Maybe we should issue the troops slingshots, they weigh alot less than an an M4. And boy howdy, could they carry an ass load of ammo! Just think of the advantages, light weight weapon, light weight ammo, all that junk like magazines, cleaning kits and heavy cartridges would be a thing of the past! Just think of all the 95 pound weaklings, liberals wanting a free ride to Berkley and video game junkies we could recruit due to the fact that they wouldn't have to exert themselves! Brilliant!.......Operator.....Get me the president.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,119 Posts
The last issue M-14 was in a glass stock,and was much lighter than the current series M-16. I'm sure 2 factors take over at this point. You can carry much more 5.56 than 7.62. The training in the military does not stress marksmanship,but a more spray and pray philosphy. Carrying more ammo comes into play. Political correctness. Most women recruits and a lot of the men,cannot handle the recoil of the 7.62. The 5.56 corrects this issue. Just the ramblings of an old guy.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,755 Posts
Just improve on the AK and issue that. Dang thing seems to work regardless. A little better accuracy and it should be a hit. Make it in 5.56. Carry the same 240 rounds of ammo.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,574 Posts
Mechanic contrary to popular belief, many AK's jam. Especially in the sand, the loose fitting allows more grains of sand in to bind up the action. I'm sure those here who have experiance in this field have seen plenty of jammed AK's. Maintenance, maintenance, maintenance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,740 Posts
Recoil, weight and capacity have proven to be lower priorities in weapons selection ... the AR has helped us figure that out. Push now is to go to a 6-7mm caliber, with a more durable action. I know one of the guys that was working the issue for the USMC, and replacing uppers on the AR with a piston system was seriously looked at, as well as anything without a buffer tube. Iron sights may go away as well since nearly all combat arms at least are using RCOs and lasers (for directing guided munitions), and marksmanship went up with the RCO. Most folks carry 6-8 magazines outside the wire. Very rarely are they expected to carry more, so weight of ammo is negiligible when you recognize how heavy the PPE is now.

All that said, an updated M14 would fill the bill.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,576 Posts
Amazing how we won two world wars shooting a 45 cal. pistol and a 30-06 cal rifle and then we downsized the guns and ammo now please tell me what we have actually won since? How did they manage to carry thast heavy gun from normandy and salerno all the way to berlin? That said the best combat rifle in the world is the AK47.
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top