To JY about M-14

[APOCALYPSE]

Jy,
If its not to much trouble could you explain why you do or do not like this weapon.I have read many posts of yours on the internet and in general you seem to make the M-14 as a weapon you do not like.I may have mis-understood the message. any info from anyone with experience is welcome.
Thanks in Advance!

[JY]

Hi APOCALYPSE;

You hit it on the head, I'm no great lover of the Marine's sacred cow, the M-14. This is in the area of Sniper Weapon Systems, as a general IRON SIGHT match rifle ONLY it is acceptable. The weapon will not stand up as a sniper's rifle, the Army tried to turn this battle rifle into one for twenty years and could not. It is a weak weapon that can not maintain proper bedding in a combat situation. It's rather ironic that the Marines knew this and adopted the M40 SWS as their standard sniper rifle and have again reserected the 14 as a Designated Marksman Rifle where a scope mounted M16A3/4 would be a better choice, go figure.

The accuracy isn't up to a bolt gun, nor is the M-14 as easy to hold on target as a heavy barrel bolt gun (the reason for the heavy barrel on a sniper rifle is to dampen the movement caused by pulse, wind and adrenalin, ONLY secondary is the heat/cooling benefit, you very seldom will fire more than one shot). The M-14 in it's M-21 abomination is very awkward lacking the balance and holding of a good bolt rifle, the magazine gets in the way when using various shooting positions( ex. sniper creedmore)and various rests (the ruck). It also has the bad habit of flinging brass outside of cover/concealment which is not good for one's health.

Before I write a novel here, while a good 200 meter slam and jammer and civie match rifle, as a sniper rifle and main combat rifle it's weak. It died in the early '60's and should remain dead as a military weapon there are much better semi auto 7.62X51mm weapons out there if you must have such an animal, just please don't try to make them into a sniper weapon...they are not.

Take care...Jim

[This message has been edited by JY (edited 03-15-2000).]

[Silent Fart]

JY,
I will have to disagree with you. There are newer versions of the M-14 on the market. For example the scout version that is shorter in length and can come with a synthetic stock. I would much rather have one of those in combat than the M-16 which is unreliable and has less knock-down power.




[This message has been edited by Silent-1 (edited 03-16-2000).]

[JY]

Hi Silent-1;

As I said they do make nice civie slam and jammers, in combat a more reliable weapon is needed. The superior SR 25 or AR10 would be a much better choice,if you were to want to be handicaped with a weapon that is totally uncontrolable on full auto as 7.62X51mm assault weapons are. The Army tried the synthetic stock route with the M-21 and it failed, the weapon as a stock combat rifle failed in reliabilty and was dropped from inventory in 1967 and replaced by the M-16. It and the 30/40 krag were the shortest lived weapons adopted by the US, the M-16 is about to surpass the 1903 as the longest.

I have carried both as combat weapons and have learned to trust the M4A1 totally. The so called knock down power isn't what counts, it's SHOT PLACEMENT. As for reliability the M4A1/M-16A2 is vastly more reliable than the M-14 that it REPLACED due to that fact.

For long range work in a BOLT RIFLE I do like the 7.62X51mm or even the .300WM, but for down and dirty combat, sorry but the 5.56X45mm in a M4/M-16 with auto capabilities(not 3 shot burst) rules. And in both instances shot placement is what counts. The M4A1, M16A2 are not unreliable there are just unreliable users and they cry the loudest. If you do not maintain your weapon, do not learn marksmanship, no weapon will be "reliable" or have "knock-down power".

Take care...Jim

[baboon]

I read that the US Army actually considered the FN FAL before adopting the M14. How does the M14 compare to the FAL and G3, the two most successful 7.62mm battle rifles? I know guys who swear by the FAL over anything else, but I am sure there are those who disagree.

[APOCALYPSE]

Just another quick question, If the M-14 is horribly inaccurate and unreliable why do the SEALS, arguably one of the Best SPECOPS units in the world use it. And I also have to disagree about the M-14 dot being a good DMR rifle. I mean as far as accuracy the new M-25 models issued to SEALS during the Gulf War blow the M-16A4 to hell and I feel are definately superior to some of the H&K PLastik Voonder Krap ex.Psg-1 and G3-SG1 weapons systems. These are my opinions and in way way represent the opinions of members of the board[HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!}

[JY]

To each his own,it would depend on length of deployment, guess if you are not deployed for any length of time even a M-14 would serve you well. But I do notice that they(SEALs)use the M40, M86 turn bolt rifles as their REAL sniper rifle.Why do they use the M-14? because they have the old thing laying around and it is a good slam and jammer.IF they feel comfortable using it the more power to them, it's the operator's choice.

I do not engage in "Who's the best" "no they is", "noooo! mine am" garbage, all USSOCOM operators are the best, all have a specific job to do and do it well. My answers come from using the weapons in question, not reading that so and so use it and it has to be the best because they do, any weapon is only as good as the man using it. Go into any arms room in a SOF unit and you'll find about any weapon used in recent history, does it mean it's great because it's there..nope, it's just there. There are several M-14's around in Army arms rooms including the M-25, is it good, same old thing as the M-21 the SR 25 is superior(made by Knights Armament similar to the AR10 in caliber 7.62X51mm same caliber as the M-14 but reliable,the AR10 uses the only good part of the old M-14, the magazine). I myself have no use what so ever for ANY semi auto scoped rifle NONE are as accurate as a turn bolt, be it a PSG-1(600 meter at best weapon)The G3 scoped weapons are just that, scoped battle rifles not even remotely snipers weapons. You wish to compare apples and oranges, sniper rifles and DM rifles.

As a DMR rifle the M-25 leaves the DM alone in a platoon armed with a 7.62X51mm rifle(he is only a scoped rifle equipped rifleman not a sniper, for support of his platoon with point targets at medium range requiring a rapid fire weapon for suppressive fire) while his platoon mates are armed with 5.56X45mm weapons, not the most intelligent move. He is limited to the ammo he carries, he is easy to find by REAL snipers by his weapon's signiture, his training IS NOT that of a sniper so he easy pickings for a trained sniper. Which as soon as he fires his weapon will be a first to kill target for every TRAINED SNIPER out there. But if you wish to single yourself out in that manner, enjoy! It's your life.


As far as your opinion representing the majority of those on this board, I respect their opinion as I respect your's. As this is a FORUM open for individual opinions, a chance to learn from others with experience in a given matter, and I have found this to be the attitude of most on this board.

Take care...Jim

[This message has been edited by JY (edited 03-16-2000).]

[G]

Hi Baboon

A lot of old timers in the SAP/S (depends which years) were very keen on their R-1s (Folding stock - shorter barrel than FN) and were a bit resistant to change.

I clearly remember being told by an old-salt sergeant that my 5.56 R-5 was puny compared to his 7.62 R-1 (Mines bigger than yours and all that).

Eventually the R-1s were withdrawn. I agree with JY that it`s impossible to control 7.62 on full auto, multiple shot placement is that much better with 5.56.

One of the complaints about the R-5 is it`s high weight. I believe that for those times when you`re shooting on full-auto, the extra weight is a great help. But then I didnt have to tab for days with one!

Baie Dankie

G

[JY]

Hi baboon;

Yup, the US Army tested the FAL as the T-48, was made in the US by H&R. It out performed the T-44(M-14) by a wide margin but politics won out with the not designed here reasoning. The FAL out lasted it in the long run though, and over 90 countries adopting it or manufacturing it. With the only M-14 clones being those produced by Red China, rather ironic.

Take care...Jim

[Silent Fart]

JY,
I understand your statement about placement..
but in a heated battle you might not have the time to get a perfect shot between the eyes. So what i'm saying is the 7.62x51 would put someone to the ground faster if shot in the shoulder or anywhere else than a
5.56.
By the way, why do the seals say it is one of there favorite weapons because of it's accuracy?

[This message has been edited by Silent-1 (edited 03-16-2000).]

[JY]

Hi Silent-1;

All things can occur in the "heat of battle" this is the reason for training hard, after 10000 reps muscle memory takes over. It becomes second nature to double tap to the torso where the rounds should go for the "perfect shot". The 7.62X51mm is a great cartridge but is hard to control in rapid fire or auto even by a well trained operator.At normal combat ranges the 5.56X45mm has more than enough energy to put a target down for keeps with a double tap to the torso.

Where the 7.62X51mm shines is in long range work in a properly tuned bolt rifle, it is a very accurate round. Typical ranges are to 800 meters with the 168 gr M852 and 1000 meters with the 175 gr M118LR. I like the round a lot, though at 1000+ the .300WM with the 190 gr match bullet is superior.

As an iron sighted rifle confining the ranges to under 400 meters the M-14 is sufficient as a combat rifle, not as a sniper weapon. One of the Marines top snipers from 'nam stated after testing one of the first M-14's it's a good 200 meter rifle, no more. That sniper was Carlos Hathcock a well respected rifleman and National Match champion. As to it's accuracy the Marine rifle teams who stood by the M-14 the longest have switched to the M-16 after being waxed by the Army Team for so many years using the M-16. Feel free to look this info up, it's in the records and history books. I think also if you wish check some of the SEAL history from 'nam you'll also see one of their favorites was was the H&K G33, a 5.56X45mm rifle due to it's superior accuracy and handling in full auto, also the Stoner LMG a 5.56X45mm weapon and the Stoner 63 assault rifle also a 5.56X45mm weapon. And then of course the M-16, they appreciated it's handling in full auto and the fact they could extend the magazine to 30-40 rounds with no problems, which they did with modifications to existing 20 rd mags. This led to the purpose built 30 rd magazines becoming general issue.

As to why the "SEALs" say what they say I have no idea not being in the Navy. There are vastly superior gas operated 7.62X51mm rifles available today, why be tied to a very obsolete one that was obsolete before it was issued. We can go one further and say that Marines say the M1903 is one of their favorite weapons because of it's accuracy...and it is, much more so than the M-14. But also obsolete and as with the M-14 no mil spec parts available with out which it's dead.Well I've expended a lot of words on the subject, these are of course my opinions, you may have yours, and that's the way of the world. Nuff said, it's all here in the string for reading.

Take care...Jim

[Razor]

JY,

Welcome back! Is your e-mail up and running? I have a question for you there if it is.

[realpolypro]

Whew! You guy's are some information gurus! Past posts(MP5 by kalashnikov) reveal my feelings on the M-4what? and its history and adoption as I understand it, as well as why I do not like it. But hey, differing opinions drive the boards! M-14 parts are still readily available in the Army small arms repair system, just got two back.JY is right though, Its the users choice. If I ever unlock my room for real, I'm going to 14 rack.

Polypro
RLTW!

[TR]

JY,

I turn my back and I see you have heated up the board... slow day there on your mountain eh?

http://www.specialoperations.com/ubboard/smile.gif


T.R.

[JY]

Hi TR;

Nope, not guilty, hu uh! Nope. Myself if I have to be burdened with a...ugh...semi auto 7.62X51mm will grab a SR25.

The mountain is never boring 8)

Catch you later, take care...Jim

[reconsweden]

JY: Quick question: In what situation do you use auto with the M4?
Just curious, interesting to know how you guys use it because all our AK5´s(mod. FN FNC´s) have full auto capability.



------------------
Videre Non Videri

[JY]

Hi reconsweden;

The use of full auto is for breaking contact and roll back. (With double taps in semi auto used for "normal" shooting.) The idea being the massed full auto fire of a small team will slow down pursuit and confuse the enemy into thinking they made contact with a much larger unit, and allowing the team to get the heck outta Dodge.

Take care...Jim, Sine Pari

[E19]

Not a weapons expert by any means, but went through both basic and AIT with an M14. I would have to agree with JY about it being hard to control in full auto. My weapon was a full auto model so I got to fire thousands of rounds on the range to use (waste) up all the extra ammo. It was hard to control, got hot rather quickly, the stock caught fire numerous times, and was not my weapon of choice. We also qualified with the M16 and it was the hands down favorite. I later qualified on the M1 (ouch that hurt!) numerous times and posted higher scores than I did with the M14.

Just my two cents worth.

[reconsweden]

Ok JY, we actually use auto for assault, in situations where we have lost(or never had) fire superiority and need to regain it. We also use it for clearing out foxholes with a grenade/auto combo and sometimes in urban operations. I still prefer to use semi and double tap, and you can keep up the suppression fire for much longer but since I haven´t tested both methods under live conditions I can´t really know wich is better.
If you have any info regarding the effectiveness of semi vs auto for psychological combat effectiveness I´d like to read it, I´m sure some mil force somewhere have done that study.


------------------
Videre Non Videri