20th Century GI
February 29, 2020, 03:49:18 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
  Home   Forum   links Search Calendar Login Register   *
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Some thoughts on the M-14  (Read 2217 times)
papajoad
Administrator
Major General
*****

Karma: +2/-1
Offline Offline

Posts: 3576


Hooked on Re-enacting!


View Profile WWW
« on: April 10, 2009, 03:20:24 PM »

Some thoughts on the M-14

D*****,
Having carried one,, in fact ,, it replaced the BAR,, (Browning Automatic Rifle,, which was 30-06 Cal,, issued with 5 , 20 round box magazines,, and fired full auto only!!!) as the squad automatic rifleman,, all M-14's were issued with a knob on the left side of the receiver,, on select weapons,, was a wing shaped thumb adjustor with an A on it,, (a for automatic),, just turn the knob and you are shooting automatic,, these selectors were ONLY ON SQUAD AUTO WEAPONS,, the rest of the squad had semi auto,, but could be converted in a heartbeat!!,, BEEN THERE,, DONE THAT ,, AND HAVE ONE!!,, OH YEA,, THERE WAS NO M-14 IN WW II,, LOL,, IT WAS ISSUED TO COMBAT TROOPS IN 1963,, JUST BEFORE CUBA!!,, been around since late 50's)
 
NOW WHY AN M-14,, NATO members decided on a universal round for rifle,, machine gun,, and pistol,,The M-1 Garand,, to large,, bulky,, and recoil,, even the US shooters,, "officers/women" pussied out because of loading,, M-1 thumb,, and recoil,, however it was accurate and had good range,, but when shooting/handling one must bring some "balls" to the table!!,, they decided on the 308  for the rifle/machine gun,, and the pussie 9mm for the pistol,, (women and officers could shoot them without practicing)),, I was involved in the pistol test,, 86-88 when finally adopted,, and DID NOT RECOMMEND THE BERETTA!!
 
Initially the M-14,, was a broke dick,, pussy version of the Garand,, and many parts were quite similar!!,, a refinement I will admit,, but an inadequate replacement as it wouldnt shoot over 850 yards!!,, Lighter,, same sights,, parts just made smaller,, action/breach/etc,,,, one good thing is you could scope it over the reciever instead of on the side as the Garand was.
 
WW Knox II
SFC, USA,, Ret,, (Founder US Army Sniper School),, 82nd Airborne Division,, 11B, Rifleman,, AR man,, 1919 A6/M-60 machine gunner,, Team leader,, ,Squad leader,, MEMBER US ARMY RIFLE TEAM,, NCOIC US ARMY PISTOL TEAM,, (TO NAME A FEW)
 
D*****,
 
Interesting take on what we were taught in basic about the history of the M-14.  However, our thread was M-14 vs M-16.
 
    Another off-the-subject discussion, a  Vietnam Marine sniper buddy here expressed his preference on the scoped (match) M-14 over the USMC M40, 700 Remington/ Redfield scope.
 
    Our unit were Engineers, although we were not infantry, 2 companies were specially trained in infantry tactics since we had to pull our own security including night ambush patrols. In 1969 our unit was issued M-16's, in replies I got back from my original posting on this, many kept their M-14's as well because of it's reliability and stopping power.
 
    Since we were not in Arizona or Montana hunting conditions requiring over 850 yards shots, the M-14 served us well, especially compared to the P.O.S. M-16. I understand the philosophy of lighter ammo  & can carry more, so one can release heavy firepower.... as many didn't know how to effectively aim. Then again the 5.56 (a .22 round) is not very effective with one shot in most cases. Where I live, anything under ..30 cal is illegal on Deer.
 
    The faults of the M-16 were the decisions made by McNamara's "Whiz-Kids" who refused Colt's recommendation to use Colt Powder designated for the M-15/16. These pencil pushers decided against Colt powder since there were tons of powder still in warehouses left over from WWII. Now Colt had to redesign with a forward assist and other crap to overcome the dirty fouling of the WWII powder.
 
    The Mel Gibson movie ( Col Hal Moore's outfit), was 99.9% accurate in it's portrayal. What they left out of the movie was the fact that many of their casualties were found next to their field stripped M-16, trying to clear them.....
 
    Between the M-14 vs M-16.......... I'll take the 7.62
 
    Thanks for sharing your buddy's take....
 
G***
____________________________________________________
G*** knows his shit!!,, bolt vs m-14,, up to 700,, I prefer ,, m-14,, if a group is in front of me,, very accurate,, additional firepower,,get on targets quicker,, bolt gun is a hair more accurate,, but is one shot one kill and takes time!!
Macnamara should be tried for war crimes!!!!!!!,, and hang the mother fucker!!,, I will tie the knot
 
I had just gotten out of the 82nd when this occured,, hell they (Macnamara) said they never needed to be cleaned,, yep,, powder change,, and ISSUED NO CLEANING RODS!!!
Hal Moore paid one hell of a price,, poor intel,, inferior weapons,, no support,, no experience,, and COMMAND WANTED A BIG KUDO!!,, The poor bastards,, LIKE THE KYBER PASS SENARIO!!
 
heavy bullett for 223,, 65 gr,, ok,, marginal,, I am a 30 cal man,, and again it is shot placement!!
 
After the demise of the Garand M-1,, marksmanship was not taught,, it was called the wall of steel,, firepower yes,, accuracy no!!  more macnamara,, the son of a bitch,, should have given his mother a DRANO DOUCHE!!
 
powder issue is correct!!
good job!!
thank him 4 me
WW.
Logged

"see you out there"
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.6 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC
TinyPortal v0.9.8 © Bloc
Forum Sitemap
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!