The Curious Career of the M-14

March 05, 2013

By David E. Petzal

In the strange and generally disappointing record of U.S. small arms development, no rifle has an odder history than the M-14. The original concept behind it was so addled that Joe Biden could have come up with it—a single weapon that would replace the M-1 Carbine, the M-3 Grease Gun, the M-1 Garand, and the Browning Automatic Rifle. Starting after World War II, and using the Garand as its foundation, the Springfield Armory came up with a modified design that weighed slightly less, held 20 rounds in a detachable box magazine instead of an 8-round clip, and had an option for semi-auto or full-auto fire. It was chambered for the 7.62 NATO cartridge, a more compact version of the .30/06, but with just about the same ballistics.

Production began in 1959, with the new gun designated the M-14. It was not a success. The rifle was nearly twice the size of the M-1 Carbine, nowhere near a .45 ACP submachine gun, hardly any lighter than the Garand, and uncontrollable on full auto, which meant it could not replace the BAR. And that was the good news. The bad news was, as an infantry rifle for the second half of the 20th century, the M-14 was obsolete on the first day it was issued.

But the M-14 had virtues. It was highly reliable. It was powerful. It was accurate, and could be tuned up to be very accurate. In the hands of a good shot, it could lay down a heavy volume of aimed fire.

This was not enough to save it. It was a long-range rifle, and the war which was just around the corner was Vietnam, which was a short-range conflict. In 1966-67, the M-14 was replaced in Vietnam by the M-16, and was dropped as the Army’s issue rifle in 1970. All told, 1.38 million were produced, and into armories they vanished.

And there, by rights, they should have stayed. Except that, as early as the 1970s, Navy SEALs were using M-14s as sniper rifles. They found that it was very useful to have one man in a SEAL platoon armed with a scoped M-14, as he could often do more damage with less gunfire and at longer range than a platoon blazing away with M-16s.

Then came Afghanistan. The average range of engagement, which in Vietnam had probably been under 100 meters, and 200 to 300 or much less in Iraq, suddenly lengthened to 500—800 meters. The many people who did not like us discovered that the 5.56mm round was good to about 400 meters, and all they had to do was stay at twice that distance, shoot at us with whatever would reach, and then clear out before artillery fire or air support could be brought to bear.

In their efforts to turn a Bronze-age dungheap into Greenwich, Connecticut, the Army and Marines came to the same conclusion the SEALs had, but for slightly different reasons—that if you gave a scoped M-14 to one man who could really shoot, he could get results with far less collateral damage than could a whole squad or platoon firing away for all they were worth. The title for this individual was Designated Marksman, or Squad Designated Marksman.

The scoped M-14 was the weapon of choice, but there were problems. Most notably, the fiberglass stocks were too long to be used with body armor, and the rifles could not be fitted with any of the modern sighting devices that were undreamed of in the 1960s. The answer was to discard the conventional stock in favor of an all-aluminum chassis stock that is adjustable for length of pull, and hanging Picatinny rails where the fore-end once was. (There were other changes as well, and to read about them, go to Maj. John Plaster’s excellent article here.)

The result was heavy—14 to 15 pounds, depending on what you hung on it—and extremely accurate. The Army’s version is called the Enhanced Battle Rifle (above), and the Marines produce the Enhanced Marksman’s Rifle (below). When fed match ammo, both will shoot right along with bolt-action sniper rifles. The EBR comes with a Leupold 3.5-10X scope, while the Marines favor a Schmidt & Bender Scout Sniper Day Scope. Both rifles are effective to 800 meters.

Thus we have a paradox. On the one hand, the M-14 has the shortest issue life of any U.S. service rifle. On the other hand, it is back in use 54 years after the first ones were issued. This takes the title for longevity, edging out the 1903 Springfield which was first issued in that year and used as a sniper rifle until 1953 in the Korean War.

Half a century later, the M-14 has morphed into its true place in the world. You can’t keep a good man, or a good rifle, down.

Comments (55)

Top Rated

All Comments

from Harold wrote 14 weeks 5 days ago

Dave,

You forgot to mention specifically that it was also supposed to replace the 1911 Colt pistol. You hinted at it with it replacing the M1 carbine--which was supposed to replace the 1911. You have to wonder what the gentlemen in the Pentagon were smoking back then. This is especially true since not only were we looking a possible war in SE Asia then, we also had real chance of engaging the Warsaw Pact, all of whose soldiers were in BMPs and going to be exiting them, if they exited at all, in less than 100 meters from our positions. Neither scenario was there a real need for a long range rifle.
That bein said, the M-14 I was issued had real accuracy issues with regular ball ammo. The army must have realized it so for qualifying, they issued match ammo which gave excellent accuracy in "my" rifle.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Moose1980 wrote 14 weeks 5 days ago

My father loved his M-14 in Vietnam. As he puts it, he was fortunate to be able to swap out his issued M-16 that jammed during a firefight for an M-14. I guess that was one benefit of the Marine Corp always having the older stuff.

+3 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Steward wrote 14 weeks 5 days ago

Reminds me of the importance that the military needs a variety of arms to adapt to ever-changing battlefields. Afghanistan is different than Iraq which was different than Vietnam. Fighting Taliban members is different than fighting a nation's military. Our military needs to be able to respond to all of the above.

+3 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from hal herring wrote 14 weeks 5 days ago

Excellent post, love the M-14, I and learned a lot here. And I will read anything by Major Plaster. He ranks up there with Dave P. and Jeff Cooper when it comes to top notch gun writing. Thanks much for this one.

+3 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from JamesD wrote 14 weeks 5 days ago

It makes sense to this old Marine. With the change in the theater of operations going from jungles to deserts and open areas that new weapons need to be put in the hands of these young grunts.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from WA Mtnhunter wrote 14 weeks 5 days ago

Having known Plaster back in the day, I can readily agree that he knows his weapons. If Gen. George Patton had seen an M-14, he would not have proclaimed the M-1 Garand as the finest battle implement ever made.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from SL wrote 14 weeks 5 days ago

The military needed to scrap the piddly 5.56 rifle a LONG time ago. We haven't won a major conflict with it yet. We lost Vietnam, and Iraq and Afghanistan surely can't be considered victories either. Time to go back to cartridges and rifles that actually won some wars. What is even funnier is how the American public thinks they will keep our government at bay with their AR's in 5.56/.223's. Now that's a laugh and a half!! LOL

-5 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from cb bob wrote 14 weeks 5 days ago

I have always been a fan of the M-14. It's reliable, accurate enough, and has plenty of punch. Gun manufacturing has come a long way since 1959, I'm sure that the new versions will be around for a while.

+4 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from fordman155 wrote 14 weeks 5 days ago

I love the M-14. When I was on the high-power rifle team we had some very accurate M-14s. I basically learned to shoot long range with a M-14 that had iron sights. Reading the wind was something I never did as well as the really good shooters on the team, but I got better at it as time went on.
Seeing the newer versions of the M-14 in Afghanistan made me feel like there WAS something that could accurately reach out and touch someone, if needed. Although they hardly resemble the original M-14s, these new ones are quite the thing. They're the real deal, no doubt, and they'll be around for a long time.
When Springfield Armory had their M-1As on sale in 1987, I got one. I later sold it to my dad when I needed money in college. Luckily, he still has it and I can buy it back from him.
Our designated marksmen do well with their M-14s. The current versions of the M-1A from Springfield Armory are great rifles, too.
Thanks to Dave for putting this out there (again).

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Bernie wrote 14 weeks 5 days ago

I trained with the M-14 in 1968-69, but carried the M-16 with 1st Recon Bn., 1st Marine Division in Vietnam. My M-16 never jammed, like some did, but I never did develop an affinity for it. In 1971 I shot on the Marine Corps rifle team at Camp Lejeune, NC, and used the M-14. It is a fine rifle. The military should have trimmed a little wood off that bulbous stock, pared down the metal a bit to save weight, and scrapped the M-16 after Vietnam.

+4 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Clay Cooper wrote 14 weeks 5 days ago

M-14 is by far no punk and with M118 173 grain Special Ball, one can make a head shot at 1000 yards

+5 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from crm3006 wrote 14 weeks 4 days ago

The M-14 had only one disadvantage compared to the M-16 E-1s, A-1s and Car 15s that we were issued in Viet Nam, and that was it's weight. At the ripe old age of nineteen, this made little difference at that time. Most of the 16s were fairly reliable, if kept religiously clean, which was no simple task in the dust and dirt of the Central Highlands. One drawback to the M-16 type weapon was that some of us had never even seen one, until it was issued to us in a combat zone. No idea how to adjust sights, field strip, clear jams, etc. Fresh from training with the M-14, which is legendary in the reliability department, we saw the M-16 as piece of plastic junk, and did not completely trust the weapon.
Interesting side note, a group of teenage trainees, sitting around an old wooden barracks in Ft. Polk, LA, made up a wish list and re-designed the M-14 for jungle warfare, and our training to kill VC and communists. (The nearest most of us had been to any jungle was the pine forests of Ft. Polk, but we had been trained, don't you know. And, we were young. We knew a lot.)
Anyhow, many years later, Springfield Armory came out with their excellent M1A, and the Scout Squad version, and the even shorter 16" barrel model, with composite (fiberglass) stocks, and that is exactly what We the Trainees had wished for. Just a couple or three decades too late, but the U.S. Army has never been known for rapid change to meet changing conditions!

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from O Garcia wrote 14 weeks 4 days ago

What doomed the M-14 and the two other excellent contemporary designs, the FAL and H&K G3, when they were initially adopted was "standardization" of ammunition among NATO armies, and the stubbornness of the US military reps at NATO to retain most of the power of the .30-06 in the new NATO standard round. this wasn't the first time it happened. in 1936, the Garand was supposed to be chambered in the .276 Pedersen, kind of like the 6.5mm Grendel/6.8SPC is today. Army chief Douglas MacArthur refused to replace the .30-06. Nearly 20 years later, similar-minded men torpedoed the 7mm/.280 British, which was again similar to the .276 Pedersen.

"Standardization" as implemented by NATO was faulty to begin with. The Warsaw Pact had standardized ammunition - both cartridges AND magazines. Only the Czechs used their own rifle and magazine system, the rest used the Russian AK rifle and magazine system. Sharing ammunition was a simple matter of passing loaded magazines to a comrade. (They're not always compatible due to dimensional differences among AK manufacturers, but most of the time, they are.)

In the West, the FAL used a different magazine from the G3 and the M14. Not only in rifles, even in machineguns, the NATO forces used different belt systems. The only way the Western Allies could share ammunition if they fought a large-scale European war is by loose rounds in bulk, to be loaded into their respective magazines by soldiers. Not exactly what you want if you were to fight Joe Stalin/Kruschev in a hell-on-earth, mechanized, mobile war similar to Kursk. Thank God it never happened.

Ironically, when NATO finally decided to standardize magazine systems, they chose to adopt the M-16 magazine. The H&K G36, the FAMAS, the British SA-80, etc. are now required to be able to accept the M-16 magazine, and most designers believe the greatest weakness of the M-16 is its magazine.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from davycrockettfv wrote 14 weeks 4 days ago

Have to admit that I know absolutely nothing about this rifle. I found this post to be absolutely riveting! As a member of the "younger" generation (not quite to my 4th decade) I would love to read more segments like this one!

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Tony C. wrote 14 weeks 4 days ago

My father carried an M-14 to Vietnam in August 1965 with the First Cav. He was the company sniper and his rifle had been tweaked by ordinance. He has always spoke glowingly of that rifle and wishes he still had it.
At the battle of LZ X-Ray in November of 1965, he had something like 230 rounds of ammo for the M14. He shot everything he had, picked up a dead comrade's M16 and continued the fight. His M14 was lost at that battle and he finished his tour with the M16 but he has talked to me often about that weapon over the years.
Glad to hear the M14 has found new life and can't wait to show this story to Dad. I don't think it will surprise him to hear they're doing well at long range with it.
Dad is 68 years old and still one hell of a shot. A season or 2 back he killed an 8-point buck at about 350 yards with his Remington 7400 30-06.
He tickled us all at his veterans reunion a few years back. Gen. Moore had all the guys stand up and tell what their job was in Vietnam. Dad gave his name and said, "Rifleman, and a darn good one I might add."

+5 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from O Garcia wrote 14 weeks 4 days ago

The US Army's main sniper rifle in Vietnam was the M21, basically, a scoped National Match M14 with a fiberglass stock. The Leatherwood automatic ranging telescope (that's what ART stands for, I think) was its optic. Adelbert Waldron (Army), the US's most prolific sniper in Vietnam, did most of his work with this weapon, and although surpassed by Carlos Hathcock in fame, did some incredible feats of marksmanship himself, including taking out enemies at night while lying prone on a moving riverine boat and even a Huey chopper. Chuck Mawhinny, the most prolific Marine sniper in Vietnam, did most of his work with the bolt-action M40, but did ambush one night 16 Vietnamese troopers that were wading across a river, using an M21 with starlight scope. He took them out with 16 shots.

Although the fast 2nd shot of a semi-auto is obvious, the official reason the Army used the M14/M21 in Vietnam was its known reliability. While the Army were aware of the virtues of the Winchester M70 and Remington M700, they were worried about the suitability of sporting rifles in combat conditions, esp, the trigger systems. The 1903 Springfield, which the Army had used in WW2 and Korea as a sniper rifle, was a military rifle from the beginning.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from elmer f. wrote 14 weeks 4 days ago

as good as the m-16 or m-4 are, they do have range limitations. and while some people have problems with recoil, i do not believe the 7.62x51 has enough recoil, especially in a 14 pound rifle, to be a great concern. both service rifles have their place. the great thing about the m-14 is we have finally found enough of a use for it, to have actually made it in the first place. i am a great fan of the 30-06 and the 308/7.62x51. i know that as a species, we humans die pretty easy. at least compared to may other animals that are close to our size. but the 5.56 in my opinion, is a bit underpowered. i would not want to be shot with one. but the 7.62 simply has more "oomph". the one thing that does cross my mind, is that i have to wonder between the AR-10, and the M-14, which is a better platform. and is there enough of a difference to justify keeping both rifles.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from focusfront wrote 14 weeks 4 days ago

I haven't had a thing to do with Long Range Rifle in over twenty years, but when I did go in for it I noticed that the guys who had gunsmith massaged accuracy specific M-14 type rifles treated them as if they were made of glass. In those days getting an M-14 type gun to stay zeroed and keep shooting small groups was almost voodoo. If the new stocks and gunsmithing have fixed all this, good. As to caliber, we should switch to 6.5 Grendel or 6.5 Creedmore and let it go at that.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Mark-1 wrote 14 weeks 4 days ago

Worked with M-14 in the "Old Days". One I was issued had wood stock, but I recall seeing the strange colored fiberglass stock M-14. Great battle rifle IMO. Much better than the Mattel Toy.

I remember a couple responses from On-High why the M-16 over the M-14. One was a squad of eight M-16 holders put out as much fire as 12 M-14 men. The other was a person hit with a 50-grain bullet feels just as miserable as one hit with 150-grains.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from firedog11 wrote 14 weeks 4 days ago

Interesting article. Kinda makes you wonder about how smart some of the military / political people are when it comes to weapons and their usefulness/durability for future conflicts. Remember when President jughead said we don't purchase bayonets/knives anymore? Read a lot of stories about knives being used in Korea and Nam when the ammo ran out or you got overrun.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Zermoid wrote 14 weeks 4 days ago

I never understood the M-16, we already had a underpowered, lightweight, 30 rd mag fed, 200 to 300 yard max rifle, the M1 Carbine.
Why did we need another?

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from ishawooa wrote 14 weeks 4 days ago

I remember in '65 when an Air Force captain first demonstrated the M-16 to all of us ROTC cadets. Even then we were unimpressed with what we saw but, being young and impressionable, did believe what we were told about this wonder weapon and its new sensational cartridge. Every cadet in the flight was jealous of the Army ROTC and their M-14s. A few guys had shot human sized whitetails with .222s and with .308s. They knew which was the most effective. We figured that government had spent a shxtload of money just to create another .222 Maggie. But we were just kids so we didn't know anything according to Uncle Sam. I suppose I have never had a fondness for AR's due to my initial experiences so long ago. I have a friend here in Wyoming who kills his elk every few years with a Springfield M1A and open sights. He simply waits for the right opportunity and has the time available to hunt in such a manner.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from sgtjohnharris wrote 14 weeks 4 days ago

I carried the same M14 in Operation Starlight in Vietnam that I fired in the Far East matches on Okinawa in late 1964. 1 often carried 12 mags for it. I had it tweaked by a friend in Ord Maint Co, so it was accurate, reliable and durable.It was made by H & R. I had a selector on it but always had semi-auto selected because it was uncontrollable in full auto.The Marines were forced to adopt the M16 in 1968. I NEVER liked that rifle, and preferred a M12 Winchester Pump Shotgun.Semper Fi. Old Marine

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from davidpetzal wrote 14 weeks 4 days ago

To Tony C.: If your dad was at LZ XRay, he undoubtedly knows he's very lucky to be here. Tell him I lock my heels together and throw him my best salute.

+3 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from circle8 wrote 14 weeks 4 days ago

To Tony C regarding David Petzal's comment and your father's fight at LZ XRay Allow me to add to David's salute and Semper Fi to all of Gen. Moore's troops.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Ralph the Rifleman wrote 14 weeks 3 days ago

Interesting article..thanks Dave
I still believe, for my target shooting/hunting purpose,the M1 is a better balanced rifle then the M14. The magazine feed is definately a battle fighting attribute, for the M14, but for my $$ I'll stick to my M1

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from JimRan wrote 14 weeks 3 days ago

I believe Randy Shughart used an M14 during the battle of Mogadishu, where he earned the Medal of Honor along with Gary Gordon in 1993.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from rock rat wrote 14 weeks 3 days ago

well done David

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from O Garcia wrote 14 weeks 3 days ago

LONG RANT WARNING

The Garand allowed you to stay unexposed when prone because it has no long magazine protruding at the bottom. Because its ammo container is a simple sheetmetal clip, all of the feeding mechanisms are built in the rifle, which makes the rifle heavy. But once inside the belly of the M1, the clip is as secure as it can get.

The M-14's main weakness is how the fitting of the flash suppressor affects the front sight, which affects accuracy. At least in the rack-grade rifle. National Match rifles have the flash suppressor reamed out to minimize the chance of it contacting the bullet upon exit. A simpler front sight pinned to the barrel like that on Ruger's Mini-14 would have been better from a maintenance POV.

Regarding the M-16, some have pointed out that the version used by Hal Moore's men still had the original 1:14" twist rate, which made for horrendous wounds due to under-stabilization, bullets tumbling violently inside the body (like the British .303 MkVII) resulting in quicker kills. According to lore (I have not personally seen documents), the later change to 1:12" was due to the fact that the Army found the 1:14" did not shoot accurately in Arctic air. This, some have argued, resulted in diminished lethality as the bullets no longer tumbled readily once inside the target's body.

IMO, the current set up of two rifle cartridges is OK, but there is certainly a need to increase the lethality of the lighter one, and since the 5.56 has maxed out, I think it should be replaced. Even if something like the 6.5 or 6.8 were to be adopted, the 7.62 should remain. However, going for a single round that does it all is IMO, not a good option. We already know the consequences of the standardization of the 1950's. The .308 was not really good for full auto in a shoulder weapon (yes, I know aimed single shots or double-taps are better, but an option to fire full auto should always be there, just in case it's needed). We also know that the US experience with do-it-alls isn't stellar, just look at the F-111 and the current F-35.

While the AR is much maligned, it is actually getting more customers, esp. in its many 7.62 incarnations (AR-10's are not made according to one milspec are not interchangeable). France and Germany have recently adopted what is basically the HK-417, a 7.62 variant of the HK-416, which is a piston-driven AR by H&K, as their SDM rifle. The British have done it earlier, having adopted the LMT308MWS, a modernized "AR-10" by Lewis Machine & Tool, and called it L129A1, the "sharpshooter rifle". For all of the horror stories about Direct Impingement, the LMT rifle allegedly outperformed both the FN SCAR-17 and the HK-417 in tests, both in precision and reliability. Maybe LMT simply had a better agent/lobbyist in the UK, but I don't see why the Brits would go for a much smaller American company (one that isn't even named Knight's Armament) when giants FN and H&K are also in the competition. I'd like to believe the LMT .308 is really that good.

And of course, we already know what "HK-416" means. I'm sure the ninjas who do the violent work to protect America while America sleeps at night would like to improve the AR's lethality (among other things), but the little black rifle certainly has attributes that help them do their work. Most competitors of the AR, even those that claim to have improved on the AR, copy these attributes. If America were to be armed with a bigger hammer, it's ergos would likely be similar to the AR's.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Clay Cooper wrote 14 weeks 3 days ago

If you think the M14 is no good, just go stand 1000 yards away and I'll take an ol'off the rack model and let's see.

As for the AR-A1's as I call it, the ones with a 1-14 twist, just a new upper can make a difference.

I remember putting on a shooting clinic with our neighbors at Fort Wainwright Alaska. The team I was working with placed 1st from the bottom up! Got out TVSA Club NRA targets and I started them out at 100 yards all 3 positions. Once all dialed in and all the basic marksmanship been tuned, I put them into a full blown 200yd Standing slow fire and rapid fire sitting, 300yd rapid fire prone and you should of heard the whining when I said now back to the 600 yard line. The way they talked, that 62 grain was going to stop dead in the air and fall to the ground! Back on the 600 yd line, I asked the Lieutenant for his M16A2 and put 3 rounds into the black. The next Commander Trophy Match, this team swept all 1st place. My case and point is this, today's AR is what I call the Poor Mans Match Rifle! Everything can be done by the shooter unlike the M14's.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Clay Cooper wrote 14 weeks 3 days ago

Pulled the trigger to soon!

Confidence in oneself and equipment plus knowing how far you can actually push past the limits, makes or brakes the game!

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from WA Mtnhunter wrote 14 weeks 3 days ago

I wuz not at LZ X-Ray in 1965 (still in H.S.), but I later knew a soldier who was. Command Sergeant Major Basil Plumley - passed away October, 2012. May he RIP.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from O Garcia wrote 14 weeks 3 days ago

Clay, I'm not sure you meant that for me, but I didn't say the M-14 is no good, just that the front sight and flash suppressor need to be fitted properly. But yes, even the rack grade rifle will shoot well.

+2 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from O Garcia wrote 14 weeks 3 days ago

1:14 may not work with today's heavier 5.56 loads. It was OK with 55 grain.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from H2O MAN wrote 14 weeks 3 days ago

Nice article. I am a big fan of the M14, especially the modernized versions and it's good to see one of my Smith Enterprise builds pictured in your article. Search: 'The History and Development of the SAGE Enhanced Battle Rifle (EBR) chassis stock system' for more.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from deadeyedick wrote 14 weeks 3 days ago

This rifle, that rifle. What about the men behind those rifles??? The draftees of the vietnam war were not given all that much practice with either one sort of learned on the fly, so to speak. I know I was one of them, but I had been shooting most of my life unlike a lot of my fellows grunts so I took it upon myself to show them how to use their rifles to a greater level of expertise. The only complaint I heard was that the M-14 was too heavy and so was the ammo. In the hands of a properly trained shooter either gun would get the job done at resonable distances. let's face it, most soldiers cannot hit consistantly at 1000 yrds so that point is moot. yes, the 7.62 was a powerhouse but a 5.56 would kill a person just as dead

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from IND_NRA wrote 14 weeks 3 days ago

Having used the M-14 known as the EMR(DMR)with the Marines in Iraq and Afghanistan I am very fond of this masterpiece. That rifle could shoot and brought me and my buddies home. I was so pleased with it then that I have taken the last couple of years to make the exact clone of that rifle. Along with what Clay said, this rifle will eat match ammo and delivery hits that some bolt guns can only dream of.

+5 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Clay Cooper wrote 14 weeks 3 days ago

OG, wasn't aimed at you and as for the 1:14 with heavier bullets, worse than buckshot, tumble big time!!!!

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Clay Cooper wrote 14 weeks 3 days ago

IND NRA my Match M1A really torqued off a many magnum shooters on the next county line (1000yd) Even with open sights, I wuz able to compensate for wind conditions faster and send it sooner while Bolt Guns are just getting on target.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from HammerGun wrote 14 weeks 3 days ago

What else needs to be said? Oh yeah, I'm a 1911 guy, too!

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from O Garcia wrote 14 weeks 3 days ago

One thing that distinguishes US rifles from the rest? They have what are essentially target sights. The original Springfield 1903's aperture was really too far from the eye to be useful, but the 1903A3 (Remington) version was almost Garand-like. The precise Garand sight lives on in the M14, and in some ways, in the M16A2/A4.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from micko77 wrote 14 weeks 3 days ago

A minor point... the Navy does have a couple of other uses for the M-14: as a line-thrower and for shark overwatch. My son is a Gunner's Mate on a frigate, and uses them for such; has pressed one into service for reasons I shan't go into here.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Tony C. wrote 14 weeks 2 days ago

Thanks Dave. I attend the reunions with Dad from time to time. Dad and 2 or 3 of the others from Ia Drang remain hunters too and they're just as good on deer as they were on Viet Cong. Sgt. Major Plumley was a quail hunter best I remember. Many of the guys from Ia Drang attended his funeral at Benning.
Dad and I were talking about the M14 over dinner last night and he reminded me he went in the service well before '65 and Ia Drang. Took basic with M1, then had M14 and finished up with M16. Shot a bunch of other stuff too during course of his training -- flame thrower, 1911, various machine guns -- and always shot expert, a fact he related with a big smile on his face.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from WA Mtnhunter wrote 14 weeks 2 days ago

TonyC,

Thank your father for his service for me.

RLTW

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Safado wrote 14 weeks 2 days ago

TonyC,
I would like to thank your father for his service and you for telling his story here.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from coachsjike wrote 14 weeks 1 day ago

hey dave,

was the m14 chambered in .308? 7.62 nato is basically the same?

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from davidpetzal wrote 14 weeks 4 hours ago

to Coachsjike: Same cartridge. The .308 is the 7.62x51mm NATO, and vice-versa.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Edward J. Palumbo wrote 13 weeks 3 days ago

I was issued the M14 at Parris Island in 1964 and, while serving with the 1st Marine Division, it was the rifle I brought to Viet Nam in 1966-67. It was accurate, reliable, effective at all distances at which I fired it, and (like many others) I was not pleased when we were required to survey the M14 for the M16. When I returned to the World, I was issued another M14 and used it in competition with 3rd MAW Rifle & Pistol Team, where it performed admirably. I used the M14 in subfreezing weather and triple-digit temperatures and high humidity; I kept it scrupulously clean and it rewarded me with flawless reliability. Was it perfect? I doubt it. Was it a superb rifle? Unquestionably.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from Edward J. Palumbo wrote 13 weeks 2 days ago

I should add, one of the reasons I much preferred the M14 and its 7.62 NATO round and was reluctant to relinquish it was its ability to penetrate. The M14 conducted an argument very convincingly. I was eventually issued the M16A1 and M16A2, and used them in training exercises. They functioned reliably but, in my opinion, didn't compare favorably.
I used the M1 Garand (I was issued the M1 at Camp LeJeune for infantry training regiment or ITR) and I developed a great respect for it. I used the Springfield 1903 in competition through our club. I clearly understand why the old salts trusted these rifles with their lives; they were excellent battle rifles. I never generated the same affinity for the M16 variants, but I have no argument with those who prefer them. After 40+ years, a great many military personnel cut their teeth on the M16s. Admittedly, it's difficult for me to be objective.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from O Garcia wrote 13 weeks 2 days ago

it was a change in tactics, the de-emphasizing of long range shooting, etc. that brought about the "intermediate" power rifles (7.62x39 for AK, 5.56x45 for M-16), and perhaps, the never ending obsession by logisticians with simplification. Instead of a big rifle and a submachinegun, they went for a single weapon that supposedly does it all.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from O Garcia wrote 12 weeks 2 days ago

Italy modified the Garand so it will take 20-round box magazines. It's called BM-59.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from idahoguy101 wrote 12 weeks 1 day ago

The Army standard infantry weapon is the M-4 carbine. Comparing the M-14 against the M-4 carbine doesn't work. The M-4 works out best in urban combat. Where short ranges and enclosed spaces are the rule. The M-14 is a much better choice for the long ranges in Afghanistan. One rifle cannot do justice in each scenerio. A universal rifle and cartridge is IHO a myth.
If the Army should realize they could train infantrymen in both 5.56 and 7.62 NATO rifles and issue an appropriate rifle for the conditions.

+1 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from idahoguy101 wrote 12 weeks 1 day ago

Correction: I meant IMO, not IHO. Sorry about that

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from coosabass2012 wrote 11 weeks 4 days ago

Wow, impressive, I want one...

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

from dws wrote 10 weeks 5 days ago

I'll go with the 308, not the 223.

0 Good Comment? Yes | No | Report

Active Interest	SKI \| Skiing \| Skiing Business \| Scuba Diving \| Sport Diver \| TransWorld Ride BMX \| TransWorld Business \| TransWorld Motocross \| TransWorld SKATEboarding \| TransWorld SNOWboarding \| TransWorld SURF \| TransWorld WAKEBOARDING \| WaterSki
Travel	Caribbean Travel + Life \| Destination Weddings & Honeymoon \| Islands \| Florida Travel + Life
Lifestyle & Epicurean	Garden Design \| SNOW \| Saveur
Marine & Aviation	Boating \| Boating Life 360 \| Cruising World \| Fly Fishing in Salt Waters \| Flying \| Marlin \| Marlin University \| Sailing World \| Salt Water Sportsman \| Sport Fishing \| Yachting
Outdoor	Field & Stream \| Outdoor Life \| SHOT Business \| Cycle World
Parenting	Babytalk \| Parenting \| Conceive \| Working Mother
Technology	Popular Science \| Science Illustrated \| Sound + Vision \| Popular Photography \| American Photo
Entertainment/Events	Warren Miller Entertainment \| World Entertainment Services \| World Sports & Marketing

Search