Courtesy of David Armstrong, Engineer at CRANE.  Great read for anyone interested in how the Enhanced Battle Rifle (Mk14) got its start.

http://dtic.mil/ndia/2007smallarms/5_9_07/Armstrong_12pm.pdf

Very cool. Still don't get the Umbilical Cord Attachment to the M-14 operating system. Having very little time using the M-14 types, I may be missing something. There are semi auto platforms, in many other calibers, lighter, more adaptable and just as capable.

Not bashing it, just going, Huh?  why?

Cheap, we have how many rifles already on hand to modiy?  7.62x51 is a nato round that is shared with other weapons already in inventory.

I believe NATO members are not currently using 7.62x51mm any longer for individual small arms. The only weapons being fielded any longer are medium machine guns.

A well tuned M14 is a joy to shoot and very accurate. Standard issue and well used rifles can leave a lot to be desired. I still own two Super Match rifles and have less than 100 rounds through both of them combined since their last rebuild. I can't seem to shoot them, mainly because I don't want to wear them out again. One is on it's second barrel, the other on it's third.

That's a very old document, and has been published in the M14 section in the Armory sub-forum years ago as well.

Not a lot of M14s being used anymore due to logistics and the other problems that gun has.

SCAR-H and M110 or SR25 have totally displaced it, to the best of my knowledge.

Ive used the M14 in the military, both wood stock and in EBR format.  Weight, ergonomics, and individual quality of issued rifles aside, I never could get over the safety inside the trigger guard on a weapon I had to carry at all times.

That's the one argument I don't really get.

You're only taking the weapon off safe when you're ready to fire.

Your finger is only on the trigger when you're ready to fire.

Either way your finger is only inside the trigger guard when you're ready to fire.

All the other arguments make sense for current issue fighting rifles.

I get that argument, but what I liked about the safety of my M-16 and M-4 was carrying it with my thumb under the safety so I could always verify I was on safe. That may be silly or OCD but it was nice making that part of how you carried.

I wouldn't get too wrapped up in it.  It was a stop gap measure that was possible because we kept them in war reserve.  They are a trade off for power at distance versus the 5.56mm NATO.   To me that's where they shine.   147 grains of 168/175 beats 62 grains.    Of course there is a huge weight penalty for the troop.  

I like the M14 a lot but it's dated albeit robust.  The optics work around are the other shortfall.   A 7.62 NATO Ar or Scar probably makes more sense if you have the money and time to produce them.  It was also expected troops were not getting in and out of vehicle doors so much.  You walked, rode the deuce and a half or a m113.


Still I love the old girl but don't blast it for being a 1940s design.   In could also pick apart the FAL but in its day it was great and beat. K98k or no4 mark 1.