Reach out and touch someone (with a white feather). Speaking of complaints and rumors of complaints about the M16's effectiveness,  I was in Williams' Gun Sight in Flint, MI the other day, speaking to a gun salesman I know and trust. He said he heard that the US military was shipping previously mothballed M14's, equipped with scopes, to Afghanistan as fast as they could load them onto boats.  Can anyone confirm this?

As I stated in a previous post, this is probably the most pragmatic and elegant solution to the challenge of longer-range shots as well as cold-weather velocity losses in the mountains of Afghanistan, vs. developing a whole-new caliber and round, with the resultant cost and time required for rebarreling, etc.

I cannot imagine a more perfectly capable, proven, and balanced rifle and round for the task.  I read that the M14 has outperformed every enemy rifle it has ever faced in enduring the rigors of cold weather. As far as range, if you can't hit it at 600-800 yards with a 7.62 in a scoped M14, widely recognized as the most accurate battle rifle in the world, you need air support. As to stopping power, the effectiveness of the 7.62 round needs no explanation and is in a class by itself.  Regarding ammo, there is already more 7.62 just laying around all over the world than grains in the sand.  

For once, somebody got it right.  Once more, the US will be fighting with equipment that outclasses the enemy by a mile, or at least 1,000 yards. And best of all, especially to the cost-conscious, the expense of deployment of combat-ready rifles is next to nothing. Next time, if and when we have to fight in an urban environment again, we just put the M14's back in the closet and dust off the M16's.

This is one more example of the sound reasons for my strong advocacy of our present 5.56/7.62 "double standard."

- Beldar

i can't confirm that. sounds like a gun store selling M1As

the 7.62 is ballisticly superior to the 5.56.  I don't think anyone will argue with that.

but yeah - try humping one up and down hills in a country that is 5000-7000 ASL with spotty re-supply of the heavy as hell ammo that you had to bring with you that isn’t stored on stripper clips…  freaking breaking links to fill a magazine?   Bah – screw that.

fuggetabout it.

There have been photos posted here for several months showing M14 Rifles in the hands of troops in Afghanistan.  That part of the story is certainly true.  

They're secondary weapons, not replacements for the M16A2.

As to shipping them as fast as they can get to the boats I'll bet they're going with units or by air.  Sea shipping is cheap, but slow.

-- Chuck

[url]http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/images/hres.pl?Lbox_cap=739084&dir=Photo[/url]

One up front and one in the background on the left.

Last year when my SF buddy was getting ready to ship he commented that his team had two M14s.  Sounds like your shop keeper is correct to me.

can't find it - I had a picture from the invasion of Panama. A SPC in the 82nd with an M14 (probably an M21).  Not all ghillied up; but in regular BDUs.  

The rifles have been in line units for years; not to mention SF.  But I haven't heard anythign about new ones going out to anyone in the field.  

Yep, same reason the Soviets/Russians have been issuing the SVD Dragunov "sniper" rifle (7.62x54mmR) on a squad level basis since it's introduction.  They recognized early on that they needed the capability to hit targets outside of 200 yards and actually do something to it when hit, also be able to penetrate light cover.  When the Soviets first went into Afghanistan, they'd have some old gray beard with a .303 No.1 MkIII Enfield shooting the hell out of them at 400-500 yards and practially no way to engage him.

It's taken the USA 40 years to "catch up" to this way of thinking.  The Australians issued their L1A1's right along side of the M16 when they were in Vietnam with us, as did the British SAS in Borneo and other hot spots.

It makes perfect sense.  We were doing something simliar in WWII and Korea, with some men being issued M3 Grease guns and Thompson M1927, M1 and M1A1 submachine guns, as well as the M1 and M2 Carbines, right along side guys with the M1 Garand.  You had guys equipped optimally for up close and personal as well as for longer range engagements.  You had all your bases covered.

I've also seen pictures of guys in Iraq with both iron sighted M14's and scoped out M14's.  I am really glad that commanders have the [b](1)[/b] enlightenment to realize the need, and [b](2)[/b] have the juice to issue the M14's.

Here are some pics of the Marine Corps M14 DMR.

[img]http://photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/IG_LoadImage.asp?iImageUnq=3291[/img]

[img]http://photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/IG_LoadImage.asp?iImageUnq=3292[/img]

Does anybody know what ammo they are using in the M14?s?

Most probably M-118LR (175 gr SMK).

what army ord said.  M-118 "Special Ball" for the M21s.  

[img]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/images/M118long.jpg[/img]

if they are using actual M-14s at the squad level they might just use plain 7.62 M-80 Ball.

not sure how much M-118 could be in supply pipelines for them to use.

Notice that they are only being used by units too poor or too low on the pecking order to get M16SPRs and 75gr Match ammo. The primary reason for their presence is that the M14 and 7.62 are available in quantity at the moment, and the M16SPR and M16A4 and the 75 and 77gr ammo are all in short supply.

Oddly enough, I never saw on film a Marine with a M14 DMR in Baghdad or Basra. On the other hand they had a suprising number of new M16A4's with TA31F ACOGs. That combination may have made the M14 redundant, especally if they could get a hold of some heavy-bullet ammo.

about goddamned time

the m14 should be the standard service rifle instead of the m16

I was watching a Discovery Channel (I think - one of those channels anyway) special just last week about the Navy Seals, and noticed that those guys were lugging M14s around as well. Thankfully, they actually talked about that. The Seal guy mentioned that the M14 is a current weapon for them, and that they use it when they need more punch. I'm paraphrasing here, but that's what they said...

Martin

The heaviest bullets I have tried in my M1A are 168 Sierras. Does anybody know if you need a fast twist barrel to stabilize the 175's?

Did you happen to catch a producton date? I saw something on SEALS several years ago that sounds similar to what you were watching. The SIQs were on an arctic training mission and chose to carry m14s due to the open terrain.

The original twist for the National Match M-14 was 1 in 12". The ammo used was the M-118 173 gr spitzer boat tailed bullet. By the late '70s and '80s, most Match grade M-14 Rifles had heavy barrels with a 1 in 10" twist. These handled the 173, 168, and 180 gr bullets. For a soft bullet (Sierra and other commercial types), a six groove barrel was the most popular. For the 173 gr Gov't bullet with a "harder" bullet, a four groove barrel was prefered. For the current Sierra 175 gr Matchking bullet, the "prefered" barrel would be a 10" twist. I keep using the word "prefered" because there is quite a bit of overlap. Some people can get a 10" twist to do great and another can get a 12" twist to perform. Most people will get better results with the heavier bullets with the 10" twist.  

poor guy he has to carry that rifle and the rocket launcher
If i remeber right that rifle is built like a tank and has a real righteous recoil and yes dead accurate

I would think they would like to use some .50-cal rifles there too.  

GunLvr

The problem with the 7.62 in military application is the platform.  

I can tell you that were I still a young infantryman I’d tell you to shove all 14.5 lbs of M14 right up your keester.  

Add to that the fact that in order to carry what is currently a basic load of 5.56 (210 rounds) the joe with the bag on his back would have to carry almost twice as much in ammo weight.  I'd rather have a 7 lb M16 and a ton of ammo and just shoot everyone twice.

If it is just the 7.62 (or any other caliber that is better than a 5.56) that is the goal then the military should just have a new platform.  

But in order for a soldier to go further faster and fight more than their opponent they have to have light weight gear.

M14's are still commonly found in the arms rooms of US Navy vessels. So it doesn't cost the SEALs a thing to pick some up. Just fill out a few forms. Both the Mk 12(SPR) and Mk 11(SR-25) rifles are in short supply.

correct me if Im wrong but arent the duty 50 cals the barret rifles that weigh in around 30 some pounds?

I saw  a few bolt action rifles in the hands of our guys in Iraq on the news. I saw one guy riding on a Bradley with a scoped bolt action rifle with a harris bi-pod on it. He would occasionaly scope the horizon with it.

It would seem to me that if I had to carry a .308 to make long distance shots I would rather carry around a bolt action than an M14.

I believe we saw the same show. One part they were putzing around a swamp-looking area, the other they were somewhere waaay cold.

Martin

Yes there are some M14s' being used overseas. The only people I have seen that have them are the 82nd Airborne (other Divs. may have them but I have only seen 82nd Ariborne with them). I am not sure as to the qty. issued but I believe it is either 1 per squad or 1 per platoon (cannot remember exactly the number).

If anyone else has some pics or links to pics of M14s in Afghan or Iraq, please post them in this thread, I'd like to see them.  Thanks.

Search the "Operation Enduring Freedom" album at [url]www.militaryphotos.net[/url]

tries the above mentioned link, and got:

"Forbidden
You don't have permission to access / on this server.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apache/1.3.27 Server at www.militaryphotos.net Port 80"

appear to be having probs with their direct link, not working on mine either.

I can however open a new browser window and type www.militaryphotos.net and get in.

Wierd.