Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 6/5/2002 5:38:31 AM EDT
How would it be configured, in its new, modern incarnartion?

What stock (it'd have to be a drop-in)?
What optics(you know there'd be optics)?

What else?

Link Posted: 6/5/2002 6:55:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/5/2002 6:58:32 AM EDT by 9divdoc]



The recent appearance of the United States
Marine Corps (USMC) Designated Marksman
Rifle (DMR) - enhanced M14 rifle - with the
26th Marine Expeditionary Unit in Kandahar,
Afghanistan, has put this continuing rifle
upgrade programme into the spotlight.

The rifle will enable designated marksmen to deliver accurate
semi-automatic fire against multiple targets at greater ranges and
with greater lethality than the M16A2.

The first upgraded DMRs were fielded to Marine Security Force
Battalions about 12-18 months ago.
Link Posted: 6/5/2002 7:01:44 AM EDT
I don't think that that set-up would work, for a new "service rifle".

Problems:

Bedded Stock

Sniper Optics (as opposed to Battle Optics)

Would the Military use a TA11 ACOG?
...a scout mounted Aimpoint?
Link Posted: 6/5/2002 7:05:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
How would it be configured, in its new, modern incarnartion?

What stock (it'd have to be a drop-in)?
What optics(you know there'd be optics)?

What else?




It would be....

...the AR10 in .308.

Much tooling already exists for it. AR15 accessories would work, many of them.

The AR platform is pretty adaptible.

The one major change would be to a gas piston system. No more dumping raw sewerage into the receiver, especially with the .308 cartridge.
Link Posted: 6/5/2002 7:09:50 AM EDT
Now, now let's not stray into FAL, or AR-10 country.
That's too easy.
Link Posted: 6/5/2002 7:23:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
I don't think that that set-up would work, for a new "service rifle".

Problems:

Bedded Stock

Sniper Optics (as opposed to Battle Optics)

Would the Military use a TA11 ACOG?
...a scout mounted Aimpoint?



To me, the perfect battle optics is the Reflex II with triangle reticle (except for the danged tinted window)

The ACOG is too "scope-ish." The Reflex with triangle allows BOTH point and click CQB use, as well as 300 yard detail work.

No batteries to go dead. Allows for low profile mounting, co-witnessing with iron sights. Aimpoint is too high, a sure-to-be-busted-off profile during battle.

Link Posted: 6/5/2002 7:30:05 AM EDT
mwilson.hypermart.net/views/guns/m14.html
History Link...
Murph aka Cintz...When I got to basic and got issued my M14 I was smitten...I loved my new (to me anyway) rifle.. I could hit stuff I could barely see...the round was very forgiving..never had so much fun with a rifle and I was able to shoot low expert in a snowstorm at Ft Campbell
I dont think I ever had as much fun shooting a rifle as I had the M-4 (other than my 10/22 and the M-79 )
The FN/FAL was nearly the issue weapon for the US...so had that happend would we be as nostalgic for it as we are for the M14?.. IMO the .308 is still the way to go..but perhaps there is place between 223 and 308 that might be even better?...
I like many things about the M14...the reciprocating bolt handle that can be hit hard to unjam the weapon, solid wood stock..and the bayonet on the M14 is effective...this all has appeal me anyway..but as an optics platform it just dont make it..
Many bitch about the wt factor...but the boys sure humped them in VietNam Korea and its daddy the M1 in WWII and Korea...before that rifles and gear were twice as heavy and troops always humped them ..and always complained...
But you should have heard them when they were taken away and replaced with the M-16
The Wt. and the firepower were nice..but the jam factor wasnt...(though personally I never had my M16 jam and I was in the Mekong Delta operating off the boats..
But... when it came to knock down power...and bush penetration the M60 ruled...
As a medic I treated enough wounded so got to see the anatomical damage on both sides and the little 55 grain fmj did not due the damage the AK or the M60 round did . (at least superficially) Many wounded VC simply split leaving small blood trails from wounds that closed quickly.
I still hope we get something a bit more powerful for our guys and in a jam proof -dead nuts on -all week long reliable platform..but hey thats just my opinon.
Link Posted: 6/5/2002 7:32:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
Now, now let's not stray into FAL, or AR-10 country.
That's too easy.



That's the whole point. It would be SOOO EASY for DOD procurement to simply adapt the AR10.



As much as I love the M1 rifle, its NOT suited for the modern battle environment. The M1A / M14 has TOO much in common with the M1 for it to be seriously considered as a platform for an MBR. (My opinion)

Basically, the M14 would have to be turned into a FAL / AR10 in order to beuseable - pistol grip, gas piston op sys, plastic furniture. There's no need to re-invent the wheel - just go with what's already proven.

And the WHOLE NATION can thank Armalite and the civilian gun buying population for funding and overseeing the next development in the large caliber battle rifle.

Link Posted: 6/5/2002 7:35:02 AM EDT
I don't think they'd ever issue something, these days, that was not a good optics platform.

(the Army, that is...the Marines would be fine with just the irons)

Link Posted: 6/5/2002 7:39:30 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/5/2002 7:41:47 AM EDT
I gotta agree with the G-man on this one...the gas piston
the optics platform..etc..
The days of bayonet fighting are over (maybe?) though the M1 and M14 straight stock design was ideal for it.....(take a lt. wt. pisol along.)
To make the M14 viable would take a re-design of the receiver to accomodate built in scope mounts.
As far as optics are concerned ..young eyes..not old..young men go to war not old farts ...good open sights..with the option of scopes ...NVD..and Designated Marksman optics...ACOGs, Aimpoints, Reflex, Leupolds etc would all have their place..as long as the platform supports them all...imo of course
Link Posted: 6/5/2002 7:42:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 9divdoc:
mwilson.hypermart.net/views/guns/m14.html
...the bayonet on the M14 is effective...this all has appeal me anyway..but as an optics platform it just dont make it..
.


'

Excellent point.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to scope the M14 in a fashion that allows for a repeatable cheek weld. Further, the scope ends up 2" above the barrel. Consequesntly, accuracy suffers, and the weapons profile becomes unwieldy.

BOTH the AR10 and the FAL have "flattops" that allow for mounting the scope very close to the POA, and a good cheek weld.

Also, the stock of the M14 lends to muzzle rise. Both the AR10 and FAL have much more of a straight profile that send recoil back, where as the M14 sends recoil up, the stock acting like a hinge at the point where it contacts teh shoulder.

Link Posted: 6/5/2002 7:45:51 AM EDT
I know that the M14 WOULD never come back...

....the point is, what IF it came back?

This is an exercise, not a suggestion.
Brainstorm.

Link Posted: 6/5/2002 7:50:52 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/5/2002 7:56:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
I know that the M14 WOULD never come back...

....the point is, what IF it came back?

This is an exercise, not a suggestion.
Brainstorm.



Well you asked for a brainstorm...and in your storm seems like you want rain
and now your getting some hail lightning and thunder...
Let me ask you this...what about the M14 do you like? and why do you think it should come back...
Link Posted: 6/5/2002 8:00:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 9divdoc:
The days of bayonet fighting are over (maybe?)



Tell that to the Marines. They will never give up their bayonets. If they could mount a bayonet on the M-9 pistol I bet they would do it.
Link Posted: 6/5/2002 8:14:48 AM EDT
My best bud and business partner is a former Marine did his time back in '66-67' in Con Tien...we both did our tours at opposite ends of the country under very different circumstances..We have debated many issues relating to equipment and tactics on frosty coon hunts..
On bayonets I was saying that one of the reasons I like the M14 (among others) is as a bayonet platfrom...I dont think any rifle has ever been faster than the M1/M14 in bayonet fighting..as far as giving it up..no need to..just that imo a bayonet or lack of it as being optimal for fighting isnt a reason to disqualify a rifle from service...in other words..imo the FAL or M16 families are not as good a bayonet platform as the M1/M14 family...not that you cant or shouldnt attach one on a service rifle...In fact I carried an M16 a Bayonet and an ole 1911...
Its not my opinion that the AR/M16 5.56 be taken out of service either..to me the M4 platform is ideal for certain missions..as in WWII and Korea Officers carried sidearms as well as M1-Carbines..in VietNam (in my unit) officers carried the CAR version of the M-16..
I think RTOs Medics should be allowed the option of lighter weapons than their grunt counterparts carry if they so desire..or is TO&E'd...
Both RTOs and Medics involved in missions that must distract them from the fighting going on arround them at times..so its a good idea to have a weapon that is easy to pick up and fire with one hand if needs be..if the enemy surprises .
And no I wouldnt want to be the one to tell Marines they dont need bayonets..
As imo the users should be the ones to tell the experts what they (the users) need..
Link Posted: 6/5/2002 8:25:39 AM EDT
I would be damn happy with the original M14 with a synthetic stock. For me, it comes down to "11lbs. loaded .22 (M4-203) or 11 lbs. loaded 7.62mm (M14)?". Easy choice.
Link Posted: 6/5/2002 8:26:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

That's the whole point. It would be SOOO EASY for DOD procurement to simply adapt the AR10.






Some AR-10's are now being made for some component of the military. (I'm not trying to be cute with this statement, I just don't know anymore.)
Link Posted: 6/5/2002 8:35:14 AM EDT
Personally, I wouldn't want the M14 as a service rifle.
I like the M16A2, just fine.
The FAL works for me, too.

But just as the M16 has transformed, over the years, how would the M14?
(I think it would've run its course, and been abandonned)

Link Posted: 6/5/2002 9:03:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
Personally, I wouldn't want the M14 as a service rifle.
I like the M16A2, just fine.
The FAL works for me, too.

But just as the M16 has transformed, over the years, how would the M14?
(I think it would've run its course, and been abandonned)



I know your original intent got highjacked lol...(kinda like the constitution)
So far it (the M14) morphed (rather than evolved imo) into the Mini 14ª then the X-GIª which in turn became the Mini 30ª ...
The Mini Ranch rifles do have an integral mount for Ruger rings..The Rugers have evolved to synthetic stocks..and in Stainless ..add to that new Hi Tech metal coatings..perhaps the M14 would have gone this route..
Link Posted: 6/5/2002 9:10:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By raf:

Originally Posted By Cincinnatus:
I know that the M14 WOULD never come back...

....the point is, what IF it came back?

This is an exercise, not a suggestion.
Brainstorm.




OK. ONLY possible optic-friendly configuration for the M-14 would be a bullpup,.



Just for kicks, what about an offset mount, like the M1C or M1D????

Necessary changes to the m14....

1. A less labor intensive receiver. NO WAY the US gov't would manufacture in quantity such a work of art as their MBR.

2. Synthetic stock.

3. Flattop reveiver (for serious scoping)

4. Pistol grip. An absolute MUST.

5. Stock that has a straighter profile (Like the AR's) to minimize recoil muzzle rise)

6. Integrated bipod (like the FAL).

7. Adjustable gas (like thre FAL)

8. Weight reduction. Modern warfare is based on speed. An 11 lb. MBR is obsolete.

Other than that, the M14 is da bomb.


Link Posted: 6/5/2002 9:23:03 AM EDT
G-Man would it look something like this? hehehe
Link Posted: 6/5/2002 10:36:01 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/5/2002 10:38:28 AM EDT by raf]
Link Posted: 6/5/2002 10:38:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By 9divdoc:
G-Man would it look something like this? hehehe



Yeah, it'd look a WHOLE LOT like that....



The only think holding me back from getting THAT is the direct blowback gas system that would dump crap loads of carbon from the .308 cartridge back into the receiver.

The only other thing I'd change would be the ACOG for a Reflex II

Link Posted: 6/5/2002 10:46:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By raf:

If you look at Garandman's list of characteristics, all of them can be met with a well-designed bullpup, in addition to considerable weight and length savings.





I think you may be on to something there.

But for me, bullpunks are just so daggum ugly. They are the AMC Gremlin of the gun world. On paper, they got it goin' on, but they just look so hideous.

A bullpup prolly would be the way to go. IF the FAL were rejected due to being not American made (already happened once in the last century) and IF the AR10 could not be equipped with a gas piston system.

Whatever we do, just don't let Robert McNamara and the Wizz Kids have any say in DOD procurement. PLEASE.

Link Posted: 6/5/2002 10:58:00 AM EDT
Link Posted: 6/5/2002 11:41:02 AM EDT

Originally Posted By raf:

Originally Posted By garandman:
Whatever we do, just don't let Robert McNamara and the Wizz Kids have any say in DOD procurement. PLEASE.



MEGA-Dittos to that!

We couldn't be that unlucky again, could we?

(As I'm typing this, I'm picturing an OICW!)



Yeah, imagine McNamara being arounf for WW2.

Instead of having the M1, we'd have the rifle counterpart of the Liberator .45.



[bugs bunny voice] Owww da howwor, de udda howwor!!!!!!![/bugs bunny voice]



Link Posted: 6/5/2002 12:14:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:
It is IMPOSSIBLE to scope the M14 in a fashion that allows for a repeatable cheek weld. Further, the scope ends up 2" above the barrel. Consequesntly, accuracy suffers



Yes the cheek weld is awkward, I'm not sure accuracy suffers to a noticable degree though.

What I did was build up a cheek rest from a GI sleeping mat and a roll of duct tape. It's not pretty, but so what. The entire rifle has been spraypainted desert camo to match its eviroment.

It will shoot 1.5" groups at 200 yards, all day.

Link Posted: 6/6/2002 5:06:05 PM EDT
I personally think that the M14 could be put into service with absolutely no changes other than a synthetic stock, preferably with a pistol grip. I'm not a big fan of optics of any sort on a battle rifle (other than the Armson OEG or something exactly like it) and the M14's sights are so good that optics aren't necessary for fine aiming. The sole exception would be for the lucky guy who gets to turn his 11lb M14 into a 14lb M14 w/AN-PVS4 mounted on it.

I have to agree about the weight issue as well - IMO it's a non-issue. A soldier will carry what he's issued, regardless of its weight. Sure, it's nice to cut 5-10lbs by using lighter rifles and ammo, but they'll just give you more shit to carry in its place, and it'll weight 7-12lbs. I've known a few old-timers who were BAR gunners in WW2 or Korea, and they all seemed to manage OK with that 17lb weapon and 20-25 mags.
Link Posted: 6/6/2002 6:57:36 PM EDT
I'm just sick of all the doo dads on all these new rifles.
I was in the Marines and i shot the M16A2 just fine.I was third award expert on the KD course in the FMF,in the fleet i shot 46,52,51 all experts.But all in all i think Iron sights are best for a MBR nothing to go wrong no batteries no glass to break its simple and effective.
As far as the Bayonet being obsolete anyone whos says that is a moron,i dont think having the ability to HOOK AND JAB will never ever be obsolete.Remember the Mission of the Marine rifle sqaud is to locate close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver or to repel the enemys assault by fire and CLOSE COMBAT.
All the bells and whistles will never be a replacement for fieldcraft and basic warrior skills and training,training and more training.
I truly believe that if we was to train our service people on the M14 like the marksmanship of the middle to early 1900's and to do product improvement on it with lets say integral scope mounts like the Ruger Ranch Rifle improve the stock with a synthetic pistol grip stock i dont see why this could not be the best MBR ever produced.Proven reliable design with a great history.
I dont believe full auto on a rifle is neccessary i believe that suppressive fire is the job of machine guns at sqaud and company level.I do subscribe to the Marine corps Philosophy that Burst on the M16A2 is not to be touched.
Link Posted: 6/6/2002 7:12:37 PM EDT


Originally Posted By garandman:
It is IMPOSSIBLE to scope the M14 in a fashion that allows for a repeatable cheek weld. Further, the scope ends up 2" above the barrel. Consequesntly, accuracy suffers

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the height of a properly mounted scope on a flat-top about the same as the height of the irons to obtain a good cheek weld (ie. 2.6 inches, give or take)?

Link Posted: 6/6/2002 7:39:49 PM EDT
Ideal combination of decreased recoil but with the accuracy and ballistic coeffecient to "reach out" and touch someone at long range...6.5-08 (.260 rem) with 142 grn in AR10/SR25. Just my .02
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 1:02:19 AM EDT
Pic's of a bullpup M14...

www.isayeret.com/weapons/sws/m89/m89.htm
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 6:22:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sukebe:

Originally Posted By 9divdoc:
The days of bayonet fighting are over (maybe?)



Tell that to the Marines. They will never give up their bayonets. If they could mount a bayonet on the M-9 pistol I bet they would do it.



http://web.utk.edu/~utpolice/Graphics/m9_pistol.jpg
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 6:46:12 AM EDT
Won't happen, not even in an AR-10 configuration.
I think that 6mm PPC would be a better caliber selection for the M-16 platform, but that won't happen either.

As for the bayonet thing... People have been saying that since full auto, since semi auto, since magazine fed, since brass cartridges, ever since we stopped shooting front stuffers in battle. The bayonet will never go away, because:

1) It's a knife too, and since all soldiers have always had a personal knife since forever, it makes a little bit of sense to put a notch in the back of it and a lug on your rifle.
2) Bayonets lend themselves to finer graduations of force, in a physical manner that is easily read by people in a drunk, enraged, stoned, looking forward to 70 virgins, mob, whatever frame of mind. It makes one heck of a crowd control too.

Link Posted: 6/7/2002 10:07:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Zardoz:


Originally Posted By garandman:
It is IMPOSSIBLE to scope the M14 in a fashion that allows for a repeatable cheek weld. Further, the scope ends up 2" above the barrel. Consequesntly, accuracy suffers

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the height of a properly mounted scope on a flat-top about the same as the height of the irons to obtain a good cheek weld (ie. 2.6 inches, give or take)?




Yes.

But look at the M14. The mount goes ABOVE the irons.

Then add ring height, and scope crosshairs height.

What you've got is a line of sight some 2-3" above the irons. Bad news.


AR15fan -

My personal experience was that this setup significantly degraded my accuracy.

One of the major rules of match shooting is a consistent cheek weld. Without it, you introduce YET ANOTHER variable into the equation.

Variables (changing cheek welds, breathing, pulse, ammo types, humidity, wind etc etc) ALL degrade accuracy.



Link Posted: 6/7/2002 10:21:32 AM EDT
I beleave that the rifle in the second post is about as good as it will ever get for the M-14. Perhaps a good Kevlar stock with the abuility to add optics...

Personally, however, I feel that the better question is what would the ultimate 308 rifle be and it is already out there! This is the Knights SR-25 for all the reasons the M-16 is the current standard!

The SR-25 (like the AR-10) uses a modular design that allows for multiple uppers, stocks, sight systems, caliber choices, etc. In addition, the locking bolt system is proven to be more accurate and retains it's accuracy better than the op-rod system in the M1A.

I have confidence that if Uncle Sam wanted to look at a bigger rifle to complement the M-16 they would go to the SR-25. Oh wait, THEY DID and for the same reasons I bought the AR-10 over the M1A!

Now, I am a history buff and one day I would love to add an M1A to my collection but I feel that the AR-10 and SR-25 are better rifles then the M1A can ever be.
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 7:58:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By garandman:

Originally Posted By 9divdoc:
G-Man would it look something like this? hehehe



Yeah, it'd look a WHOLE LOT like that....



The only think holding me back from getting THAT is the direct blowback gas system that would dump crap loads of carbon from the .308 cartridge back into the receiver.

The only other thing I'd change would be the ACOG for a Reflex II




Use the gas system from the HK-G36, or from ZM weapons, but no icky steel folding stock.

lib-what about a 6.5mm?
Link Posted: 6/7/2002 8:30:52 PM EDT
What really killed the M1, and the M14 (and the AKM, for that matter) was logistics and psychology.

The psychology aspect came from post-war studies of infantry combat in WW II. Most Infantrymen rarely fired their rifles; the BARs and M1919 series MGs did almost all of the shooting at the squad and platoon level. The solution was to equip everyone with a weapon that can fire on automatic.

Enter logistics. 5.56 weighs half as much as 7.62 X 51. The troops can carry twice as much ammo to feed the voracious appetite of their new weapons. This applied to the AK series as well. The Soviets figured that the average Ivan could carry 10 5.45 rounds for every 4 7.62 X 39 rounds, given the relative weights of each, and 5.45 cost a third of price, per round, to produce.

If we see a return to heavy rounds, it will be in limited applications (like we are seeing now) and primarily to defeat body armor. The new thought is to give the grunt the ability to kill his enemies before they ever get within kinetic small arms range, hence the 1,000 meter laser timed airburst rounds for the OICW CF. When we do see a return to kinetic weapons for the line soldier, it will probably be with some kind of EM or other super high-velocity propulsion system.

Now if they did have an immediate need for a general issue of 7.62mm shoulder weapons, they would probably start with iron sighted M14s from existing stocks. There are still several hundred thousand available, to the best of my knowledge. That would probably be followed on by an AR-10 variant, if we were lucky, but my money would be on license-built HKs or FNs (lowest bidder and all). I don't see anything like that happening unless we get invaded by aliens to big for the 5.56mm round, which is pretty dang unlikely.
Link Posted: 6/10/2002 1:05:29 PM EDT

Originally Posted By natez:
I don't see anything like that happening unless we get invaded by aliens to big for the 5.56mm round, which is pretty dang unlikely.



Then again, if that happens ARMALITE will be selling AR-10s in 300 RSM or 300 WSM! Now, here is a better long range tool with the power to defeat body armor!
Top Top