Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

M14 rifle


Alpo

Recommended Posts

As designed, it was select fire. You could flip a switch and it became fully automatic. And the government shortly realized that that was a stupid design. It was almost impossible to control in fully automatic. Basically just a large waste of ammunition.

 

So they modified it, and most of the issued rifles would only fire semi.

 

How did they modify it? Did they just remove the switch? So that you could get another switch and put it back in the hole and have a select fire gun again? Or did they remove the switch and do something to the innards so that never ever again would it fire full auto?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's news to me.  Every M-14 I had occasion to use on Active Duty was select fire.  Was it hard to control on Rock-n-Roll??  You betcha.  I tried never to run one on Full unless on a Bipod.

 

Interested to hear about this "no select switch" thing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On my ship in the Navy we had a bunch of M-14s that were semiauto only. We had a few with selector switches that would fire full auto. I fired M14s in full auto twice. My excitement to do so was very short lived. They were pretty much uncontrollable. The first and second rounds hit the target but that was it. Waste of ammo. The second round actually hit high. 
 

I really do not recall the semiauto ones having a selector at all or even a place for a selector cut into the stock. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got a chance to shoot one one time. I loaded one round, fired and hit the target at a hundred yards.

 

Then I put two rounds in the magazine, chambered one and fired. I hit the target and the top of the berm.

 

Three rounds in the magazine, chambered one and fired. Hit the target, the top of the berm, and as high as the barrel was on that third shot it probably landed three or four miles down range.

 

And I decided that was enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first time I fired one in full auto I hit the target, a 5 gallon bucket floating in the sea at about 100 yards away, then the next 9 or 10 rounds went to sea with the final round at about a 30 degree angle. I had 10 or 11 rounds left and tried again and got the same results. We were using 20 round mags. 
I stepped aside to let others give it ago and after a few mags the Chief called me to the firing line and handed to it me again. 
This time I did 4 or 5 round busts but that did no good either. I got 2 on the bucket tel he first burst and the subsequent 3 tries I only hit the bucket once. 
Of course the bucket is bobbing, the ship is moving and the bucket gets further away as we were doing about 10 knots or so. 
 

Not very fruitful on target hits, but it was still fun. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we got to rifle qualification in basic we were told that the holes in the 50 and 100 yd targets were pretty large and the best way to “hit” the target was to aim for the sand in front of it and and spray the target with dirt.

 

the rifles were semi auto

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFAIK if the rifle was originally capable to fire full-auto the ATF considers it a machine gun even if at some later time the receiver was modified to allow semi-auto operation only. To prevent semi-auto M-14s from being converted to full auto the receiver is machined differently.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was assigned an M-14 during basic training in 1963. It was a standard basic training rifle, well used, but in good condition. it was very accurate and never malfunctioned. It was also very accurate. I fired a 298 out of a possible 300 qualifying, tops in our training battalion. 

 

I have shot M-1's and in my opinion there is no comparison, the M-14 is a far better rifle. It is magazine fed and very reliable. The M-15/16 was a piece of junk when it was first issued. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Phantom Falcon, SASS # 46139 said:

I thought the M-14 was a poor rifle in semi-auto and totally useless in auto. 

With all their shortcomings, the M-1 and BAR were much better weapons than the M-14.

 

PF

I agree 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The M14 is a select fire if the full auto selector switch is installed by an armorer. That’s all it takes. As mentioned it is classed as a full auto arm by ATF regardless of it being modified.

it is not a poor rifle in my opinion. It was designed to fight in the conventional battles of WW2 and Korea. In that roll it is perfectly suited. Higher capacity with its detachable 20rd magazine than the M1 (which by the way was the initial design by Garand but rejected by the army) it was meant to match the AK47 with the advantage of longer range. Full auto capability was an attempt to give an infantry squad more firepower, but without the weight of the BAR, it was ineffective in that role. It was modified with the E2 straight line stock with pistol grip and bipod but it became obvious there was no way it was going to become an acceptable squad automatic weapon. As a main battle rifle it’s time had passed before it was issued. It was kept on as a sniper rifle for decades and served well.

52D08D90-88D1-43A8-B8A1-31789D1C5301.webp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All that I know is all that I know...and that's that I've always had a soft spot in my heart (and possibly my head) for the M1A.

 

When I hold up my end, my old gal never disappoints!

 

bHqhfFgl.jpg

 

LAptG3nl.jpg

 

R7V4057l.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me it seems that anyone who was in the military likes the gun they were issued if it worked for them . To this day my father tells me if he ever had to do it again he would want a Garand, a Thompson and a 1911 . I have a close friend who was in Vietnam who loves the M16 , says it never let him down. Know a few guys who were in the middle east that love the Beretta pistol. 
The M14 was just being introduced when my dad was getting out and he never liked it but also did not have allot of exposure to it . He said the ones he shot had allot of feeding problems, but again this was when they were brand new . The M16 also had its teething pains but look how long it’s been around now , and everything they suggest replacing it with isn’t earth shakingly different.

Heck I know people who absolutely love Rem 742’s and I consider it to be one of the worst semi auto high powered rifles ever made . I guess it all comes down to the individual users experience 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Buckshot Bob said:

Heck I know people who absolutely love Rem 742’s and I consider it to be one of the worst semi auto high powered rifles ever made

My brother bought a 742 his senior year in high school. When he graduated he joined the Marine Corps. When he came home from boot camp he sold the 742. He said the M14 he shot in boot camp spoiled him. Always worked. Never jammed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Alpo said:

My brother bought a 742 his senior year in high school. When he graduated he joined the Marine Corps. When he came home from boot camp he sold the 742. He said the M14 he shot in boot camp spoiled him. Always worked. Never jammed.

They are about 500 round rifles , they destroy themselves. Break bolts ruin the receivers . When I was still a gunsmith everyone I knew was always on the lookout for a spare receiver or bolt . The 7400 is a much improved gun 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I qualified with the M-14 & M-16 in basic.  In training we got to shoot a partial mag in auto to impress us that auto was a waste unless you learn trigger control to limit it to 2-3 round bursts.  Even in semi it took a lot of time to require a sight picture for the next shot.  The M1-6 was a blast to dump a 20 round mag in auto.  It felt light & recoil was no more noticeable than a 22LR.  In the 52 years that has passed since I fired the M-14 I have become less sensitive to recoil.  I built a precision AR-10 that is heavy, 15 lbs., with optic & bipod.  It is pleasant to shoot.  I later acquired a semi-auto reproduction of a cold war NATO 7.62x51 battle rifle, a PTR 109.  It is a H&K 90 with polymer trigger housing & pic-rail.  I selected it because of its' unconventional action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Buckshot Bob said:

It seems now like the military is looking for a compromise caliber. Bigger than 223 but smaller than 308 . Even if they decide to pursue it I still think it will be a long time before they get rid of the M16/M4 . 

Maybe they should take a look at the .276 cartridge for which the original Garand was designed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always loved this rifle (I swear you couldn't miss … of course when you are 19 years old … sigh ...). 
At Ft Jackson (Basic Training) in 1967 I remember them getting all whipped up to get some expert trainfire qualifications ... offering a weekend pass if you could post a 60. Even today I can remember how proud I was ... 

 

m14.JPG.5f3ebe52dec77c831a8147d2e73f676a.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When my dad took basic in 67, he was trained with a M14.  He liked it.  Then he got issued a M-16 in Vietnam and he hated it.  Much preferred his M-60 (he was in a gun truck).  Said the few times something happened to his M-60 (seems like it was usually a firing pin breaking if my memory serves) and he grabbed his M-16, it jammed on the first shot.

 

He still is biased heavily against them.  Every time he hears that I went to the range and took my AR-15, he asks how many times it jammed, and I dont think he believes me when I tell him that it didn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Patagonia Pete said:

Always loved this rifle (I swear you couldn't miss … of course when you are 19 years old … sigh ...). 
At Ft Jackson (Basic Training) in 1967 I remember them getting all whipped up to get some expert trainfire qualifications ... offering a weekend pass if you could post a 60. Even today I can remember how proud I was ... 

 

m14.JPG.5f3ebe52dec77c831a8147d2e73f676a.JPG

Ditto.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/28/2021 at 1:32 PM, J.D. Daily said:

I qualified with the M-14 & M-16 in basic.  In training we got to shoot a partial mag in auto to impress us that auto was a waste unless you learn trigger control to limit it to 2-3 round bursts.  Even in semi it took a lot of time to require a sight picture for the next shot.  The M1-6 was a blast to dump a 20 round mag in auto.  It felt light & recoil was no more noticeable than a 22LR.  In the 52 years that has passed since I fired the M-14 I have become less sensitive to recoil.  I built a precision AR-10 that is heavy, 15 lbs., with optic & bipod.  It is pleasant to shoot.  I later acquired a semi-auto reproduction of a cold war NATO 7.62x51 battle rifle, a PTR 109.  It is a H&K 90 with polymer trigger housing & pic-rail.  I selected it because of its' unconventional action.

We had no full auto 14s in basic. I did shoot the M14E2 in AIT. Wasn’t impressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/28/2021 at 7:19 AM, Buckshot Bob said:

It seems now like the military is looking for a compromise caliber. Bigger than 223 but smaller than 308 . Even if they decide to pursue it I still think it will be a long time before they get rid of the M16/M4 . 

The military always look for a weapon, airplane, vehicle, uniform, etc that will be all things for all missions. Won’t ever happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Patagonia Pete said:

Always loved this rifle (I swear you couldn't miss … of course when you are 19 years old … sigh ...). 
At Ft Jackson (Basic Training) in 1967 I remember them getting all whipped up to get some expert trainfire qualifications ... offering a weekend pass if you could post a 60. Even today I can remember how proud I was ... 

 

m14.JPG.5f3ebe52dec77c831a8147d2e73f676a.JPG

Got mine with a 69.  1968.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I trained on the M-14 in basic, then had one for 18 months in Viet Nam.  When I went on flight status I took mine to the armorer and he installed the selector switch.

It is a heavy, ugly rifle that will go bang every time, even if it has been neglected and is locked up tight with dust so tight that you have to stomp on the operating rod's handle with your boot to chamber the first round.

You can not fire it effectively in full auto FROM THE SHOULDER.

You CAN fire effectively in full auto if you pull the butt into your stomach and use your off hand to hold down on the hand guard.  Then you aim it like a fire hose.

A little practice and you can put a full magazine's contents through the window of a hootch at 600 yards - I have witnesses.

This rifle seems to be an evolutionary child of the M-1.  The gas system and the magazine are the major differences.  It was designed to stop the Godless communist hordes in Europe and would still be a good rifle for that purpose.

 

Duffield

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Utah Bob #35998 said:

The military always look for a weapon, airplane, vehicle, uniform, etc that will be all things for all missions. Won’t ever happen.

I think that’s why the went with the sig pistol. So easy to convert to different sizes . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A friend of mine who retired from the Army’s artillery weapons development programs, says the small arms program is a mess, littered with waste, vague and often contradictory development requirements. The Army can’t articulate what it wants because it doesn’t really know, but goes ahead anyway. I doubt this is unique among the services. 
 

I’m betting there will soon be a new program begun to replace the Sig.  All it needs is a General with some cash to burn and a congressman who wants it for his district.  
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I marched with an M14 in high school Army Jr. ROTC. Never fired one until I was in the Navy. I was walking through the hanger bay one day when I could hear small arms fire. I went towards the aft end of the ship where there was a jet test platform. I went to go outside and there was a young Marine at the door. I asked what was going on. He said they were using up some out of date ammo. I asked him if they needed help. He looked at me funny then went and asked an officer that was there. The officer motioned me over and they let me fire a magazine full from an M14. Not in full auto. Only problem was they had me shoot prone from between the deck coaming and the bottom rail. I was limited in my elevation range. They were throwing coke cans off the fantail for targets. I would have rather done it standing at the rail, but their guns their rules. Many years later I bought an M1A from a friend and when I took it to the range I shot it standing at a 10-inch steel plate at 200 yards and surprised myself with more hits than I thought I would get.

 

From my ROTC days we were told that the platoon leader had the key to make them full auto and in real life there was one soldier in each squad that had the switch on their rifles. I only went 2 years to that school and the first year we had M1s then the second year we had the M14s. For marching I preferred the M1s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.