While the US never adopted a significant variation of the M1 Garand (excluding sniper models), testing continued on new iterations and features throughout the war. By the time the war ended, the US military had some specific ideas about what it wanted in a new service rifle. That being, something lighter, capable of automatic fire, and to have one single platform replace the M1 Carbine, M3A1 Grease Gun, M1 Garand, and M1918A2 BAR. New rifles to meet these requirements were developed by Springfield, Remington, and Winchester, ultimately competing against the FN FAL for US service use. The Springfield T44E4 won out (barely) and was adopted on May 1, 1957 at the M14 rifle.
Production of the M14 was plagued by problems, largely due to quality control lapses. Early in production there were heat treatment problems that led to sheared looking lugs and broken receivers. Once those were addressed, the main problem because one of accuracy, with a shocking number of M14s failing to meet the 5.6 MOA minimum accuracy standard. Ultimately production ended in 1963 with 1.38 million M14s produced, and the M16 took over as the new American service rifle.
"By the time the war ended, the US military had some specific ideas about what it wanted in a new service rifle. That being, something lighter, capable of automatic fire, and to have one single platform replace the M1 Carbine, M3A1 Grease Gun, M1 Garand, and M1918A2 BAR."
ReplyDeleteI trained on the M14 in Basic and the M16 in AIT. I qualified expert on both and liked them both. I still prefer the .308 Winchester cartridge for target use.
ReplyDeleteYeah, they wanted a Swiss army knife of infantry weapons.
ReplyDeleteI had the pleasure of firing a full auto M14. Even with short bursts and disconnecting the butt end of the sling and STANDING on it to control the muzzle it was inaccurate.
Semi-auto a fine weapon if built to specs. I've also fired an FN in 7.62 NATO also a fine weapon.
Are you a height challenged person?
DeleteNo Ano mouse, 5 foot 8 inches. But using the sling from the front loop and removing the sling from the butt loop allowed you to use it as a restraint against the massive upward climb of a full auto 7.62 NATO M14. Still wildly inaccurate even with short bursts.
DeleteI've enjoyed shooting many allied military weapons in my military career. From the PPK, the Sterling SMG (a lot of fun) and up to a 120 mm chieftain main battle tank gun.
We had them in the Navy well into the 1980's. Spent a week on the range at Camp Elliott qualifying before deployment in '82.
ReplyDeleteTrained on one in basic. Spent range week in hospital,sighted in on friday, qualified expert on saturday. Carried one in nam and it never failed me. Fired full auto a couple of times but remember full auto is a area suppression response. Also had a grease gun for house to house villages.
ReplyDeleteThe M14 is a long way from being the worst service rifle. It just wasn't a fit for the conditions in Vietnam. 700 yard accuracy isn't needed when combat happens at 70 yards or much less.
ReplyDeleteIt also was a fools errand to expect it to replace the diverse collection of arms fielded in WW2 and Korea.
I trained on the M-21 variant, loved and respected it, own an M1A as well as several other brass eating lead shitting monsters.
IMHO the worst rifle was the trap door Springfield. Our troops would have been better off with the Winchester 1873 Lever in 44-40 or 38-40 or even the original Henry in .44 especially the cavalry.
The US Army always seemed to have something against lever action rifles. Maybe they didn't think they were useful in the prone postion. I know some of the Confederates had the Henry because a buddy of mine recovered some of the brass at a battlefield site (which will go unnamed).
DeleteThe Trapdoor was a sufficiently good weapon, it was not a close in weapon though. It was used best at longer ranges that were outside outside the effective ranges of the weaker cartridges that the Indians used. When skirmish lines were set and used properly it was quite formidable.
DeleteBought my original Trapdoor rifle in 1973. Still have it and reload ammo for it.
DeleteThe Trapdoor was a product of its time. Post Civil War, there were vast stocks of muzzle loading rifles. The Army was keen on some way to use them and convert them to cartridge which they did, originally in 50-70. The Trapdoor was also plagued by the soft metallurgy of the cartridge cases. The ejector has tremendous leverage and would tear through the rim if the case was stuck in a heavily fouled chamber.
As to lever guns, also post Civil War, there was no budget. The Ordnance Board saw them as too expensive, and were also of the opinion that troops would waste ammo. Could be they had a point. Look at the 3-round burst mechanism on the M16A2.
I had the pleasure to compete in DCM sponsored service rifle competitions with an early Springfield Armory M-1A (semi auto M-14) that had been accursed for the 200, 300, and 600 yard ranges we shot at. I was never as good as the rifle, which tested 20 rounds in 9" at 600 yards, shot slow fire at our range by the gunsmith, using NM iron sights and LC match ammo. I miss that rifle, but I sold it to another competitor when I ran out of time to shoot every weekend.
ReplyDeleteJohn in Indy
“Accursed”. Haha, thanks spellcheck. I’ve sure owned some accursed rifles in the past.
DeleteThe m16a1 I went through boot camp with was pretty crappy.
ReplyDeleteThe M14 was a product improved M1 - which was a late 1920s design. In fact, the product improvements were mostly putting the things John Garand had originally intended - like a detachable box magazine. But, the Army insisted on retaining the .30-06, which was a bit spicy.
ReplyDeleteAnd I have two: One an LRB, the other a Fulton. I had an SA, finally sold it after I got tired of sending it back to springfield to make it work.
And the Italians(Beretta) took the Garand and turned into the BM-59/62 series in a little over 4 years after WWII. I have one (and an M1A and a FALs) and the Beretta is so far superior to both from the magazine to the muzzle brake/flash suppressor. But the usual military NIH syndrome ruled here so the US ended up with the M-14. Must be some reason that 90 odd other nations went with the FAL. . .
ReplyDeleteDuring my time in the USMC (1972 through 1976), I found that the M-14 was very consistent in its accuracy. I qualified expert 222 points out of possible 250. Same exact score with 3 different rifles, 3 different lots of ammo at 3 different ranges, 3 years apart(1972, 1973 and 1974).
ReplyDeleteI would choose this weapon (or a M1-A) as the go to battle rifle. Agreed that in a place with dense foliage (like Viet Nam) not the best choice. 30 caliber bullets have sufficient knock down power at a greater range than 5.56.
M1, and the M14 have a short stock because they are designed to be fired wearing a flack jacket.
ReplyDeleteWhat body armor was being issued when the M1 entered service back in the 1930’s?
DeleteSpeaking of uncontrollable on full auto, https://youtu.be/kor_e1S41A4?t=800
ReplyDeleteHaving trained with the M-1, the M-14 and the (POS) M-16, I can attest that the M-14 was the best of the three.
ReplyDelete