M-14--Full Auto--50 rd mag !!

[getitdone1]

One of the best gun videos I've ever seen.

I had no idea they made 50 rd magazines for the M-14--M1A.

It's said our military decided the cartridge was too powerful and gun uncontrollable when used full-auto.

The guy in this video seems to control it pretty good. I expect he's a lot more capable than the typical guy in the military and can see where saving rounds by using only semi-auto could be very important.

I think there may always be a place for the M-14 in our armed forces. (Well, until firearms become very different from what they are at this time.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSceYZsGbkU

Setting this video on 1080p and full screen helps--always.

Don

[MrMurphy]

You notice he's not trying to actually aim, just hose from the waist. Anyone can do that. Trying to hit on full auto from the shoulder is a bit different.


The M14 has been obsolete for years, and kept around because it's there and it's free. It does work, but currently, the M110 (KAC SR-25) has replaced it in any role it would normally have been used in previously in most units, for designated marksman, sniping, etc. Some are still around because they made a lot of M14s, but the number will keep dwindling.

[K1500]

Cool video, but it doesn't look like he is controlling it well enough for it to be truly useful.

[jeepnik]

Yep a couple of those in a row and it's time for a new barrel, cuz that ones gonna be toast.

[Ray Newman]

Was this guy shooting a target(s) or just shooting to punch holes in Al Gore's ozone? "Fire Control proof" is on the target, which was not shown. Sure seemed to be bouncing around a great deal to my point of view. And it does not take long to take out a barrel firing like that.

Stout battle rifle, but heavy and so is the ammunition, which limits how much a grunt can carry. I can remember radio watch in RVN and listening to ammunition re-supply requests and sometimes, the helicopters could not get out. When I was "in country" (7/'65-3/'67), a good USMC grunt could pack 200-250 rounds, plus his pack, 2 canteens, and lashed to the pack a claymore, or a 81 mm round, or 60mm rounds, or a LAW (Light Anti-tank Weapon), or carry a box of M60 ammunition, or a radio battery, or extra aid packet for the Corpsman, along with helmet and flak jacket. When I left in 3/'67, the grunts were just about completely armed with the M16 and the grunt-carried ammunition load was 2- 2.5 times that of the M14.

Some claim that to kill 'em, only one shot was need with the "14". Maybe, but the dead VC or NVA that I saw had more than one hole in them. Wasn't called double tap at the time, but "make sure he's down".

[AJMD429]

Even if there were no legal factors or cost factors affecting which 'version' one could own, and even if I had an unlimited 'ammo budget', I'd still not prefer the full-auto over the semi-auto, in a 308 Win/7.62 NATO firearm, unless it was a belt-fed one. The ONLY time I'd want to have full-auto in a non-belt-fed gun would be a truly 'panic' situation where I realize there is only a half-second to "play all my cards" and the situation is so dire that there is no point in having any ammunition left after that half-second. In a situation that desperate I'd honestly rather have a hand grenade.

OTOH, I see how a full-auto would be VERY useful in a military situation, but mostly if it were belt-fed, so you could actually use it as more than a glorified shotgun. The 223/5.56 would make more sense from a 'controllability' standpoint, and what would be REALLY cool (not necessarily 'militarily useful') would be a full-auto or select-fire in 22 LR, or 22 Hornet or 22 WMR, which would have negligible issues with recoil/'controllability', and would be reasonably inexpensive for a non-military application.

[horsesoldier03]

+1 on the comments that he will be needing a new barrel very soon if he intends to do that very often.
When I returned from Desert Storm and went to my first qualification range, I could not even qualify and would have diffuculty getting 18/40 rounds on target. I will state that I always qualified Expert with 38-40 rnds on target. To convience my armour that I needed a new barrel, I had to qualify expert with a borrowed weapon.

As far as control, it looked to me like he was locked in and unable to transition targets. It also looked to me like he was probably shooting dirt 50 yrds away.

Lots of ammo down range and the experiance provided very little (IF ANY) marksmanship training.

The best thing the army ever did was transition to the M16A2 with 3 rnd burst! (I will state I do like the .30 cal better, but transitioning to 3 rnd burst was a good move.)

[Ray Newman]

AJMD429: re "controllability" that is why the M-16 has the 3 round burst feature.

Mr. Murphy probably knows more, but I think this came about in the early 1980'?? And I have heard that some of the later rifles also had the safe, semi, full automatic, and 3 round burst selector switch.

[OldWin]

The M-14 is more effective as a semi auto. You only need to hit something once with 7.62x51. A full auto 7.62 is the job of a GPMG. It can be controlled in this platform and better utilized for fire suppression/superiority.

Disclaimer:
This is the opinion of someone who knows nothing and has no experience shooting at people.

Oh!.......and an unabashed lover and cool aid drinker of the good ol' M-14.

[MrMurphy]

Some people just don't want to die.

Depending on the ammo loaded, quite a few people have needed repeated hits from .308. .30-06, 8mm, and everything else. Read MOH awards sometime.

The 3 rd burst option on the M16A2 was a mechanical 'fix' to a training issue, and an unpopular one since it made the semiauto trigger on the M16 worse, and the 3 round burst can't reliably be counted on to deliver 3 rounds (3, 2, 1, 2, 1, 3, etc). While I can't think of more than once or twice where full auto in a rifle would have been handy, when you need full auto, you need FULL AUTO right now..... They were trying to keep conscripts from burning up 20-30 rounds without hitting a thing.


These days, pretty much every guy I know with combat time on the M16/M4 can't remember a time themselves when burst was used intentionally except on orders from higher for suppressive fire. The battle in Afghanistan where a COP almost got overrun a couple years ago with the 173rd Abn and some guys had reliability issues with their rifles.....that was a case. Guys went rock and roll on burst, overheated their rifles and burned up half their ammo supply in a few minutes. Loss of discipline, panic, etc. They weren't hitting anything.

Current M4A1 carbines have reverted to having full auto on tap. When you need it, you need it. 99% of the time it won't be used.


Pretty much all of the 7.62 battle rifles commonly used either lacked the auto option or the troops never used it, because even with a straight-line stock design, you can't control it well enough to actually hit anything. Maybe on auto at very close range (trench clearing, etc) but at that point, semiauto is going to be just as effective.

The AK kept the option, because you 'can' control an AK on auto fairly well with practice, but it was still intended to be shot on semi.

[jeepnik]

Was this guy shooting a target(s) or just shooting to punch holes in Al Gore's ozone? "Fire Control proof" is on the target, which was not shown. Sure seemed to be bouncing around a great deal to my point of view. And it does not take long to take out a barrel firing like that.

Stout battle rifle, but heavy and so is the ammunition, which limits how much a grunt can carry. I can remember radio watch in RVN and listening to ammunition re-supply requests and sometimes, the helicopters could not get out. When I was "in country" (7/'65-3/'67), a good USMC grunt could pack 200-250 rounds, plus his pack, 2 canteens, and lashed to the pack a claymore, or a 81 mm round, or 60mm rounds, or a LAW (Light Anti-tank Weapon), or carry a box of M60 ammunition, or a radio battery, or extra aid packet for the Corpsman, along with helmet and flak jacket. When I left in 3/'67, the grunts were just about completely armed with the M16 and the grunt-carried ammunition load was 2- 2.5 times that of the M14.

Some claim that to kill 'em, only one shot was need with the "14". Maybe, but the dead VC or NVA that I saw had more than one hole in them. Wasn't called double tap at the time, but "make sure he's down".

I remember one old NCO that had a saying. "If the enemy is down and not moving, shoot him again. If he's down and still moving shoot him twice. In the head if possible." Seems in a little place called Korea he'd seen "dead" men shoot some of his friends.

My eldest ran into issues in Afghanistan with targets being beyond the useful range of the 5.56. He was a fire team leader at the time. At one point he "found" an M-14. True he didn't have the ammo carrying capacity, or the "firepower". But, he was able to employ it at a greater effective range. One thing to know is that he had been to the sniper school (quite a few Marines attend the school but aren't assigned as a sniper).

But, I think that even without this training he'd have done pretty well, as he was always a pretty good shot. I do have to admit that after that training he amazed me a couple of times. Makes one feel pretty good knowing there are young men out there with those skills.

[Mike Hunter]

A 50 round mag for an M14 is pretty much a solution in search of a problem.

Back when we had the M16/M16A1s we were taught to fire 3-5 round busts using the full auto mode.

Doctrinally, full auto is used only for a few cases: Break contact with the enemy; provide covering fire and Final Protective Fire (FPF): basically providing an impenetrable wall of lead when a unit is threatened with being overrun. In an FPF situation the barrels of all operational weapons should be glowing red.

Yes the M14 is dated, just like a hammer is dated, but some designs just inherently work. The 308/7.62 ctg was designed to provide 30-06 performance in a smaller/lighter package, something it does quite well. The M14 was designed to be a main battle rifle, as well as replacement for the fully automatic Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) as a Squad Automatic Rifle.

The AR15/M16 was initially designed for the USAF to replace the anemic 30 carbine, something it does quite well.

Generally when you are in a situation where lead is being exchanged, you want to be able to engage the enemy at greater distances than he is able to engage you. Unfortunately the little 5.56 is severely lacking in that department. The 7.62 has the same energy at 1000 meters that the 5.56 has at 500.

Mike

[MrMurphy]

Actually, the M16 was designed at the request of CONARC (the Army.....) after seeing the AR10 in action and wanting a small-caliber 'carry more ammo' solution.

There was a specific Army test and study involved, I don't remember it offhand now, and Stoner made the rifle work.

The Air Force, in the person of General LeMay, did need rifles to replace M1 carbines in Vietnam, and after shooting one, he ordered a bunch. The Air Force had absolutely nothing to do with the design or the caliber, they just jumped the gun on acquisition.

Every major army in the world figured out by around 1940 that most engagements happen under 300m, and that the current calibers were too big, hard recoiling and overpowered. The 1,000m sniping matches between armies envisioned around 1900 didn't come to be in most places (Afghanistan being an exception), thus the development of the intermediate cartridges.

The 5.56mm is (when used with the right ammo and barrel twist configuration) highly lethal out to 300m and fairly lethal out to 500+. It's not a 7.62, but most people don't need a 7.62. Marines with 4X ACOGs and M16s have been racking up casualties at 300-400m regularly in Afghanistan in the more wide open areas without much trouble, and Army troops using ACOGs have had the same effect. There is definitely a place for 7.62, but not for every single grunt.

[Ray Newman]

Mr. Murphy: you mentioned the Stoner rifle. About when did that rifle come into evaluation/filed testing?

For some reason I seem to recall that when I was in Boot Camp at Parris Island (6/64 - 9/64), there was one platoon testing them. I recall seeing an unusual looking rifle and the Drill Instructors talking about it.

Any insight as to why it was not adopted?

[MrMurphy]

Well Eugene Stoner developed the AR10, then the AR15, and he also invented the AR18 (for countries who didn't have the tooling, etc to make the M16) and he created the Stoner 63 "system" where you could add/swap parts and depending what you used, have a belt fed MG, mag fed light MG, rifle, carbine, etc.


I know the USMC had a large number produced for testing as a possible M16 replacement, and they had several units equipped with them in Vietnam for testing, like 1 platoon would have Stoners, another would have M16s, etc. I've seen the pics. They apparently liked it, but since the 63 was sort of a continual work in progress, I think the real deal killer was just that it tried to do too many things from one gun. A simplified rifle/SAW version might have gotten adopted. Those that used it in combat (primarily SEALs and Special Forces) appeared to love it. Robinson Arms tried to bring it back as the semiauto M96, but Robinson themselves had issues (apart from the gun).


This would have been in the mid 60s, going by the rifle number, probably 1963-65ish. I wasn't even a thought then, so no personal experience there.

Edit: according to Wikipedia, around 1967.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoner_63

[Mike Hunter]

Well, let’s see the USAF adopted he AR15/M16 in 1962, the US Army not until 1965/66.

You are absolutely correct CONARC did do a study on small .22 cal projectiles, but you forgot to mention CONARC’s requirements: equal to or better than the .30 carbine. Not the 7.62 NATO.

You also forgot to mention that after testing, CONARC found the 5.56 inadequate, and recommended a minimum caliber of at least 6 mm.

Yes Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines have been doing some very effective shooting, but I attribute this to their ability to get things done with whatever they have on hand vs. the capability of the tools they are given.

Keep in mind, in most states the .223 round is not legal for deer, and reserved primarily for varmints. Yet somehow the little .223 is deemed adequate for stopping a 200lb man who is shooting back… must be the magical AR platform.

[Ysabel Kid]

Looks like fun - as long as someone else is buying the ammunition!

[getitdone1]

Someone mentioned the 6mm. I like that idea and yet it too will suffer from accuracy a lot faster than a 30 cal.

But I still like the 6mm or .257 idea.

When I think about the Germans being armed with 98 bolt-action Mausers while we had the M1 I considered us having the advantage. Most of the time I'm now not so sure. If the bolt-actions--IF--had a really good trigger pull and a 3x or 1-4 scope and the troops trained to really be good with it--most of the time--I just might prefer the bolt-action. Now if they can get the trigger pull on a semi-auto comparable to a good bolt gun then I'd definitely prefer the semi-auto. Can a semi-auto have a really good trigger pull? We all know how important that is when shooting at paper targets.

Actually, as I think about this, I can see a great disadvantage to the bolt gun when large numbers of the enemy are approaching fast and not too far away. I can also see troops being careless with their accuracy with a 20 rd magazine to fall back on. Not so with the bolt gun.

Mainly thinking out-loud here. Always welcome the opposite view point.

By the way, I seen a really neat 8mm Mauser at the Bauer gun auction recently. A carbine. If they hadn't been so slow auctioning the guns I might have stayed around and bid on it. A few rust spots (none on barrel or action) but otherwise in really good shape. It just "oozed" with quality/dependability.

May start getting into old Military guns.

Don

[jeepnik]

I won't argue who was first with the M-16. I do know that the USAF had the last M-16's (no suffixes). These were just ones that were never upgraded or sold off or scrapped. I used the original M-16. It was a dog! I managed to find an M-14, and the USAF didn't even have M-14's (GI's are notorious for "finding" stuff they want). I certainly didn't need more range. But, I also didn't have to hump one over hills or thru rice paddies. I just wanted something that went bang, reliably, when the trigger was pulled.

The kid may well have decided to "find" an M-14 after hearing dad tell about it. Regardless, he felt he needed the additional range/energy down range. And, being the fire team leader, he figured it gave his team a bit more versatility when it came to engaging the enemy, something he did way more times than I even thought of, much less did.

I'm sure as heck never going to second guess anyone's actions taken when it's their butt on the line. So, whether he really needed what the M-14 provided or not doesn't matter. He came home, relatively, unscarred. That's all I care about.

Interesting thought just popped up. I wonder if the 5.7 Johnson was thought up so that the M-1 carbine could continue to serve the USAF but with a better cartridge. Don't know much about the cartridge, does anyone else?

[MrMurphy]

The 6mm keeps popping up as a 'good idea' throughout history, and it keeps getting pounded.

The various 6mm bolt guns (ours, Japan, Sweden, etc) did so-so depending on who used it and what they thought of it.

Britain wanted the .280 British EM-2 bullpup, later on a 4.5mm and I think a 6mm, at various times both the US and other countries have considered a 6mm ideal (the M249 SAW and others were proposed to be chambered in them) and the current 6.5 Grendel and 6.8mm SPC have attempted to better the 5.56, though neither has particularly taken off, both appear to work well.



While the USAF did technically have M16s first, the Army had various SF types running around in Vietnam testing the early AR-15s along with Vietnamese troops before anyone I believe. Part of what sold it to LeMay was the extremely positive reports they were sending back from what I remember.

Either way, it's ancient history now. The 5.56 isn't perfect, but it's killed a whole lot of people worldwide, and even convinced the Russians to go over to 5.45mm (and the Chinese, to the 5.8mm trying to improve on both the 5.56 and 5.45) for large capacity, low recoil lethal hits. The Russians have been using the 5.45 for 30 years now and they pretty much love it. Except for certain situations where breaching heavy cover is necessary, their Spetznaz still keeps some original 7.62 AKs around for that.

[Mike Hunter]

Yup, the brits adopted the 7.62 when the US switched to 7.62 as part of the NATO treaty. They again switched to the 5.56 in the 80s, again because of the NATO requirement, and they did so under protest.

If you recall, after the US defeated Japan (WWII) the Japanese were prohibited from having a standing military. So yes they use standard US ammunition, which makes it a moot point.

Early reports from SF, keep in mind that early Special Forces (less than 600) role in Vietnam was a training/military advisor capacity, not a direct combat role. Rifles were expected to be carried much, and fired little.

Russians adopted the 5.45 mm, but their focus is different, their focus was on defeating body armor, which the 5.54 steel core round does quite well (better than the US M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round). I suspect the Russians realized (correctly) 30 years ago that body armor was going to play a significant role in future conflicts. The Chinese 5.8 mm round is also a steel core round, and penetrates body armor better than the newly developed 5.56 steel core round.

Do you get the feeling that I dislike the 5.56 as a military round? Its possible I have my reasons...

[MrMurphy]

Part of our problem with M855 is developing an armor piercing round for 20" barrels, then shooting a lot of non-armored bad guys with 14.5" barrels where it doesn't perform as intended.

The newer Mk262 and SOST (M318?) rounds do considerably better on single-round center mass hits, nearly on par with the old M80 ball.