Talk:M14 rifle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Jamming

"Early M16s had a horrible tendany to jam and malfunction during combat"

That was only because the military originally bought cheap and extremely sticky 5.56 ammunition. Should we leave that up?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.107.33.26 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 16 December 2005.

That is not entirely true, the early M16A1 that the army purchased to the quantity of 85000 did not possess a forward assist. Without the forward assist the gun will not reliably seat the cartridge properly. Furthermore the gas recovery tube was not isolated from the barrel which caused overwhelming problems with fouling. The fouling problem is still persistent to this day. Furthermore the amunition was not sticky, rather it was made with an inferior powder which created too much gunk.--Gaiusjuliuscesar 07:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Not true. All XM16E1 and M16A1 had forward assists. US Army purchased no quantity of M16 or pre-M16 rifles (601/602). It is not based on fact that a rifle without the forward assist will not reliably seat the cartridge in the breach. Euguene Stoner in fact said he felt it was an unnecessary feature that added unnecessary complexity to the system. People have even gone so far as to say the notched carrier allows it to catch my gunk and therefore function reliably. Regardless, it is true that the USAF had far less reliability issues than the Army because of differences in training, ammunition, and circumstance, even with rifles without the forward assist. The gas tube has always been isolated from the barrel in the M16 pattern. I would challange you to find an exploded diagram that shows otherwise. The original patent documentation even show this. Fouling is rarely cited as a serious issue to weapon reliability currently. Magazine functioning, lubricant issues, and enviornmental sensitivity are far more cited in the two most recent published Lessons Learned reports (from the Army and USMC). -- Thatguy96 03:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
and if im pretty i saw this on modern marvels on the M16, it didnt have a chrome lined barrel which the army learned from the pacific that greatly increases reliability.and for the powder, many of the army higher ups wouldnt let go of the idea of a long range single marksman so they used that powder becuase it gave the round a little extra range. (ForeverDEAD 19:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC))
The powder that was selected in peferance to that suggested by the Armalite team and subsequent manufacturer engineers was done so because it was the same powder used in existing cartridges currently being produced and was a cost-saving measure. -- Thatguy96

[edit] M25 and DMR

It would seem from the text that whoever wrote it implies that the M25 and the USMC DMR are the same rifle. I didn't think this was the case. I had thought the M25 was a sort of product improved M21, and the new DMR is almost completely different. Am I reading this wrong, is this true, what's the deal? --Thatguy96 15:59, 31 January 2006

[edit] Chinese Copy?

Should there be a mention of the semi-automatic M-14/s produced by China?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.178.133.197 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 21 May 2006.

There is mention of the Norinco M14S, just not explained. --Thatguy96 22:36, 20 May 2006

[edit] Popular culture

I have moved the list of references to films/tv/video games to a new pages and replaced the section with a link to it. This is to keep it the article clean and uniform with other similar articles and List of firearms in video games pages. (see Heckler & Koch MP5 / Heckler & Koch MP5 in popular culture or MAC-10 / MAC-10 in popular culture) for similar ...in popular culture pages) and also to help with inclusion into the List of firearms in films Deon Steyn 07:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. Maybe an introductory sentence for the section would help. —MJCdetroit 16:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Still in active service

I added an image to back up D.E. Watters' last edit on 3 August. It shows that the M14 is still very much in active service in the U.S. armed forces.--WHATaintNOcountryIeverHEARDofDOtheySPEAKenglishINwhat 19:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Used in Estonia?

Just curious. To my knowledge, the Estonian military is using the Galil and the Ak 4 with plans to replace the Galil with Ak 4 in full. What units in Estonia are known to use M14? Ohpuu 17:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Estonia received 40,500 M14 rifles from the US for free in 1998. I don't know the units involved, but in a photo I've seen, the rifles have been modified for sniper use. D.E. Watters 21:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. The M14 truly remains on the equipment list of the Estonian military. The voluntary Defence League uses M14 rifles in marksmanship contests at least (hence the sniper modifications). Current active use seems limited to marksmanship training. (The bulk of the M14 rifles are apparently stored.) Weapons used in training regulars are Galil and Ak 4. Ohpuu 08:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I wish that I could get just one for free. —MJCdetroit 21:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Does anyone know the difference between the Mk.14 mod 0 and M14 SOPMOD?

[edit] T44?

Why does the term T44 keep being used, their is no explanation.

The term T44 does not continue to be used after the following line: "This led to the T44's adoption by the U.S. military as the M14 in 1957." I would say that pretty much explains the term T44. T designations were used in the US Army for experimental prototypes prior to the introduction of the XM designator. -- Thatguy96 15:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Weight data from ???

It looks to me after looking around at a half dozen different web sites that the correct weight of the M14 is about 13.5 lbs. Even a fully tricked out custom build cut down to an 18" barrel weights 9.5 lbs. Given that the number that is on this site is the one Google close to fixate on I think this number needs to be very well scrutinized. http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2005/03/enhanced-battle-rifle.html 67.187.244.72 08:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the FM I just located and linked, a loaded M14 with cleaning kit weighs 11.25 lbs. A loaded magazine weighs 1.5 pounds. So... a military M14 minus accesories (except cleaning kit) and empty should be about 9.75 pounds. Not sure about sling weight etc.... Deathbunny 08:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Odd, the 1959 version (also just linked) cites a loaded M14 with cleaning kit and selector as 11.34 pounds, cleaning equipment as .63 pounds, and a loaded magazine as 1.50 pounds. 11.34 - 1.50 - .63 = 9.21. Wonder what the selector weighs and whether the cleaning kit gained or lost weight. Deathbunny 09:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Here is the email I got about the weight of the full auto kit,edited for content-"I doubt very seriously if the weight of the full auto kit is adding to the discussion over weight.

All M14s were issued with the capacity to fire full auto selectively. The weight of the full auto kit with selector switch is 2.2 ounces according to my postal scale.

Given the difficulty of full auto fire, the selector switch was replaced (for almost all rifles) with a connector arm lock, which locked the gun into semi-auto fire only. The weight of the full auto pieces with the connector arm lock (no selector switch & spring) is 2.2 ounces. However, another difference that could account for a couple of ounces is the stock weight (walnut vs birch vs synthetic). Another difference that could account for a pound or so is the inclusion of a bipod (1.75 lbs) and/or scope mount & scope. Then again, there is the cleaning kit -- 4 metal rods, a metal cleaning tip, M10 handle, cloth case, oiler & grease pot. Without weighing, I would estimate this adds nearly another pound.

Are your readers confused over the empty vs loaded weight? According to Joe Poyer's book The M-14 Type Rifle:

The weight of the basic rifle with equipment and empty magazine is 9.1 lbs (approx.)

The weight of the basic rifle with equipment, ready to fire , fully load magazine is 11.0 lbs.

Of course the different variations of the rifle (E2, etc) will be different from the basic rifle."

Hope this helps.

Claude Sales Manager Armscorp USA / RA Parts

I hope this helps,Claude really went out of his way to answer me in 1 daySafn1949 03:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed Incorrect Caption

The first image in the article (right below the "History" section) had a caption of, "An Army sniper in Fallujah, Iraq, using a commercial Springfield Armory Inc. M21 with a Leupold LR/T 10 x 40 mm M3."

I changed this to, "An Army sniper in Fallujah, Iraq, using a modified M14 with a Leupold LR/T 10 x 40 mm M3."

The rifle is not a commercial Springfield Armory, Inc. M21 -- it is a modified M14. None of the Springfield Armory rifles have a selector lug and you can clearly see a selector shaft lock installed on the rifle (the circular protrusion on the receiver above and slightly behind his finger nail). This lock prevents the rifle from being switched to automatic, limiting it to only firing as a semi-automatic. 71.252.223.220 22:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

I know the M-14 has experienced a bit of a renaissance during the operations in Iraq but I think 3 pictures overkill. Does anyone have a good picture from early days of Vietnam when it was in use there or in use with Allies? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.196.104.34 (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] edited range...

i changed the effective range from 400m to : 500m , 800m+ (with optic).

feel free to debate the effective range of M14s here. 400m is a little more believable i guess for a standard military issue M14 with no optic. Thecoldness 11:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently unaccurized M14s are not substantially more accurate than a good AK or SKS. Most M14s used by the military nowadays are heavily accurized, so this should probably be mentioned in the article. I recall seeing the effective range listed at 460m somewhere. Kensai Max 02:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry mate , thats untrue. your standard unaccurized M14 is alot more accurate then let's say a russian AKM or SKS. for alot of reasons , apart from design , far far far better sights , better balance , and a better cartridge. i'd go into detail but this isn't exactly the place for it IMO. Thecoldness 11:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

References (if available) would clear up the debate. —MJCdetroit 13:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Untrue? That sounds like the kind of stuff you'd pick up reading some paramilitary internet forum. Some people take it as an insult to their masculinity and patriotism to suggest that comblock guns may actually be better than ours for whatever reason. GI issue M14s were terrible weapons, ergo why we ditched them so quickly. Kensai Max 01:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


According to the Wiki article, they list the effective range as 460 meters or 500 yards. According to the U.S. Army's Historic Small Arms Weapon Systems website, "The M14 had an effective range of 500 yards (460m)." [1] -Signaleer 07:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Early government-issue M14s suffered from quality control issues to the point that many were very inaccurate. I've heard that one specimen shot eight MOA when clamped into a benchrest. Competently produced, unaccurized M14s are still not going to shoot much better than a competently produced AK or SKS (about two versus the commonly cited AK three - how much of this has to do with good Western ammo versus iffy Comblock ammo?) in a much heavier and more unwieldy package. It's not that hard to shoot with flat sights - I do it all the time and don't feel much of a difference in accuracy between shooting with flats and apertures.

Ideally we would have a source for the accuracy of military small arms where weapons would be fired with a range of ammo in a scientific manner so that accuracy could be determined by something more precise than gun-forum jawjacking and rumor mongering. If someone has such a source, please contribute! Kensai Max 05:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


As a reminder, this is not a weapons forum--this discussion is meant to reflect upon the article and not about personal bias views towards the subject matter--the M14 rifle. If you have any credible sources then list it, personal experiences and hear-say do not count. -Signaleer 06:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Performance ?

Anybody have any reliable data on performance (as in MOA expectations) ? Also, although Springfield Armory civilian version is mentioned elsewhere, should Springfield be mentioned under the "Commercial" topic? After all, they are the major supplier to the civilian market... Engr105th 02:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current main picture

Since its been recently identified as a M1A shouldn't we actually have an actual M14 just for continuity sakes?(ForeverDEAD 23:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Rifle type

I changed the rifle type to battle rifle as Service rifle can apply to any rifle that was used or is used by a certain country

[edit] Dummy rifle

In the Philippines, M14 dummy rifles are used by college ROTC and high school CAT (Citizen Army Training) cadets. CAT is a Philippine program which corresponds to the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps in the US or the Combined Cadet Force in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.159.125 (talk) 10:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Usage by Japan? Never heard of it.

I've never heard of Japan using the M14. From 1950~present (ceremonial purposes) they used the M1 Garand. From 1950~1978 they used the M1 Carbine. From 1950~1976, the M1903A4. From 1950~1972, the Type 99 rifle. From 1964~present, the Type 64 rifle. And from 1989~present, the Type 89 rifle. (68.18.209.220 (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Automatic Rifle?

You sure about that?13Tawaazun14 (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

  • What do you suggest? It is a rifle with full auto fire. Editors have changed the Infobox type to battle rifle, service rifle, and assault rifle recently. Seems to be no argument with automatic rifle. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I suppose either Battle Rifle or Automatic Rifle would work. Service Rifle applies to any rifle that is or was in service, so that's a no go, and it is certainly not an Assault rifle. I don't know who would change it to that. But yeah I can see either of those two working.(13Tawaazun14 not signed in)71.179.227.101 (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)