Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 57

Thread: M14 back in action in Afghanistan!

  1. #1
    Sponsor ADfields's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Missing Palmer AK in Phonix AZ.
    Posts
    6,416

    Thumbs up M14 back in action in Afghanistan!

    Iím starting to see as many of our boys in Afghanistan packing the ole M14s as I see with M16s. I am wondering why this is. The M14 is a great gun and I see why they would want the 7.62X51 range and power, but why the M14 over the AR based M110? I am old school so I would take the M14 over most anything, but itís unlike the military to go back like this. Anyone have the scoop on this story?
    Andy
    On the web= C-lazy-F.co
    Email= Andy@C-lazy-F.co
    Call/Text 602-315-2406
    Phoenix Arizona

  2. #2

    Default

    If someone is sticking his noodle out of a cave 700 yards away, and firing at you. You will want a .300 or .338 Ultra Magnum, with High power optics to make him say, "OUCH". The .308 is a gooooder 600/800 yard firearm than the AR-15, less wind drift if nothing else.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska, United States
    Posts
    302

    Default

    It's because the M14s are available. The newer AR platform like the one from knights armament are not as available.

  4. #4
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default

    The M-14 will work in sand. Heck they are going back to the 1911 so why not the M-14.

  5. #5
    Moderator kingfisherktn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Ketchikan, AK
    Posts
    4,076

    Default

    In '69 I trained with both the M14 & M16. The 16 was a pleasure to carry, but the 14 really did reach out there. And that's one of my main reasons my main deer shooter is a .308.

  6. #6
    New member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    6

    Default

    The army recently signed a contract with knights armament for the m110 SASS which is the the m14s replacement. So my guess is that they are slowly exchanging weapons out as they come available.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    119

    Default

    cost. the m110 costs much more that the m14 or its variants.

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    Spec ops guys love the m14 for a reason. they have range and are a dependable rifle. They have been using them there since the start. The M4 is a joke for open country warfare. The M16 is just not the rifle for long range work. To light of a bullet at 62grns. The good old M14 would put them down with one shot. The Rangers in Somolia reported poor results with the M16 having to make multiple hits to take down a skinny with the new 62grn ammo. Some like Shugart and Gordon (CMH was awarded to them) loved the M14. Others that carried the M14 did not need multiple hits to anchor a bad guy.

  9. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    East Tennessee
    Posts
    78

    Default

    I have no answers, just personal preferences. I own 1911s and M14s, and have no desire to own a Beretta M9 or an M16. They just seem like inferior weapons to me.

  10. #10
    Member walk-in's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    North Pole
    Posts
    771

    Default

    My personal opinion is that the M16 and all of its variants are ill-suited to the type of terrain and fighting being done in Afghanistan (or that we did in Somalia). Something bigger, harder hitting, and with more range is a better option. The M16 may be a fine weapon for jungle-type fighting, but in more open terrain, I'll take an M14 any day.
    As for sidearms, I think NATO standardization was a poor reason for adopting what is clearly an inferior weapon to the 1911 and 45 ACP. As a Blackhawk crew chief, my personal weapon was an M9 (usually supplemented by an M60D, which I dismounted and carried a few times). Many of the flight crews also (against regulation) carried their own sidearms in their flight vests or somewhere else discreet. The 1911 was by far the weapon of choice in those cases. The Baretta is fun to shoot, but if I'm in a situation where I have to use my sidearm, I want one that is a proven stopper. The 1911 was developed as a result of the army's experiences in the Philippine insurrection, when previous sidearms were found to be completely inadequate as close-quarters stoppers. It filled that role quite well, I think, and we never should have replaced it.
    We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties.
    James Madison

  11. #11
    Sponsor ADfields's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Missing Palmer AK in Phonix AZ.
    Posts
    6,416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by walk-in View Post
    My personal opinion is that the M16 and all of its variants are ill-suited to the type of terrain and fighting being done in Afghanistan (or that we did in Somalia). Something bigger, harder hitting, and with more range is a better option. The M16 may be a fine weapon for jungle-type fighting, but in more open terrain, I'll take an M14 any day.
    As for sidearms, I think NATO standardization was a poor reason for adopting what is clearly an inferior weapon to the 1911 and 45 ACP. As a Blackhawk crew chief, my personal weapon was an M9 (usually supplemented by an M60D, which I dismounted and carried a few times). Many of the flight crews also (against regulation) carried their own sidearms in their flight vests or somewhere else discreet. The 1911 was by far the weapon of choice in those cases. The Baretta is fun to shoot, but if I'm in a situation where I have to use my sidearm, I want one that is a proven stopper. The 1911 was developed as a result of the army's experiences in the Philippine insurrection, when previous sidearms were found to be completely inadequate as close-quarters stoppers. It filled that role quite well, I think, and we never should have replaced it.
    I completely agree that 7.62/308 is the way to go I just wondered why M14 and not one of the other 7.62s. As I stated I would take the M14 over anything I can think of as an all purpose battle rifle. 5.56 is fine on soft targets inside 150 yards or so, but so is 7.62 and it will reach out as well as shoot through windshields, walls, etc. So what if the ammo is twice as heave, you only need to use a third as much to do the same job so just learn to hump the extra couple pounds.

    As to the M9 I also agree, 9x19mm is a joke as a stopping round. The only side arm I would pick over a 1911 45acp in a 1911 type double stack in 10mm, just to have more rounds and plenty of power for anything in my hand. I’m happy they are getting to use what they need to do the job and come home safe.
    Andy
    On the web= C-lazy-F.co
    Email= Andy@C-lazy-F.co
    Call/Text 602-315-2406
    Phoenix Arizona

  12. #12
    Supporting Member Amigo Will's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wrangell
    Posts
    7,600

    Default

    figure they picked the M-14 because we already got a million of them sitting in a warehouse

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southwest Alaska
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    Not really, Komrad Klintoon chopped up the majority of them.

    The tight twist of the barrel in the latest gen M-16's required to stabilize the long AP bullets negates the original intent of the high-vel small projectile, it is too stable and drills a hole. The m14 projectile at 1-12 delivers a more severe punch. As has been previously posted. On the FALfiles, a fellow who was actually involved in the Somolian Blackhawk Down dust-up commented he nailed a guy three times and the fellow ran away. This and the results of the Afgans being some genuinley tough-as-nails guys is the reason we are going to the new ammo.
    Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence. Albert Einstein

    Better living through chemistry (I'm a chemist)

    You can piddle with the puppies, or run with the wolves...

  14. #14

    Default

    Not to mention the Somalies chew Khat all day and are pretty high by noon.....

    I saw a lot of M14's with the MEF bubbas when I was in Iraq, more the second tour. Most have been tricked out.

    The frogmen I taxied about kept a Seal on my boat with an M14 when the rest of the takedown team boarded vessels as a designated marksman.

    I noticed the Army squads on Fort Rich here in AK have a designated markman with a tricked out M14 when they hump to the ranges.

    A lot of M14's went to Guatemala/Honduras. I heard that the Army was also purchasing M1A's from SA, but I have never seen one.

  15. #15
    Sponsor ADfields's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Missing Palmer AK in Phonix AZ.
    Posts
    6,416

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nitroman View Post
    Not really, Komrad Klintoon chopped up the majority of them.

    The tight twist of the barrel in the latest gen M-16's required to stabilize the long AP bullets negates the original intent of the high-vel small projectile, it is too stable and drills a hole. The m14 projectile at 1-12 delivers a more severe punch. As has been previously posted. On the FALfiles, a fellow who was actually involved in the Somolian Blackhawk Down dust-up commented he nailed a guy three times and the fellow ran away. This and the results of the Afgans being some genuinley tough-as-nails guys is the reason we are going to the new ammo.
    Sounds about right and I am sure happy to here we are going to 7.62, don't know why we ever went to 5.56 in the first place. I'm fat and lazy but I would rather hump the extra weight of a round and wepon that won't deflect a mile off a little leafe. I want to be able to reach out and touch him hard before he gets any were near the range for his rusty AK. I want to be able to punch through cars, walls, or other cover, a 7.62X51 can and it can even disable a cars motor with a good hit. Itís just all around mo-better!

    I don't know how many M14 are left in inventory but I do remember Mister ~stogy games in the roundish office~ reduced the inventory with a chop saw and I was pithed off! Good thinking . . . rather than put millions of dollars of our money back in the treasury pay out money to hack up valuable goods . . . many thanks slick Willy!

    The FAL is one of the other 7.62s I was thinking of as an option when I first posted this. They are everywhere and well proven worldwide but too long and not as accurate as the M14 from what I hear though I have never shot one. What would be super cool is if they put the M14 back in new production. Some of the ones I have seen over there were modernized in synthetic stocks with rails and other goodies on them.

    Rodger the tough-as-nails Afghans! Anyone borne and raised in a dirt hovel where winters are snowy and summers like Death Valley, in a country ruled by war and kayos for the past 30+ years is hard to kill or they would have already been dead! Still as tough as they are to run off with a couple holes poked in them from our little under powered 5.56, they will likely die from loss of blood or an infection when they get back to their cave or little dirt hovel.

    The good thing is the same environment that makes the Afghan thugs tuff also leaves them ignorant of anything other than self preservation and not well adapted to teamwork. Teamwork, education, thinking on their feet are things our guys excel at so I have great faith things will work out over there if we could keep politics out of our guys way long enough. The human mind is without a doubt the ultimate weapon and in that way our boys are top notch as well as being very physically tough as individuals so I believe our armed forces are tougher-than-nails!
    Andy
    On the web= C-lazy-F.co
    Email= Andy@C-lazy-F.co
    Call/Text 602-315-2406
    Phoenix Arizona

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    119

    Default

    the 5.56 round is fully capable as a man stopper. the only limiting factors in its power is the bullets that NATO demands the military uses. if we said screw NATO and used proper bulltets that are really effective, you would hear much less of this BS about 5.56 being incapable.

    the m16 platform is probably the best bet out there for a battle rifle as of now. it has light recoil, it is light, and relatively easy to use. ammunition for it is light, the magazines hold more rounds than most standard 7.62x51 mags, and the weapon system is very reliable. like i said before, the limiting factor is the use of improper, NATO demanded, ammunition.

    the m14 is a grat battle rifle. nobody can argue its sheer knockdown power. it definately has its purposes. but it is not an end all, be all solution. there is a reason it saw very little time as a standard issue weapon for our military. as a designated marksman weapon, it cannot be beat, but if i were entering a house, it would be my last choice. follow up shots are definately harder to accomplish. also not as many shots in the mag vs. a m16.

    as far as the m9 or 9mm cartridge being ineffective compared to .45, this has been beat to death. 9mm with proper ammo, not NATO ball ammo, is more than capable of doing the job. but the .45 definately has an advantage as a man stopper, ball ammo or hollowpoints.

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,448

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nitroman View Post
    Not really, Komrad Klintoon chopped up the majority of them.

    The tight twist of the barrel in the latest gen M-16's required to stabilize the long AP bullets negates the original intent of the high-vel small projectile, it is too stable and drills a hole. The m14 projectile at 1-12 delivers a more severe punch. As has been previously posted. On the FALfiles, a fellow who was actually involved in the Somolian Blackhawk Down dust-up commented he nailed a guy three times and the fellow ran away. This and the results of the Afgans being some genuinley tough-as-nails guys is the reason we are going to the new ammo.
    Actually its not the increased spin rate that makes the ammo ineffective but rather the velocity reduction. the lighter faster 55grn ammo spins at more rpms due to the velocity. the reason the 55grn bullet does such a nasty job at close range was the velocity and the way the bullet came apart when it tumlbled inside flesh. the 62grn ammo is moving at 2900fps out of a 20" barrel compared to 3350fps wiht 55grn ammo. Now take the same 62grn ammo and put it in a short barreled M4 and it really sucks.

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    SW,Ak
    Posts
    182

    Default

    Pulled a bunch of them back from law agencies state side.
    Shame what clinton did to most of the stockpile.

    Baby sister would have loved to have had one in Afgan and Iraq.
    Most everybody in her unit wanted the 308 and 45.

  19. #19
    Member 2dawgs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    642

    Default

    Why do so many bash the NATO 5.56x45, yet in the same breath seem scared to death of the Russian 5.45x39? I have read (in many articles) that most engagements take place in less than 300 meters. Seems the 5.56 would be in its element at those ranges as an intermediate round, beyond that ??? Just wondering, I have never fired a round in anger at the enemy so I'm curious.
    I like the FAL (DSA verson), I like the versatility of the round (7.62x51), simplicity of design, parts availability, the fact it'll shoot MOM (minute of man), and its not picky with ammo.
    I did a heads up comparo the other day between my FAL (DSA carbine light weight against a DPMS LR-308 22" stainles heavy fluted barrel), both equiped with cheap 5x glass, and grip pod bi-pod. Lets just say IF, TSHTF I'll be carrying the FAL.

    This is getting lenthly, so I'll ask you guys that have been in a fight, does any one in Iraq or the gahn carry a Glock or XD (or any other striker fired hand gun) in .45 acp, if so how are they? I've got about 2000 rnds through an XD and it seems to be doing as good as it did when new (I finally cleaned it at around 1500 rnds).

  20. #20
    Member broncoformudv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    4,670

    Default

    The Army issued what appear to be remanufactured M14s with SAGE international rail systems and Leupolds to squad designated marksman. All of the ones I have seen so far are Winchesters and our guys are reporting they are not as accurate as our old ones we had to turn in when we got the new ones. The old ones had NM barrels and the new ones do not so I am sure that is making a bit of difference.

    The only reason I can figure for the Army going with the M14 over an AR platform is the previously stated fact a lot of them are in warehouses and do not take much to retrofit and put back in use. I know Knight Armament has a contract with the military but I doubt they are able to keep up with the demand.

    The M4 is a great rifle and works well in close quarters combat but the 308 sure out performs it here in Afghanistan.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •