By
·
Someone asked me the difference between a stock M14 rifle and the modified M14 EBR. Well, here’s the supplement to the technical manual that explains the key differences, and covers operator and armorer maintenance as well.
Someone asked me the difference between a stock M14 rifle and the modified M14 EBR. Well, here’s the supplement to the technical manual that explains the key differences, and covers operator and armorer maintenance as well.
So…. there was an “Operational Need” for a return to the M14? Really? But I thought the M14 was thoroughly obsolete, unreliable, too heavy, etc., etc. (Yes, I am hearkening back to all the comments from you haters when I said “I just want my M14”)
We were fools to go away from it. The manufacture of a CARFIB stock puts the M14 weight at just over 8 lbs 2 oz. With a 20 round magazine, the M14 weight would be around 9 lbs 10 oz. A fully loaded M16A4 still comes in at appx 8 lbs 12.5 oz, slightly more with 77-grain ammunition. While it is true that 7.62×51 NATO weighs more than the 5.56×45, considering all that we jam onto the backs of our footmobiles, methinks most would be willing to trade some of that crap for ammunition that is lethal out to 1km or more, and a rifle that can hit out to there.
LikeLike
When I was in the recon squadron, we had no authorized snipers or sniper rifles. All we had were our squad designated marksmen, which carried M14 EBRs. I’ve loved M14s since my TOG days when we carried them.
LikeLike
I trained with the M-14.
As blind as I was, I could hit half-silhouettes at 500 meters with the M-14. Yeah, it was heavy, but threw a heavy slug, a long ways.
I’m not a fan of the “poodle-shooter”…
LikeLike
I think there could be some improvements in the way the M-14 handles (I don’t like the way the mag is locked into the weapon. The AR-15/AR-10 does better and makes it easier to change a mag), but would have no trouble at all with going back to it.
LikeLike
I like the M-14. I carried one in Germany and Ft. Benning. I carried an M-16 in Vietnam. For “active service” I prefer the M-16.
The M-16 is smaller and lighter. Not so great for bayonet work perhaps, but who cares. Smaller is better. So is lighter.
The ammunition for the M-16 is smaller and lighter, a significant consideration at all echelons. I have “comfortably” carried 20+ M-16 magazines. No way I could do that with M-14 magazines.
I really don’t care what happens beyond about 300 yards, as I probably wouldn’t be able to see even that far in most terrain and in most circumstances. I don’t know what the level of marksmanship is in today’s military, but I doubt that it exceeds the capabilities of the M-16.
The M-14 has an open receiver. This is nice when you need to reload from stripper clips, but it is vulnerable to dirt, etc. The exposed operating rod is also a vulnerability. I once ran into a tree (doh!), hitting the operating rod, and my M-14 had to be unjammed by the armorer.
LikeLike
I very much care what happens beyond 300 yards, because if the enemy knows I cannot engage past that, and he can, the terrain he gets to choose to engage me will have sight lines outside of that.
As for the open receiver, it may be more susceptible to dirt, but it is also more easily cleared. Dirt in the dust cover of an M16 that fouls the locking lugs is a pain in the ass to clear.
And oh, yes, I do care about the robustness of the rifle (with or without a bayonet attached). I don’t need an upper receiver in one hand, and a lower receiver in the other following a butt stroke.
LikeLike
XBradTC 
Leave a comment