What do you think they should do?

[TNsailorman]

I seem to remember that the IDF went away from the FAL because of problem with functioning in the sand. I never used one so I can't really say much about it. However, the Australians liked it in Vietnam. The only complaint that I ever heard from the Brits about it was that it was heavy, however they seemed to like it also. Me, I will stick with what I know, a M14 version of either the 7.62x51 or I would even go for it in 7mm-08( a short 7x57mm operating at a higher pressure). I am too old to ever hump a rifle in combat now but I still have opinions formed by a lifetime of shooting various calibers of rifles. Old is not necessarily obsolete and new is not always better. Discussing them is always interesting and sometimes downright informative. Life is interesting if you don't take it too seriously. james

[Multigunner]

IIRC the FAL failed the cold weather tests, the M14 passed. :ater production FAL of course are reliable in the cold.

The Israelis did have problems with the FAL in sandy conditions. Some later FAL versions have sand cuts in the bolt carrier to clear away sand while in operation.

Some 7.62X51 ammunition loaded with double base powders gives excessive gas port pressure causing jams and torn off rims or case separations. The M14 gas system was designed from the start to handle any probable propellant type.

[vzerone]

whod have thought, designing the gun to handle any ammo isssues from the get go like the model 98, the m14, or the 91/30 would be a logical thing to do.

...and the FAL, or called the T48 in the trails, wasn't designed for the 7.62x51 originally.

[vzerone]

IIRC the FAL failed the cold weather tests, the M14 passed. :ater production FAL of course are reliable in the cold.

The Israelis did have problems with the FAL in sandy conditions. Some later FAL versions have sand cuts in the bolt carrier to clear away sand while in operation.

Some 7.62X51 ammunition loaded with double base powders gives excessive gas port pressure causing jams and torn off rims or case separations. The M14 gas system was designed from the start to handle any probable propellant type.

The T48/FAL competed head to head against the T44 rifle, basically a product-improved M1 Garand with detachable magazine and select-fire capability.Initial testing proved the T48 and the T44 roughly comparable in performance. In December 1953, both rifles competed in the arctic rifle trials.Springfield Armory, anxious to ensure the selection of the T44, had been preparing and modifying the test T44 rifles for week with the aid of the Armory's Cold Chamber, including redesign of the T44 gas regulator and custom modifications to magazines and other parts to reduce friction and seizing in extreme cold. The T48 rifles received no such special preparation, and began to experience gas system problems during the trials.FN engineers opened the gas ports in an attempt to improve functioning, but this caused early/violent extraction and broken parts as a result of the increased pressures. As a result, the T44 was ranked by the arctic test staff as decidedly superior in cold weather operation.

When the Brits finally adopted the L85, it was far from being better than the L1A1. The L85 was so bad, it was shelved for ODS while the "old" L1A1s were brought out of mothballs and reissued to UK forces prior to the ground war, according to what I've read over the years. Hence, the L85A2 that was developed after Royal Ordnance acquired HK's engineering talent (I think that's how it went) for a PIP.

The T-48 would have been easier to manufacture than the M14, but I think McNamara was looking to rattle the cages of the "establishment" within DoD, and since everyone saw the war in SEA looming, the M16-or some other sub-caliber "SCHV" design-was inevitable.

Take into consideration that the "Not Invented Here" (NIH) syndrome quite possibly would have pressured ordnance authorities to look for a domestically-designed rifle to replace the FN designed FAL as a matter of national pride sooner rather than later. It may sound strange to you now, but NIH was a serious factor in weapons procurement dating way back to at least before the turn of the 20th Century.


The T44 / T48 tests were the death ride of the Chief of Ordnance and Springfield Armory as the Army's in-house firearms designers. Between the shenanigans pulled during this testing and the outright resistance / attempts to sabotage the M16, the position of Chief of Ordnance was abolished by SecDef McNamara and transferred to TACOM (later Army Material Command). And Springfield Armory was disestablished.

Basically, the T48 was 'not invented at Springfield'. Without someone as powerful as SecDef McNamara to push it (as he did the M16 because it was 'modern') or a President like JFK enamoured with it, the FAL was never going to be in a Soldier or Marine's hands.

From 1795 through the adoption of the M16, with the exception of the Krag (which they adopted because it was a great target rifle), every standard US Army service arm was a Springfield Armory design. And any competing designs in service , no matter how superior, were eventually eliminated. 1866 / 1873 trap door versus Spencer? **** can the Spencer!

The T44 / M14 was also the last gasp of the military target shooter fraternity ('gravel bellies' they were called) that had dominated the small arms design focus of both the Office of the Chief of Ordnance and Springfield Armory. 'Gravel bellies' wanted rifles that would win Camp Perry and not WW III. They had forced the adoption of the Krag over better US designs because it was a target shooter's rifle; stolen Mauser's patent for the M1903 and (until TR interfered) foisted the rod bayonet on the Army and fought the M1 until it turned out to be accurate enough for their precious matches.

[Multigunner]

No one "stole" Mauser's patents.
I've researched this in the past. The Chief of Ordnance cut a deal with Mauser's American lawyers to pay a royalty on use of several features of the 1893 Mauser , mainly magazine and stripper clip and the collar used to secure the non rotating extractor, which would soon have lost their patent protection anyway. The Comptroller of the U S Treasury dept objected to the amount and extent of the payments. I've found no case number for legal action filed for any patent infringement.

Later Mauser did get shafted during WW1 when the US Government attempted to short him on the previously agreed payments and the situation was settled out of court.

The British P-14 rifle used most of the same Mauser features yet no one claims they stole the design.

The major feature associated with the Mauser design is the dual opposed forwards locking lugs, which were in fact lifted from the Spandau designed GEW88 which they in turn "stole" directly from a purlorned French Lebel rifle sold to them by a French deserter. The Lebel bolt was never patented by the French because at the time it was a military secret.
Several contemporary designs used forwards dual opposed lugs coupled with non rotating bolt heads.

PS
The FAL receiver required a ridiculous number of machining steps, being machined from a nine pound block of steel. I can not see how the FAL could have been cheaper to manufacture than the M14.

[vzerone]

No one "stole" Mauser's patents.
I've researched this in the past. The Chief of Ordnance cut a deal with Mauser's American lawyers to pay a royalty on use of several features of the 1893 Mauser , mainly magazine and stripper clip and the collar used to secure the non rotating extractor, which would soon have lost their patent protection anyway. The Comptroller of the U S Treasury dept objected to the amount and extent of the payments. I've found no case number for legal action filed for any patent infringement.

Later Mauser did get shafted during WW1 when the US Government attempted to short him on the previously agreed payments and the situation was settled out of court.

The British P-14 rifle used most of the same Mauser features yet no one claims they stole the design.

The major feature associated with the Mauser design is the dual opposed forwards locking lugs, which were in fact lifted from the Spandau designed GEW88 which they in turn "stole" directly from a purlorned French Lebel rifle sold to them by a French deserter. The Lebel bolt was never patented by the French because at the time it was a military secret.
Several contemporary designs used forwards dual opposed lugs coupled with non rotating bolt heads.

PS
The FAL receiver required a ridiculous number of machining steps, being machined from a nine pound block of steel. I can not see how the FAL could have been cheaper to manufacture than the M14.

I was mainly talking about the rigged trials, not the patents. I heard they did the same thing in the trials with the M14 and the M16.

Don't misunderstand me on this, I'm not taking a stand either way: M14, M16, FAL.

[atr]

In my experience the problem with the M16 was a combination of no or little cleaning along with the the change in powder type. I liked the M16 for its rapid rate of fire and the fact that you could carry more ammunition than the M14. It was also easier than the M14 to hold steady.
That being said we were not happy switching from the M14 to the M16.
I recall the first AK47 I picked up...it took all of 15 minutes to figure out how to disassemble and clean that weapon. It was a real wake-up call when compared to the M16.
just my 2 cents worth for the day

[vzerone]

In my experience the problem with the M16 was a combination of no or little cleaning along with the the change in powder type. I liked the M16 for its rapid rate of fire and the fact that you could carry more ammunition than the M14. It was also easier than the M14 to hold steady.
That being said we were not happy switching from the M14 to the M16.
I recall the first AK47 I picked up...it took all of 15 minutes to figure out how to disassemble and clean that weapon. It was a real wake-up call when compared to the M16.
just my 2 cents worth for the day

I agree with you about the cleaning. Like mentioned there were no cleaning tools or instructions given when the M16 first appeared. Larry Gibson even mentioned about some soldiers sending home for cleaning rods.

In the "Black Rifle" book I believe it was Colt that send a rep over to Vietnam to see what the problems were. He was appalled at the condition of the rifles he saw. He said he looked down the bores of a few and couldn't see daylight, they were full of rust. He observed rifles with cleaning rods tape to them.

There were a multitude of problems with the M16 which included the rifle itself, the ammuniation, the powder used in the ammunition, the brass case, no chromed lined chamber/bore, and lack of maintenance with included lack of cleaning tools, manuals, and training.

What would one expect to happen under those kind of condition especially in the kind of climate Vietnam has? The M14 had a fathering of experience from the Garand. It had a head start in scheme of things.

Things haven't changed. Our military men always bemoaned giving up their old rifles for something new. I'll bet a survey of what rifle they loved would show it's the first one they were issued and trained with. I'm not talking about the ones that started with a M14 in trained, then taking it to Vietnam, and then given an M16. Today the M16 is one heck of a platform and many countries use it. I wonder what our soldiers would think if goverment handled them the CMMG dedicated MK47 that uses AK 47 magazine over in Vietnam if they had it back then?

[Larry Gibson]

Before regurgitating internet BS about the trials of the FAL vs the T44 one should get the facts of the tests. One should not criticize based on the 1953 test results and then leave out the results of the 1955 tests. Also McNamara had nothing to do with the testing/selection of the M14 as he wasn't SECDEF until 1961, well after the M14 was selected. I suggest reading "The Great Rifle Controversy" by Edward Ezell [Curator, Division of Armed Forces History, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution]. The book has a forward by none other than Eugene Stoner who states;

"It should be required reading for all those who make decisions about small caliber weapons development. It is a must reading for all people who are concerned about the quality and effectiveness of the weapons carried by the American Infantryman."

The truth is in that book and you'll not find evidence of "rigged" or "fixed" tests. To the contrary you'll find the military actually favored the FN/FAL up until the last tests of production rifles, both US made (the FN/FAL by H&R).

In my more than 2 decades in Special Forces a greater portion was spent as an 18B (Special Forces Weapons NCO). In that capacity I traveled the world training foreign nationals in weapons and small unit infantry tactics up through battalion level. Many of those had FALs as primary weapons. Malfunctions were common due to improper gas port adjustment, dust and dirt and poor quality of magazines (particularly weak springs). Many 3rd world nations with soldiers of smaller stature had "dumbed down" 7.62x51 ammo which only functioned with the gas port in the most closed setting. In training and competitive shooting with Canadians (P.P.C.L.I. and the Airborne Regiment) they lamented giving up their FALs for the R7 (M16A1) and wished they could get M1A/M14s. The last year before Canada passed their stupid gun laws the P.P.C.L.I. showed up with real M14s they had got from Israel......it was a very closely contested match. They came down twice a year. We shot the NMC one time then the Canadian Combat matches the next.

In the mid '80s I spent a month at Swanborne, Australia (home of the Australian SAS) instructing foreign weapons during a Dark Cygnet exercise. The SAS loved the M14s we had there preferring them to the FAL and PS1s they had. Also in '65 in Viet Nam the 1RAR was attached to the 173rd and they also preferred our M14s (yes, we had some when we deployed to Viet Nam in May, '65) to their FALs.

I've shot many FN/FALs all over the world under varied circumstance. I even had a very nice Belgian made FN/FAL some years back. I never found them to be as accurate or reliable as the M14. I also found then to be less controllable in FA (shooting proper 2-3 round bursts) as a M14 or, especially, the M14A1. Probably why I own two M1As and no FAL.

[vzerone]

Larry would you expect a government official, or for that matter any official involved in the testing, to tell you they rigged the tests? I would think not. I also believe it's very true they didn't want a foreign made rifle. We may never know the real truth as many of those involved have passed on.

Have you by chance seen Larry Victor's gruesome torture testing of the Daniel Defense M4 Carbine with an Aimpoint on it? Not even the Aimpoint gave up to the harsh test. I don't see how an M14 would past the mud and sand test over a M16. It's too open on top. The M1 Garand had it's problems in the South Pacific, especially with the fine black powder sand from the volcano on that island.

Like I said I don't have a dog in this fight and I own and shoot quite a few of the military rifles in the semi-auto mode of course. All three the rifles have their good and bad points. I would say by your posts you're bias towards the M14. Had I gone to Vietnam I feel I would have preferred something shooting the 7.62x51 especially if they had today's refined AR 10. Don't forget that Stoner designed the AR 10 first in 7.62x51 showing that was the caliber he preferred over a small varmint cartridge. For some damn reason the government/military got a bug up their butt for a much lighter rifle firing a small varmint cartridge. The AR10 is in much use in the sand box and Brits, I believe, are currently having their's build by LWRC, after a refusal of their colonies for FAL's as they were asked.

[Larry Gibson]

vzerone

He wasn't involved in the testing. He had no dog in the fight. He was/is a historian and reported on the facts. Read the book instead of making excuses for internet conspiracy theories.

Let's take the '53 Artic test for example. It was expected to be just a formality on the way to approve the Belgian FN/FAL. In early August '53 the Infantry Board submitted a significant report recommending the FN/FAL be adopted. A LTG Dahlquist recommended the T44 be submitted to the Artic Test Board as a "control item". If the tests confirmed the unsuitability of the T44 (noted from previous tests) then the T44 would be dropped. The officer in charge of the T44 project, Col Rayle, was told "The T44 is so close to being a dead duck, you would be better off to spend the funds and effort on future weapons." Col Rayle instead chose an all out product improvement and prime it for the Artic test.

The product improvement included correcting the problems with the newly designed magazine, developing a winter trigger, reinforcing the stock with a steel liner and modification of the gas system. All atypical of what is done during product development and testing.

The Belgians did nothing. They had not tested the FN/FAL in Artic conditions yet still did nothing.

In December '53 in Alaska at Fort Greely the T44 was performing well, the FN/FAL was not.

Seems the gas system of the FN/FAL was gumming up. An engineer from FN, Ernest Vervier, was sent to Alaska. He increased the size of the gas port but that caused parts breakage. Too little to late by FN. The Artic test staff was not impressed by the performance of the FN/FAL. While not enthusiastic about the T44 either the test staff had to admit the T44 had been more dependable than the FN/FAL. That doesn't sound like a "rigged" test to me but a failure on the part of FN to fully test their own design.

BTW, I am not partial to the M14. I am partial to what works best. So far I've not seen any semi or full automatic rifle in 7.62 NATO that is better. Certainly not the FN/FAL. I also have shot a lot of AR-10s of various makes (the Army used to pay me to do that) including original ones from Portugal. The Brits may be buying AR-10s because even they know they are better than there FN/FALs. Remember also we have been pulling thousands of M14s out of storage and issuing them for use in the sandbox.....why?.....because we've nothing better......so far anyway.

[vzerone]

The Brits couldn't get any FAL's. They even had the audacity to ask their soldiers if they would field the old LEE Enfield in 303. You know what they told them. So they had nowhere to turn but to the AR10.

You mentioned you shot AR10's even the originals, but have you shot the most recent AR10? Personally I'd take a recent AR10 over a M14. I see you don't mention the G3. What's your opinion of that?

As for another cold weather test, the one at Fort Greeley Alaska. Stoner had asked to be present at that. When did he go? He went after the test and after they complained to him about the problems they had. He right away got a plane to Alaska and found such things as the front sights had been removed and put back together with the two tapered pins, and others sights put back on with modified welding rod pieces. In both instances the sight were loose and he explained that would explain the reason for bad accuracy and also informed them they didn't need to remove the front sight. He re-assembled them correctly and performed perfectly after being left outside in the cold for a couple days. When it got back to the lower 48 he went and explained to Gen Powell he corrected the problem and all was well, but it wasn't. When he left the Gen he had found out the test was already performed and reported (negatively I might add) before he even arrived at Fort Greeley. It was as Eugend said "a dirty trick" and Eugene wrote this all up himself. It's not BS off the internet.

Fact still remains that military didn't want a rifle that wasn't U.S. made and you may ask "Well the M16 was, why didn't they want it?" Because it was too radically different, even in it's 7.62x51 form. They ended up with it anyways.

You know another firearm exists today with the military adopting the new Sig pistol over the Glock, when in all reality the Glock blows the doors off it. In fact many problems are showing up with their Sig choice. Seems nothing ever really changes with the military and their new firearm acquisitions.

[M-Tecs]

While I have spent a fair amount of time in the sand box I have zero first hand experience with small arms issues in that environment. That being said I do know people that have said experience. Per their claims the M14 based rifles tended to be more reliable that the current AR10 platforms in the sand box.

[vzerone]

How about this from a 25 year veteran:

The M14’s awesomeness is legendary—half history and half myth.

The M14 was not only not a “proven” design, many of its defects were assigned via follklore to the M16:
“Report on Tests for Ad Hoc Committee on Accuracy and Testing of 7.62mm Ammunition and M14 Rifles.” Seven rifles each from batches accepted from H&R, Winchester, and Springfield Armory had been shipped to Aberdeen for testing to find and cure the causes of the M14’s inability to meet its accuracy requirements. Examination and testing of the 21 rifles uncovered the following:

All of the rifles from Winchester and H&R exhibited excessive headspace.

All of the rifles had loose handguards.

95% of the rifles had loose stock bands.

90% of the rifles had loose gas cylinders.

75% of the rifles had misaligned op rods and gas pistons.

50% of the rifles had loose op rod guides.

50% of the rifles had op rods that rubbed the stock.

Three rifles had barrels that exceed the maximum bore dimensions.

Only three rifles had an average bore diameter that fell below the accepted mean diameter.

One rifle was found to have a broken safety while another had a misassembled safety spring.

One rifle had a misassembled flash suppressor, which was actually contacting bullets during live fire tests.

A barrel from each manufacturer was sectioned for examination of the bore and chrome lining. The chrome lining was out of tolerance (uneven and on average too thin) in all three barrels. The H&R barrel also failed the surface-finish requirements. During accuracy testing, the M14 rifles produced greater group dispersion and variation in the center of impact than the control rifles (two T35 and two AR10). NATO testing was quoted indicating that the Canadian C1 (FN FAL) and German G3 were less sensitive to variations within and among ammo lots. Shutting off the gas port in the M14 rifles resulted in an average 20% reduction in extreme spread compared to those groups fired with the gas port open. This also reduced the variation in the center of impact. The design of the flash suppressor was singled out as a cause of inaccuracy.

A M14 Rifle Cost Analysis report that gave rounds used and over haul schedules from rounds fired states M14 annual usage is 3,500 rounds to overhaul and 599rds MBTF. Does not sound much like a hard use fighting gun…

~~~

In fact, it had at least as many problems as the M16, and a greater failure rate in testing.

The M16’s primary lack was in changes the Army made to the weapon without consulting with either Stoner or Colt, and in lack of training on the platform.

Interestingly, the SEALs and Special Forces liked the M16 just fine. It gave them more capacity, faster followup shots, and an attachable grenade launcher.

The M14 failed every one of its design criteria, and despite claims of accuracy, was no more accurate in design (both weapons were sight-limited to 460 yards max effective range), and suffered from assembly errors that made it less accurate, along with the need for more training to get that accuracy.

There are reasons the M14 was in front line service for only 7 years, and the M16 and variants have been at it for over 50 years.

The M16 when it came out was not wanted by the Army. It was forced on them by Congress, and by God, the Army was going to make sure it failed. It was a progression of the Stoner rifle used by guards in the US Air Force, who loved it. It was light, the ammo was light, it had a fast cycle rate and in general it was a good competitor to the AK-47.

[Multigunner]

One manufacturing flaw that affected some M14 rifles was a flash hider that a subcontractor made from what is called "Pipe Stock".
IIRC the inner core of a large ingot/billet (?) of freshly smelted steel contains microscopic defects. They cut slabs from the outer surfaces of the billet for use in drop forging of parts intended for heavy work loads and the core is sold off to be drawn or rolled into pipe of various types. Drawing and cold rolling rearrange the grain of the steel making it at least suitable for lighter pressures.
The subcontracted flash hiders were know to shatter after some use.
I had a flier telling what markings to look for on surplus flash hiders.

Any manufacturing defects of the M14 were due to pure laziness and greed on the part of the manufacturer. There's nothing about the design that would make these defects forgivable.
Even WW2 subcontractors who had never made weapons before turned out high quality products. They still had pride in a job well done in those days. My old Remington Rand was evidence of that. I have yet to see a modern rendition of the 1911 that is as reliable and accurate.

The open topped receiver of the Garand and M14 allow the action to be quickly sluiced free of dirt and debris by pouring a canteen of water through it. That was WW1 era thinking after the dust covers of the Lee Metford and various other rifles were shown to merely trap mud and sand in the action increasing malfunctions and making them harder to clear.

Early AR barrels could split if they got water down the muzzle. Plastic tubes were provided to cover the muzzle in rainy conditions but some preferred to use a condom for the purpose.
A friend had his dad send him a large packet of party balloons for the purpose.

[Larry Gibson]

"The Brits couldn't get any FAL's. They even had the audacity to ask their soldiers if they would field the old LEE Enfield in 303. You know what they told them. So they had nowhere to turn but to the AR10."

Guess that's a lick on the Brits, eh.

As to the rest I can't see what problems Stoner encountered some years later has anything to do with the "rigged" tests to approve the M14 over the FN/FAL.

And what does this "“Report on Tests for Ad Hoc Committee on Accuracy and Testing of 7.62mm Ammunition and M14 Rifles.” have to do with that process. All rifles/weapons systems have production problems that are solved. The FN/FALs had problems, The M1 had problems, the M1903 had problems.....and the M16 certainly had problems. Are you award of the initial burst barrels during the test at Fort Benning from water in them? How about Ordnance suggesting a 6.35 cartridge to eliminate the problem. So how does initial production accuracy problems with the M14 differ, especially since the problems were solved. Notice every single one of those "deficiencies" was a production problem. Not a single one was a design problem and the M14 did not fail a single design problem. How many "design problems" did the M16 have after production began......far too many to count here. But you know what, they fixed them all just as they did with the M1873, the M1892, the M1903, the M1 and the M14.......funny how that works.......

Are claiming now that the M14/M1A is an inaccurate rifle, have you never been to any matches since the early '60s? Obviously you've no field or combat experience with either the M14 or the M16. The M16 gets "broke" a whole lot. M16 and their variants are constantly TI'd, repaired and /or replaced.

"There are reasons the M14 was in front line service for only 7 years"

Sorry, but wrong again. Lacking personal experience you should do a better internet search. The M14 is still in service as the M14, the M21, M25, the Mk.14, the M39 with the Army, the Marines, the SEALs and Special Forces. Why? Because the M16, especially the M4, doesn't have the range (that means distance and terminal ballistics at long range) to be effective. The 7.62 NATO cartridge does and we still have the best platform for it.....the M14.

BTW; what do I think of the G3......well I'd just as soon have an FN/FAL............

[vzerone]

"The Brits couldn't get any FAL's. They even had the audacity to ask their soldiers if they would field the old LEE Enfield in 303. You know what they told them. So they had nowhere to turn but to the AR10."

Guess that's a lick on the Brits, eh.

As to the rest I can't see what problems Stoner encountered some years later has anything to do with the "rigged" tests to approve the M14 over the FN/FAL.

And what does this "“Report on Tests for Ad Hoc Committee on Accuracy and Testing of 7.62mm Ammunition and M14 Rifles.” have to do with that process. All rifles/weapons systems have production problems that are solved. The FN/FALs had problems, The M1 had problems, the M1903 had problems.....and the M16 certainly had problems. Are you award of the initial burst barrels during the test at Fort Benning from water in them? How about Ordnance suggesting a 6.35 cartridge to eliminate the problem. So how does initial production accuracy problems with the M14 differ, especially since the problems were solved. Notice every single one of those "deficiencies" was a production problem. Not a single one was a design problem and the M14 did not fail a single design problem. How many "design problems" did the M16 have after production began......far too many to count here. But you know what, they fixed them all just as they did with the M1873, the M1892, the M1903, the M1 and the M14.......funny how that works.......

Are claiming now that the M14/M1A is an inaccurate rifle, have you never been to any matches since the early '60s? Obviously you've no field or combat experience with either the M14 or the M16. The M16 gets "broke" a whole lot. M16 and their variants are constantly TI'd, repaired and /or replaced.

"There are reasons the M14 was in front line service for only 7 years"

Sorry, but wrong again. Lacking personal experience you should do a better internet search. The M14 is still in service as the M14, the M21, M25, the Mk.14, the M39 with the Army, the Marines, the SEALs and Special Forces. Why? Because the M16, especially the M4, doesn't have the range (that means distance and terminal ballistics at long range) to be effective. The 7.62 NATO cartridge does and we still have the best platform for it.....the M14.

BTW; what do I think of the G3......well I'd just as soon have an FN/FAL............

LOL, well that doesn't say much for the G3. I never said the M14 wasn't accurate, to the contrary it's very accurate. I've shot a M1A with match bullets and was very impressed with it. Personally I don't like the feel of the AR's and it's about the pistol grip. I'm from the era where the rifles had a walnut stock and the M1A, am sure the M14 too, feel more comfortable hold and shoot. Hell let's not forget the M1 Garand. I especially like that one. One of the softest shooting 06's out there in my opinion.

BTW a lot of this data comes from veterans friend, all have passed away now. Sure wish they were around to ask them more about the guns of WWII. One friend, actually a neighbor when I was a little kid, was a WWI veteran. Every New Years Eve night he go out around the back of his house with an ole Webley and let go with a few rounds to bring in the new year. Sad thing about Warne was he got gassed in WWI. Going of topic here.

Well I vote to bring the M14 back for our military, in brand new manufactured rifles. Sure bet the gov is sorry they sold the machinery to make them.

[lefty o]

as the m16 variants do ok in modern trim i dont have a big problem with them. on the other hand accuracy problems with an M14 while bad arent the end of the world. much rather have a rifle that shoots 4" groups in combat than one that only shoots once and terminally jams. it is what it is, and was.

[Larry Gibson]

Note the Army has adopted the HK G28E, a really beefed up AR10 variant. Except the M110A1, as it's called, has an aluminum receiver instead of the steel receiver which the German G28E has. 7.62 NATO of course but with the short barrel range is limited to 800 - 850 meters.

[shdwlkr]

the military should find a caliber that can handle a hundred grain bullet, mv of 2800-3000, effective range of 700-800 meters. What that works out to be is the question, the AR platform seems to be here for the long run. My experience with the M16 started in early '70 and I hated my Mattel rifle it even was stamped on the butt with Mattel toy corp logo, it fired a 55 grain fmj round something I would hunt wood chucks with back home. I went 40 years after walking away from carrying for 75 of them until I fired one of the newer models, yes most of the issues had been taken care of. the one I have not seen answered is if 5 drops of water down the barrel will still destroy the rifle.
I got to use the M14 a lot also and liked it a lot, yes it was heavy, but could it connect with target which meant more to me. Yes ammo was heavier but you needed less to make the other guys stop fighting if you connected with them.
Last I knew the military ammo plant in Texas was making the 7.62 ammo and most of the ammo used by our special force folks. In a real bad fire fight ammo is burned up really fast no manner what caliber it is you are using and as long as you have enough does it really matter how much it weights. I was told once that those that had the 7.62 went out with 200 rounds in 10 mags and the guys with the M16 went out with mags early on with same number of rounds and later with 10 30 round mags. My question is what is the ideal number of rounds to have, not the caliber but rounds. Larry you spent enough time jumping around what is the magic number of rounds to have
What I would like if for those who need the firearm have a whole lot of input into what ever new caliber firearm is deemed the one that we go too.
I don't care to much what round our military uses as long as it gives those in harms way an advantage in getting out of bad situation. I am too old and busted up to really think I could hump along distance even with the current rifle, we all get to that stage in life and I am there. thanks for the thoughts and responses.
I just hope we don't spend millions on a new weapon that could have with some modifications be taken off the assembly of the many current made rifles.