Historians and gun designers: a question about the M14

It's too much, in my opinion. The M-14 was always seen as an upgraded Garand.

FOGeologist said:

Could the M14's crazy muzzle-rise during full-auto fire have been cured by a really effective brake?

Click to expand...

I carried one for 18 months until the switch to the M16 in mid 1965. It would be a difficult proposition,IMO. I did love the rifle, however. I still miss it.

FOGeologist said:

Question:

Could the M14's crazy muzzle-rise during full-auto fire have been cured by a really effective brake?

Or is the .308/7.62 x 51 cartridge really just too hot for a 8-ish pound rifle to handle in full auto, no matter what?

Click to expand...

Not really.

It's too much cartridge in a stock ill designed for full auto fire.

Even M-16s/M-4s are hard to control in full-auto fire without a lot of practice.

Mike OTDP said:

It's too much, in my opinion. The M-14 was always seen as an upgraded Garand.

Click to expand...

The Italian BM-59 was an upgraded M1 Garand, the M-14 is not. It has some similarities, but notable differences. The T-44 was the rifle that became the M14. Different gas system, different cartridge, etc.

The M14E2 was an attempt to tame that muzzle climb, so the rifle could be used as a replacement for the M1918 BAR. It wasn't successful, despite a muzzle brake, a heavier stock and a bipod.

I've seen videos of extremely effective muzzle brakes attached to full auto M14s. Still a handful, but controllable with practice.

Even M-16s/M-4s are hard to control in full-auto fire without a lot of practice.

About five minutes and a young Marine can pick it up.

Coop45 said:

Even M-16s/M-4s are hard to control in full-auto fire without a lot of practice.

About five minutes and a young Marine can pick it up.

Click to expand...

In the Army, I saw quite a few excellent shots with the M-16A1... on semi. Never saw anybody who could hit much of anything on full-auto.

Quite right Vern. In Nam, I Carried an M-14A2. I was a REMF at Qui Nhon so I never had to use it in anger but I had plenty of time to shoot it on full auto during H&I fire against Vung Tau mountain towering over Long My Depot. The gun was the full bore E2 with the muzzle brake, the special stock with pistol grip, the special sling and that heavy bipod that clamped on the gas cylinder. It also had a kind of folding forward pistol grip for the off hand to grab. The thing weighed about 15 pounds.

It was a little better than a standard M-14, but not by much. If you were prone, with the bipod legs digging into the ground because you had a Vulcan death grip on the forward hand grip, pulling it downward, you could almost hit what you were aiming at with short bursts.

In my opinion it might have worked if they had lowered the cyclic rate to to around 500 RPM.

Muzzle climb has little to do with the power of the cartridge. It has more to do with ergonomics.

An M1928 has horrible climb with just a .45 ACP, an AR-10 not nearly as much....

In the Army, I saw quite a few excellent shots with the M-16A1... on semi. Never saw anybody who could hit much of anything on full-auto.

Click to expand...

When I was a company commander, firing an M16 full auto was an automatic $50 fine.

Trained with the M14 and became very fond of the rifle. When in full automatic, try as I would, I could never control the rifle. Lord knows I tried, over and over again. I also tend to agree, more a matter of ergonomics than the cartridge.

Ron

Ergonomics plays a big part in muzzle climb but cyclic rate of fire plays a large part as well. A Grease gun fires the same round as the 1928 Thompson, at about half the cyclic rate, and is more controllable, even though it weighs less.

I have fired A B.A.R. a fair amount, and it is far easier to hit with the selector on low rate of fire.

It's too much, in my opinion. The M-14 was always seen as an upgraded Garand.

Click to expand...

That's definitely the BM59; the M-14 was a colossal boondoggle of a jobs program for procurement and testing guys. My Beretta Truppe Alpine build consisted of 1) shortened op-rod, 1) shortened barrel, 1) simplified gas block/tube unit, 1) new forward magwell catch/guide rod seat, and 1) bolt release to replace the en-bloc latch. Everything else was either identical (FCG unit), an inevitable improvement for any new configuration (pistol grip stock, folding stock, muzzle brake, bipod), or so similar as to carry no additional cost (new sight elevation drum)

FWIW, the BM59 was no more controllable on full auto, though I suspect if the tri-comp had been used on the M14 (or if the BM59 hadn't been lightened/shortened so much) the results may have been more positive. Ultimately, a full auto lightweight 308 is stupid for heat dissipation and ammo-consumption/weight reasons even more than for excessive recoil. There's a fundamental reason you still need LMGs (FN-D) vs. battle/assault rifles (FAL)

I personally believe one reason the Garand/M14/M1A/etc family are so uncontrollable is because the action is incredibly front-heavy; they are nearly unique in how short the metallic portion of the action is from the breech to the end of the receiver, and even then the majority of large and moving parts are well in front of the trigger group. You have a relatively large, heavy piston/op-rod/bolt group (which is still fairly lightweight for the power of the cartridge) slamming around inside a rather skeletal receiver, way out in front beneath the barrel for the most part. The leverage to control the rifle from way back at the butt of the stock is just terrible, unless you drastically shift the center of mass with a heavy stock (and even then, the center of mass for the moving parts is still way out front)

I have fired A B.A.R. a fair amount, and it is far easier to hit with the selector on low rate of fire.

Click to expand...

You think an FN-D with pistol grip, shoulder hook, additional rate-reducer, and quick change barrel might have been even easier? Ergonomics is most certainly the key

I've seen videos of extremely effective muzzle brakes attached to full auto M14s. Still a handful, but controllable with practice.

Click to expand...

Smith Enterprise used to have a video showing a full-auto M14 being fired with their brake attached. It had no muzzle rise and looked perfectly controllable.

With modern brake designs you can easily tame the M14 in full auto. Same goes for comparable .308 battle rifles like the FAL.

However, there are many other problems with military use of a full-auto M14. The operating system really isn't designed in a way that's rugged enough to hold up to it. The magazines are too small in capacity and too slow to change. The barrel is too skinny and poorly designed to deal with heat. Etc. etc. etc. It would be terrible as a SAW or LMG, and that's probably why it failed in that role.

La France made a cutdown M-14K which I had the oppurtunity to fire full auto at Gunsite Orange in earlier 80s . It mad a modified "gas trap" type cylinder and piston of larger size among other modifications and a brake of some sort. It had a slow cylic rate of around 550 rpm as I remember and some of the instructors could keep short bursts on 50 yard sillos. I hit most rounds at 25 yards from standing in 3 or 4 round burst fire. I coveted the gun and remember seeing Smith Enterprises making copies awhile back.
http://66.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzed5hjFmy1r9khx4o1_500.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDUmQQSCPtw

Gordon, are you sure that thing was made from an m-14 and not a BM-59.? I see no connector assembly or fire selector, which an M-14 would have, visible on the right side of the receiver. A BM-59 would have a selector lever on the left side near the front of the receiver, but you can't tell from the picture. Interesting video. Bet it is noisy!

Standard FAL in full auto is only controllable for the very strong and the very well trained.
During the Falkland war (Malvinas) British troops, who were issued semi auto only L1A1 used captured full auto Argentine FAL's, only to get back to semi auto aimed fire very quickly.

Don't forget the M15.
It was heavier than the M14 with flap buttplate, bipod, and BAR sling.
Not fielded, but the M14 got the buttplate and the M14E2 got the bipod and sling.

Maybe. The brake on the Springfield SOCOM I had was effective enough that in rapid fire you could see the muzzle moving down instead of up. It would be interesting to see a similar brake on a full sized M1A.

They have an M-15 hanging on the wall at the RIA Museum on Arsenal Island. You can't get closer than about 12 feet, but you can see the noticeably heaver barrel.

All the gun tech history I read as a teenager impressed on me
_ that 8 pounds is supposed to be a good weight for controllable full auto -- with the recoil impulse of a 9mm or .45ACP,
_ that the BAR (16 to 19 pounds) allowed control with .30-06, but
_ the M14 development ambition to replace the M1 Garand, M1 and M2 Carbines, and M3 Grease Gun with a single select fire weapon firing 7.62x51 semi and full was an impossible dream.

A brake would have had a lot of downsides on an infantry rifle, such as greatly increased flash, blast/concussion to the shooter, raising dust around the shooter when prone, and such.

I ran a few mags through a friend's NFA M14. Even for someone my size, it was like holding on to the wrong end of a jackhammer. The .308 has plenty of authority when you're trying to keep the muzzle pointed roughly downrange. I don't really think a brake would have helped a lot.

In semi mode it shot just fine.

The .308 is, in my opinion, simply too powerful a cartridge for a hand-held full auto. The M16, by comparison, was a pussycat; my wife burned through several hundred rounds with the happy switch on "fun!"

I've never had the opportunity to shoot a full-auto AK, but given the difference in weight and ballistics I'd expect it to be similar to the M16.