The M14 Rifle - Vietnam Experiences, Accounts, Comments

[Vern Humphrey]

VERN: Did the new version of the 60mm mortar really have the range and powder of the 81mm mortar. And who was lucky enough to get to use them and did they really work.
ken

Ken, you're not going to believe me, but when the new 60mm came out, they didn't know what to do with it -- we weren't involved in jungle combat any more.

Now since Mech companies often operate over a wide area, and often attach a mortar to each platoon, they decided to issue the new, man-packable 60mm mortars to Mech units, and leave the leg units stuck with the old, heavy 81mm.

If you watch combat shots from Iraq and Afghanistan closely, you'll often see the 60mm in action there. It can be drop fired or trigger fired, and the carrying handle has a scale printed on it, and a curved tube with a bubble. You can set the mortar on trigger-fire, use the bubble to get the range, and aim by gosh-and-by-guess and press the trigger. And that's how it's mostly used.

Of course, you can't use that way to engage targets beyond your range of vision, so the range issue is moot.

It does have a very good VT (Variable Time -- radar) fuze that can be set for high and low bursts -- a low burst is 5 meters. And at that burst height, it's deadly.

 

[Slamfire]

This Basic Training Graduation book was the book of my neighbor's brother. The latest date in the book is 1966. The book says, essentially, that Fort Bliss’s training activities were reactivated 29 Nov 1965, the last basic training at Fort Bliss ended after the Korean War. “Since 13 Dec 1965, the USATC has started about 880 recruits and inductees through the eight week BCT program each week. Forty companies have been set up to handle this training load. The first BCT cycle graduated on 5 Feb 1966: and its men went for AIT and assignments with other units to Army posts through-out the nation.” It is probably that the pictures are of that first training class. The recruits are wearing coats which would consistent with Jan-Feb in El Paso. My neighbor says his brother was in Vietnam during the 1968 TET Offensive as a Captain. Being unfamiliar with the promotion process at the time, I am surprised someone could go from Private to Captain in two years or one year. His Brother died 1969, CONUS, in a motorcycle accident.

The recruits are all using M14's.


















See all the dust on the Soldier and weapon. If you have ever been out in the desert in El Paso, dust is everywhere.



M17A1 gas mask.

 

[jeepnik]

I know the difference, flown the 206 and the 58A/C, just was curious about what Gordon usually flew in since he called it a Bell 500. Haven't had the opportunity to fly an OH-6/MD 500 but everything I've read about them agrees with your atatements. What I posted may not have been clear, sorry.

Get all those helos with a single rotor. Anyone else spend any time in an HH43B? Not exactly copious amounts of room, though the clamshell door in the rear came in handy at times.

 

[lemaymiami]

Boy, those photos bring back memories of winter 1968 - only I was at Ft. Benning (freezing this little boy's fanny off....) even though it was Georgia. I'd guess we all went through very similar experiences while trying to measure up.....

With a son in the Coast Guard currently I guess it never ends -the training of young'uns to prep them for bad places.

 

[84B20]

If you want pictures here are a couple I have.

 

[Ruggz1515]

An M-14 was kind of hard to come by. I really cant`remember having more than 2 or 3 in my Platoon, at any one time. The REMF`s in the rear, thought it was there soul fuction in life, to keep us from having any M-14`s or 60MM Mortars`. I never really understood that way of thinking, but it seemed to just drive them crazy if they even thought we had one. For the most part I used my M-14 at night because of the Starlight Scope.

That does sound very interesting that the REMFs would keep you guys from getting that rifle. I would think that having the 14s could be seen as an advantage for you guys at that time but unfortunately they did not see it that way I guess?? Do you think that having more 14s in the platoon would be considered an advantage? either with or without a starlight scope?

 

[Ruggz1515]

I have a general question for everybody!

Okay, when the M14 was used as a primary issue rifle early in the conflict, did it perform well as such? What I mean is, we're we getting our butts kicked when we were using them as a primary issue rifle?

I can't find any documentation that states that were getting our butts kicked with it. In fact, I have seen and read that the M14 was a life savor in some respects and performed well. Mostly all accounts have been pretty positive in regards to the reliability, round effectiveness, and accuracy of the M14 as a combat arm which really makes me question the whole process of the M16. I kinda think its like the ole saying, "if it's not broken, don't fix it" type of thing.. the Military seemed like it was trying to fix something that wasn't necessarily broken. I find this quite interesting...

 

[Ruggz1515]

Those are some pretty neat pictures! Thanks for uploading them! It is nice to scroll through this page and see the rifles in action!... or training I should say.. Either way, thanks!

 

[Ruggz1515]

I favored the M14, and as I said, carried the sniper version my second tour. I've often said that an M14 and enough ammo to accomplish the mission weighs less than an M16 and enough ammo to accomplish the same mission. In other words, the 5.56 rounds are lighter, but it takes more of them to do the job.

It seems as if that those who had used both rounds in conflict and had to experience that transition, not only with the rifles but cartridges, have seemed to favor the heavier round and the M14. Not that it was any easier to carry, but its effectiveness on the battlefield. FWIW, I can remember my great uncle who fought in WWII mention that you wanted to carry the carbine, but fight with the M1! ... (I think you had a similar experience with the M1 and carbine if I'm not mistaken? I read that on another one of your posts!)

Perhaps this is the same notation from other Vietnam Veterans and M14/7.62 and the M16/5.56...

 

[Ruggz1515]

We never got our butts kicked in Vietnam. They did a fantastic job there. The M14 was and still is a great battle rifle. It just so happened to be the battle rifle that was being fielded when the assault rifle came of age. That doesnt mean the M14 was a bad rifle though.

I truly believe that if the powers that be hadn't screwed up the M16 (mostly by deviating from the design specs) than the switch would have been a non issue. Guys that had the M16A1 (when they went back to the original design specs and it actually worked) generally liked them a lot.

Yeah! I understand... It just surprises me about how the military went about it.. I guess that bothers me... I mean, in the middle of a conflict, when the other rifle (M14) wasn't performing badly... when it was doing its job.. then the military just took them away and forced the m16 on our guys when the m16 had problems... (I know the military didn't want to harm our guys on purpose, and didn't realize the powder change and all of that until later)

That being said, I am glad they got everything squared away with the M16A1...But still, force issuing something like that in the manner it was done when maybe it never REALLY had to be done, was bound to have problems... ahh it gets to me... And I wasn't even there!!

 

[Gordon]

The last three posters above me really sum it up IMHO.
The M14 was a great rifle
McNamarra's Mattie Mattel would have been a better REMF rifle until it was worked out.
Today the AR platform is better than an M14 platform IMHO for a combat trooper to fight with .

 

[Sam1911]

(Ahem...about the RIFLE, then...)

 

[Gordon]

Want to know what the weak points of an M14 are ? The op rod can get bent or damaged, the gas piston wears and the chamber it slides in needs to have the carbon removed once in a while. The bedding loosens which degrades accuracy, especially in non fiberglass stocks. My gun was Nation match specced by Smith Enerprises in 1989 and I got it back and shot it from 1990 to 2000 when I went to AR for training and FAL for 7.62x51 fooling around . It loosened up in the bedding from when I first got it back and could barely latch it in place and I could shoot close to MOA with Lake City Match ammo , now it can do about 1.5 + MOA with my son's eyes and the same remains of the Lake City Match . The trigger remains as Smith set it at 3.5 pounds and crisp. The fire control group of the M14 is robust and simple ! I have heard of the original flash suppressors cracking, mine has not (it is 1979 surplus GI) The charge handle can crack and in heavy use training can be damaged by abuse, it is forged tho and fairly robust. The bolt is robust but as all bolts need attention: the bolt roller MUST be kept greased and there is even a special tool for that. I have heaard of bolt ears cracking and also a firing pin breaking.
.

 

[JR47]

Uhhhhh.......the M14 rifles that were issued in Vietnam, to combatants, didn't have bedding. Maybe the later sniper rifles did, but not the rifles issued to the shooters.

Bent op-rod usually indicated wither a ham-handed soldier, or over-powered loads. I never saw one in my time in-country. Greasing the bolt roller, and cleaning out the gas cylinder were routine maintenance, and that was required at longer intervals than on the M16 in combat.

The list of "I've heard of" is mostly one that comes from having guns in the training rotation. There was a group of bolts, manufactured by a non-governmental group, that had issues early on. They were recalled, and replaced. Same with the flash suppressor issue. There is no "charging handle" on an M14. that's the op-rod you mentioned. ANYTHING can fail if abused, no matter the gun.

Again, the M14 that we used in Vietnam was far and away more reliable, and durable, than the initially issued M16 rifles.

 

[Gordon]

every rifle has bedding, sure I know this last 48 years or so the action is "secured" by the trigger guard cam latch. But that piece touches wood (or plastic) and so does the forward stock ferrule , and other places. In a national match gun these areas are glassed to fit and provide an unchanging contact surface.Like I said that is why NM guns were rarely dissassemble so not to harm the "bedding" . Yeah the op rod is rarely damaged but it does happen and everything wears. No argument from me about the M14 being a more reliable and effective piece, like I said I chose it over the M16 as I had a choice. I only really accepted the AR platform as reliable beginning in 2005 or so after me and the government started to really work out the AR bugs in a big way. Nothing like 50 years of continuous product development , the M14 has had some product development for a specialized role but pales in the attention paid to the AR system in that time