History of the M-14

[H2O MAN]

You fail to understand your claim that millions of dollars were spent on R&D developing the M14 as an enhanced battle rifle is inaccurate, and it doesn't matter how hard you try to make it true - it's not ever going to be true.

The EBR program was the most under funded program of its kind, only the M14EBR-RI received proper funding, but even that was a tiny fraction of the millions you say were spent. And what R&D are you referring to?

 

[Aimless]

You fail to understand your claim that millions of dollars were spent on R&D developing the M14 as an enhanced battle rifle is inaccurate, and it doesn't matter how hard you try to make it true - it's not ever going to be true.

The EBR program was the most under funded program of its kind, only the M14EBR-RI received proper funding, but even that was a tiny fraction of the millions you say were spent. And what R&D are you referring to?

I provided a link supporting my claim. There were programs started by the Navy, Marines and the Army. Those programs involved items developed by a number of companies including SAGE and Kraiger. First you claim nobody developed those improvements, then it became the program was under funded to the Army's programs was properly funded.

The Sage stock alone went through multiple changes in 12 years. Barrels underwent multiple changes in length and twist rate in 12 years. Do you understand what RESEARCH and DEVELOPMENT means?

Here is that link again just in case you missed it.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012/armaments/Wednesday13969Armstrong.pdf

I get it. You like the M14. I like the M14. It is a cool rifle but it isn't a great rifle IMO. Sorry to ruffle your feathers. We are just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[biker_bill]

Having been armed with both an M-16A1 and an M-14 in the era I was in the Marines, I would never want to see a rifle like the M-14 back in the hands of young Infantry Marines.

I like the rifle, I'd love to have a nice M1A.
I just wouldn't want it in the hands of our armed forces except for special duty.
Hell, we shot it in inter-service competitions, it had value, it was more accurate and harder hitting.
It just should never go back into the hands of the Infantry, there's just too much recoil for an all day fire fight.

I was lucky enough to coach and run a rifle re-qualification range and what I saw there is why I feel the way that I do.

50 rounds with the M-14 and the lightweight 18 year old Marine, that weighed maybe 160 pounds had a sore shoulder.
He didn't shoot that 50th round as accurately as he shot that 1st round, that's for sure!
Imagine if he was in an all day firefight?
If he had the other side of my foxhole I wouldn't want that rifle in his hands.
He wasn't going to be of much value after awhile and he would have been of no value the next day.

When qualifying after 4 days of shooting the M-14, almost everyone had a sore shoulder to some degree and that next day was when you needed to qualify. I saw many good shooters drop a badge down.

Oh and God forbid that 14 slips out of your shoulder, in any one of the 4 positions you had to qualify from, the receiver where the serial number is, was going to come back and mouse your eye.
That guy was gonna flinch every shot thereafter, you could count on it!

I never saw any of those problems or had any of these thoughts regarding the M-16 and I've watched thousands qualify with that rifle.

When my duty changed and I went back to the 16, I was glad to have it back and glad to see the guys that surrounded me had the same rifle.

My opinion, on my experiences, YMMV

I should add - I would love to try one of the EBR's on a stock where the recoil was dampened. That would have made all the difference in the world and probably change my opinion completely.

 

[Aimless]

Having been armed with both an M-16A1 and an M-14 in the era I was in the Marines, I would never want to see a rifle like the M-14 back in the hands of young Infantry Marines.

I like the rifle, I'd love to have a nice M1A.
I just wouldn't want it in the hands of our armed forces except for special duty.
Hell, we shot it in inter-service competitions, it had value, it was more accurate and harder hitting.
It just should never go back into the hands of the Infantry, there's just too much recoil for an all day fire fight.

I was lucky enough to coach and run a rifle re-qualification range and what I saw there is why I feel the way that I do.

50 rounds with the M-14 and the lightweight 18 year old Marine, that weighed maybe 160 pounds had a sore shoulder.
He didn't shoot that 50th round as accurately as he shot that 1st round, that's for sure!
Imagine if he was in an all day firefight?
If he had the other side of my foxhole I wouldn't want that rifle in his hands.
He wasn't going to be of much value after awhile and he would have been of no value the next day.

When qualifying after 4 days of shooting the M-14, almost everyone had a sore shoulder to some degree and that next day was when you needed to qualify. I saw many good shooters drop a badge down.

Oh and God forbid that 14 slips out of your shoulder, in any one of the 4 positions you had to qualify from, the receiver where the serial number is, was going to come back and mouse your eye.
That guy was gonna flinch every shot thereafter, you could count on it!

I never saw any of those problems or had any of these thoughts regarding the M-16 and I've watched thousands qualify with that rifle.

When my duty changed and I went back to the 16, I was glad to have it back and glad to see the guys that surrounded me had the same rifle.

My opinion, on my experiences, YMMV

I should add - I would love to try one of the EBR's on a stock where the recoil was dampened. That would have made all the difference in the world and probably change my opinion completely.

I agree as a battle rifle it is dated. In the DMR role it was rehashed for is a better fit for it. That role just came along to late and better options have come online.

 

[H2O MAN]

Competitive shooting at paper targets is what we are talking about.

Aimless, let me know when you return from your magical mystery tour.... your claim that millions
of dollars were spent on R&D developing the M14 as an enhanced battle rifle is woefully inaccurate.

Do you understand what 'WRONG' means?

The History and Development of the M14 EBR

 

[Aimless]

Competitive shooting at paper targets is what we are talking about.

Aimless, let me know when you return from your magical mystery tour.... your claim that millions
of dollars were spent on R&D developing the M14 as an enhanced battle rifle is woefully inaccurate.

Provide a source then. What was the total cost for the multiple programs to develop the M14 to fill the DMR role for 12 years? I'll wait.

Let me help you out. You don't actually know. Neither do I. I do however know govement spending and procurement. There were multiple programs to improve the M14 active in multiple branches. The development costs for all of those stocks, parts, barrels, scopes, cases, ammunition, plus the salaries for people to T&E those changes were not done out of the kindness of those companies hearts. Real money was spent. Short of hiring a forensic accountant and digging through piles of old contracts, the actual cost is unknown.

 

[H2O MAN]

Provide a source then. What was the total cost for the multiple programs to develop the M14 to fill the DMR role for 12 years? I'll wait.

I didn't claim that millions were spent on R&D to create the EBR, that was you and you have not backed up your claim.

 

[Aimless]

I didn't claim that millions were spent on R&D to create the EBR, that was you and you have not backed up your claim.

Like I said before if you think multiple programs spanning 12 years, in multiple services and involving dozens of companies didn't cost a couple of million than you are bad at math.

 

[H2O MAN]

Like I said before if you think multiple programs spanning 12 years, in multiple services and involving dozens of companies didn't cost a couple of million than you are bad at math.

We are talking about 9K EBRs in total, and you honestly believe millions of dollars were spent on R&D - that's not logical.

 

[Aimless]

We are talking about less than 8K EBRs in total.

While you are once again wrong, there were over 8K rifles total across all programs, that doesn't matter. You are talking about straight production cost. I seem to recall each rifle cost about $3,500-$3,800 each.

What you are not calculating is the cost to develop mods, ammunition, barrels, stocks, receivers, scopes, flash hiders, supressors, suppressor mounts, trigger mods, plus the costs associated with T&E of those parts singularly and as a functioning kit.