I found this and lot of good reading.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=541076
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=541076
As an aside I was talking to a veteran at work about my M1A and he said how much liked his M14....said it was good for "Minute of VC"
Having a brain fart I had to ask what the heck that was.
He smiled and said "Minute of viet cong"
Having a brain fart I had to ask what the heck that was.
He smiled and said "Minute of viet cong"
Yea a terrible brain fart.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5424409
Quote:
The M14 in issue condition is known as the worst performing rifle we ever fielded. I worked product engineering for the Army Small Cal Lab at Picatinny Arsenal and I had engineering responsibility for the M14 until the Chief transferred me to the Dover Devil MG project. While there my board was adjacent to Julio Savioli who was the draftsman for the M14 rifle and his name is on all the drawings for it. Al Cole was engineer in charge of the M14 and he was also a friend. Savy (as we called him) was a wealth of information on the M14 and had all kinds of stories about it as he not only did the drawings, he was in on the field testing.
First off consider the requirement facts from the engineering files from the government weapons production efforts.
1. acceptance accuracy for 1903 Springfield was 3" at 100 yards.
2. acceptance accuracy for M1 Garand was 5" at 100 yards.
3. acceptance accuracy for M14 was 5.5" at 100 yards and was waivered continually as it could not meet that.
4. acceptance accuracy for M16 series is 4.5" at 100 yards.
From SAAMI we have a recommendation of 3" at 100 yards and it is up to the vendor whether he wants to meet this or not.
H&R also made M14s and M1s and the contracts were shut down due to poor QA.
The M14 if rebuilt correctly and very few can do so is capable of acceptable accuracy. For instance the Army MTU rebuild program with rifle fired from machine rest was 10 shots in 4.5" at 300 yards. Some would go to 3" but rarely. A good bolt gun will shoot in 2" at 300 yards.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5424409
Quote:
The M14 in issue condition is known as the worst performing rifle we ever fielded. I worked product engineering for the Army Small Cal Lab at Picatinny Arsenal and I had engineering responsibility for the M14 until the Chief transferred me to the Dover Devil MG project. While there my board was adjacent to Julio Savioli who was the draftsman for the M14 rifle and his name is on all the drawings for it. Al Cole was engineer in charge of the M14 and he was also a friend. Savy (as we called him) was a wealth of information on the M14 and had all kinds of stories about it as he not only did the drawings, he was in on the field testing.
First off consider the requirement facts from the engineering files from the government weapons production efforts.
1. acceptance accuracy for 1903 Springfield was 3" at 100 yards.
2. acceptance accuracy for M1 Garand was 5" at 100 yards.
3. acceptance accuracy for M14 was 5.5" at 100 yards and was waivered continually as it could not meet that.
4. acceptance accuracy for M16 series is 4.5" at 100 yards.
From SAAMI we have a recommendation of 3" at 100 yards and it is up to the vendor whether he wants to meet this or not.
H&R also made M14s and M1s and the contracts were shut down due to poor QA.
The M14 if rebuilt correctly and very few can do so is capable of acceptable accuracy. For instance the Army MTU rebuild program with rifle fired from machine rest was 10 shots in 4.5" at 300 yards. Some would go to 3" but rarely. A good bolt gun will shoot in 2" at 300 yards.
Great reading. The part about the guys going in on the invasions with minimal experience handling the weapons they were issued was scary.
Its called cannon fodder. Shame on their leadership for letting that happen.
Current Army Reserve troops qualify with 40 rounds per year. That sucks.
Its called cannon fodder. Shame on their leadership for letting that happen.
Current Army Reserve troops qualify with 40 rounds per year. That sucks.
yea reading all that makes you wonder what are they thinking. And you really feel for the guys.
I was never in the military I had friends that were and they are messed up and survival skills are really not in them.
They can endure a lot but most of us can when we have to.
I know the military will not change their ways but I would bet a bit more training in the tools you are to use would go a long ways.
I was never in the military I had friends that were and they are messed up and survival skills are really not in them.
They can endure a lot but most of us can when we have to.
I know the military will not change their ways but I would bet a bit more training in the tools you are to use would go a long ways.
I have to question the gentleman's assertions about HRA having poor QA when it comes to the M1 Garand. These rifles tend to be amongst the best in terms of fit and finish when compared to Garands made by other manufacturers. Now H&R, as it was called at the time of M14 production, might be a different story.
during my time in the USMC i was issued 3 different M14 rifles, and 1 1911A1, all of them were Remington manufactured and all performed flawlessly, only problem with the M14 was full auto, it was uncontrollable
Remington did not make the M14; perhaps you're thinking of Winchester, who did? Springfield, H&R, and TRW were the other manufacturers.
yes, remington was stamped on the rear of the receiver of everyone of them i was issued, and that is a fact. i'm old and forgetful but some things you never forget. here is the 2nd one i was issued, and converted to full auto
[Broken External Image]
Similar threads
