M14 production coming back on-line?

red-beard · red-beard's Garage

There is an RFQ for M14 parts from the US Army for the Rock Island Arsenal.

Hmmmmm. Maybe the Army is re-activating the M14.

cashflyer · 11-10-2009, 06:39 AM

They have been making small lot procurements of M-14s for some time now from Fulton Armory and Troy Industries, and issuing them to units for evaluation in Afghanistan.

tabs · 11-10-2009, 06:44 AM

The Navy Seals weapon of choice...

red-beard · red-beard's Garage

Well, the numbers are minimum 6000 units and maximum 35,000 units, over the next year. Looks like production is about to be ramped up.

VincentVega · 11-10-2009, 08:04 AM

Interesting. I wonder if they are just stocking up on M21's.

HardDrive · 11-10-2009, 08:07 AM

Nice to have some extended range in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Jim Bremner · 11-10-2009, 08:28 AM

And to think, Bill Clinton destroyed 450,000 of them at a cost of something like $45 each to destroy.

It would have cost less to convert them to semi auto and sell them via the CMP

legion · 11-10-2009, 08:42 AM

I thought the M14 was replaced after only a few years in service because it didn't do anything particularly well (it was pitched as the replacement for the M1, M1 Carbine, Grease Gun, and BAR).

m21sniper · 11-10-2009, 09:03 AM

The M-14 has never really left the US Army, it's always been kept around in some capacity. The USN still uses lots of them as well. They're magnificent weapons with good LR hitting power, it's no surprise at all that they've shown their worth yet again in A-stan.

on2wheels52 · on2wheels52's Garage

"I thought the M14 was replaced after only a few years in service because it didn't do anything particularly well"

There's a bit more to the story than that, but for whatever reason it became one of our shorter-lived service rifles. But not necessarly to any particular fault of the gun itself.
Jim

Joeaksa · 11-10-2009, 09:21 AM

Excellent rifle and in a good caliber. Hope they keep issuing it.

legion · 11-10-2009, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by on2wheels52

"I thought the M14 was replaced after only a few years in service because it didn't do anything particularly well"

There's a bit more to the story than that, but for whatever reason it became one of our shorter-lived service rifles. But not necessarly to any particular fault of the gun itself.
Jim

Edumucate me.

cashflyer · 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by red-beard

Well, the numbers are minimum 6000 units and maximum 35,000 units, over the next year. Looks like production is about to be ramped up.

I think Fulton is using Chinese (Polytec) receivers to build their products. Some smiths report online that the Chinese receivers, while fine for a civilian who uses the rifle only occasionally, do not hold up well to military use. (idk)

By putting out an RFQ, the military will be able to have the weapon built to proper spec. And by ordering those quantities, the price will probably be better than Fulton's small quantity runs.

SolReaver · 11-10-2009, 12:22 PM

M-14 is a solid, dependable rifle with a better MOA than most. A bit heavy to carry around with the ammo, but it has range and stopping power. At a distance, I would prefer it over the 16 even though the A4 is a fine rifle in it's own right. Every patrol should have one man equipped with one. (IMHWO) to fill in the range between the 16 and potential targets lacking a much heavier full fledged long distance solution. (ever try to carry a Barrett 50 all day?)

m21sniper · 11-10-2009, 07:10 PM

In military guise the 5.56mm M-16 is actually a better 'manstopper' due to the propensity of FMJ 5.56mm rounds to fragment. NATO 7.62mm ammo generally lacks that tendency.

edgemar · 11-10-2009, 09:11 PM

I hate to start a huge debate but is this typical of the M4 M-16:

jyl · jyl's Garage

I like that "Leading Trough Technology" (sp).

SolReaver · 11-12-2009, 11:50 AM

Ok, now I am confused. I thought that the 14 was warranted because of stopping power and longer range. Is it just that the rifle is incredibly durable? Is it because the 7.62 round penetrates better? I can see why the seals would want a weapon that could fire submerged. But Why on patrol in Afghanistan?

Whatever the rationale. If they want em...Give it to em. If I was humping a pack up and down trails that make a pack mule cringe I would have a pretty good reason for wanting a heavier weapon.

berettafan · 11-12-2009, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolReaver

Whatever the rationale. If they want em...Give it to em. .

Ditto.

SolReaver · 11-12-2009, 01:03 PM

I did a little checking. Wikipedia has a REALLY good write up. I was impressed.
M14 rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It does have greater range and it can fire through cover. There are some really good sharpshooter variants and it is well respected by a number of special forces units that have a lot more experience in these things than I do. Therefore, i will go along with what they say. The only disadvantage is that you can't control it on full auto like the 16. Probably a good mid to long range solution. The article even mentioned their current use in Afghanistan.

I did learn that the government sold the tooling to taiwan to Make the type 57. Apparently the taiwaneese (sp?) like it. Sorry to hear about the destruction of so many of them. They could have given a couple dozen to me. Fine rifle, put a plastic stock on it, good scope, and ready to go. My other research shows tons of accessories and options. Like I thought a well built 14 has a really good MOA approaching a bolt action and people have been improving and modifying them since Korea.