Talk:M14 rifle

Dummy rifle

In the Philippines, M14 dummy rifles are used by college ROTC and high school CAT (Citizen Army Training) cadets. CAT is a Philippine program which corresponds to the Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps in the US or the Combined Cadet Force in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.107.159.125 (talk) 10:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

US school ROTCs have a few M1 Garands which are deactivated so it stands to reason there are M14ss too.86.16.153.191 (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Usage by Japan? Never heard of it.

I've never heard of Japan using the M14. From 1950~present (ceremonial purposes) they used the M1 Garand. From 1950~1978 they used the M1 Carbine. From 1950~1976, the M1903A4. From 1950~1972, the Type 99 rifle. From 1964~present, the Type 64 rifle. And from 1989~present, the Type 89 rifle. (68.18.209.220 (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC))

Automatic Rifle?

You sure about that?13Tawaazun14 (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• What do you suggest? It is a rifle with full auto fire. Editors have changed the Infobox type to battle rifle, service rifle, and assault rifle recently. Seems to be no argument with automatic rifle. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose either Battle Rifle or Automatic Rifle would work. Service Rifle applies to any rifle that is or was in service, so that's a no go, and it is certainly not an Assault rifle. I don't know who would change it to that. But yeah I can see either of those two working.(13Tawaazun14 not signed in)71.179.227.101 (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The term "Battle Rifle" is whoey. The 7.62x51mm NATO is an intermediate version of the three-double aught-six. (.30-06 Springfield (7.62x63mm)) 76.94.193.171 (talk) 00:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The term 'Battle Rifle' is used to refer to general issue military rifles using full power military cartridges and intended/used primarily to provide semi-automatic fire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.206.73 (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Removed an unlikely line from "Development"

I removed the following two sentances:

The early M16 also suffered from reliability problems which tarnished its reputation long after these were corrected. After the corrections were made soldiers on the ground nicknamed the M16 the "the sweet sixteen".

I've never heard the least about any nickname like "sweet sixteen" being applied to the M-16 rifle in anything I've read on the Vietnam War (Paddy Griffith's Forward Into Battle, Jonathan Shay's Achilles in Vietnam, and essays and the novel Fields of Fire by Jim Webb). "Mattel toy," on the other hand, has remarkably wide currency...

I removed the previous sentence, too; it seemed to go with it pretty well. If anyone cares to reinstate it, though, be my guest; it's certainly less in need of a 'Citation Needed'. That said, I think that discussion of the M-16 qua M-16 is not really the point of this article -- and it's very easy to figure out where to go for that information. ExOttoyuhr (talk) 01:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

People were in different places in Vietnam, and the war was long, but I never heard anybody call the 16 "sweet" or "sweet sixteen" or anything remotely like that. It had its benefits (lighter, etc.), but people who took basic in 1968 like me trained on both the 14 and the 16 and most preferred the 14 for reliability and power.

Sweet sixteen is the title of the comic book like maintenance manual issued to the troops in Vietnam,believe me I never heard anyone call the M-16 sweet.Safn1949 (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

effective range of 500 yards?

The M16A4 has an effective range (without optics) of 550 yards. I'm no firearms expert, but that just doesn't seem right to me. An unspecialized assault rifle with a greater effective range than that of a battle rifle? --AtTheAbyss (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should clarify myself: I know that the M16A4 has an effective range of 500 metres, it just seems like the M14's range would be a bit longer without optics. (AtTheAbyss)--136.247.76.240 (talk) 03:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Do you know if the M14 and M16 range values are both correct? The M16 range could actually be it max range, not max effective range. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Marines (USMC) at boot camp have to qualify at 500 metres with the M16A2. I just thought that the 7.62 NATO would grant a longer max effective range than the 5.56 NATO. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

• Given that, I would question that M14 range as well. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm only questioning the M14 range. I know the M16A2's given range is correct. (AtTheAbyss) --136.247.76.137 (talk) 18:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a sources to back this but, I thought that the m14 had an effective range of 800 yards. A .308 must a longer range than a .223. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 04:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

The range needs to cited. That'd help end a lot of this... -Fnlayson (talk) 00:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Interesting articles Classes on new M14 take precision marksmanship to new levels at Army.mil and New Lease on Life for the Beloved M-14 at Military.com AliveFreeHappy (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Planning figures for effective fire - 5.56mm rifle - 300m, 7.62mm DMR - 600m, 7.62mm Sniper Rifle - 800m It all depends on your definition of effective fire - it usually means that 50% of the rounds pass within 1m of the center of the target. Even with bolt action rifles in the good old days, firing at anything over 600m was considered area fire... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.206.73 (talk) 11:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

M-14 Early deployment

The first troops to be issued the new M14 rifle were the Berlin Garrison in the late spring and early summer of 1961. All three Battle Groups were fully equiped with the rifle by the time of the building of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent Berlin Crisis. During that event, the Battle Groups were actually issued ammunition in the field as tensions rose. Reportedly, this is the first time since the end of WW2 that troops in Europe were issued ammunition during an alert. Armored vehicles and artillery/mortor units were also loaded and unlocked during the three war alerts that were called in one week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.206.161.198 (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Source?--Sus scrofa (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Who keeps reverting automatic rifle?

It's the specific type of weapon, not the vague term "battle rifle". --Phil1988 (talk) 04:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That's because not all M-14's were set up as full auto or select fire weapons,much like the FN FAL.They had the receiver machined with the rear lug but many were blocked and didn't have the full auto kit installed.Unlike the M-16 the full auto kit was relatively easy to remove from the weapon rendering it a semi auto battle rifle.Safn1949 (talk) 02:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Operators

Why is China listed as an M-14 operator? I know Norinco manufactured a semi-auto-only clone, but I haven't seen anything indicating China has ever issued the M-14. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Good Skoda (talk • contribs) 19:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

...so I'm going to go ahead and move the M-14S to the varients and remove China from the operators. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Good Skoda (talk • contribs) 19:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Does M14K really need two fat paragraphs?

I submit that M14_rifle#M14K is large disproportionate to its importance at the article, and should be trimmed back to a sentence or two like the other variant subsections. Does anyone have a justification for keeping it as-is? MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

No reason. The K section has more details than another other variant section. It should be trimmed/summarized, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

M15

Hi, are you sure the M15 is a derivate of the M-14? Looking around on Internet and on Wikipedia:Italy and Wikipedia:France, the rifle seems like a verion of the Ar-15, or a semiauto-only M16, if you prefer. In the photos and videos it seems to chamber the 5.56 mm Nato, and it looks quite like an M16, plus check out the Armalite site here: M15 family. In case they're two different weapons with similar names then maybe we should put up a redirect.

They are two different weapons. As the paragraph in the M-14 article says, the military-designated M-15 was a prototype to replace the BAR in the late 50's. It shared parts and features with the M-14. It was never adopted - the role was filled by another M-14 derivative, the M-14A1. There is a civilian AR-15 clone on the market now under the trade name "M-15". As I understand it, Colt owns the trademark "AR-15", while the original patents have expired and anyone can make a clone, they can't use the name. Manufacturers often go for names that lean on association with the original name. (Don't forget to sign your posts using four ~ at the end of your entry. Thanks!) Good Skoda (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Rate of Twist

I removed the rate of twist and heel markings paragraph and it was reverted. Instead of re-reverting I'm going to post here. While the rate of twist is important to the weapon, it is the way it is presented that caused me to remove it. A single line that states "Right-hand twist, 1:12 inches, 4 grooves." Surely there has to be a better way to present it? I just can't think how. Falcon5nz (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe Fnlayson's recent edit has mostly fixed the issue, although I didn't see a problem with it before. — DanMP5 15:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Reword/adjust more as needed. That was a first cut. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Heel Markings

Why "Springfield Armory (or commercial contractor name)"? Why not "Name of manufacturer"? Falcon5nz (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

USAF Honor Guard

The article states that:

" The United States Air Force Honor Guard uses a version of the M14 specially modified by the USAF Gunsmith that prevents semi-automatic fire; members have to manually cycle a new round by pulling on the charging handle every time they fire."

Is there a citation for this assertion, or is someone speculating based on having attended an Air Force funeral once? I performed honor guard duties in the Army for veterans' funerals, and the manual cycling of the action is due to the use of blanks, which do not develop the pressure necessary to operate the action of a gas operated rifle. I would expect that the Air Force Honor Guard M14 would be the same way. What possible use would there be in converting them to single-shot when the only time they'd be able to fire semi-auto would be when firing live rounds.... something the Honor Guard likely never does with their drill rifles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.55.97.45 (talk) 04:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Found a reference in the AF Honor Guard training guide.

"Honor Guard issued M-14s have been modified by the AF Gunsmith to prevent semi-automatic fire". 

No explanation given though. Adding citation to main article.

99.55.97.45 (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Shughart reference needs MOH mention

The short paragraph in the post-M16 section that mentions Randy Shughart certainly needs to reference his Medal of Honor. I'd make the section read something like this.

During the Battle of Mogadishu, Delta Force operator, Sergeant First Class Randy Shughart, who was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions in the battle, used an M-14 first while providing sniper cover for ground forces from a circling MH-6 Little Bird and then while defending the crash site and crew of Mike Durant's downed BlackHawk helicopter before the site was overrun by Somali militants and he was killed.

For anyone who's read Black Hawk Down, Shughart's use of the M-14 provide a great deal of context for the weapon's use within modern warfare and serve as a significant and heroic footnote within military history. I certainly don't think that Randy Shugart's name should ever be mentioned in a medium such as Wikipedia without noting his distinction as a Medal of Honor recipient. - Gwopy 15:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwopy (talk • contribs)

Length of M14

Some sources states that the length of rifle is 112 cm, not 118. Which is correct?Историк2010 (talk) 23:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect (but have no RS) that these are the lengths without (112 cm) and with (118 cm) the flash hider. htom (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The M14 is pretty good. No match for the M14 EBR though.I've seen many awesome lookin EBR's. Say they should make and Auto Barret .50caliber. That'd be cool eh mate? Bring on the sequence!!!! Yeehaw. Just kiddin not a cowboy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.76.41.58 (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

error

how can it be in service in 1957 when it wasn't produced till 1959 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.165.15 (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

apparently fixed by ROG5728 Cowbert (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)