I just want my M-14!

Maddening article the other day in the Associated Press. Seems, to almost nobody’s surprise, that the 5.56mm 62-grain SS109 bullet is next to worthless at ranges beyond 300 meters when fired from the M-4 Carbine. As the article explains, the 14.5″ barrel of the M-4 in place of the 20″ barrel of the M-16A2 makes a barely adequate round entirely inadequate.

The AP article mentions the M110 sniper rifle, an AR-type design in the 7.62 NATO. I am sure it is a fine weapon, and has been well-received by the users. However, it is a sniper rifle and not for general issue. The M110 also weighs a robust 15 pounds.

It is high time to replace the M-4 and M-16A2 with something better. Not a new and “transformational” design taking decades and billions to develop. But by re-starting manufacture and updating the venerable M-14 battle rifle.

While no shrinking violet either, the M-14 fires the powerful 147-grain M80 7.62 NATO round effective as far as the eye or the scope can see. Update the design by eliminating the full automatic and by fitting a modern and lightweight fiberglass stock to the action. The loaded weight of the M-14 is just shy of 11 pounds, and this figure could be cut significantly (The M-16A2 weighs nearly 9 pounds loaded) . The M-14 is a rugged, reliable, accurate, and lethal rifle. And it is available. If necessary, begin a robust training program for unit and depot-level armorers, and restart manufacture of spare parts and replacement components.

Bring back the M-14. It belongs not in warehouses, but updated and refurbished, in the hands of US Servicemen who are at present being outgunned by weapons designed up to a century ago. And it can give us time to design an intermediate caliber weapon that will take us successfully onto the battlefields of the future.

Posted by UltimaRatioReg in Air Force, Army, History, Marine Corps, Maritime Security, Navy

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • Nice idea but its not going to happen. Smaller stature military members wouldn’t be able to handle the weapon.

    What’s gone unnoticed and what’s actually criminal is a point that you brought up. The Army switched to the M4 and discarded its full size rifles.

    With optics on the M-16A4 you have a weapon that can engage targets at the required distance—consistently. Add to it improvements in the rounds being fired from it and you have a reliable killer out to at least twice the effective range of the M4 (really probably closer to three times the distance but I’ll be generous).

    We don’t need to run back to the M14, we just need the Army to use common sense in weapons procurement. They need to give their Infantrymen a rifle…not a carbine.

    On a different subject.

    KILL THE IAR! What a potential waste of money and training time.

  • Marcase

    The M-14 did made a re-entry in the form of the M-14 EBR (Enhanced Battle Rifle) – including folding stock. Been in use since Iraq to give designated marksman (not snipers) a heavier 7.62mm to reach out and touch bad guys.

    But the M-14 is just too heavy, too large (for COIN/CQB) and too old a design, even when ‘pimped up’ to EBR.

    The US Army goes for close(r) range so the M-4 carbine (and not assault rifle) does well. The US Marines – being smarter – adepted a better 5.56mm round and stick with the long barrel M-16A4. Like Solomon says better optics also makes an impact – litteraly.

    On IAR – the current IAR program was started to replace the ‘heavy’ SAW. If the M249 is considered too heavy and cumbersome, than the M-14/EBR would be considered as unsat as well.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    “Smaller stature military members wouldn’t be able to handle the weapon.”

    “But the M-14 is just too heavy, too large (for COIN/CQB) and too old a design, even when ‘pimped up’ to EBR.”

    I have carried the M16A1, A2, and the M16A2 with the M203. There is little ergonomic difference between any of them and the M-14. I have taught several female shooters of modest stature to shoot effectively with it, and they have found it very comfortable, with manageable recoil.

    The EBR is not what I am advocating. The M-14 made its reentry also as the good old M-14 and is very popular with the men who carry them.

    What we (Army and Marine Corps) need is something now as well as fifteen years from now. Solomon, your point that “we just need the Army to use common sense in weapons procurement” doesn’t fill me with promise for a rifle replacement for the M-4/M16A2 inside of fifteen years. And we can’t wait that long.

    As for being too old a design, the M-14 was adopted in 1957, well after the AK-47, and half a century after the Enfield design. If it is old and it still works, it is not too old.

  • Chuck Hill

    Not my field of expertise, but understand there is a 6.8mm now popular with SOF that can be used in 5.56 mm chambered weapons by replacing the bolt, barrel, and magazine that provides twice the kinetic energy.

  • UltimaRatioReg


    That is what I would truly love to see, is the M16A2 chambered in 6.8mm. With a GAS PISTON. Enough of the direct impingement, and I believe the 6.8 that the SOF guys are using has one. Sturdier, heat buildup is on the piston and not the bolt, and carbon doesn’t wind up in the chamber or on the face of the bolt.

  • Marcase

    Ah, the 6.8mm SPC, if only…

    The 6.8mm could replace BOTH 5.56mm and 7.62mm, in all types – carbines, battle rifle, SAW and GPMG. It’s just that good.

    Something like the cancelled XM-8 family of rifles (including sharpshooter and SAW/LMGs) chambered in ‘universal’ 6.8mm SPC would be dope.

    Gas-piston is a must have. Both H&K, Barrett and Colt offer gas piston uppers. Why this small but significant update hasn’t been acquired service-wide is nuts.

    “…The M-14 made its reentry also as the good old M-14 and is very popular with the men who carry them…”

    Only because there was no alternative until the SR-25/M-110 (or if you’re lucky SCAR-H) reached the troops in sufficient numbers.
    The M-14 clogs dust and grime. Not a bad rifle, but there are better alternatives available off-the-shelf.

  • UltimaRatioReg


    Point me to a rifle that does not clog in dust and grime. Few are easier to clear than the 14…. And the Marines I knew who humped the 14 loved the thing. Just loved it. A SgtMaj I know got a 200m+ necktie shot on a bad guy with his.

    My concern is that we will never buy “off the shelf” fast enough and begin production soon enough to do anybody any good until 2025 or 2030. The M-14s we have now are available.

    Agreed, though, on the 6.8mm. Sure would simplify logistical issues with ammunition supplies. And it is a man-stopper.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    *Burma Shave*

    “Gas-piston is a must have. Both H&K, Barrett and Colt offer gas piston uppers. Why this small but significant update hasn’t been acquired service-wide is nuts.”


  • My dad, then a Staff Sergeant, was the recorder for a Board meeting in the mid-50’s to select the new infantry weapon for the Marine Corps. To no one’s surprise, they selected a weapon designed and manufactured by the Belgian firm Fabrique Nationale (FN). Also to no one’s surprise, the Board’s recommendation fell on politically deaf ears. (BTW, he was also on the Board that developed Vertical Envelopment.)

  • Grandpa Bluewater

    The Blue Jacket’s manual used to contain a set of formation exercises done with a rifle with sling, the purpose of which was to condition the arms, shoulders, back, and chest. Which were, I believe, part of every boot camp morning.

    How big was Audie Murphy? Not very big. Immense stature, but not very tall, or upon enlistment, heavily muscled.

  • Michael Antoniewicz II

    You’re going to laugh, cry, want to throw your mug through the screen, and a few of you are going to say ‘yep, I was there when they said/did that’.

    Not responsible for damage from spit-takes, smashed screens, or your being fired for any-of-the-above during working hours and/or using this as part of a presentation.

    You have been warned. 😉

    MadMike is “Shooting Some Sacred Cows”…

  • Ok, since the conventional wisdom is that the M-14 should be adopted what is that going to do to the soldier’s load?

    Ounces equal pounds and pounds equal pain.

    Switch to the M-14 as the primary Infantry weapon for US forces and you’ve just added at least 10 pounds to his load.

    To get an M-14 up to modern specs you would have to make some of the modifications that Springfield has already done.

    New stock, rails, optics, lights, laser, grip pod and that’s before we talk about the additional weight of ammo and magazines!

    Oh and Audie Murphy didn’t wear Kevlar vests with inserts or have to worry about all the comm gear that’s filtering down to even the squad level so that higher ups can keep a leash on their Marines.

    Solve the soldier load with the move to a bigger round and I might be convinced. Otherwise just shoot the 5.56 out of a real rifle.

    One thing has to be said about the lust for piston driven weapons too. The problem is amplified in the M4 because of its size. The full size weapon doesn’t have the reliability problems of the smaller one because of this.

    The move by SOCOM to get the SCAR into service is motivated by…I don’t know….At times it seems that they have more money than they know what to do with…first the HK416/417 now the SCAR? Amazing.

    Lastly. KILL THE IAR! Talk about a weapon without a purpose…only a convoluted training schedule and a lack of suppressive fire when you need it. (Oh and gents…the Gunners that are pushing that want it in 5.56 and in a barrel length slightly shorter than the M-16A4)

  • Right. Upgrade a 60 year old platform, derived from a 75 year old platform, with a base price near $2000, with $1000 worth of upgrades, to get something almost as good as several other 50 year old platforms that are already retired. That’s the FUTURE!

    Any .30 is logistically impossible for general issue. This has been the case before most of use were born. Nor would going back to those real manstopping .45-70s or .58 Minies be practical.

    First, teach the Army to shoot. (I’ve served Army and AF. The AF trains its shooters better. I know the Marines do, too. Sorry if the truth hurts). Then, train them how to maintain their weapon.

    Then, get rid of the silly 14.5″ barrel except for house clearing and certain activities that require short barrels. Carry spare uppers in the armory, if needed. Go back to 20″, and the M193 round. The idiotic requirement the Marines put forth of “being able to penetrate a steel helmet at 800 yards” is why we have the bullet we have. It’s a criteria that serves no purpose in any battle, and was simply a lame attempt to try to recover the glory days of the “2000 yard lethality” the old guard fantasizes ever existed.

    98% of effective engagements are under 300m. The 20″ M16 works fine for that. For longer ranges, there are grenade launchers, machine guns, and this nifty thing called a radio. Pin them down, call for support, paste them.

  • Also, weapon weight aside, you’re forgetting the much more important ammo weight. It doesn’t matter how effective the ammo you ran out of was. All that matters is the ammo you have.

    5.56 is half the weight, means twice as much ammo as 7.62. Basic combat load went from 100 to 210 rounds, and many troops are carrying 300 rounds now. 300 rounds of 7.62 is just not feasible, either at the logistics end or the troop end. Nor will a bigger round somehow magically improve hit probabilities or reduce the need for suppressing fire.

    6.8 is in between, and more effective than 5.56, but not sufficiently more effective to offset the loss of ammo for the loadout.

    What you’re going to see is 6.8 replacing 7.62. Shorter action = lighter weapon, and lighter ammo means more load for support weapons.

    And in 25 years of service, I’ve seen few M16 problems that weren’t attributable to operator error. It doesn’t need a gallon of goo (that mixes with sand to create mud), and it does need cleaned on occasion.

    Also, the original hard chrome bolt carrier group makes a significant difference in reliability. The parkerized carrier was one of many changes the Army made to “improve” the weapon that didn’t work.

  • Piston AR conversions have been around for 40 years. None have been militarily or commercially successful. Why? Because they really don’t offer any advantage.

  • And a bit more evidence to buttress my argument.
    The problem is the carbine that the Army chose, instead of going with the rifle (M-16A4) that they needed.

  • UltimaRatioReg


    That’s pretty funny!


    The soldier’s load is dictated more by the neuroses of the Operations Officer than by the ~1 pound difference between a loaded M16A2 and a loaded, modernized M-14. To wit, the poor grunt (and his poor FO, as I can attest!) has to carry crap to meet every last possible contingency.

    The 5.56×45 is a problem. Even out of a full sized rifle it is barely adequate. The fielding of an AR in 6.8mm (or 6.5mm, or 7mm) will take more than a decade, to be sure. It shouldn’t, but it will. Meantime, we need something better. And that something better is the M-14. If I go back, I will ask for one. I own an M1A and it is a fabulous, powerful, accurate, easy handling design.

  • Spade

    M-14? Why would we pick a rifle that was already shown, 50 years ago, to be inferior to the FAL? Only reason the M14 won that competition was because of officers afraid of both “things that are not wood” and “things that are not made here” (one of which also killed the AR-10). There’s a reason that the FAL got purchased by so many countries and the M14 kinda died. I guess if we desperately wanted a 7.62mm battle rifle we should go with a modernized FAL or G3 (both are better than the M14 and can take all the modern rails and other doodads. Lots of civilians have ’em).

    “Fixing” the M16/M4 is pretty easy. First of all, the Army has to give up the M4. The M4 is a carbine, it’s not a rifle. It, along with all the old 10.5/11.5″ variants were developed for people who needed smaller guns. REMF types, paratroopers (sometimes), and whatnot. Problem is that SF/Delta/SEALs/Assorted Other Cool People used it and the DOD suffers from “If the Cool Guys are doing it for one specific job it must be awesome for everybody!” syndrome.
    The 5.56mm was developed for 20″ barrels, and so it should be. 18″ minimum. M4’s should only be given to people who’s jobs aren’t shooting people at distance, like was originally intended. I, as a civilian, own one because there will probably never be a legal reason for me to take a shot at somebody past conversational distance.

    The other problem is the ammo the DOD uses. SS109/M855 was a stupid choice. Hell, the M193 was better at hurting people. But those are obsolete. I can think of 2 rounds off the top of my head that are way better than the M855 or the M193 that the DOD already has in the system. Mk262, or slightly less cool, the Mk318. Or there’s all of these: http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Self_Defense_Ammo_FAQ/index.htm#.223
    And don’t worry about the Hollowpoint issues since they’re now “Open Tip Match” and that’s apparently legal and okay.

  • Daskro

    M-14s in warehouses don’t exist. Clinton chopped up almost all of them in the 90s.

  • UltimaRatioReg—great post. I still disagree with ya but you pushed the debate forward and out of the local watering hole where these type discussions usually occur. Good job.

  • UltimaRatioReg


    “a base price near $2000, with $1000 worth of upgrades”.. Nope. Modern composite stock. Eliminate selective fire. For existing M-14s, this is an extremely low-cost upgrade, unless you work for NG shipbuilding…

    The point being that the solution is a near term one while we get our collective heads out of defilade with an effective service RIFLE.

    Also the 5.56 is a lousy, barely adequate round. Issues with stopping power in Vietnam, Beirut, Mogadishu, and now AFG. Heavier match rounds meant for heavier match barrels cause excessive wear on non-match barrels that affect service life and accuracy significantly.

    I also disagree about the gas piston, which does hold many advantages over the DI system, heat buildup being just one. And I don’t want my Marines with a weapon that can only engage at 300 meters. I don’t care where the majority of engagements take place. Read about Belleau Wood.

    You will also have to tell me why the 7.62 NATO is logistically “impossible”. Simply saying it doesn’t demonstrate the point.

    Spade, why the M-14? Because we have them available. I love the rifle, but I also very much love the FAL. Unfortunately, we have NONE of those. See above regarding heavier (70+ grain) ammo out of 1:7 non-match barrels.

    Solomon, thanks. The idea was to do just that. Our service long weapons are in many ways inferior for the missions at hand and for future missions. I knew that debates on rifle and ammunition would be like debates on starting charcoal. Everyone’s theory is better than everyone else’s! 🙂

  • Byron

    Daskro, I was still seeing rovers with M-14’s over their shoulders as late as 2003.

  • The return, though in but a few very specific places/positions, of the M-14 in the last decade has been one of the great “I told you so’s”. Ditto the 9mm’s continued lack of ability to effectively and efficiently knock down anyone besides a sober European. Sure, it works fine – but 85% of people would rather have a 45 (and a lot of units/people still carry a 45 – smart folks), or at least a 40 – because they work better. When those things work better – more of the enemy dies and fewer Americans die – that is the core of the argument in the end.

    The 6.8mm is the better answer in a modern platform … but like the 9mm challenge, the 5.56mm is winning not because it is the right answer – but because the Logistics and Supply types like the clean and easy (for them) answer.

    Remember early on in this war – good progress was being made towards the 6.8mm until it was slow-rolled? Ditto expanding access to 45 beyond a few units. That too slow rolled.

    Why? Well – it isn’t because the people on the point end wanted them slow rolled.

  • Roderick

    Can’t believe nobody mentioned the new FN SCAR-H chambered in 7.62 NATO.

  • Spade

    “Spade, why the M-14? Because we have them available.”

    Not in the numbers you think and probably not of the quality either. Also, for most M14s, the select fire was deleted long ago.

    “Heavier match rounds meant for heavier match barrels cause excessive wear on non-match barrels that affect service life and accuracy significantly.”

    I haven’t heard this complaint before. If true, just replace the barrel. The part is already in the pipeline. The DOD needs to get on the whole “regularly replacing parts in small arms” bandwagon anyway. Second of all, there’s plenty of quite good sub 70 grain rounds from Hornady, Sierra, and Federal. Such as the Mk318 I already mentioned. It’s a 62 grain OTM, so there’s no barrel issues compared to the current SS109 types.

  • UltimaRatioReg


    You said a mouthful. As an old Vietnam hand who had used the 14 and the M-1 (in Korea) once said over a beer to a young 1stLt URR, “Back then, when you shot someone, the ***ker fell down and died right there.” Which both the 7.62 NATO and .45 ACP did plenty well. (Which is why my home defense weapon is a 230-grain .45 ACP JHP out of a 1911. Once you get past the German Shepherd.)


    The Mk 318 and the other ammunition types you mention are marginal improvements to a barely adequate round. There is only so much that can be done to offset the physics of a small round transferring kinetic force poorly.

    I would love to see match barrels on our M16s. But they are not cheap. Not by a long shot.

  • Spade

    “The Mk 318 and the other ammunition types you mention are marginal improvements to a barely adequate round. There is only so much that can be done to offset the physics of a small round transferring kinetic force poorly.”

    I’d be interested in seeing the testing data you’ve got on the terminal performance of the Mk318. I haven’t managed to find any of that yet.

  • UltimaRatioReg


    The Mk 318 is designed for penetration (at close ranges), not stopping power. Its weight and MV are nearly the same as that of the SS109/M855. At 62 grains and around 2900 fps MV, there is only so much to work with. And I bet it still yaws like hell.

  • Spade

    Kinetic energy/muzzle velocity/weight and stopping power (this term should be banished from the land) are not the end all be all measurement of if a round is ‘good’ or not.
    A 147 grain 9mm Speer Gold dot and a Federal Hydra-shok are the same weight, the Federal is just a tiny bit faster, and yet the Gold Dot is a better round and the Hydra-shok is outdated and pretty lousy. If you’re a .45 guy the same holds for both of those rounds in that caliber.

  • UltimaRatioReg


    “stopping power (this term should be banished from the land)”

    I will let the guys who fought in Mogadishu who watched bad guys get hit three or four times and either get out of the line of fire or continue to return fire.

  • Spade


    There’s at least two logical fallacies in that statement, and it really doesn’t address my post at all. Plus I think you’re missing words.

    A badly performing round (which the SS109 is) has nothing to do with the fact that the concept of “stopping power” (and the related velocity/weight/etc) is flawed. Plus, IIRC, in the book Black Hawk Down one of the M60 gunners bitches about the same problem. (which makes sense if you look at a .308 gel test and figure it with a skinny malnourished guy) But I’d have to pull my copy to check. But that’s still unrelated.

  • UltimaRatioReg


    The point is this, and then I will get back to Naval blog stuff after our foray into exterior ballistics:

    There is a factor in bullet performance that does not neatly fit into measurements of velocity, projectile weight and stability, accuracy, energy transfer calculations, joules of energy at impact, ballistic coefficients, penetration ability, or other measures.

    In fact, sometimes the factor is predictably correlative to some or all of the above calculations, but other times it is not, and is at times counter to what the numbers of a certain measure or measures would seem to indicate.

    That is the ability of a projectile to have sufficient accuracy, penetration, force, and mass to enter into the body and do debilitating organ damage. It isn’t exactly “stopping power”, but the term is not entirely inappropriate. The concept is likely a sometimes-happenstance matching of a projectile size, shape, and weight to a propellant and interior ballistics system that comes close to the ideal for its purpose.

    Such can be engineered only so far, which explains why some rounds seemingly destined for success wind up as failures, and others become star performers from a previously mediocre cartridge family.

  • …oh – and no one expects to effectively down even a 125# deer with a .223, and as a matter of fact it is illegal because it is so ineffective. Most police forces have thrown away their 9mm for the .40 or other better round; because it is ineffective.

    The “5.56 and 9mm is fine for downing an enemy high on XYZ” just doesn’t wash. The only argument that even remotely holds up to close scrutiny are those that involve logistics and commonality with allies.

  • Spade

    “and no one expects to effectively down even a 125# deer with a .223, and as a matter of fact it is illegal because it is so ineffective. Most police forces have thrown away their 9mm for the .40 or other better round; because it is ineffective.”

    No, it is not illegal. Many states allow deer to be taken with .223. Many people do (bunch of threads on ar15.com about it). It’s not like the Remington 6mm (legal everywhere) I learned on was really any bigger. Plus I know a ridiculous number of people who hunt pigs with AR-15 varients and I highly doubt your average Texas deer is heavier built than your average pig.

    And with modern hollowpoints pretty much every pistol round from 9mm to.45 (including .357 Sig) penetrates the same and has the similar terminal effects. Sure, some police departments have dropped the 9mm, but I also remember the fact that most cops know beans about guns. What you get is some cop fails to stop a guy with a 9mm, and blames the round since he doesn’t know that all pistol calibers are universally not the best at killing people. Cops are also easily swayed by new shiny toys and corporate representatives. You can see that in the number of departments that decided the 5.7mm (in the P90 and Five-seveN) was an acceptable duty round when it is really a terrible round.

  • Paul

    I’ve only carried the M16 and the SAW and was unimpressed with the round overall. The SAW was a better equalizer as it’s been said “happiness is a belt-fed weapon…”

    Saw a show on Discovery which touted the 6.8– Barrett went ahead and designed an upper receiver that could mate onto the lower receiver of an M16/M4 and presto– new weapon with better stopping power. That was a couple of years ago but haven’t heard anything about it since.

    Something else to consider as well that hasn’t been mentioned here. Eventually, we’re going to have to fight people who will go “gee, body armor isn’t a bad idea…” and does anyone here have any faith in the 5.56 to either have the kinetic energy or the penetration power to deal with that eventuality? I sure don’t.

    Of course we have millions upon millions of 5.56 rounds in storage, right? I am sure the gov’t would use that as an argument as well.

  • Michael Antoniewicz II


    Post I put up last night saying that what CDR Salamander quoted about taking down an Enemy with the “…“5.56 and 9mm is fine for downing an enemy high on XYZ” just doesn’t wash….” was too mild is … missing.

    I noted it was more like being up to your neck in a pig farm’s sh*t lagoon. I provided a link to a web forum for ER Docs and other ER workers to show the, at least well documented anecdotal, reports of what a human being can do on ‘XYZ’ and even survive. I observed that if an Enemy “…High on XYZ” was coming at you, you’d want to be sure they were dead before they got within 10 feet of you. And I ended it with the observation that instead of a 5.56 and 9mm, .45, Shotgun, and a bayonet that couldn’t be used as a steak knife would be better for that situation. Tacked a link on to the Mosin Nagart Humor site where the steak knife joke comes from (AK vs AR vs Mosin Nagart ‘comparison’).

    And ~12 hours ago I noticed it was gone.

    Nothing in the eMail Inbox nor SPAM File as of now on who or why it was pulled.


  • UltimaRatioReg

    Michael A,

    What did you do to make SWMBO mad at you? She rules with an iron fist…. 🙂

  • Michael Antoniewicz II


    Not sure since I never got a warning eMail but it was probably the reference that things getting stuck in orifices below the belt-line is no longer a shocker to ER folks and the only thing that stands out these days seems to be the uniqueness of the object. Oh, and it was both front & back and Male *&* Female that show up for those ‘issues’. The things humans can do while “high on XYZ” and survive … yeah, me wants more then a 5.56 and/or a 9mm in that combat situation.

    Still, the one I read on the “Things I Learn From My Patients” forum (that I referenced and linked) that had me, as a male, crossing my legs as hard as I could was the one about the razer blades self inserted into the Urethra while “high on XYZ”. >shudders< Although the considered Medical Advice that if you're going to go on a date followed by 'bedroom activities', it would make sense to ensure that your partner trimmed their nails so you don't end the night in the ER with a lacerated Colon.

    I swear to god that after reading that site I quite agree that common sense is getting so rare that it can be considered a Super Power. 😉
    http://www.motifake.com/saveas.php?id=36145 😉

  • UltimaRatioReg


    Mein Gott im Himmel, as my Mother used to say. (Sitting with hands over ears and knees to chest, rocking back and forth, mumbling to himself…)

  • Michael Antoniewicz II

    It takes a VERY SPECIAL person to survive working ER, and I’m not talking about the near decade’s worth of schools and education before they can even start.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    You got that right. I am in the health care biz. They are really the first line in a disaster.

  • Peter C Armstrong

    The US Army went with M4, because it was the better weapon for urban combat in Iraq. Now that we have move on to Afghanistan, wrong tool for this job. Instead of reissuing the M-14, the Army should have the Designated Marksman program using Springfield M1A Socom II Rifle.(retail appox. $1437-1600.00) I am certain with mass order would bring the price down to a $1000.00. All the optics in the supply system can be adopted to M1A. As it was written above allot long barreled (chrome lined barrel) 20” upper receivers to rest of Platoon. Assign M_4 Carbine like M 1 were give out during WWII and Korea.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    Peter C.,

    A set of modifications to the M-14 that I envision would make it very similar to the SOCOM II. Perhaps with some additional weight savings.

    But there is a lot to be said for the 7.62×51 over the 5.56×45.