Talk:M14 rifle/Archive 1

M25 and DMR

It would seem from the text that whoever wrote it implies that the M25 and the USMC DMR are the same rifle. I didn't think this was the case. I had thought the M25 was a sort of product improved M21, and the new DMR is almost completely different. Am I reading this wrong, is this true, what's the deal? --Thatguy96 15:59, 31 January 2006

Chinese Copy?

Should there be a mention of the semi-automatic M-14/s produced by China?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.178.133.197 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 21 May 2006.

There is mention of the Norinco M14S, just not explained. --Thatguy96 22:36, 20 May 2006

Popular culture

I have moved the list of references to films/tv/video games to a new pages and replaced the section with a link to it. This is to keep it the article clean and uniform with other similar articles and List of firearms in video games pages. (see Heckler & Koch MP5 / Heckler & Koch MP5 in popular culture or MAC-10 / MAC-10 in popular culture) for similar ...in popular culture pages) and also to help with inclusion into the List of firearms in films Deon Steyn 07:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. Maybe an introductory sentence for the section would help. —MJCdetroit 16:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Still in active service

I added an image to back up D.E. Watters' last edit on 3 August. It shows that the M14 is still very much in active service in the U.S. armed forces.--WHATaintNOcountryIeverHEARDofDOtheySPEAKenglishINwhat 19:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Used in Estonia?

Just curious. To my knowledge, the Estonian military is using the Galil and the Ak 4 with plans to replace the Galil with Ak 4 in full. What units in Estonia are known to use M14? Ohpuu 17:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Estonia received 40,500 M14 rifles from the US for free in 1998. I don't know the units involved, but in a photo I've seen, the rifles have been modified for sniper use. D.E. Watters 21:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The M14 truly remains on the equipment list of the Estonian military. The voluntary Defence League uses M14 rifles in marksmanship contests at least (hence the sniper modifications). Current active use seems limited to marksmanship training. (The bulk of the M14 rifles are apparently stored.) Weapons used in training regulars are Galil and Ak 4. Ohpuu 08:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish that I could get just one for free. —MJCdetroit 21:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know the difference between the Mk.14 mod 0 and M14 SOPMOD?

T44?

Why does the term T44 keep being used, their is no explanation.

The term T44 does not continue to be used after the following line: "This led to the T44's adoption by the U.S. military as the M14 in 1957." I would say that pretty much explains the term T44. T designations were used in the US Army for experimental prototypes prior to the introduction of the XM designator. -- Thatguy96 15:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Weight data from ???

It looks to me after looking around at a half dozen different web sites that the correct weight of the M14 is about 13.5 lbs. Even a fully tricked out custom build cut down to an 18" barrel weights 9.5 lbs. Given that the number that is on this site is the one Google close to fixate on I think this number needs to be very well scrutinized. http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2005/03/enhanced-battle-rifle.html 67.187.244.72 08:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the FM I just located and linked, a loaded M14 with cleaning kit weighs 11.25 lbs. A loaded magazine weighs 1.5 pounds. So... a military M14 minus accesories (except cleaning kit) and empty should be about 9.75 pounds. Not sure about sling weight etc.... Deathbunny 08:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Odd, the 1959 version (also just linked) cites a loaded M14 with cleaning kit and selector as 11.34 pounds, cleaning equipment as .63 pounds, and a loaded magazine as 1.50 pounds. 11.34 - 1.50 - .63 = 9.21. Wonder what the selector weighs and whether the cleaning kit gained or lost weight. Deathbunny 09:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the email I got about the weight of the full auto kit,edited for content-"I doubt very seriously if the weight of the full auto kit is adding to the discussion over weight.

All M14s were issued with the capacity to fire full auto selectively. The weight of the full auto kit with selector switch is 2.2 ounces according to my postal scale.

Given the difficulty of full auto fire, the selector switch was replaced (for almost all rifles) with a connector arm lock, which locked the gun into semi-auto fire only. The weight of the full auto pieces with the connector arm lock (no selector switch & spring) is 2.2 ounces. However, another difference that could account for a couple of ounces is the stock weight (walnut vs birch vs synthetic). Another difference that could account for a pound or so is the inclusion of a bipod (1.75 lbs) and/or scope mount & scope. Then again, there is the cleaning kit -- 4 metal rods, a metal cleaning tip, M10 handle, cloth case, oiler & grease pot. Without weighing, I would estimate this adds nearly another pound.

Are your readers confused over the empty vs loaded weight? According to Joe Poyer's book The M-14 Type Rifle:

The weight of the basic rifle with equipment and empty magazine is 9.1 lbs (approx.)

The weight of the basic rifle with equipment, ready to fire , fully load magazine is 11.0 lbs.

Of course the different variations of the rifle (E2, etc) will be different from the basic rifle."

Hope this helps.

Claude Sales Manager Armscorp USA / RA Parts

I hope this helps,Claude really went out of his way to answer me in 1 daySafn1949 03:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Incorrect Caption

The first image in the article (right below the "History" section) had a caption of, "An Army sniper in Fallujah, Iraq, using a commercial Springfield Armory Inc. M21 with a Leupold LR/T 10 x 40 mm M3."

I changed this to, "An Army sniper in Fallujah, Iraq, using a modified M14 with a Leupold LR/T 10 x 40 mm M3."

The rifle is not a commercial Springfield Armory, Inc. M21 -- it is a modified M14. None of the Springfield Armory rifles have a selector lug and you can clearly see a selector shaft lock installed on the rifle (the circular protrusion on the receiver above and slightly behind his finger nail). This lock prevents the rifle from being switched to automatic, limiting it to only firing as a semi-automatic. 71.252.223.220 22:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

I know the M-14 has experienced a bit of a renaissance during the operations in Iraq but I think 3 pictures overkill. Does anyone have a good picture from early days of Vietnam when it was in use there or in use with Allies? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.196.104.34 (talk) 02:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

edited range...

i changed the effective range from 400m to : 500m , 800m+ (with optic).

feel free to debate the effective range of M14s here. 400m is a little more believable i guess for a standard military issue M14 with no optic. Thecoldness 11:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently unaccurized M14s are not substantially more accurate than a good AK or SKS. Most M14s used by the military nowadays are heavily accurized, so this should probably be mentioned in the article. I recall seeing the effective range listed at 460m somewhere. Kensai Max 02:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry mate , thats untrue. your standard unaccurized M14 is alot more accurate then let's say a russian AKM or SKS. for alot of reasons , apart from design , far far far better sights , better balance , and a better cartridge. i'd go into detail but this isn't exactly the place for it IMO. Thecoldness 11:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

References (if available) would clear up the debate. —MJCdetroit 13:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Untrue? That sounds like the kind of stuff you'd pick up reading some paramilitary internet forum. Some people take it as an insult to their masculinity and patriotism to suggest that comblock guns may actually be better than ours for whatever reason. GI issue M14s were terrible weapons, ergo why we ditched them so quickly. Kensai Max 01:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the Wiki article, they list the effective range as 460 meters or 500 yards. According to the U.S. Army's Historic Small Arms Weapon Systems website, "The M14 had an effective range of 500 yards (460m)." [1] -Signaleer 07:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Early government-issue M14s suffered from quality control issues to the point that many were very inaccurate. I've heard that one specimen shot eight MOA when clamped into a benchrest. Competently produced, unaccurized M14s are still not going to shoot much better than a competently produced AK or SKS (about two versus the commonly cited AK three - how much of this has to do with good Western ammo versus iffy Comblock ammo?) in a much heavier and more unwieldy package. It's not that hard to shoot with flat sights - I do it all the time and don't feel much of a difference in accuracy between shooting with flats and apertures.

Ideally we would have a source for the accuracy of military small arms where weapons would be fired with a range of ammo in a scientific manner so that accuracy could be determined by something more precise than gun-forum jawjacking and rumor mongering. If someone has such a source, please contribute! Kensai Max 05:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As a reminder, this is not a weapons forum--this discussion is meant to reflect upon the article and not about personal bias views towards the subject matter--the M14 rifle. If you have any credible sources then list it, personal experiences and hear-say do not count. -Signaleer 06:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Current main picture

Since its been recently identified as a M1A shouldn't we actually have an actual M14 just for continuity sakes?(ForeverDEAD 23:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

Rifle type

I changed the rifle type to battle rifle as Service rifle can apply to any rifle that was used or is used by a certain country

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)

"Three-double aught-six"? "Battle rifle"? It's clear some folks are getting their "information" from video games and gun magazines. It's a "service rifle" per the US armed forces and the NRA, sources far more authoritative than the magazine rack at the Qwik-E-Mart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.62.58 (talk) 04:51, 27 May 2012 (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)

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.149.170 (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2011 (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)

Straight from the US Army's operator manuals for the rifles in question:

M16/M16A1 has a maximum effective range of 460m, per TM 9-1005-249-10 and FM 3-22.9

M16A2/M16A3/M16A4 has a maximum effective range of 550m (individual targets) 800m (area targets), per TM 9-1005-319-10 and FM 3-22.9

M4/M4A1 has a maximum effective range of 500m (individual targets) 600m (area targets), per TM 9-1005-319-10 and FM 3-22.9

M14/M14A1 has a maximum effective range of 460m, 700m if fired from the M2 bipod, per FM 23-8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.95.63 (talk) 12:56, 16 March 2013 (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)

"Battle rifle" is a term invented in the 1980s by the American sporting arms trade, specifically magazines like Soldier of Fortune, Guns & Ammo and SWAT. The M14 was never referred to as a "battle rifle" by any military users.

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)

Citation and claim removed. For technical details of Air Force weapons a vague reference in a handbook for students at an Honor Guard training class is not adequate. And modifications to weapons will be listed in a Technical Order, which is the only document that should be cited.

Further, the claim is nonsensical. No such modification is necessary. An unmodified M14 will not fire blanks---the only rounds being fired by an Honor Guard---semi-automatically. The stock off-the-rack unmodified M14 requires a Blank Firing Adapter to cycle blank cartridges. Without the BFA fitted, any M14 will do exactly the same as the allegedly "modified" ones do, and require the action be manually cycled to extract the fired blank cartridge and chamber a new blank cartridge.

If you honestly believe this "modification" exists, cite a Tech Order, Modification Work Order or other actual ordnance-related source for its existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.62.58 (talk) 04:47, 27 May 2012 (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)

I've got two books in front of me (Janes Guns Recognition Guide by Ian Hogg, ISBN 0-00-712760-X, and The M16 by Jean Huon, ISBN 1-932033-25-4) that both say 1957, not 1959. Modern Firearms and Global Security.org also say 1957, not 1959. I'm sure I can root through my bookshelf and the Internet and find more sources that say 1957. The above anon as well as ROG5728 are both wrong. Spartan198 (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Chinese models

Any particular reason why the Commercial production section doesn't include the Chinese producers? Heavenlyblue (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

"Standard Issue?"

M14 was not standard issue from 1963-1970. It is no longer in service, article says:" in service today" .

It is Not in service today except guard duty, Veteran's day ceremonies. They are getting old.

This is from your article on M16: "The M16 fires the 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge. The rifle entered United States Army service and was deployed for jungle warfare operations in South Vietnam in 1963,[6] becoming the U.S. military's standard service rifle of the Vietnam War by 1969,[7] replacing the M14 rifle in that role. The U.S. Army retained the M14 in CONUS, Europe, and South Korea until 1970."

The M14 was only retained in guard, not frontline combat, as all M16's went to Vietnam. Like saying the Springfield still "standard issue in WWII" just because it was still used in guard duty or training when frontline troops had the M1 Garand. ( A Few Springfields/Enfields were issued to snipers.)

If you want to get picky, even Garands were used by National Guard until at least 1970. See the Kent State article and pictures:"When it was determined the crowd was not going to disperse, a group of 77 National Guard troops from A Company and Troop G, with bayonets fixed on their M1 Garand rifles... That did not make them "standard issue" or "in service".

I remember seeing a shot of a student placing daisys in the muzzles (not Flash hiders!) of them, while a sgt. was right behind him, removing them. Definitely M1 Garands, long gas cylimders and full stocks. 70.176.243.166 (talk) 15:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The M14 is most certainly still "in service." Multiple examples can be seen in use with just a brief skimming of the US DoD's official imagery site at http://www.dvidshub.net/. It is blatantly obvious that the above user does not understand the meaning of the term "in service." The M14 may no longer be THE standard service rifle, but it remains a weapon that is in relatively common issue with elements of all of the US armed forces, in both ceremonial and combat use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.95.63 (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I know this is relatively old post but the comment mentioning Springfields is something I want to correct, if you wanna get nitpicking about it(which I do), I believe the Springfield M1903 was used early in the pacific theater before being replaced by the M1, that might of been a myth though I don't remember where it came from. Yolo McSwagginz93 (talk) 05:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Verification needed for Clinton's executive order claim

"in the 1990s, up to 479,367 M14's were destroyed by Presidential Executive Order under the Clinton Administration"

The Clinton executive order claim seems to be an urban legend. In all the years this myth has been circulating no one has ever been able to provide an executive order number or a specific date and time an eo was signed requiring the destruction of M14's.

Therefore I suggest this section be deleted until such time as a direct link to the relevant executive order at the National Archives including the section number is provided as a source.

Seriously for something that should easily be verifiable you have to ask why this claim is being backed by a blog. If using a blog as a source wasn't questionable enough the author of the blog doesn't source his own claim by include the order number, date and time the order was signed or the relevant text.

Apparently the people perpetuating this claim don't realize that all executive orders are published in the Federal Register and archived in the National Archives. which makes proving such a claim trivial at best yet no one has bothered..

A few Years ago I personally reviewed Clinton's eo and couldn't find a single reference in the national archives to anything which remotely required the destruction of M14's.

If someone wants to provide a reliable source to verify this claim then here's a link to all executive orders signed By Clinton.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/clinton.html Kodiak-Joe (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the sourcing is too weak. The number of rifles also seem oddly specific. It might be that M14s in storage were destroyed, but not by executive order. I did a cursory search on the Internet, but it was mostly forums and blogs. However, one forum post indicated that The M14 owner's guide and match conditioning instructions by Scott A Duff contained information about destruction of M14s under Clinton, so if anyone has access to that, they can check it. It might be that the number destroyed and given away as military aid has been conflated, as some forums talk of "750,000 destroyed or transfered".--Sus scrofa (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

M-14 was not selectable fire

I don't know anything about posting to Wikipedia and I hope this isn't posted for public consumption, I just hate to see incorrect information being put on the internet. I'm just a dumb Marine who served from 1969 to 1973. I qualified each year, four times, with the M-14. I used the M-16 in combat but never qualified with it. While using the M-14 in boot camp and Infantry Training Regiment along with the annual marksmanship qualifications, I never saw one with selectable fire or one that would fire in automatic. When we talked about making them automatic, we talked about filing down the sear pin. There may have been selectable fire M-14's at some other time. I have seen people writing about them since I was able to get on the internet 20 years or so ago. People have always talked about selectable fire but, I never saw it. I looked at the top pictures and there is no fire selection on that rifle. I don't want to step on people's toes because I obviously know less than all these college boys who never touched the rifle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcotton1950 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Lcotton1950. The information listed is correct, since the M14A1 was selective fire. Ishdarian 21:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

The selector lever is clearly visible on the starboard side (that would be the right-hand side for the non-military minded types) of several M14s pictured in this article. There was an option for instructors to disable the selector to boots and civilian draftees. Pray tell, what do you think "filing down a sear pin" would accomplish besides making the sear fall out of place and rendering the rifle useless as anything but a club or a light boat anchor? In my 28 years of experience with this particular rifle and the USMC and the NFA side of the industry, I have never heard of anyone who had at least rudimentary knowledge of firearms refer to selectable fire or fire selection.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Lcotton1950 is correct. Don't take my word for it; my gunnery chief called the weapon I used an M-14, and I believe him, and it had a BOLT-action mechanism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gremlinkurst (talk • contribs) 01:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what any of you guys are talking about. M14 is select fire. Don't want to believe me? Here's the US Army instructional film on it, skip to 00:52 until about 01:15. MartinezMD (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaRfNRtP19c

Added a type

I took the liberty of adding "Automatic Rifle" as one of the weapon types, because as I understand it, most standard issue M14s were select-fire.Yolo McSwagginz93 (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)