Originally Posted By: Nickdfresh
Some of you might not like the following article:
The M14, Not Much For Fighting (A Case Against The M14 Legend)
It recounts that there was much chagrin with the M-14 as a very expensive M-1 that was difficult to produce in numbers needed and it had longevity issues...
The decision to use H&R was a terrible one...the Govt, in addition to technical ability to produce rifles, also factored in the economic conditions of the area when awarding those contracts. Since H&R was in an area that was "Economically Depressed", it ended up getting a contract. Being a lower end maker, they were ill equipped to deal with such a complex and demanding rifle. That was evident when some blew up due to poor metallurgy after H&R cut corners to lower expense.
I gave a paper at a history conference on the nightmare that was the M14 procurement about 8 years back. After American GI's were seen in West Berlin carrying Garands during the wall crisis (four years after the M14 was adopted), congress investigated the program and found serious problems. The report was scathing. In a nutshell, the ordnance department spent 11 plus years and millions of dollars to find a Garand replacement, and all they got was a product improved Garand. That being said, the rifle that became the M14 was a back burner project for a long time. There were several projects going on at the same time at the armories, and I believe the design team working with the Garand action was down to a couple people at one point until the others failed to gain traction.
All in all, had we kept the deal we made with the British (we adopt FAL, and Nato adopts the 7.62x51), we would have gone into Vietnam with FAL rifles. But we had a serious case "not made here" and went back on the deal.
