Plus it had a bipod. Basically it was a BAR replacement ........AR/SAW ( your choice of words).
The M-14 was issued to with 2 selector switches per squad of 10/9 in the U.S. Army , 3 per squad USMC. The selector switches were tightly controlled.

If you look at the magazines on that web site, they are also all the metric type, except for the top right sample, which is an inch pattern modified to fit a metric gun. Note how the floor plate fits.

http://www.saaaca.org.za/links/SIG/fal/falmags.jpg

I'm not really qualified to answer as 7.62 is above my class of familiarity, but I think it would really depend on the design.

I quote the example of Jim Sullivan's 5.56mm Ultimax 100.

At 5kg it is the lightest SAW/LMG, but ironically it is also the most controllable due to its "constant recoil" something design. Other heavier designs like the Minimi don't even come close to its controllability and as a result - accuracy.

If you scale up the Ultimax to handle 7.62 with the same controllability, I don't think it would much very much lighter than the 8kg weight class that the Mk48 (http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg38-e.htm) is in, although I don't know how controllable the Mk48 is.

Everything I've ever seen in print says the M15 was a bad idea that just didn't work out--too light to control, and the weapon hammered itself to death. They tried again with a version of the M14 that had a straight-line stock and a pistol grip. It didn't work out much better.

Heavy-barrel FALs have about the same history. The Brits tried it, decided it wasn't any better than the BREN, and went with a converted-to-7.62mm BREN. Might have been due to cost, as well. The Israelis had heavy metric FALs, which didn't work much better. About the only folks who seem to have made the heavy-barrel FAL work for a prolonged period of time are the Canadians, who kept theirs in service until replacing the FAL series with the M16 and Minimi.

I can't really say how well it worked, never having fired one on full-auto, but the original AR-10 has been claimed to be the only 7.62mm NATO caliber weapon which is controllable on full-auto. How accurate that is, I don't know, but I will say this: Aside from the belt-fed MGs, I can't think of a single full-auto 7.62mm individual weapon that's succeeded in terms of controllability and so forth. Maybe it's possible, but I really doubt it. Unless you're the size of a brown bear, the physics just don't work out. And, if you're that size, do you really need a weapon?

Thanks for the M15 feedback. I was familiar (somewhat) with the bipod/pistol-grip add-ons to the M14; I have seen them offered for the civvie clones as well. I was even less familiar with the M15 variant. I have also seen HB FALs on the civvie market.

The least weight weapon I can think of right now might be the German Heckler & Koch HK21, the light machine gun variant / SAW of the G3 assault rifle. The original HK21 from the early 1960s weight 7,92kg unloaded with bipod, had a quick-change barrel, was belt-fed and offered the possibility to use standard 20 round box magazines or 80 round twin drum magazines.

Sadly enough the Bundeswehr didn't adopt it (it came too late vs. the MG1 and later the MG3), but I suppose it would have made an excellent SAW and would have offered several advantages regarding training and logistics. It was quite succesful on the export market, though. At least it' a real small machine gun, not simply a beefed up battle rifle with a heavy barrel, bipod and a 20 round magazine.

Yes and no, in reality you never looked at the numbers unless you were resetting after cleaning. You set it to 6 and when you needed to adjust you turned it down two clicks so no need to look. You could say that 0 means no gas escapes.

Leave it to the Air Farce...I Wiki'd the M14, and the illustration is captioned "A US Air Force M14 'Stand-Off Munitions Disruptor'. "

So the minimum weight for FA controllability is around 17 lb. Thanks, Tomas.

I'm a big fan of the MG-42 and all it's children. It was beyond a doubt the best infantry issued weapon of WWII . The German WWII units issued assault rifles lost the MG-42 , don't know if that was really that smart of a move.

Nothing wrong with the BREN and the BAR but not in the same league as the MG-42.

The C2 in Canadian use had the larger Cap mag, had the heavy barrel and had the integrated bi-pod

The BREN and BAR were among the first SAWs (in 7.62).

The Germans didn't have a SAW but also used captured Czech or other mag-fed SAWs. I don't know if this is because they had a shortage of weapons or that they actually found mag-fed LMGs useful.

AFAIK the only thing they had that came close was the FG42 but it didn't work well in the SAW role.

I was under the impression that the German WWII army issued the MG-42 down to squad level.
If that is true whether you call it a SAW or not is a matter of nomenclature vs. squad firepower. The tactics employed were generally built around the MG fire base with infantry manuevering under it's cover.

I think the difference is that MG-34 and 42 were viewed as main squad's weapon, therefore MG, while BAR/Bren were viewed as reinforcing rifle fire, ie SAW.

The materiel losses and the resulting general shortage of equipment led to the introduction of all kinds of captured infantry weapons into German armed forces service during WW2, creating huge logistics problems. The production of Czechoslovakian Mauser rifles continued througout WW2 , while ZB machine guns were produced until 1941 or so when production switched over to the MG 34.

Some thoughts on this...

It's useful to note how the different armies fought WWI, to understand their approaches to providing the MG at the squad level. In WWI, the Allies mostly had magazine-fed light machine guns, such as the Lewis, the Chauchat, and eventually, for a limited time, the BAR. Germany never really had a successful magazine-fed weapon in large-scale use--Whether this was a conscious choice, or if it was just an accident of fate and weapons development is hard to say, but the solution they came up with for the Sturmtruppen was the MG08/15. A weapon which has the defining characteristic of making the US M1919A6 look like a lithe and lightweight little sports car, by comparison. The Germans did have a few Madsen LMGs, but that's not a weapon that saw a lot of use, from what I've read. Mostly, they stuck with the belt-fed heavies.

Come the day, and they're getting ready to fight WWII, the former Allied powers are again arming themselves with magazine-fed weapons, and the Germans are developing a super-lightweight belt-fed MG. Cultural choice? Chance of what the designers provided? Hard to say, as a lot of what's in print about these things doesn't go very deep into the underlaying philosophy that made the various armed forces make the choices they did. Most of that data probably rests, untranslated, in some archive. It certainly hasn't made it's way into print, that I've seen. From all appearances, they just procured better versions of what worked in the last war, and that's what drove the choices, for all concerned armies. If anyone knows of anything I've missed in my reading, over the years, please let me know--I've always been fascinated by some of the little hints I've seen sprinkled about the histories, particularly about the Germans.

Supposedly, and I've seen this more than one place, the Germans did extensive human-factors engineering when they designed their weapons. The Ju-88, for example, was supposed to have had it's layout driven by a Germanic desire to keep it's airmen within direct reach of each other, in order to facilitate communications and enhance morale through physical contact with one's comrades. The US and the UK, by contrast, scattered their bomber crewman throughout the aircraft, and paid little attention to such things. I've seen similar things written about how the Germans designed their crew compartments for tanks, as well. Whether any of this is based on reality, I've never been able to ascertain, but it is an interesting question: How much of German superiority on the battlefield was the result of "little" things like these subtle design choices?

I once spoke with a German Infantry officer, who'd been crippled early in the war, and had done a lot of training of soldiers after his recovery (he was never judged fit for combat duties, right up until the end, when he got tapped to command a Volksturm battalion, or something similar). As such, he had a pretty good idea of how/why the Germans did the things they did, but couldn't help me out with any research sources. I asked him about this subject, and he told me that he didn't know much about the armor or the aircraft, but in the Infantry, they'd done what they did for very similar reasons. He had been taught that the MG crew was the basis of operations precisely because the crew-served weapon was a lot more effective, and more likely to stay in action, because of the "human factor" inherent in its operation--when your buddy is right next to you, reinforcing your morale, keeping you in action via the "shame" reflex, the weapon is kept in action a lot more effectively. This is why the Germans chose to use the MG as the base of the squad. He told me that he'd been taught, in the 1930s, that all this was based on extensive research done by the Wehrmacht, and that there had been a bunch of stuff in print that officers of his generation had been exposed to, pre-war.

He was totally disdainful of the American approach, which put a bunch of individuals out on the battlefield on their own, with individual weapons and limited contact with each other. His principle was that if they weren't within arms reach of each other, they might as well be on a different planet, in combat. Supposedly, there was an entire school of "industrial psychology" devoted to this stuff, in Germany. Where the hell did all this data go? Why hasn't anyone ever published anything on this, if this former Major wasn't full of crap? Or, have I just managed to miss it?

How much of this stuff got passed down, to the Bundeswehr? I've noted, through watching some of their guys, that a lot of things about the Wehrmacht have continued on in the Bundeswehr. In example, the Allied sources I've read talk a great deal about how the German infantry would make a lot of noise, just communicating with one another, particularly on the attack. My German Major said this was a deliberate choice that they trained the men for, in order to keep morale up. Bundeswehr infantry do the same thing, the same way, when I've observed them on exercises. So, some of this stuff is still out there, or it's an unconscious choice due to culture. On the other hand, it could well be just an accident of history--"Ve do dot because dot's how ve've alvays done it...". I wish I knew which it was.

On a doctrinal basis, I think Tuccy has it right--at the tactical level, the Germans saw the MG as being the base weapon, and the rest of the squad served as a crew to get that weapon into position, provide it with ammo, and keep it safe from opposing infantry. The Allies mostly envisioned their squad machine guns as adjuncts and supplements to the rifleman, and as such, it didn't get the same focus, or the belt feed.

AIUI that's the case with the BAR, but not the Bren, In the late 1930s the BA revamped its infantry section (squad) organisation to include a separate Gun Group commanded by a lance-corporal within the Section under command of the Section Corporal; the remainder of the Section were known as the Rifle Group. The Section Commander was trained to put down rapid fire to cover his deployment of the Gun Group, which would then put down fire on the enemy while the Rifle Group manoevred and put in an assault. I believe this was the first instance of such a junior leader(s) being given such tactical responsibility, and it was the basis of BA infantry tactics until the 1980s.

BillB

Basically the same with the US Army squad from WWII and on.
Fire team.. Staff.SGT/ SL + BAR + asst BAR + rifleman/grnd.
Maneuver. Team ..SGT asst SL + 5 to 7 riflemen( 2 considered scouts+maybe 1-2 SMGs).

By Korea 2 BARs in squad.

USMC used bigger squads in WWII ending up with 3 BARs.

The Ju-88 was a decent airplane but certainly not superior to its Allied counterparts mid-war and later.

Rifle-grenades were cheap way to give all infantry some AT firepower, which was considered essential.
It started in 1954. when reorganization of infantry called for more AT weapons, but production and import were not enough to cover the needs. Then in 1958. solution was found in Energa Rifle grenade, license for which was purchased and production of the somewhat modified version started.
Also, until mid-70s infantry Bn. was relatively light on the support weapons, so grenadier with HE rifle-grenades was a welcomed addition to a squad.
Also, after 1968. when whole idea of the territorial defense (national guard equivalent) kicked in it was considered excellent weapon due to the ease of use and cheapness.

Thanks bojan!

Ummm... Where do I say it was superior? What I'm saying is that the Germans supposedly designed the thing in accordance with their views on what made for a more effective crew. Whether or not that made the aircraft superior is arguable; I don't know that it did, only that it was a consideration made by the designers that explains how the aircraft was laid out.

Certainly, I've seen mentions in Finnish literature that Blenheim rear gunners, almost completely isolated from rest of the crew, tended to feel orphaned during the flights; this in comparison to Do-17 and Ju-88 where crew was within direct contact with each other. Whether Germans had psychological factors in mind during design phase, I don't know. Such layout was also beneficial from weight & simplicity standpoint. On the down side, it would limit the amount and effectiveness of defensive weapons.

On the other hand, elaborate defensive guns of Allied bombers were largely for morale-boosting too...

I thought the multiple sergeants per squad were a result of recent rank inflation. The USMC seems to put corporals in charge of fireteams, and I would have thought they were assistant squad leaders before that. What were corporals ever doing in US Army squads? Before there were BARs and fire teams, possibly? Did Army and Marine squads look more similar prior to WW I?

US Army rifle squads in WW1 and up until 1940 or so were led by corporals. During the early part of WW2 the squad leader was meant to be Sgt with a Cpl as his assistant. Later in the war (I'm not sure exactly when) the leader became a S/Sgt.

One more minor note - while AT versions were considered not-so-useful during the wars (there were few lucky hits but both penetration* and after armor effect were poor) HE, Illum and smoke were considered to be great thing to have, even by those few units that had under-barrel grenade launchers.

Base M60 is ~200mm, M60A2 is 250mm, M93 is 150mm (M93 is HEDP - it is basically KB-1 (US M77) submunition on a stick).

On the note of LMG/SAW incorporated in the squad:
JNA originally followed German idea of LMG being central point of each squad, and squad structure from '50/60s followed on that - 4 squads per plt, each 10-men squad had 1 LMG (M53/MG-42), 2 SMGs (leader and radio man), and rest had rifles. One squad also had 50mm mortar and sniper rifle (scoped M48).

Structure was considered excellent defensively, but in '70s when lot of light infantry units were converted to mechanistic infantry it was considered that it is not optimal for attack, so change was made. Now each plt. had 4 squads 8-men squads, 1 being fire support squad with two MGs (M53/MG-42/M84) and one sniper rifle (M76), other 3 had two SAWs (M72) and either semi-auto rifles (M59/66) or assault rifles (M70).

Then, during '80s fire support squad got shrunk to 6-men and lost sniper rifle but each of the remaining squads got one sniper rifle.

During 1991/92 organization was again found lacking, as fire-support squad often could not be effectively used*, and squads lacked in firepower. So in reorganization plt was reformed to include 3 squads (9 men) with each squad having LMG (M84), sniper rifle (M76) and two SAWs (M72).

*Fight during 1991/92 were often squad vs squad size, on either broken terrain or in urban environment so fire support squad could not cover all squads.

Sorry , I don't have info. on WWI era.

Our expert Richard Lindquist hasn't posted for a couple of weeks .

What I believed and posted was confirmed by a doc. I found from a 29th US ID Army vet on the net.
Also my personal Basic Trng in the '60 regarding fire and manuever training of the squad . One thing I do believe changed was the designated 2 man scout element was found not to function as perceived and was basically a failure and dropped during the WWII era or shortly after.

thekirk

With regards to the German chap's disdain for US tactics... Sounds very odd.

A section is a tight knit crew constantly operating in support of each other.

A section (squad) is broken down into smaller "groups" or fire teams of about 2 to 4 people depending on countries. These groups are in effect like a very tight-knit MG crew except they operate 2 light higly mobile weapons instead of one large heavy weapon. Such crews may not have the firepower but they have the versatility and mobility that an MG42 crew would never have.

All the theories the German chap had about morale, encouragement etc is all very alive and well within the groups and sections.

And there will be some instances where a crew-served MG is not necessarily needed.

You are correct, I am just tripping over all the confusing terms to say what you just said: that basically the MG42 was the SAW as far as the Germans were concerned.

...

60 years later, the world still can't decide if it was the right choice to go belt-feed for SAW. USMC is now looking for what is effectively a "BAR" in its search for a IAR.

Thanks. So what did sergeants do pre-1940? (Deputy) platoon leaders?

Come to think, I'll just open a new topic for this.

Just in reply to the discussion on various rifles...

From personal experience [a few years ago when we were still allowed to have semi's in Oz] for Service shoots and hunting [pigs typically].

I liked the m14 and SAFN [belonged to rellies]. Reasonably accurate over good range. Not ridiculously heavy on recoil. Reliable. Heavy punch.

AR15's and other 5.56's were great for shorter ranges [up to 200m]... I never liked them much. Especially not for hunting pigs.

SKS and SKK were great for short range stuff [up to 200m].

My M1 carbine was a nice plinker. My girlfriend loved it.

However. My father had .303 LE and a SAFN. Mum had the .303 LE, Uncle had AR15, M14, and SKS... I wanted somethign different... so. I bought this weird thing cheap... and... loved it. Bought another even cheaper.

I loved my pair of Ljungman's. Let me list the ways I loved thee.

1. Ridiculously accurate out to unreasonable ranges... I'm talking 600m over open sights. Sights were fine and easy to see, easy to do precise shooting on small targets. I'm only an average marksman... but I was getting places in comps... sometimes against accurised classes.

2. Recoil was negligible. More than a SKS or 5.56. Less than a .303, .308, or similar. Not enough to cause anyone trouble. Girlfriend didn't mind the recoil but...

3. Muzzle blast is nasty. Especially to anyone either side of you. While firing prone it would blow crap all over the people either side of me.

4. Rapid fire wasn't impossible. Certainly much more controllable than any .308 or 30-06 calibre I tried.

5. Some minor reliablilty issues... one of my rifles had a tendancy to jam and rip the arse out of the cartridge... but I suspect it was worn. Extraction was typically violent... it'd throw the case back and to my right... about 10m or so. I always got relegated to the far right of the firing line for some reason.


I almost cried when I had to hand them in.

I bought a 1907 bolt action 6.5mm job to replace it with. Didn't like it. My neck is too long, stock too straight.... heavier recoil... bah...

Actually that German chap was absolutely correct (for WWII at least).
Primary reference would be S.L.A. Marshall's "Men Against Fire" (the few critisms of the book don't really dispute the basic points.)

The effectiveness of crew-served weapons at killing the enemy was completely out of proportion to the riflemen, even accounting for the differences in rate of fire.
Yes, a section of riflemen may werk well as a team, but they usually didn't do much killing.
These days, when we use training techniques based on operant conditioning, and train the individual rifleman to a much higher standard and act decisively, it is a different story.

I was wondering if someone was going to bring this up. I have fired an original full-auto AR-10 and I found it a fascinating experience. Yes, there's a whack of recoil there, but it's all straight back and the muzzle doesn't climb like that of any "conventional" 7.62mm assault rifles in burst fire. Couple that with an approximate +/- 750 rpm and you quickly get into the habit of squeezing off short, fast three-round bursts - highly satisfying. Frankly, I was impressed! That day I remember also using (amongst others) a full-auto H&K G3, a Belgian-made full-auto FAL and a converted Canadian C1A1; all sucked on even short bursts. Methinks the AR-10 design adapted for an intermediate (7mm) round might have been just the ticket, but when it came to NATO, what the murricuns want, the murricuns get, and we ended up being stuck with 5.56.

As far as the initial arguments are concerned, I tend to prefer a long-stocked C1A1 in some circumstances, but always loved my M-14 for its heritage (I'm a Garand man) and old-world feel. The thing about the FAL line is that with flash suppressor they did feel terribly long; it's amazing how different it feels to handle an original, plain-barreled FAL in comparison - it's like a different rifle.

Question - has anyone here actually fired the E-2 stocked M-14? I had one of those stocks once, but sold it before I actually got the gun, silly bunt. I never had a chance to shoot it, but its lines looked right.

It was the 7.62x51mm round which was forced upon NATO by the US in the 1950s, instead of the promising 7x43mm (.280/30) intermediate round. Funnily enough, after forcing the rest of NATO to adopt this too high-powered round, the adoption of the M16 chambered for the 5.56x45mm round led to the strange fact that the most important country in NATO used a totally different type of ammunition than all other countries.

Interestingly enough Venezuela bought a quantity of FN-FALs chambered for the so-called 7mm Liviano (7x49.15mm).

Another battle rifle with a straight-line layout like the AR-10 was the Swiss SIG Sturmgewehr 57 (Stgw 57), a heavy piece weighing slightly over 6.5kg fully loaded which fired the full-power 7.5x55mm GP11 round.



What about the muzzle blast?

I can't say much for the FAL bayonet that I just picked up, a tube goes over the muzzle brake and a rather lightweight blade sticks out attempting to look menacing.

Geoff, all I can say is "Lucky Bastard...". I've always wanted to shoot an original AR-10, especially on full-auto. Your experience confirms what I've always heard from the folks who have--that it was uniquely controllable for the caliber, on full-auto.

I've also never had the luck to fire an M14E2, either, but a friend of mine who was Special Forces had, during his time with them. His take on it was that on full-auto, it didn't really help, much. He liked the stock, better than the standard-issue one, but that was about it. It didn't improve controllability that much.

That's another weapon I wish I had some hands-on with...

The solution to the problem.


Shot with D595Z,C500Z at 2007-05-15

Is that an inch pattern L1A1 ya got there?

I have a C1A1 in mint condition, and I love it

Well, I'm halfway there...

It's a hybrid built by a weapon's tech, inch pattern C1A1 parts on a FAL reciever.

So, does it take metric mags?

Yes it does, I was going to get it milled to take Inch, but they made the gun prohibited and now I can't shoot it, but the M14 is non-restricted and I can do anything I want with it. Don't apply logic your head will explode...

Hmm, let me guess: M14 has no terribly dangerous "conspicuous pistol grip" which will instantly make the gun at least 10 times more dangerous.

When on the issue of deadly and murderous pistol grips (not to mention the barrel shrouds), I always wanted to ask how many crimes were there ever made (in peacetime) with bayonet mounted on evul assault rifle?

My FN having the evil pistol grip AND bayonet mount is clearly a devil spawned killing machine awaiting it's chance to spring out and kill all in it's path.

Meanwhile my Norinco M14 with it's AWB filled in flash hider has only a slight linger odour of evilness....

well if your talking about Canada gun laws... only thing you need to remember is that Liberal party set up the rules... enough said.

Stupid question time:

Could someone explain the difference between "Inch" and "Metric" pattern FAL-type rifles? I've never been able to find an "idiot's guide" to these two terms.

I'll take a stab at it... The "inch pattern" weapons were built to commonwealth standards on converted blueprints. The "Metric" ones were built to original FN specs using the original metric blueprints.

Most of the differences come from the way the commonwealth weapons were tested and refined; basically, the UK bought the technical data package, and went from there. In the beginning, the only real difference was the dimensioning. After testing, and refining the weapons to individual national standards, the whole thing wound up being totally confusing.

One major difference is the magazines. "Inch pattern" magazines have a larger, sturdier locking lug welded on the back, much like the M14. The "metric" lug is stamped sheet metal, and a lot less robust. UK L1A1 weapons have a zig-zag cut on the bolt carrier, in order to allow the dirt and crud to be carried away more effectively. This is a feature that probably should have been taken up by any nation using the FAL in dusty desert conditions, because those conditions tended to give the basic metric FAL problems. Sometimes. The Israelis ditched the FAL because of issues of reliability in dusty conditions in the '67 and '73 wars. South Africa, and a whole host of other countries, however, didn't seem to have many problems with the FAL.

If you can afford it, the Collector's Grade book on the FAL makes fascinating reading. Also, frustrating, when you realize the FAL won the competition here in the US, and we almost had a NATO-standard weapon. Unfortunately, they convinced everyone that they could produce the M14 on the M1 Garand machinery, and went with that, rather than Harrington and Richardson's T48. Sadly, the M14 turned out to need all-new production machinery, and it wasn't until TRW took over production that things got straight... And, they promptly went to the M16. <sigh>

NATO wasn't the Warsaw Pact, though, with the Soviet Union shoving the AK design down everyone's throat.

France had the MAS 49, Italy the BM 59, and Germany, after FN refused to grant it the rights to manufacture the FAL under licence, chose the G3, based on the Spanish Modelo 58.