[OLD SCHOOL] HAIL AND FAREWELL: The End Of The Much-Maligned M14 Rifle And The Introduction Of The M16

EDITOR’S FOREWORD: This article originally appeared in the 1965 Gun Digest annual, and was the first significant coverage of the then-new AR-15. Funny how politics is always involved in weapon procurement. Note the nonsense about “hydrostatic shock” and reports of 5.56mm nearly taking limbs off in Vietnam. This article has been edited and curated to fit this format, but the complete piece with more extensive testing can be found in our archives.

The much-maligned M14 is being quietly phased out of production. It has apparently been abandoned by the Pentagon brass, though not yet openly repudiated. A search is in progress to find a worthy replacement for the rifle that proved to be modern in name only and has had, the way things look, the shortest life in history from production to obsolescence.

The Army hopes to leapfrog adoption of another conventional shoulder rifle by a crash program to develop exotic weapons such as the SPIW (Special Purpose Individual Weapon) a superposed barreled weapon, firing both grenades and high velocity dart-like bullets; or the Gyrojet. Which fires small self-contained plastic rocket projectiles from cheaply cast smoothbore guns. Slanted orifices, in the tail, spin the rockets to impart stability.

Even Laser “ray guns” are receiving serious considerations as future weapons.

Despite this feverish activity, it appears likely that such Buck Rogers weapons will be on the drawing board for some time yet. A more familiar but modern arm is certainly needed to fill the gap, and possibly to back up eventual use of the far-out types contemplated.

Let’s try to learn where the M14 failed its great promise. The M14 represents a political victory but a monumental mechanical failure for the U.S. Army Ordnance. In 1955, we literally bludgeoned NATO into accepting the T65 (now 7.62 NATO), a boiled-down version of the half-century-old 30-06. This course was pursued despite the insistence of countries like England that a smaller caliber, such as their 280, could perform as well and provide lighter ammunition. The U.S. also wanted a common rifle for NATO, but Atlantic Treaty Alliance members baulked at accepting the American T44 (experimental M14). A rifle that was far from proven and is still years away from truly mass production.

Considering the immense stockpiles of NATO 7.62 ammo scattered throughout the world, we may end up with yet another 30-cal. rifle. Some promising candidates in this size are the ArmaLite AR-10 and their brand-new AR-16. A marginal contender (I feel) is the Belgian FN Browning Light Assault Rifle. In line with the effort to lighten both weapon and ammo, we come up with the 223-caliber rifles, the AR-15, and newly unveiled AR-18.

Several NATO countries adopted the FN rifle. In 1954, it was designated the T48 and tested by our Ordnance, alongside the M14. Both guns were adjudged superior to the M1 Garand, but the FN was rejected in favor of the homegrown rifle. Among other advantages, the M14 was said to be, “better suited for American transition to mass production.” Delays of over a year in delivery of the first M14 rifles touched off a stir in Congress in 1961. At that time, Iron Curtain countries were estimated to possess some 35 million modern 30-shot “Avtomat Kalashnikov” AK-47 automatic rifles, with production going full tilt in Russia. Meanwhile, Belgium, England, Germany, and Canada had adopted and were in full production of the FN assault rifles.

The M14, which was originally projected as a “light rifle,” eventually trimmed less than a pound from the unwieldly Garand. There is little apparent difference between the M14 that resulted from 20 years of development and $130 million in expenditures, and the original Garand prototypes of 1920. Early publicity heralded the M14 as a full-automatic rifle that would replace such special-purpose weapons as the submachine gun and light machine gun. A major failing is its lack of controllability in full-automatic fire. Trained riflemen have told me the gun climbs so badly they can’t keep three shots in a silhouette at 25 yards. 

Current issue M14s are semi-automatic. Officers control a supply of automatic selectors, which, it is said, could be placed in the guns when needed. Apologists for this policy say that full-automatic rifles in the hands of infantrymen pose an impossible logistical problem. Statistics say that it requires 50,000 rounds of ammunition to produce one “good Commie” in Korea. Compare this with an average of 29 round balls per British Redcoat killed in the Revolutionary War, using muzzle-loading rifles and muskets. Apparently, the soldier values his shots more if they come one at a time.

Still full-auto fire has its uses, if we can but train our Gls to recognize them. It can keep enemy heads down during maneuvers and provide small groups with superior firepower for short periods. In Russia, during World War II, the vaunted Wehrmacht faced death charges lasting for hours. Eventual breakthrough often resulted in the collapse of entire German defense perimeters. At Stalingrad, such a marathon suicide charge led to the capture of 400,000 Germans. Infantry armed with full-automatic rifles could well make such an attack too costly to continue.

762 RIVALS

The Belgian FN rifle that we rejected in favor of the M14 was designed by M. Dieudonne Siave, a protege of the late John M. Browning. Originally chambered for a short 7mm cartridge, the FN was converted to fire the 7.62 NATO. A number of NATO members adopted the FN, including Germany (Germany later took in, or was taken in by, the CETME). 

The CETME uses a delayed blowback action, and boasts all of the failings of that system as applied to heavy rifle calibers, especially the problem of overly violent extraction. To prevent case head separations, the chamber is fluted and ammo lubricated. 

ARMALITE RIFLE

It seems remarkable that all of the other likely M14 replacements were designed by ArmaLite, Inc., a small independent development company in Costa Mesa, California. It began in 1954 with three dedicated gun buffs who believed that stable, lightweight missile-age plastics and alloys could be applied to firearms. 

Metallurgist George Sullivan was president. Plastics expert Chuck Dorchester was vice president. And ballistician Gene Stoner was chief engineer. Uninhibited by preconceived notions of what a rifle should look like, they made their objective the lightest possible weight. The AR-10, a 7½-pound 7.62N rifle resulted. Major metal parts such as the receiver and magazine are anodized aluminum alloy. Handguard and buttstock are molded of fiberglass. Even the barrel of the original model was aluminum with a steel liner.

In 1956, the AR-10 was submitted to an Ordnance Board for testing at the Springfield Armory, but failed to pass the criteria set up for it. But recently released test data on the M14 show it to be markedly inferior to the AR-10 performance. Despite Ordnance turndown, the AR-10 brought ArmaLite a reputation for functional innovation. It also brought General Wyman, the Chief of the Continental Army Command, to bring forth the suggestion that a .22 that could “penetrate both sides of a GI helmet at 500 yards,” might prove interesting to the Army. 

Gene Stoner tried the .222 Remington cartridge, but found it lacking the energy required. He reamed the chamber deeper and fire-formed .222 cases to hold more powder, then designed a 55-grain Boattail bullet for his new “223” cartridge by scaling down a ballistically correct artillery projectile. The AR-15, a scaled-down version of the AR-10, was developed to fire the new centerfire .22.

The AR-15 went through months of Ordnance testing, alongside the Winchester 224 rifle, a modification of the M1 carbine in 1958-59. Afterward, a review board under General Powell recommended the purchase of at least 700 AR-15s for extended field testing. Ordnance countered with a proposal to work for an “optimum round of 25-caliber,” which could then be incorporated into the new rifle. No 25-caliber cartridge ever materialized.

Eventually, a discouraged Fairchild Corp. began hurting from the $1,450,000 development cost of the AR-15, and licensed it to Colt. Colt found a good reception with emerging nations of the Far East, where small statured soldiers discovered at last a rifle that made them all feel at least 10 feet tall. 

The AR-15 might have been relegated to this Asian limbo had not Air Force Chief of Staff, General Curtis LeMay, come across it in 1960, and recommended the Air Force test the gun as a replacement for their antiquated M1 carbines. In a new test at Lackland Air Force Base, the AR-15 easily outshot both the M14 and the Russian AK-47. Tests indicated further that training time could be cut in half with the AR-15. In a three-week period, almost half the trainees made Expert with the AR-15 (now labeled the 5.56mm M16 by Army Ordnance) while less than one-quarter made it with the M14.

ENTER THE AIR FORCE

Many of the initial Air Force order for 8,500 AR-15s went with Special Services to Viet Nam, where they racked up an incredible record for dependability and effectiveness. An Air Force armorer returned to Lackland in 1963 to provide first-hand knowledge on battle maintenance problems. When asked what replacement parts were most needed, he replied, “I don’t know. We haven’t broken anything yet!”

The revolution in concept represented by the AR-15 lies not so much in the rifle as in using a small-bore for a military weapon. Chuck hunters have long known the explosive destruction of high velocity small-bores, but the idea of shooting combatants with them just never caught on before. 

The Army made quite a fuss about not reducing lethality in adopting the AR-15. They needn’t have worried. Reports from Viet Nam tell of men beheaded or with arms and legs nearly shot off. Wounds that would prove minor with the 7.62 mean certain death with the .223, it is claimed, but there has been no incontrovertible proof of that flat statement. There could hardly be, by the nature of things.

Various articles have ascribed this devastating effect to the .223 bullet “tumbling” in tissue. ArmaLite Vice-President Burton T. Miller, (Col., USAF, ret.) helped conduct the original AR-15 tests. He discounts the tumbling theory, though he agrees the .223 may yaw in tissue. “There’s really no mystery about the killing power of the .223,” says Col. Miller. “Any varmint shooter knows that hydrostatic shock does the damage. Soon after we got the AR-15, gun buffs at Lackland AF Marksmanship School had sporting rifles chambered to the .223. During deer season, they shot numerous whitetails, with seldom a second shot required, even with full jacketed military ammo. Low neck shots invariably bloodshot meat on the off front shoulder.”

Col. Miller says that exit wounds on most of the animals were relatively small, indicating the bullets stayed together. The .223 may disintegrate though, on close range shots. During testing, I shot into gallon paint cans of water, which blew up most impressively. The lack of exit holes was explained when I found bits of jacket and core inside several of the cans.

Miller also refutes the hoary contention that light, high-velocity bullets are more easily deflected than heavy, slow bullets. “I understand that the Marines constructed a deflection range at Quantico,” he says, “with 50 yards of brush between the firing line and the targets. It was virtually impossible for bullets to avoid encountering limb of varying sizes. Over a period of weeks, the AR-15 and M14 were fired side by side through this brush. The .223 scored as many hits, with no more apparent keyholes than the 7.62. At Aberdeen Proving Grounds, wooden dowels of given size and position, provide an absolutely controlled deflection test. Here, the .223 actually got more hits than the 7.62.”

The .223 has the inherent accuracy that delights bench rest and varmint shooters. Col. Van Dueson, CO at the Lackland AFB Marksmanship School, has a lightweight sporter in .223 that consistently shoots under 1 inch at 200 yards. Armed forces use opens the door to cheap and plentiful .223 ammo. The .223 may not fare as well as the 7.62 in high winds, but 1,000-yard tests of light machine guns in both calibers developed 50 percent more hits with the small-bore, perhaps because the .223 was less disrupted by recoil.

The AR-15 proved more accurate with a twist of 1:12 rather than with the bench resters’ favored 1:14 twist. Colt changed the twist to 1:12 because cold tests at 65 degrees indicated the heavier air unstabilized 55-grain .223 bullets from a 1:14 twist.

AR-15 ACCURACY

A USAF Operational Suitability Test run last year describes accuracy testing of 40 random-chosen AR-15s, with some 10,000 rounds fired from a rest. Results indicated that GI AR-15s using issue ammo could outshoot most match-grade M1s and M14s. Average of all of the .223 guns tested with 1:12 twist was 3.21 inches AES (at extreme spread). Merely pulling the GI bullets and substituting Sierras cut groups by 1 inch.

The AR-15 and AR-10 were products of early ArmaLite genius. They have recently come up with a couple of new weapons, the AR-16 (7.62 NATO) and the AR-18 (.223), sharing the same general conformation — squarish pressed-steel receiver and trigger groups, with low barrels to avoid climbing in full-automatic fire. The new AR team uses a piston and tappet rod situated above the barrel to energize the bolt carrier. Both guns sport manual charging handles.

Army Ordnance objected to the lack of a manual charging handle on the AR-15, but ArmaLite had a good reason for its absence. The AR-15 is sealed against dirt and mud by a hinged cover over the ejection port and a hollow polyethylene muzzle plug. A charging handle slot would destroy this seal. The AR-15 goes from “buttoned up” condition into action with the first shot, caroming open the ejection port cover and blowing off the plastic muzzle plug.

(As we go to press, Colt informs us that they have added a new manual bolt-forward assist to all AR-15s going to the Army. The assist is a small knob projecting back from the right of the receiver. It can be struck with the palm. It moves only about ½ inch. It engages one or another 28 notches in the bolt carrier, a la ratchet. To force the bolt closed at any point where it might conceivably stick in its forward travel. The USAF has not asked for this device, considering the 8-pound forward thrust of the recoil spring sufficient to close the bolt.)

TEST FIRING AND EVALUATIONS

Evaluating all of these rifles presented a formidable project. Actual firing required several days and over 2,000 rounds of ammo. Three basic criteria determine the combat effectiveness of any military rifle. First, the weapon must function dependably. Also, it must be accurate and lethal. We tested the guns for malfunctions by deliberately firing them full-automatic until they were badly overheated, except for the civilian model FN, which was fired rapidly semi-auto. 

Accuracy was checked from a bench rest. Lethality of the two cartridges involved is beyond question, but we tested for penetration and disruptive effect in cans of water. Since the AR-18 was a brand-new gun, we tried it out first. We demonstrated its destructive force by reducing a concrete block wall to a rubble in a matter of minutes, using full-auto fire. 

The AR-18 did develop one bug. In test-firing dummy grenades, we found the recoil shock jarred the gun open. ArmaLite added a spring-loaded crossbolt to lock the latch in place.

All the guns tested had many points in common. All were gas-operated and fired from closed bolts. All had vertical pistol grips and 20-shot clips jutting down from the receivers, and safety selectors above the pistol grips on the left side for full or semi-auto. 

Front sights on all of the guns were round posts. threaded so they could be rotated for elevation adjustment. The AR-10 and AR-15 can be equipped with a special scope designed to fit a mount built into the handle. The FN has a special bolt cover for scope mounting. The AR-16 and AR-18 are being fitted with a heavy-duty 3X scope in a QD mount that will not obscure the iron sights when the scope is removed.

Bench rest accuracy with these .223 rifles was about equal, with groups running from 3 to 4½ inches. Accuracy is based almost wholly upon the barrel-ammunition combination, not on such tenuous factors as stock bedding.

Of the 7.62 rifles, the AR-10 seemed to have the best all-around handling qualities, but both the AR-10 and AR-16 handled well in full-automatic fire; certainly not with the ease of the .223 rifles. We fired into gallon paint cans and old ammo boxes full of water with the 7.62s, and they punched neat little holes on both sides. The 223’s exploded the same cans for a convincing demonstration of greater shock. It appears that 21 rounds of .223 could do far more damage than their scale balance of 10 NATO cartridges. They also cost the government 2 cents less apiece.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the NATO caliber rifles, I rated the FN last because of its 11½ lb. weight when loaded. A lightweight model with “Hyduminium” receiver trims about a pound. 

The AR-10 is in a class by itself. I can’t understand its rejection by Army Ordnance. The weapon provides match accuracy, and is controllable full-automatic, from the shoulder or hip. On a bipod, it doubles as an LMG. 

The AR-16 retains the AR-l0’s favorable qualities and adds an unheard of compactness in a weapon for this potent a cartridge. Add ease and economy of manufacture, and you have an ideal rifle for Alliance nations still committed to the NATO caliber.

The AR-18 has the assets of the AR-16, with the added effectiveness of the 223 cartridge. The AR-15 has already proved its capabilities in actual battle. The FN is recognized throughout the world as a fine military weapon. 

Any one of the guns tested could profitably be substituted for the discredited M14.

Why you can trust RECOIL

---

Since our founding in 2012, RECOIL remains the premier firearms lifestyle publication for the modern shooting enthusiast. We deliver cutting-edge coverage of guns, gear, accessories and technology. We go beyond basic reviews, providing no B.S. buyer’s guides, hands-on testing and expert analysis on everything from firearms and survival equipment to watches and vehicles. 

Our reviewers are the backbone of our operation and come from diverse shooting backgrounds: Former law enforcement, military veterans, competitive shooters, seasoned hunters and plain old firearms enthusiasts. Furthermore, we’re not just gun experts, but dedicated journalists who adhere to the strictest standards of our profession. 

At RECOIL, editorial independence is the foundation of everything we publish and the cornerstone of reader trust. Our editors, writers and content creators make all editorial decisions independently, free from outside influence. That boils down to: advertisers don’t dictate our coverage, the outcomes of our reviews or what we recommend in our buyer’s guides. First and always, our commitment is to our audience—ensuring every review and article is accurate, unbiased, and driven by real-world experience. 

Whether you’re selecting your next firearm, upgrading your gear, or exploring the latest innovations in the shooting world, RECOIL provides the trusted insights you need to make informed decisions. Learn more about our Editorial Standards and how we review products.

NEXT STEP: Download Your Free Target Pack from RECOIL

For years, RECOIL magazine has treated its readers to a full-size (sometimes full color!) shooting target tucked into each big issue. Now we've compiled over 50 of our most popular targets into this one digital PDF download. From handgun drills to AR-15 practice, these 50+ targets have you covered. Print off as many as you like (ammo not included).

Get your pack of 50 Print-at-Home targets when you subscribe to the RECOIL email newsletter. We'll send you weekly updates on guns, gear, industry news, and special offers from leading manufacturers - your guide to the firearms lifestyle.

You want this. Trust Us.