What a Member of the Army Special Forces Has to Say About the M14 – The M14 rifle, initially intended to replace the M1 Garand and BAR, became notoriously unpopular with U.S. troops due to accuracy problems, uncontrollable automatic fire, and its cumbersome wooden stock that warped in humid climates.
Key Point #1 – Nicknamed the “anti-aircraft rifle” because of its extreme muzzle climb in automatic mode, the M14 faced reliability and ergonomics issues, especially during the Vietnam War.
Key Point #2 – Despite eventual improvements, the M14’s reputation was permanently tarnished, leading to its replacement by the lighter, controllable M16. Today, civilian versions like Springfield Armory’s M1A remain popular, highlighting its enduring legacy despite its troubled military service.
Why Soldiers Hated America’s M14 Rifle: Inside the Army’s Worst Weapon
The US Army has been fortunate to have so many good weapons in the hands of its infantrymen, those tasked with closing in on and killing the enemy. Some were better than others. However, others were not so well-liked by their users.
I was fortunate to have used the M14, M16A1, M16A2, and M4 carbines during my service. All had their good and not-so-good points. But I liked all of them. Like all weapons, once you’ve trained on them enough and found a comfort level with the weapons, they were all very good to excellent weapons, in my opinion.
However, while researching this piece, I was surprised to learn that infantry of all services and eras disliked the M14. I can’t say that I disagree with the points made about it. Of the four primary weapons I used, I rank it fourth.
The M14 Rifle: Why Was It Disliked So Much?
The design of the M14 began during World War II. The M1 Garand was an outstanding weapon; General George S. Patton called it “the greatest battle implement ever devised.”
However, as the war progressed, other nations started to produce the next generation of infantry weapons. Despite the Garand’s undeniable reliability and effectiveness in combat, the German Gewehr 43 and the Soviet Tokarev SVT-40 semi-automatic rifles showed that the Garand’s eight-round, clip-loaded magazine was a significant weakness.
Unlike the box magazines used with German and Soviet weapons, the M-1 Garand could not load single cartridges or reload mid-clip. A later German weapon, the MP-44, aka StG-44, was the basis of the AK-47, which forever changed infantry weapons.
Springfield was tasked in 1944 with developing a weapon that would give the average infantryman more firepower and less weight to carry into battle. The goal was to replace the M1 Garand and the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) using a 20-round box magazine.
The concept resulted in the development of the T20 series rifle. The T20E2 saw the incorporation of a twenty-round box magazine. Features included a longer receiver that allowed time for a cartridge to feed upward in the magazine, a selector and connector that permitted full-automatic firing, a flash suppressor, and a roller on the bolt-operating lug that allowed continued functioning despite external elements such as rain, snow, and dust, which had been an issue with the M1.
However, after all this development, it still resembled the M1 with some attachments added. It wasn’t until 1957 that the rifle was accepted as the M14.
Issues With The M14 Rifle
The new rifle was two pounds heavier than the M1. While it was more accurate and reliable in early testing, other issues began to develop. Rifle rounds began cooking off during extended firing tests, and several M14s burst apart during firing range tests.
The Anti-aircraft Rifle
GIs took to calling the M14 “the anti-aircraft rifle” because of the near impossibility of controlling the weapon when firing it on fully automatic, as the weapon would climb straight up.
This tendency to climb was an issue with ergonomics. The wooden stock of the M1 was copied, instead using a pistol grip like the AK-47, which would have made it a tad easier to handle. The other issue was the .308 ammunition used, a powerful cartridge.
The M14’s wooden stock was susceptible to swelling, twisting, and cracking in Southeastern Asian jungles, rice fields, and swamplands due to the constant heat and humidity.
Later models were retrofitted with synthetic stocks. However, the rifle’s reliability issues were compounded by the fact that American GIs were already fatigued by their heavy loads, and the synthetic stocks were too little too late.
The traditional stock design would become a recurring serious issue with the M14.
The Accuracy Was Terrible
After complaints about accuracy, an Army investigation revealed that production had been increasing the time between tool changes and set-up checks, allowing tolerances to creep outside limits.
Production engineers had allowed this to speed up deliveries, but it later resulted in problems, such as lot acceptance failures and complaints.
While later rifles with free floating barrels like the G3 are a snap to accurize, the M14’s stock design requires proper bedding of the action in the stock for good accuracy.
Fixes were easy and cheap, but the damage was done, and the growing war in Southeast Asia saw the need for a smaller, lighter weapon where the troops could carry more ammunition and fire controllable bursts.
The Air Force started issuing AR-15s to its security troops, which became the M16. The M16, which fired lighter 5.56mm rounds, became the official Army rifle.
Did M14s Get A Bad Rap?
Once the issues were ironed out, the M14 became a fine weapon, but it was too late to save its reputation as a failed weapon. Special Forces troops used a variant of the M14, the M21, and the M25 sniper weapons. In Somalia in 1993, SFC Randy Shugart and Gary Gordon of Delta Force were both awarded the Medal of Honor (posthumously) for protecting pilot Michael Durant during the Battle of Mogadishu (Black Hawk Down) using sniper weapons.
Civilian Market M1A
The M14 made a big comeback in the civilian market, as did the M1A. Springfield Armory introduced the M1A in 1974, which retained the look, feel, and overall operation of the M14 but without the fully automatic capability.
M14. Image: Creative Commons.
There are more civilian models than the original military issue ones.
Again, I find it surprising that the M14 was rated as a failure and the worst rifle ever fielded by the US Army. I was going to consider the Krag-Jørgensen.
I did get to fire it once. I spent an afternoon on the range, firing several antique weapons. I thought the Krag was junk, but it could have been just an aged weapon.
PACIFIC OCEAN (Feb. 12, 2012) Aviation Ordnanceman Airman Justin Fortuno fires an M-14 rifle during a live-fire exercise aboard the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74). John C. Stennis is operating in the U.S. 7th Fleet area of responsibility while on a seven-month deployment. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Kenneth Abbate/Released)
About the Author: Steve Balestrieri
Steve Balestrieri is a 19FortyFive National Security Columnist. He served as a US Army Special Forces NCO and Warrant Officer. In addition to writing for 19FortyFive, he covers the NFL for PatsFans.com and is a member of the Pro Football Writers of America (PFWA). His work was regularly featured in many military publications.
Old Flintlock
March 5, 2025 at 11:52 am
Interesting article. I never heard anyone complain about the M14 except for its weight. My understanding was the switchwas due to a change in infantry doctrine. Studies showed that training was the problem. In those days, infantrymen were all trained to be sharpshooter types using the 4 positions, standing, prone, kneeling and sitting which rarely could be used in combat. The goal was sharpshooting at targets, often at ludicrously long range. Further researched showed that infantrymrn often did not fire if they did not have a clear shot at a target. One paper found that 60% of Marine infantry on Iwo Jima never fired their Garands because they never had a clear target.
Doctrine and traing changed to a lightet weapon of smaller caliber so troops could carry more ammo snd training was changed to enhance more suppressive fire instead of pinpoint shots at a specific target.
The M 14 is still used by the Army. My son was a cover shooter in his first deployment to Afghanistan. He could choose and build basically whatever he wanted. He chose the M-14, synthetic stock with a 3X9 mil dot scope. The Afghans quickly learned the effective range of the M-4 and avoided close in fights. My son saw multiple instances of Afghans being struck at long range (400-500 yds+) by 5.56 rounds with no more damage than the dust being knocked off their clothes.
Like this author correctly says, every weapon has strong and weak points. There is a reason the military is starting to transitiin away from the 5.53 round. But, no one wants to carry an 11-12lb weapon plus the heavier ammo load around all day either.