Girandoni air rifle

phillies wrote:Apparently there were weapons variants that I massed, but assuredly the M14 I was issued in the Army did not have an autofire setting, ...

Wikipedia wrote:M14 rifle, officially the United States Rifle, 7.62 mm, M14,[5] is an American selective fire automatic rifle that fires 7.62×51mm NATO (.308 Winchester) ammunition. It gradually replaced the M1 Garand in U.S. Army service by 1961 and in U.S. Marine Corps service by 1965. It was the standard issue infantry rifle for U.S. military personnel in the contiguous United States, Europe, and South Korea from 1959 until it was replaced by the M16 rifle in 1970.[

The rifle served adequately during its brief tour of duty in Vietnam.[15] Though it was unwieldy in the thick brush due to its length and weight, the power of the 7.62×51mm NATO cartridge allowed it to penetrate cover quite well and reach out to extended range, developing 2,560 ft·lbf (3,463 J) of muzzle energy. However, there were several drawbacks to the M14. ... Also, because of the M14's powerful 7.62×51mm cartridge, the weapon was deemed virtually uncontrollable in fully automatic mode, so most M14s were permanently set to semi-automatic fire only to avoid wasting ammunition in combat.

Weird Harold wrote:

phillies wrote:Apparently there were weapons variants that I massed, but assuredly the M14 I was issued in the Army did not have an autofire setting, ...

Wikipedia wrote:M14 rifle, officially the United States Rifle, 7.62 mm, M14,[5] is an American selective fire automatic rifle that fires 7.62×51mm NATO (.308 Winchester) ammunition. It gradually replaced the M1 Garand in U.S. Army service by 1961 and in U.S. Marine Corps service by 1965. It was the standard issue infantry rifle for U.S. military personnel in the contiguous United States, Europe, and South Korea from 1959 until it was replaced by the M16 rifle in 1970.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle

Probably the reason you never saw a "full auto" setting is this:

The rifle served adequately during its brief tour of duty in Vietnam.[15] Though it was unwieldy in the thick brush due to its length and weight, the power of the 7.62×51mm NATO cartridge allowed it to penetrate cover quite well and reach out to extended range, developing 2,560 ft·lbf (3,463 J) of muzzle energy. However, there were several drawbacks to the M14. ... Also, because of the M14's powerful 7.62×51mm cartridge, the weapon was deemed virtually uncontrollable in fully automatic mode, so most M14s were permanently set to semi-automatic fire only to avoid wasting ammunition in combat.

Theemile wrote:
I was going to say, my father told me various stories of the M14 in full auto mode during is stint in the Army in the 1960/70s.

In his basic group, there was one green city boy that was afraid to fire a rifle and would not set it against his shoulder after several days of rifle training. (In my experience holding the gun away from the shoulder just increases the kick, but my dad said it really happened...) Supposedly the Drill sergeant took a belt and tied an M-14 to the side of the kid's head (against the shoulder) and flipped the selector to full auto, and had the kid fire off several mags.

I guess the swelling of his cheek went down after a week or so.

n7axw wrote:

Theemile wrote:
I was going to say, my father told me various stories of the M14 in full auto mode during is stint in the Army in the 1960/70s.

In his basic group, there was one green city boy that was afraid to fire a rifle and would not set it against his shoulder after several days of rifle training. (In my experience holding the gun away from the shoulder just increases the kick, but my dad said it really happened...) Supposedly the Drill sergeant took a belt and tied an M-14 to the side of the kid's head (against the shoulder) and flipped the selector to full auto, and had the kid fire off several mags.

I guess the swelling of his cheek went down after a week or so.

Gracious.

I take it that this incident went down in the training manual for drill sargeants as an outstanding example of superior leadership...

Don

-

Louis R wrote:More than likely. That was the US Army, after all.

And controllability of anything fully hand-held with a battle-rifle cartridge is a definite problem. As is durability. Other people using the NATO round dealt with them by issuing a heavier full-auto version with a heavy barrel and bipod. Take off the bipod and the FN C1 and C2 are actually quite difficult to tell apart until you get up close - and there were stories of C1s with worn sears going full auto without much warning. [as well as of people doing it deliberately] In full-auto mode, you were supposed to go prone and use the bipod, since there was no telling where your rounds would go if you tried to use it standing. You could fit a C2 sear into a C1; I was told that the lighter barrel would burn out after a few hundred rounds - and I suspect that info came from somebody who got it first-hand


quote="n7axw" quote="Theemile"

I was going to say, my father told me various stories of the M14 in full auto mode during is stint in the Army in the 1960/70s.

In his basic group, there was one green city boy that was afraid to fire a rifle and would not set it against his shoulder after several days of rifle training. (In my experience holding the gun away from the shoulder just increases the kick, but my dad said it really happened...) Supposedly the Drill sergeant took a belt and tied an M-14 to the side of the kid's head (against the shoulder) and flipped the selector to full auto, and had the kid fire off several mags.

I guess the swelling of his cheek went down after a week or so. /quote

Gracious.

I take it that this incident went down in the training manual for drill sargeants as an outstanding example of superior leadership...

Don

- /quote

Keith_w wrote:

Louis R wrote:More than likely. That was the US Army, after all.

And controllability of anything fully hand-held with a battle-rifle cartridge is a definite problem. As is durability. Other people using the NATO round dealt with them by issuing a heavier full-auto version with a heavy barrel and bipod. Take off the bipod and the FN C1 and C2 are actually quite difficult to tell apart until you get up close - and there were stories of C1s with worn sears going full auto without much warning. [as well as of people doing it deliberately] In full-auto mode, you were supposed to go prone and use the bipod, since there was no telling where your rounds would go if you tried to use it standing. You could fit a C2 sear into a C1; I was told that the lighter barrel would burn out after a few hundred rounds - and I suspect that info came from somebody who got it first-hand

I certainly would not be one to mention that all it took was a piece of a paper match under the sear - something every good soldier should carry - to convert a C1 to fully automatic. Or that if you were so stupid as to do that, and fire several magazines that way that the barrel would melt, and should you be fortunate enough to be caught before that occurrence, the 3 RCR Sargent in charge of your training that night would most likely tear you a new asshole.

On the other hand, C1s and C2 were very easy to tell apart. C1s had a fully enclosed forward barrel, whereas the C2 had an open barrel with a collapsed bipod beneath it. Also C2s were issued with 30 round magazines, whereas the standard issue for C1s were 20 round magazines.
10 Characteristics of the C1:
Gas Operated
Magazine Fed
Capable of firing single rounds
20 round magazine
Flash eliminator of the slotted tube type
Front blade sight
Carrying handle at the point of balance
Folding rear disk sight
All operations carried out with the left hand
Weighs 10.5 pounds fully loaded
I have no idea why we had to memorize that.
I have even less idea why I still remember it.

Louis R wrote:It was tradition - see Henry Reed's Naming of Parts. The reason you remember is that you had good instructors, although I wouldn't have been one of them

At least, I'm pretty sure I wasn't, unless you attended the 74 Comm Group School in '79 or '80 - unlikely in the extreme if you were RCR.

Not sure where you found a C1 with a fully enclosed barrel: every one I handled had the forestock end at the gas regulator. Full-length forestocks went out with the Lee-Enfield. Although, now that you mention it, I recall that the C2 had no forestock at all, so the visual difference was bigger than I was saying even with the bipod removed. The difference between the mags wasn't all that remarkable unless you put them side by side.

Keith_w wrote:
Sorry, it wasn't very good phrasing. Of course the forestock ended at the Gas Regulator. I was envisioning the completely unenclosed barrel of the C2, which you manually supported via the folded bipod, as opposed to the C1 whose barrel and gas piston tube were completely enclosed to the gas regulator.

And no, I wasn't RCR ). I just received Jr NCO training from them at Petawawa in the summer of '72.

edited to change phrasing to "unenclosed"

phillies wrote:Apparently there were weapons variants that I massed, but assuredly the M14 I was issued in the Army did not have an autofire setting, if that is what was meant above. It's something you can't readily miss, not to mention that I think that it would have been mentioned someplace along the way.

Louis R wrote:So, what is your Regiment?

[me: RCSigs]

Keith_w wrote:
Sorry, it wasn't very good phrasing. Of course the forestock ended at the Gas Regulator. I was envisioning the completely unenclosed barrel of the C2, which you manually supported via the folded bipod, as opposed to the C1 whose barrel and gas piston tube were completely enclosed to the gas regulator.

And no, I wasn't RCR ). I just received Jr NCO training from them at Petawawa in the summer of '72.

edited to change phrasing to "unenclosed"