M14e2/a1

[Flashback]

I would think it would be logical to add in for early maps -
a, Historically correct
b, Sounds should be much the same as the M14
c, Animations should be much the same as the M14
d, Model should be much the same as the M14

The AVT40 was pretty uncontrollable in RO2 and it still managed to be able to be used in FA with a bit of practice and with a bi-pod the M14E2A1 should be a fair bit easier to use.

 

[exhausted]

Well, it's sort of like the AVT with some key differences:

1) 20 rounds instead of 10
2) stabilizing forward pistol grip
3) bipod
4) muzzle break preventing excessive climb

like you say, when fired with the bipod or from the prone, it's much more stable than the AVT

 

[FR4NCH3K]

I want to point out some things I noticed here:

They were different in that:
- A1 had no bayonet mount

The M14E2/A1 actually did have a bayonet lug The muzzle brake was tensioned against the back end of it via a screw, which is part of the reason they walked off while firing.

I'm seeing a lot of really weird, inaccurate postings about the M14E2. While I'd love to see it in game as either a separate automatic rifleman class for the early war or as a possible alternative to the M60, I don't think it should really be present on the later war maps. Once again, two maps at launch is more than enough to implement such a weapon when we've already got far less used weapons in game.

Also, when it comes to the M14E2's recoil: the weapon had superb recoil control for a full sized battle rifle due to being front heavy and having a compensator, but the problem is the comp was rather poorly designed and caused the cone of fire to widen (which is a problem because in real life the M14 is already pretty damn inaccurate).

They're cool, they were used, and they'd add variety, so why not?

 

[lafittejean]

Have to agree with the post above, the M14E2 is an interesting possibility and RS2's unique weapon handling is perfect for a gun that in a conventional shooter would have to simply be radically nerfed to prevent it being overpowered. I've had the opportunity to handle a civilian M14 in an E2 configuration (not radically different from the one that can actually go full auto) and one of the first things you notice about the gun is that it is pretty front heavy with the bipod and forward grip. It is not a gun you could shoulder and fire at lightning speed and would not want to keep shouldered for any length of time before you'd start letting gravity drag the muzzle of your gun downward. RS2's approach to shouldering arms and how endurance impacts handling is the perfect opportunity to simulate this. Not to mention when you see videos of civilians firing automatic M14s they are often using pre-ban domestically produced automatic weapons that actually re-engineered the firing compensator to make the M14 properly controllable. The truth is the USGI compensator was not terribly helpful for standing/shoulder fire.

What is key with the M14E2 is that its SAW role is meant to be invoked when used in a prone or otherwise stabilized position where the rifle was basically sitting on a surface via a deployed bipod. The odd forward grip actually takes advantage of the rifle's sling to allow the weapon user to excert a huge amount of downward force with minimal effort to control the large recoil of fully automatic 7.62mm fire. RS2 with the rifle surface stabilize on cover and other weapon handling features in game is a good fit for such a weapon that is in many ways was heavily influenced by its handling characteristics. Heck the flip up buttplate of the M14 was meant to help keep the weapon under control in prone automatic fire as well and that feature stayed on with the general issue rifles even if they were semiauto locked.

As cool as it would be to have some more weapons, those M14 SAWs weren't spectacular weapons that seemed to have been used much. Leroy Thompson in his book on the M14 says the following:

"By December 1964, all 8,350 M14E2 rifles had been completed. As those rifles made it into the hands of troops, various problems arose, including: muzzle stabilizers coming off during firing; stocks breaking where the foregrip was attached; front handgrips breaking; and the M2 bipods working loose."
...
"After additional field trials, the improved version was eventually adopted as the M14A1 in April 1966."
...
"It should be noted that friends of the author who were familiar with firing the M14A1 stated that it was prone to "cook offs" (a round firing due to excessive heat in the chamber resulting from the closed-bolt design) and the wooden handguard catching on fire."

So all in all, I think it's safe to say these weapons didn't see much use, at least not succesfully.

I guess for the sake of having some more classes, you could add an Automatic rifleman, give him an M14 with M2 bipod, M14E2, or M14A1 and an M16 with XM3 bipod, but I can understand the decision not to include them

For what it's worth there is a battle footage featuring M14E2s in frontline use, indicating that the gun was at least present to some degree. Also the problems related to the handgrip, foregrip, and bipod issues were largely tied to user mishandling. The pistol grip on the E2 stock is actually a seperately milled piece secured with a dowel and glue, not something you really want to grab and put a lot of tension on, the front handgrip is actually used in a way that is different from how forward grips on other weapons is usually understood and it typically broke when used constantly like a conventional forward grip (the thing is basically only used in prone fire and requires you to tension the carrying sling), and the M2 bipod is finicky because since it sits on a gas piston soldiers were discouraged from over tightening it to avoid damaging the rifle, but in the process they would sometimes not tighten the bipod enough for fear of hurting the rifle. The wooden handguard issue refers to how early M14 models used a wooden handguard for covering the top of the weapon, which led to trapping heat and the guard bursting into flames when firing in automatic. The solution was to adopt fiberglass handguards that on the E2 were slotted to better dissipate heat. The stock itself was not the thing starting on fire, E2 stocks are actually designed quite heavily to avoid such an eventuality.

So yeah the M14E2 and the fully automatic M14 is an odd peculiarity that produced a finicky rifle package that really only benefited the weapon user if they handled it correctly and has some obscure handling aspects that can only be explained via training (like how the M1 Garand sling was designed to allow the user to use the sling as a brace to increase the accuracy of standing shoulder fire), but it was around and did see some use. Furthermore RS2 is the perfect game to showcase a gun with so many quirky handling characteristics. I mean if anything the gun is a great way for the devs to showcase the unique aspects of weapon handling that make RS and RO so different from other shooters.

 

[Lemonater47]

It still had pretty severe muzzle climb. Looking at videos. Though it's probably due to it being lighter. Probably far easier than an M60 to get single shots off at targets when moving about. Maybe even a burst of 2 or 3.

But yes. 8000. Not really a big number and they did have plenty of M60s lying around in 1964 as well.

It was a pretty shoddy conversion. With all the bits falling off and the other problems. Cheaper than redoing the entire woodwork I suppose.


Sorta reminds me of the Charlton Automatic rifle. A WW1 design of a fully automatic conversion of Lee enfield and Lee metford rifles. WW1 ended and the design ceased. Until WW2 started and the designer carried on. It had a foregrip and bipod. Was made to supplement the bren gun in New Zealand service. With about 7000 made. Only issue it was made by a New Zealander. While all the Protoypes were excellent there were no written instructions on how to make it. They literally had to reverse engineer the weapon to figure out how it was made. Which didn't go well. Jammed quite a bit. The magazines produced for it then didn't fit the weapon and it couldn't use standard bren magazines. Each weapon only had 1 30 round magazine that worked with it. No spares. So it was relegated to home defence to free up bren guns for overseas. It could still use the standard Lee rifle 10 round magazine which is actually detachable on all Enfields. Only it's not really designed to be a magazine you replace every 5 seconds. Detachable for the purposes of maintainance.



Anyway who let the americans design military firearms. They were mostly terrible at it for the first 3/4 of the 20th century. They had john browning for a bit. The Garand made by a Canadian. And the rest rather impractical for war. They had to copy the germans for the springfield. Then they managed to make something worse than the sten and failed to produce it in great numbers. Then decided that they didn't want any sort of intermediate cartridge weapon. After many designs from other nations had been put forward. The most promising being a british weapon. Then they turned down a Belgian 7.62 NATO weapon for reasons of "MURICA". The Belgians know how to make guns. There was even a German option. Later realised that their MURICA weapon was terrible and replaced it with an intermediate weapon. Which flat out didn't work at all initially.
Who let the Americans make guns????

 

[lafittejean]

Let's not make this an AR vs AK thread please, or for that matter American guns are terrible compared to foreign designs fest...

Anyway your mention of shoddy conversions, during weapons testing it was found that the M14E2 muzzle stabilizer did have a chance of falling off occurring 5 times during weapon testing, during which 107,00 rounds were expended. In addition a point about the early '60s that you're missing is that US infantry doctrine wasn't finalized due to the upheaval of adopting the M14 and M60. As a result in weapons tests the M60 is often called a machine gun, reflecting the intention it would supplant the Browning .30 and the M14E2 is called an automatic rifle showing the intention to have it supplant the BAR. As a result in early usage due to doctrine you would have seen M14E2s deployed with squads and small units because that was a doctrinal interpretation that had yet to be tempered in active combat.

 

[Jagdwyre]

Anyway who let the americans design military firearms. They were mostly terrible at it for the first 3/4 of the 20th century. They had john browning for a bit. The Garand made by a Canadian. And the rest rather impractical for war. They had to copy the germans for the springfield. Then they managed to make something worse than the sten and failed to produce it in great numbers. Then decided that they didn't want any sort of intermediate cartridge weapon. After many designs from other nations had been put forward. The most promising being a british weapon. Then they turned down a Belgian 7.62 NATO weapon for reasons of "MURICA". The Belgians know how to make guns. There was even a German option. Later realised that their MURICA weapon was terrible and replaced it with an intermediate weapon. Which flat out didn't work at all initially.
Who let the Americans make guns????

I'm pretty sure around that time there was a lot of Ordinance BS with a lot of political America vs Russia tension going on with contracts and what the government was willing to pursue. There are plenty of American firearm designs that were created around that time that simply weren't adopted. Around this time the AR-18 was also developed with guns like the F2000 and even the German "sexy modern" G36 taking the action and gas system from. The impact of 50s-60s era American firearm design may have a larger impact on worldwide small arms than you may be giving it credit for, though granted that it's in a more subtle way than everyone just adopting American weapons as their service weapons(which a lot of counties have done, including special forces circles).

And in fairness to the intermediate cartridge issue, Pedersen wanted them to switch to the lighter .276 cartridge back in the 30s, it was just shut down. And I think a lot of the unreasonable stubbornness about keeping a rifle cartridge was the huge focus on marksmanship the American military wanted to have for their infantry weapons and training. I think we'd both agree that honestly everyone would have been better off if we would have just adopted the .280 British instead of forcing NATO to adopt .308, especially considering ultimately adopting the 5.56 was basically the admittance they made the wrong call.

And I have to say, If you're referring to the M3 in regards to the Sten comment I'd have to disagree. The sten guns were pretty terrible SMG's, M3 aren't great but I'd definitely consider them better. Stens didn't really get good in my opinion until they updated it with the Sterling design post-war.

 

[AATTV]

The official aberdeen proving ground documents for the evaluation program, say something to the effect that the recoil of firing the M14e1 for extended spells was such that it induced headaches; can we have a game mechanic where by the e1 operators health gradually declines & his vision becomes light sensitive & ringing in his ears? just a suggestion lol

Mention of the flash hiders shooting loose on the automatics also reminded me, the service M14's also suffered from production concentricity tolerances not being met for many of their flash hiders & subsequently bullets would strike the near edge on firing - one can imagine what this does to accuracy potential?

there was that excellent discussion a few months on accuracy standards of the various weapons platforms in game & what they were in reality:
I found official army documents citing them for the M14 & M16e1 of that era, i.e an average across samples of 1000 random or batched rifles & the results may be bit of a revelation; the american rifles not defaultly being the absolute "tackdrivers" some believe. Obiviously there are good & bad examples, but it should "all come out in the wash" when averaged? didn't post at the time, because I was smashed with work, but I'll find the references if people are interested. IIRC the average M14 was cited as being 2.5 moa & the M16e1's being a touch worse than that, with the in service rejection standard for both, set @ 6moa.

Also I know anecdotally the M40's despite them being a legendary platform & a marked paradigm shift in sniping equipment, they suffered terribly in the tropical moisture with many of their stocks forends warping to the extent that they bore on the "floated" barrel. i've hear a figure thrown around that many of the in country M40's were probably more like 1.2- 1.5 Moa rifles. the preceding winchester Model 70's were similar,

 

[lafittejean]

The wood warping issue in jungle environments was a pretty widespread issue that impacted any wood stocked rifle, there's no research on it but I bet the VC probably had serious problems with it in the full stocked war surplus they had access to, probably one additional advantage for their AK's was only having to worry about stock warping, where as any SKS or SVD would suffer in the jungle. It's the reason why they started implementing fiberglass stocks for the M14, but if we want to get into that we'd basically have to look at how we could negatively impact the accuracy of every wood stocked gun in the game. Would be cool if they did a later war M14 fiberglass stock model though. Anyway before you know it people would be raging that iron sights seem to be off, I mean I think this is the part where we have to accept game over reality similar to random weapon jamming and other maintenance issues that arose in service, but for a game player would mainly induce rage and make them less interested in playing as it would have to be a random event since there's no way to model the player character's ability/inability to properly maintain equipment between matches. Same deal with the negative impacts of prolonged automatic fire as people just firing gun for fun at a shooting range can experience hearing loss without proper ear protection, soldiers with no such protection in the middle of a warzone? Goodbye ears, albeit if we wanted to model it that would give an advantage to the M16 as 5.56mm isn't going to cause as much hearing loss as 7.62mm.

Plus I'm betting there'd be a lot of rage if the M14 wasn't a tack driver, even though it largely earned that reputation in its post general issue life where it was carefully maintained for armed service competition shooting (the national match models) and later as the designated marksmen rifle we know today. It kind of has a weird mythos around it as the last American battle rifle that might result in some rifle fanboy rage if it wasn't superbly accurate.

 

[exhausted]

Well it wouldn't have to be a tack driver to be effective. Regular issued M14s, worn out as all hell, were still accurate enough to hit targets more than 500 yards away. It's a wonderful weapon that withstands a lot of punishment.

The muzzle break doesn't simply 'shake loose' from the barrel - it really can't unless the retaining pin has been sheered. People who are making comments that this was a common occurrence know surprisingly little about the M-14. The muzzle break is an integral part of the sight base and bayonet lug, plus the E2 has extra retaining parts to keep it attached.

Then there's this crap about the muzzle climb being too high to be useful -- what the hell are you talking about? This problem is just as bad in every machine gun the game already has! -- unless you know how to control it. And if you know how to control one, you can control the other.

So then we get the the 'point' about the stocks being vulnerable to moisture and therefore the rifle is too inaccurate to shoot, and thus it shouldn't be modeled. Except that the M14E2 stock is made of birch wood, which is more resistant to the effects of humidity than other rifles using beech or walnut. If anything, the M14E2s should retain their accuracy longer than SKSs, Mosin Nagant 1891/30s, M1 Garands and any other rifle in Vietnam with a normal wooden stock.

 

[lafittejean]

The stabilizer (different creature from the muzzle break) did have some risk of falling off as demonstrated by DOD testing I mentioned, but it appears to have been a rare issue that would most likely only occur if one simply was not maintaining their rifle (unlikely as those issued the M14E2 had to be a bit more than an average grunt according to war records only 3 were lost in the war all due to enemy action rather than the other accidents that consume a lot of guns standard M14 14,470 rifles loss just 1038 due to enemy action). I think you're underestimating what muzzle climb without proper positioning on an automatic M14 of the time would look like.
[video=youtube;p-v9jB1eyaE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-v9jB1eyaE[/video]
The relevant bits are in the first 40 seconds. This is footage of the 25th division before they received M16s so this is January-March of '66. You will note the guy to Dan Rather's left has the M14E2 and is using the forward grip, and firing short controlled bursts of ~3 shots, the guy behind Rather may have a standard M14 (hard to tell) but is definitely going full auto/mag dumping and is all over the place. The E2 shouldered works in controlled burst but the other guy highlights how hard it is to operate the rifle for long full auto bursts from a non-prone position. At 17-21 seconds is running the rifle in semi-auto and I would say taking full advantage of the M14E2 as a DMR type package. Guy at 22-25 seconds is really just demonstrating that hipfiring a full auto M14 is futile, but that's not unexpected.

Oh and here's another shot of a deployed M14a1 in '66

Also Operation Prairie March 1967

And this is '65-'66 1st Infantry Division

Another 1st Infantry Division example

I mean for a rifle configuration that only recorded ~8350 manufactured examples (and <100 in a "sniper" configuration) it does seem to pop up in the early war period (albeit the amount of spare parts the military had and the ease with which a standard M14 can be converted to a1 configuration probably means M14a1/E2s could easily be made/unmade). Also kinda unrelated but here's a Vietcong sawn off M14 definitely not a future ingame weapon but cool.

 

[exhausted]

But did you notice that all the rifles experiencing muzzle climb were all firing in automatic WITHOUT the M14E2 muzzle device? They all used the standard M14 flash hider, which we all know would cause muzzle climb and we talked to Tripwire/AMG about how this applied to the M14 in game. It was a bit too low at first.

 

[lafittejean]

Oh, you've got a point there. Come to think of it looking at those pictures I provided only one of the guns clearly has the stabilizer. This is really something to ponder though as on the other hand most of the videos of civilian automatic M14 firing involve the usage of an aftermarket stabilizer that was reportedly better than the US Military one. Does anyone have an example of the USGI stabilizer equipped gun being fired?

 

[sgtlongbow]

mg gunner for marines needs this option and unless they plan to add navy seal they might want to consider adding stoner 63.

 

[exhausted]

'rah

 

[Moko]

Didn't that weird M16A1 HB replace the M14A1 pretty quickly?

 

[exhausted]

I'm not aware of widespread usage of heavy barrels in M16 style rifles (really AR-15 style rifles) until the later HB M4 models. Colt tried for a long time, but I don't think it really caught on. Even in the 1980s Colt was still promoting the 741 HB SAW.

I believe the M60 replaced the M14 SAWs in due time, but the M14 SAWs were common enough to warrant their inclusion in this game.

 

[lafittejean]

The M60 completely supplanted the M14a1 as it offered the most expedient way to provide soldiers with heavy automatic fire support. Admittedly this would leave a gaping hole in US doctrine as when the US found itself fighting in urban skirmishes during the invasion of Panama soldiers were dependent on hip fired M60s for street clearing as they advanced through Panama City. I believe that events like that drove the adoption of the SAW as a proper LMG platform, albeit the US then lacked a heavier MG platform for mobile soldiers as noted in Afghanistan and Iraq leading to the M240 and IAR. The IAR is effectively the inheritor of the BAR and M14a1 legacy in US infantry doctrine.

 

[Unus Offa Unus Nex]

M14e2/a1 would be very cool to see on some maps ingame, so I'm definitely for this.

 

[AATTV]

So then we get the the 'point' about the stocks being vulnerable to moisture and therefore the rifle is too inaccurate to shoot, and thus it shouldn't be modeled. Except that the M14E2 stock is made of birch wood, which is more resistant to the effects of humidity than other rifles using beech or walnut. If anything, the M14E2s should retain their accuracy longer than SKSs, Mosin Nagant 1891/30s, M1 Garands and any other rifle in Vietnam with a normal wooden stock.

Don't get me wrong, my point regarding timber stocks & ingress of moisture, wasn't intended as a slight against the M14 platform.
It was more pointing out that what many would naturally assume to be the most accurate firearm in game, the M40, [working on the premise that an average representative example having spent time "in country" etc] could reasonably be expected to achieve a grouping of around 1.25 MOA.
Using this as a benchmark, perhaps people should temper/moderate their expectations on the accuracy potential of all other firearms in game!
Its been mentioned that the various Ak's accuracy appears to be underwhelming, perhaps it needs to stay where it is & the groupings on the M16 etc, relaxed a bit?

a quote regarding the final QA testing of M14 rifles produced @ Thompson-Ramo-Wooldridge (TRW):
"Each rifle is fired one high-pressure proof round, then 40 rounds at semi- and full-automatic for functioning.
Then rifle is fired 3 settling rounds and 5 rounds for accuracy with service ammunition, and must deliver these 5 rounds into 6.1" group at 100 meters.
Largest group obtained to date has been 5.5"; average has been 2.5" to 3" "

a quote from a report (dated august 67) on comparative accuracy trials between XM-16e1's (M16a1) fitted with 12" & 14" twist barrels,
"The average extreme spread for 998 rifles having 12" twist was 3.6" @ 100 meters, while that of the 1,002 rifles having 14" twist was 7.2", or exactly 100% greater." Just bearing in mind, this trial was conducted with 3x different batches of ammunition, representing the most accurate lot, least accurate, & nearest to average accuracy lot of M193 ammunition held in inventory at that time.

I'm actually all for the inclusion of the M14a1 and would dearly love to see it and a handful of other weapons in game, for maps where they're appropriate & not anachronistic. I'm a firearms enthusiast and as far as I'm concerned a bit more variety would be a good thing within reason & realism. I know this isn't what the developers want to hear right at this time, when they are busily trying to get this thing launched & they consider it feature complete - however I did hear what I thought to be a very reasonable suggestion, by flashburn or Jagdwyre (don't remember which), where the developers could hold a contest for talented modders to create slick models for likely issued weapons not already featured in the game. i.e CAR-15's, Model 70's, M14a1's, K50M's, MAS36's, CR39's, L2a2's, VZ's, Arisaka's, etc. **** even get someone like that "forgotten weapons" chap, to be a guest judge, I hear he is bit of a gamer - get some cross promotion happening?

If certain weapons were only fielded in low numbers, allocate them to players of a certain rank, in a quota system etc? should keep the retentive history nazi's satisfied & give incentive to those who want more weapon variety, to keep playing longer in official servers. The more SF oriented weapons, i.e the Stoner63, M-45, "The *****" SLR, The Sterling SMG, The SEAL sawnoff M60's with tracers etc could come available in a similar way to the hero system in the previous RO2/RS games, and on a very limited quota system, to keep them commensurate with the low numbers in which they were fielded. i.e 1 or 2 people eligible for a choice of these per match?