Why did the ARVN get garands instead of M14s?

[Zeldov]

I have heard that the ARVN tested the M14s and decided they had too much recoil and therefore refused them, but how come they took garands? The garand (IRL) had more recoil due to 30-06 being a bigger round, and it was older, had less rounds, and a ♥♥♥♥♥♥ loading system. Why did they get garands then?

[Big Duke]

the m14 was the standard US rifle at the start of the conflict, and showed a lot of shortcomings against the AK47 leading to its replacement by the m16. As the war progressed it was clear the ARVN were seriously outgunned , the US decision to abandon the m14 as its main battle rifle with pressing need of modernizing the ARVN equipment and "Vietnamization" of the war lead to the US supplying the M16, m60 and m79. The idea of Vietnamization was to give them modern equipment to hold their own as the US withdrew, not more sht deemed inadequate.

[Zeldov]

that doesnt really answer my question. I'm asking why did they get garands in the beginning of the war instead of M14s

[*DANNYDELUXE*]

Cheaper probably.

[batmack8989]

Garands were surplus from WW2, given like candy to allied governments. The M14, was having production issues, and some US units had barely switched over from having Garands by the time they were sent to Vietnam in the early days. It wasnt that much of an improvement over the Garand so they mostly stuck with Garands and M1/2 carbines until they got M16s. Also take into account that it shared ammo with the other surplus weapons, like the BAR and the M1919, wich were issued to the ARVN

[=(e)= Lemonater47]

Because the americans intended to use the M14.

But then they realised it was rubbish.

They had been supplying the south with weapons before the US had even adopted the M14. Which happened in 1959. So the ARVN were getting old WW2 stock. Garands, M2 carbines, M1919s. 30-06 calibre.

Come 1964 and the US is already involved in the war. They adopt the M16. rapidly having to issue that out. What to do with all the M14s? They made a million of them in 5 years. Give them to the ARVN of course.

Only there was a problem.

The M14 is in 7.62x51. Replacing the garand with M14s would throw a wrench into their whole logistical system. There were no plans of giving them the M60 that early so they would still be using the M1919 in 30-06. So even if they did get the logistics sorted they would be using more types of ammo. So the M14s sat around. However you could find entire american units decked out with M14s as late as 1967. The Americans were having issues with getting enough M16s as it was.

Then as BigDukeSix stated the "Vietnamization" thing happened where the ARVN got issued all the new gear. Basically skipping the M14. Though they still got their hands on them. The ARVN got their hands on everything.

But yeah that's the main reason as to why. There's also people who say they used the garand because it was smaller than the M14. Don't think it's true. It's only an inch shorter, slightly heavier and has basically the same kick.


As to why the americans went with the M14. The 50s were a complete mess for american firearms design. The British and Belgians had come out with 2 pretty decent designs. The EM-2 and the FAL. Both in .280 (7x49mm). The EM-2 was a rather revolutionary design. Bullpup automatic rifle with an intergral scope. With the FN FAL being basically the same as it ended up only firing the smaller .280 British cartridge (there was actually a .280 Belgian cartridge made for it originally. Along with a protoype in 7.92x33 kurz). NATO nations all wanted to use the same round and preferably all use the same weapons as well.
America comes along and claims that .280 British is too weak. That it needed to be a full rifle calibre. They presented .308 winchester. Which became 7.62 NATO. Europe wasn't at all a fan of this idea. Saying that in full auto it would be uncontrollable. The Americans didn't think so. The British Labour party government brushed off the idea and were going to continue with .280. As were the Belgians. The rest of europe was going to use the british and belgian weapons. The Canadians said they would only adopt the british EM-2 if the americans adopted .280. The British elections came along, Labour was voted out, Churchill was voted back in and he basically said "we're doing what the americans are doing" since he felt that everyone using the same round was a better plan (in hindsight it wasn't). The rest of europe followed Britain. The EM-2 couldn't be converted to 7.62 NATO but the FAL could.
This all happened in 1950-1952. It took the americans a further 7 years to come up with the M14. Even though the protoype had existed as early as 1949. The M14 somehow beat out the FAL in trials. Claims that the trials were rigged. Immediatly after it was issued the armed forces complained about the uncontrollable nature of the weapon in full auto. Something they were warned about 10 years earlier.
Luckily for the United states they had great minds such as Eugene Stoner and Jim Sullivan to come up with things like the M16.

[Roujiamo 南蛮主义者]

Originally posted by =(e)= Lemonater47:

America comes along and claims that .280 British is too weak. That it needed to be a full rifle calibre. They presented .308 winchester. Which became 7.62 NATO. Europe wasn't at all a fan of this idea. Saying that in full auto it would be uncontrollable. The Americans didn't think so. The British Labour party government brushed off the idea and were going to continue with .280. As were the Belgians. The rest of europe was going to use the british and belgian weapons. The Canadians said they would only adopt the british EM-2 if the americans adopted .280. The British elections came along, Labour was voted out, Churchill was voted back in and he basically said "we're doing what the americans are doing" since he felt that everyone using the same round was a better plan (in hindsight it wasn't). The rest of europe followed Britain. The EM-2 couldn't be converted to 7.62 NATO but the FAL could.

The Cold war arms race in a nutshell:

Europe: Hey look at this new .280 cartrige, its smaller than full calibres and can be fired easily in full auto from our innovative weapons which we can sell to you!

USA: You guys seriously think that can stop a man? Use our .308 instead.

Europe, 15 years later: This .308 is powerful and all, but it has too much recoil.

USA: Well its a good job we made this new 5.56mm round! its smaller than full calibres and can be fired easily in full auto from our innovative weapons that we can sell to you!



On a side note, the EM-2 was a great weapon, our current SA80 rifles have many of its design aspects and are considerd amoungst the best in the world (exept the A1, we do not speak of that here!). It Almost angers me that the prototypes were abandoned, I would quite like to see how they turned out!

[Zeldov]

Imagine a sexy ass weapon like the FAL with a lighter caliber and 30 rounds


NUT

[batmack8989]

They original version of Cetme (Later H&K G3) used a "Wünderpatrone" too, check this out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Njddshr3n8

[ohio br]

Originally posted by Conservative party UK:

Originally posted by =(e)= Lemonater47:

America comes along and claims that .280 British is too weak. That it needed to be a full rifle calibre. They presented .308 winchester. Which became 7.62 NATO. Europe wasn't at all a fan of this idea. Saying that in full auto it would be uncontrollable. The Americans didn't think so. The British Labour party government brushed off the idea and were going to continue with .280. As were the Belgians. The rest of europe was going to use the british and belgian weapons. The Canadians said they would only adopt the british EM-2 if the americans adopted .280. The British elections came along, Labour was voted out, Churchill was voted back in and he basically said "we're doing what the americans are doing" since he felt that everyone using the same round was a better plan (in hindsight it wasn't). The rest of europe followed Britain. The EM-2 couldn't be converted to 7.62 NATO but the FAL could.

The Cold war arms race in a nutshell:

Europe: Hey look at this new .280 cartrige, its smaller than full calibres and can be fired easily in full auto from our innovative weapons which we can sell to you!

USA: You guys seriously think that can stop a man? Use our .308 instead.

Europe, 15 years later: This .308 is powerful and all, but it has too much recoil.

USA: Well its a good job we made this new 5.56mm round! its smaller than full calibres and can be fired easily in full auto from our innovative weapons that we can sell to you!



On a side note, the EM-2 was a great weapon, our current SA80 rifles have many of its design aspects and are considerd amoungst the best in the world (exept the A1, we do not speak of that here!). It Almost angers me that the prototypes were abandoned, I would quite like to see how they turned out!

Tack on "Use our .308 instead and we'll use your FAL.....JK we'll just use our own design."

[zombiecrc]

Originally posted by Zeldov:

Imagine a sexy ass weapon like the FAL with a lighter caliber and 30 rounds


NUT

FN FNC.

[Tracy]

Originally posted by zombiecrc:

FN FNC.

The FN CAL and also this.[www.thefirearmblog.com]

[Zeldov]

Yea I knew about the FNC and the CAL but they don't look as good with that wood finish and straight mag idk

[maru]

Originally posted by Zeldov:

Imagine a sexy ass weapon like the FAL with a lighter caliber and 30 rounds


NUT

The virgin M14 vs the chad FN FAL

[Big Sister Lover]

Originally posted by =(e)= Lemonater47:

Because the americans intended to use the M14.

But then they realised it was rubbish.

They had been supplying the south with weapons before the US had even adopted the M14. Which happened in 1959. So the ARVN were getting old WW2 stock. Garands, M2 carbines, M1919s. 30-06 calibre.

Come 1964 and the US is already involved in the war. They adopt the M16. rapidly having to issue that out. What to do with all the M14s? They made a million of them in 5 years. Give them to the ARVN of course.

Only there was a problem.

The M14 is in 7.62x51. Replacing the garand with M14s would throw a wrench into their whole logistical system. There were no plans of giving them the M60 that early so they would still be using the M1919 in 30-06. So even if they did get the logistics sorted they would be using more types of ammo. So the M14s sat around. However you could find entire american units decked out with M14s as late as 1967. The Americans were having issues with getting enough M16s as it was.

Then as BigDukeSix stated the "Vietnamization" thing happened where the ARVN got issued all the new gear. Basically skipping the M14. Though they still got their hands on them. The ARVN got their hands on everything.

But yeah that's the main reason as to why. There's also people who say they used the garand because it was smaller than the M14. Don't think it's true. It's only an inch shorter, slightly heavier and has basically the same kick.


As to why the americans went with the M14. The 50s were a complete mess for american firearms design. The British and Belgians had come out with 2 pretty decent designs. The EM-2 and the FAL. Both in .280 (7x49mm). The EM-2 was a rather revolutionary design. Bullpup automatic rifle with an intergral scope. With the FN FAL being basically the same as it ended up only firing the smaller .280 British cartridge (there was actually a .280 Belgian cartridge made for it originally. Along with a protoype in 7.92x33 kurz). NATO nations all wanted to use the same round and preferably all use the same weapons as well.
America comes along and claims that .280 British is too weak. That it needed to be a full rifle calibre. They presented .308 winchester. Which became 7.62 NATO. Europe wasn't at all a fan of this idea. Saying that in full auto it would be uncontrollable. The Americans didn't think so. The British Labour party government brushed off the idea and were going to continue with .280. As were the Belgians. The rest of europe was going to use the british and belgian weapons. The Canadians said they would only adopt the british EM-2 if the americans adopted .280. The British elections came along, Labour was voted out, Churchill was voted back in and he basically said "we're doing what the americans are doing" since he felt that everyone using the same round was a better plan (in hindsight it wasn't). The rest of europe followed Britain. The EM-2 couldn't be converted to 7.62 NATO but the FAL could.
This all happened in 1950-1952. It took the americans a further 7 years to come up with the M14. Even though the protoype had existed as early as 1949. The M14 somehow beat out the FAL in trials. Claims that the trials were rigged. Immediatly after it was issued the armed forces complained about the uncontrollable nature of the weapon in full auto. Something they were warned about 10 years earlier.
Luckily for the United states they had great minds such as Eugene Stoner and Jim Sullivan to come up with things like the M16.

The EM-2 is a piece of crap that jams 4-5 times per magazine when well taken care of. Britain abandoned it because they realized Enfield is terrible at designing guns so they went back to licensing foreign designs. Too bad they forgot about that when they adopted the SA-80 huh?

The .280 is a full powered rifle cartridge (it's larger and heavier than 6.5 arisaka) and a bad one at that. Its got a huge taper which makes magazine feeding impossible, compounded by their straight magazines it's no wonder the thing jammed so much. If it had been a good round for anything someone, somewhere would have adopted it.

7.62x51mm meanwhile has been standardized as the rifle cartridge worldwide at this point. There's no Conspiracy by the US to force NATO to do anything and even if there was it wouldn't explain its popularity on every continent on the planet. At this point even Russia and China are replacing their rifle cartridges with it. It's simply a superior cartridge.

Also why would Britain be invested in the US adopting a Belgian made rifle? The idea the US was flexing on Britain to force them to adopt anything is even more hilarious when you consider the fact that France never adopted 7.62x51mm until the 1980s. I guess America was just so stupid they made sure an Island nation that the Soviet Union could never land troops on would be able to share ammo with them but not the guys with a land border with Germany.

Actually Germany, Britain and France continue to violate STANAG to this day. The UK uses non-compatible ammunition for their tanks. Their 120mm rounds can't be fired from a standard NATO cannon, meanwhile France uses steel cased 5.56 ammo that can't feed reliably in most 5.56 rifles and Germany use their Swiss model translucent 5.56 magazines for the G36.

The M14 was chosen over the FN FAIL because the M14 is inherently more accurate with its rotating bolt design, It performed better in cold weather testing and it's over a pound lighter than the FAIL. There's a reason that the US uses M14 derivatives to this day as sniper rifles in the armed forces while Britain was arming their snipers with modified Lee Enfields instead of a common semi-automatic rifle.

[=(e)= Lemonater47]

You actually made some good points. For once. But we were mostly comparing my speculations to your speculations.

You also had to necro an old thread and then report me to… well, me as well lol.

Wikipedia still your main source I see. Just so happens that the Wikipedia pages on this particular subject are rather accurate. I would normally counter the things you got wrong but I'm tried. And this is an out of date thread.