AD______________
TECH REPORT 68-4
OCT 1968

TECHNICAL REPORT

M14 RIFLE COST ANALYSIS REPORT

JOSEPH J. KELLY
JOHN MASENGARB

SYSTEMS AND COST ANALYSIS DIVISION
COMPTROLLER AND DIRECTOR OF PROGRAMS
U.S. ARMY MATERIEL COMMAND
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20315

- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

DISPOSITION

DESTROY THIS REPORT WHEN NO LONGER NEEDED.

DO NOT RETURN IT TO THE ORIGINATOR.

DISCLAIMER

THE FINDINGS IN THIS REPORT ARE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS AN OFFICIAL DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY POSITION

- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Technical Report 68-4

M14 Rifle Cost Analysis Report

JOSEPH J. KELLY
US Army Materiel Command

JOHN MASENGARB
US Army Weapons Command

October 1968

The views of the authors do not purport to reflect the position of the Department of the Army or the Department of Defense

Systems and Cost Analysis Division
Comptroller and Director of Programs
US Army Materiel Command
Washington, D.C. 20315

- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract
List of Figures and Tables
I. Introduction.
II. System Description
III. System History
IV. Development Costs and Analysis
V. Investment Costs and Analysis
VI. Operating Costs
VII. Summary

Abstract

This report summarizes (1) the system history and (2) the development, investment, and operating costs of the 7.62mm M14 rifle. Development of the rifle occurred from 1945 to 1956 and totaled $10.9 million. Overall, 1.38 million rifles were delivered from 1960 to 1965 by four manufacturers at an average cost of $105.15 each. The production learning (experience) curve had a slope of 92 percent. The annual operating costs per year per rifle for maintenance (includes repair parts, direct and general support facilities, and labor) are about $50.52 per year.

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1. Ml4 Rifle
Figure 2. M14 Rifle Harrington & Richardson Hardware Cost by Year
Figure 3. M14 Rifle Olin Mathieson Hardware Cost by Year
Table 1. Principal Characteristics
Table 2. RDTE Funding
Table 3. Yearly Procurement Schedules
Table 4. Yearly Delivery Schedules
Table 5. Non-Recurring Costs
Table 6. Learning Curve Analysis
Table 7. Basic Issue Line Item
Table 8. Operating Costs and Factors
Table 9. RDTE, Investment, and Operating Cost by Year

I. INTRODUCTION

This report presents the actual and estimated costs associated with the life cycle costs of the M14 rifle. Estimates and actual costs of development are rather limited due to a lack of data, but investment and operating costs are covered in detail.

The M14 rifle (Figure 1) is a lightweight, air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine fed, shoulder weapon designed primarily for semiautomatic or full-automatic fire.

The development of the M-14 rifle occurred because of a review of the program for the development of rifles in the years following World War II which revealed three definite trends. The first reflected a decision to provide the infantryman with a rifle of reduced weight but as accurate and as effective as standard weapons. The second was the development of an acceptable rifle with selective automatic and semiautomatic fire. The last was the simplification of logistical and training problems by developing a rifle to replace the four radically different designs of the M1 rifle, M2 carbine, M3A1 submachine gun, and the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR). The adoption in June 1957 of the M14 rifle and later modifications of this rifle for the BAR role marked the achievement of all of these goals.

(Not included due to poor quality of image in PDF)
Figure 1

II. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

The 7.62mm rifle M14 is a lightweight, air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine fed, shoulder weapon designed primarily for semi-automatic or full-automatic fire. The rifle is designed to accommodate the rifle bipod M2, the bayonet knife M6, the grenade launcher M76 and grenade launcher sight M15, and the winter trigger kit. Table 1 illustrates the principal characteristics of the M14 rifle.

Table 1
M14 Rifle Principal Characteristics

Model

M14

Weight

        With equipment and empty magazine

9.1 lbs.

        Ready to fire-fully loaded with sling

11 lbs

        Length with flash suppressor

44.3 in.

Barrel

        Weight

1.75 lbs.

        Length

22 in.

Rifling

        Length

19.7 in.

        Number of grooves

4

        Depth of groove

0.004 in.

        Twist

one turn in 12 in.

Bipod

        Model

M2

        Weight

1.75 lbs.

Sling

        Webbing. Model

M1

        Weight

0.27 lbs

        Leather, Model

M1907

        Weight

0.5 lbs.

Method of Actuation

gas-operated

Method of cooling

air-cooled

Sight radius at 100 yds

26.75 in.

Muzzle velocity

2.800 fps.

Muzzle energy

2,600 ft.-lb.

Chamber pressure (Maximum)

50,000 psi.

Cyclic rate

750 rds/min.

Maximum range

3,500 yards

Maximum effective range

500 yards

Trigger pull

        Maximum

7.5 lbs.

        Minimum

6.5 lbs.

Magazine capacity

20 rds.

Flash suppressor

integral with rifle

Sights

        Rear

iron aperture

        Front

post

Ammunition used

        7.62MM AP Cartridge

M61

        7.62MM Ball Cartridge

M59

        7.62MM Tracer Cartridge

M62

        7.62MM Blank

M82

        7.62 Ball National Match

M118

III. SYSTEM HISTORY

Many World War II combat reports received by the Army Ground Forces stressed the need for efficient automatic small arms weapons of light weight. The caliber .30 Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR), a comparatively heavy weapon, had proven itself to be both efficient and effective. The BAR, which was usually carried as a squad or section weapon, was gas-operated, air-cooled, and had a magazine capacity of 20 rounds. Its rate of fire was approximately 300 to 350 rounds per minute at a slow rate; its fast rate was 500 to 600 rounds per minute. It was originally designed as a shoulder-operated weapon; however, many modifications increased its length and weight. In a similar manner, the standard shoulder arm, the caliber .30 M1 rifle, had also proven itself superior to any of the semiautomatic weapons used by either our allies or enemies. The M1 rifle, however, weighed 9 3/4 pounds and was limited in magazine capacity to eight rounds.

In the light of the above considerations, the Army Ground Forces stated in September 1944 that a requirement existed for a weapon that would be comparable in size, weight, and efficiency to the M1 rifle and capable of both automatic and semiautomatic fire. To meet this requirement, the Ordnance Department initiated, in October 1944, a project to modify the M1 rifle. The new rifle was to be equipped with a detachable bipod and, when fired from the bipod, was to be as effective as the standard BAR. The proposed weapon was also to include a 20 round magazine.

While development work to this end was being carried out at Springfield Armory during 1944 and the first seven months of 1945, a light weight rifle development program was initiated at Office, Chief of Army Ordnance in March 1945. Ordnance Committee Minutes 29132, 20 September 1945, officially launched the study for a rifle weighing less than the caliber .30, M1 rifle. The requirement for a lightweight rifle weighing seven pounds was stated in May 1946. The War Department Equipment Board further recommended that the new rifle replace not only the M1, but also the Carbine and M3A1 submachine gun. With a heavy barrel, the new rifle would also replace the M1918A2 BAR.

Development of a shorter round of ammunition was also initiated by the Ordnance Corps in 1945. All new rifle development was, therefore, based upon this new cartridge, the T65, one-half inch shorter than the caliber .30 1906 and M2 cartridges.

As a result of the 1944 requirement to modify the M1 rifle, the Springfield Armory was instructed to change the original specifications on a weapon under development called the T20 rifle. The rest of this section briefly traces the rifle development program from the T20 rifle until the standardization of the M14 rifle in 1957.

Rifle, Caliber .30, T20 - Early in 1944, Springfield Armory initiated the development of the first model of the T20 rifle, incorporating full and semiautomatic fire. Full automatic fire was accomplished by an independent sear release. The model was capable of automatic fire from an open bolt and semiautomatic fire from a closed bolt position. The open bolt feature did not adequately solve cook-off problems. The basic principle of operation was considered satisfactory. Development of the T20 model terminated in January 1945 with recommendations that minor design changes and strengthening of various components be made. A rifle incorporating these minor design changes was designated T20E1.

Rifle, Caliber .30, T20E2 - In early 1945, the T20E2 rifle was developed from its predecessors, the T20 and T20E1 rifles. This rifle could be fired either on a full or semiautomatic basis. Full automatic fire was achieved by a connector assembly which was actuated by the operating rod handle. This, in turn, actuated a sear release or trip which, with the trigger held to the rear, disengaged the sear from the hammer lugs immediately after the bolt was locked. This model included a recoil check on the muzzle. The bolt was modified to ease feeding and extraction The receiver was slightly longer than that of the M1 rifle. This allowed the bolt to travel further to the rear and improve feeding. This model also had a gas port located approximately 1 1/2 inches from the muzzle. The T20E2 rifle was designated Limited Procurement Type in May 1945. The project was terminated in March 1948.

Rifle, Caliber .30, T22 - The T22 rifle development was begun in early 1944 by the Remington Arms Company. In this design effort, full automatic fire was accomplished in the open bolt position and semiautomatic fire from a closed bolt position. The open bolt feature did not effectively prevent cook-off. The T22 project to modify the M1 rifle was terminated in March 1948.

Rifle, Caliber .30, T22E2 - The T22E2 rifle was developed from its predecessors, The T22 and T22E1 rifles, by Remington Arms Company. Full automatic fire was accomplished in the open bolt position; semiautomatic fire was accomplished from a closed bolt position. This model incorporated a slight change in the trigger group to simplify manufacture as well as an improved magazine catch. The major advantage of the T22E2 was in its adaptability to re-manufacture of M1 rifles as a peacetime operation. This project was terminated in March 1948.

Rifle, Caliber .30, T23 - This rifle was a modification of the M1 rifle to provide full and semiautomatic fire. Automatic fire was to be provided by an independent hammer release. The T23 model was advantageous from the standpoint of design, durability, and minimization of functional stresses. Because of mechanism timing, this model fired fully automatic from an open bolt approximately 20 percent of the time. Tests of this weapon indicated the desirability of firing from the closed bolt position. The tests also indicated that a new magazine should be designed rather than attempt to modify the BAR magazine. A device designed to increase gun stability during automatic fire was definitely needed. The project was terminated in March 1948.

Rifle, Caliber .30, T24 - The T24 rifle was also a modification of the M1 rifle to provide full and semiautomatic fire. Automatic fire was provided by an independent sear release. This project was initiated simultaneously with the T23 rifle development in October 1944. This model fired full automatic from a closed bolt position at all times. This project was also ended in March 1948.

Rifle, Caliber .30, Lightweight, T25 - The T25 rifle was the first of the new lightweight rifles to fire the improved T65 type ammunition. This project was initiated in September 1945. This model was designed for selective semiautomatic or full automatic fire. Full automatic fire was performed in the open bolt position. The front sight mount and the bayonet lug were integral with the flash suppressor as a separate unit from the gas system components. The gas cut-off system and front-end design were eventually incorporated into the T44 rifle. The project was suspended in November 1951.

Rifle, Caliber .30, T27 - The T27 rifle project, initiated in April 1946, modified the M1 rifle to fire the new improved .30 caliber ammunition (7.62mm NATO). The rifle was capable of selective full and semiautomatic fire. This project was terminated in March 1948.

Rifle, Caliber .30, Lightweight, T28 - This program initiated in October 1946 was to design a lightweight, selective full and semiautomatic weapon to replace the M1 rifle, M2 carbine, M3A1 submachine gun, and the BAR. This rifle, with an in-line stock, was designed to explore the feasibility of low-cost fabrication techniques. Complex stampings and simplified forgings were used extensively in this design. This mechanism had insufficient structural rigidity for satisfactory function and durability. The breech mechanism was an adaptation of an experimental Mauser design. The trigger mechanism was also of German origin. Development of this rifle was suspended in late 1950.

Rifle, Caliber .30, Lightweight, T31 - The T31 rifle development program was begun in March 1947. This weapon was a lightweight, selective full and semiautomatic rifle with an in-line stock. It was also intended to replace the M1 rifle, M2 carbine, M3A1 submachine gun, and BAR. This model was a novel approach to infantry rifle design and had unusually low stripping forces and energies. The magazine design was later incorporated into the T44 rifle. Attempts were made to reduce recoil and eliminate flash and muzzle blast. These attempts were unsuccessful and the development program was suspended in late 1950.

Rifle, Caliber .30, Lightweight, T33 - This rifle development program was initiated in March 1949. This rifle was developed on the initiative of a private inventor with guidance from the Office, Chief of Ordnance. The project was suspended in late 1950 because the weapon lacked sufficient ruggedness and durability.

Rifle. Caliber .30, Lightweight. T35 - The T25 rifle development program was initiated in June 1944. This rifle was a modification of the M1 rifle designed to fire the new and improved caliber .30 (7.62mm) NATO ammunition. This semiautomatic weapon incorporated a drop wood stock, iron aperture rear sight, and post front sight. This particular development was suspended in the latter part of 1950.

Rifle, Caliber .30, Lightweight, T36 - A lightweight rifle modified from the T20E2 rifle was officially designated the T36 rifle in November 1949. This weapon was designed to fire the 7.62mm NATO ammunition. The T36 rifle could be used in both full and semiautomatic fire from a closed bolt position. It had a drop wood stock, iron aperture rear sight, and post front sight. A modified T25 rifle magazine design was incorporated into this model. This magazine functioned very satisfactorily. Further modification included a one-piece hand guard and a special butt plate. The T36 rifle development was terminated in the latter part of 1950.

Rifle, Caliber .30, Lightweight, T37 - The T37 rifle was a lightweight rifle modified from the T20E2 and incorporated features from the T36 rifle. This rifle fired NATO ammunition in both the full and semi-automatic roles. The important modifications included a lightweight 22-inch barrel with the gas port approximately four inches from the muzzle and a lightweight wooden stock. The design included the T20E2 receiver but with filler blocks fore and aft of the magazine. Further revisions incorporated a lightweight stabilizer/flash suppressor and a bolt buffer. Following tests, recommendations were made for further development of a lightweight rifle that would be manufactured with existing production tools.

Rifle. Caliber .30. T44 - The T44 rifle, an eclectic model, evolved from a modified T37 rifle with a gas expansion-cutoff system. This weapon included the front end components of the T25 rifle, the breech system and magazine catch mechanism of the T20E2 rifle, and the magazine of the T31 rifle. This rifle, with a lightweight barrel (1.8 pounds), was developed to replace the M1 rifle, M2 carbine, and the M3A1 submachine gun. It was capable of selective full or semiautomatic fire. It had a prong type flash suppressor together with an automatic pressure relief valve for grenade launching. The bolt action was similar to that of the M1 rifle. Full consideration was given to utilization of tooling used in the manufacture of the M1 rifle.

Rifle. Caliber .30, T44E1 - In October 1951, a heavy barrel (3.5 pounds) version of the T44 rifle was fabricated and designated as the T44E1 rifle. This rifle was designed to replace the BAR. It featured a rate reducer that could provide dual rates of automatic fire. The heavy barrel feature was designed to reduce weapon jump and to withstand the greater heat and increased erosion that would result from automatic fire. This weapon also had a hinged butt, two position bipod, and a new flash suppressor unit.

Rifle, Caliber .30, T44E2 - Modifications to the lightweight barrel version of the T44 rifle led to a weapon which was designated as the T44E2 rifle. It utilized a short receiver and a gas impingement system. Front magazine latching and a centrally activated bolt catch were incorporated. A new operating rod with a modified cross rail section, a new bolt, trigger housing, trigger guard, and a grenade launcher with reduced gas volume were also included in this design.

Rifle, Caliber .30, T47 - In October 1951, a successor to the T25 model was designated T47. This model had a lightweight barrel and fired both full and semiautomatic from the closed bolt position. The bolt of the T47 rifle was locked and unlocked by the tilting action of the breech lock. This was the chief feature that distinguished it from the T44 rifle. The T4A was considered superior and T47 development program was terminated.

Rifle, Caliber, .30, Lightweight, T48 - The Belgian FN rifle was designated the T48 by the Ordnance Corps in October 1951. The rifle was converted to fire the NATO ammunition and was ready for user tests late in 1952. The T48 was a lightweight, gas-operated, air-cooled rifle that could be fired both automatic and semiautomatic. It competed against the T47 and T44 rifles during user tests as a possible successor to the M1 rifle. The outstanding feature of this weapon was its ease and speed of field stripping attributed to a hinged receiver resembling that of a conventional break-open shotgun. Its weight was substantially the same as the M1 rifle. In April 1953, tests of the T47 rifle were discontinued. Only the T44 series remained in competition with the T48 FN rifle. The T44E4 was selected as the better rifle in June 1957, terminating further evaluation of the T48.

Rifle, Automatic, 7.62mm, M15 (T44E5) - In October 1954, a new heavy barrel rifle was designated T44E5. It was developed to eliminate the modified components used in the T44E1 model. Since this weapon had the identical operating mechanism as the T44E4, it was type classified standard, replacing the BAR, as the M15, 7.62mm automatic rifle in June 1957. The M15 rifle was declared obsolete in December 1959, following successful firing tests of the M14 rifle with the M2 bipod and a slotted plastic upper hand guard.

Rifle, 7.62mm, M14 (T44E4) - In October 1954, a new rifle with a lightweight barrel was designated as the T44E4 rifle. It was developed to eliminate the modified components used in the T44 model. In order to fire the NATO ammunition, the bolt, firing pin, connector, stock, and receiver of the rifle were designed with shortened dimensions. An improved bolt catch and magazine were also designed. The automatic pressure valve used in grenade launching was replaced with a manually operated valve. The rifle could be converted to either automatic or semiautomatic fire by removal of the selector lock and installation of a selector. The rifle was also equipped with a prong type flash suppressor. In June 1957, the T44E4 was classified standard as the M14, 7.62mm rifle, replacing the M1 rifle, M2 carbine, and M3A1 submachinegun.

IV. DEVELOPMENT COSTS AND ANALYSIS

Development of the M14 Rifle was accomplished primarily at Springfield Armory. Because of the closing of Springfield Armory and the amount of time expired since the weapon was developed, the available RDT&E costs cannot be further subdivided into the desired categories of engineering, tooling and test equipment, prototype production, systems test and evaluation, and data handling and documentation.

The M14 Rifle RDT&E costs in this report (Table 2) were compiled from Springfield Armory records by the Ordnance weapons Command in January 1959 and are the latest known available data.

Table 2
M14 Rifle RDTE Funding

Period

Scope of Work

Funding

FY 1946-1950

Design, development, prototype fabrication and testing of T25, T28, T31. T33, and T47

$300,000

Fabricate 100 T25 for User Test

$1,200,000

Development and Procurement of Ammunition

$1,138,200

(Total FY1946-1950)

$2,638,200

FY 1951-1956

Design development prototype fabrication and testing of T44. Procurement and testing of T48.

$1,550,000

Limited Product and Production Engineering on T44 and T48

$175,337

Pilot Production of 500 T44 (Springfield)

$1,109,539

Pilot Production of 500 T48 (H&R)

$2,220,589

Development and Procurement of Ammunition

$3,233,858

(Total FY1951-1956)

$8,289,323


(Total FY1946-1956)

$10,927,523

Summary

Hardware and Engineering:

        T44 et ante having residual value for M14

$3,920,465

        T48 work having no residual value for M14

$2,635,000

Ammunition

$4,372,058

(Summary Total)

$10,927,523

NOTE: All Dollars are unadjusted for inflation.

V. INVESTMENT COST & ANALYSIS

There were three commercial producers - Olin Mathieson, Harrington and Richardson (H&R), TRW, Inc. and one government facility, Springfield Armory, engaged in the manufacture of the M14 rifle. Production began with the FY 58 procurement at Springfield Armory and concluded with the final scheduled delivery in July 1964.

Tables 3 and 4 show the yearly procurement and delivery schedules.

Table 3
M14 Rifle Yearly Procurement Schedules

FY

Producer

Quantity

58

Springfield Armory

15,600

59

Olin Mathieson

35,000

59

H&R

35,000

60

Springfield Armory

32,000

60

Olin Mathieson

81,500

60

H&R

70,000

61

Springfield Armory

70,500

61

H&R

133,000

61

TRW

100,000

62

Springfield Armory

49,000

62

Olin Mathieson

90,000

62

H&R

224,500

63

Olin Mathieson

150,001

63

H&R

75,000

63

TRW

219,163


TOTAL PROCUREMENT

1,380,264

Table 4
M14 Rifle Yearly Contract/Work
Directive Delivery Schedules

FY

Producer

Quantity

60

Springfield Armory

8,725

60

H&R

600

61

Springfield Armory

43,975

61

H&R

96,500

61

Olin Mathieson

5,890

62

Springfield Armory

59,051

62

H&R

232,300

62

Olin Mathieson

81,390

63

Springfield Armory

45,949

63

H&R

208,100

63

Olin Mathieson

140,220

63

TRW

100,000

64

Springfield Armory

9,400

64

Olin Mathieson

129,001

64

TRW

210,000

65

TRW

9,163


TOTAL

1,380,264

Investment Costs - Non-Recurring

Table 5 gives the actual costs through 1968 with $4,000 required to complete the cost of laying away 21 production machines at TRW. Twenty of the machines will be laid away by the end of FY 70 with the remaining machine February 1973.

Table 5
M14 Rifle Investment - Non-recurring Costs


Cost thru FY 68
(Thousands of Dollars)

Cost to Complete
(Estimated)

Production Base Support

$16,728

4

Advance Production Engineering

694

Tooling and Test Equipment

12,077

Other

22

The above figures do not include the following Industrial Production Equipment (IPE) located at each of the commercial contractors. An estimate of the IPE at Springfield Armory is not available.

Contractor

Estimated Acquisition Cost

Olin Mathieson

$5,911,620

H&R

$5,129,674

TRW

$299,383

The difference in IPE between TRW and the other contractors can best be explained by the following table:


Olin

H&R

TRW

IPE

5,911,250

5,129,674

299,383

Acquisition of new machines

1,682,210

1,201,052

6,525,176

TOTAL

7,593,460

6,330,726

6824559

The other costs only includes new equipment training. Cost of the initial inventory management effort peculiar to major and minor items of supply, the development and analysis of requirements and supply status data, the preparation of materiel planning studies and supply control studies, and the determination of the necessity for and the initiation of directive of authorizing action for cataloging, procurement, rebuild; distribution, and disposal are not available at this time.

Investment Costs - Recurring

Springfield Armory was the first to produce the M14 rifle in quantity. In Fiscal Year 1958, they produced 15,600 rifles at an average unit cost of about $178. Further procurements from Springfield Armory indicated that learning (experience) was occurring at a 92% rate and the average unit price was decreasing with each new procurement (Table 6).

In Fiscal Year 1959, contracts were let after bids from twelve firms were received. The prices ranged from $68.75 to $157.10 per unit. Two contractors were selected, Olin Mathieson with a bid price of $68.75 per unit and Harrington & Richardson (H&R) with a bid price of $81.03 per unit. Both bids were for 35,000 units.

On the second procurement (70,000 units) of M14 rifles, the average unit price increased for both contractors.

In the case of Olin Mathieson, the price increased $22.25 per unit. An analysis of the increase revealed that $9.19 was due to engineering change orders (ECO's), $2.91 for delivery rate acceleration and the rest, $10.25, due to increase in the burden rate (overhead).


Table 6. M-14 Rifle Learning Curve Analysis

On the third procurement, the per unit cost increased by $27.82. This increase was due to another increase in burden rate and with the subcontractors increasing their various prices and costs for subcomponents. No dollar figures are available for each increase but the total increase was $27.82. Figure 2 illustrates graphically how each procurement price increased for Olin Mathieson.


Figure 2: M14 Rifle Harrington & Richardson Hardware Cost by Year

In the case of H&R, on the procurement, the average unit cost increased from $81,02 to $96.33 or $15.30. An analysis of this increase determined that $9.19 was due to ECO's and $6.11 was due to increasing the burden rate from 159% to 200%.

The third procurement also resulted in a price increase from $96.33 to $113.60 or $17.27 per unit. The increase was attributed to the subcontractors increasing their prices by $9.00 a unit, the burden rate increasing by $6.59 per unit, and the profit rate increasing by $1.70 per unit. Figure 3 illustrates graphically the price increases for H&R.

In FY 62, TRW was a third producer of the M14 rifle and did not experience any price increases when given a second or subsequent procurement.


Figure 3 M14 Rifle Olin Mathieson Hardware Cost by Year

The current Basic Issue Line Item (BILI) per weapon is shown below. Total costs for BILI are given in Table 7.

Table 7
M14 Rifle Basic Issue Line Item

Magazine assembly (1 mag w/rifle, 4 mag w/BILI)

5

Brush, Bore

1

Brush, Chamber

1

Case, Cleaning Rod

1

Case, Lubricant

1

Combination tool

1

Section, Cleaning rod

4

Swab Holder

1

Sling, M1

1

Bayonets, scabbards, and bipods comprise the ancillary equipment.

The cost of tools and test equipment replaced or modified after the start of quantity production, the initial reproduction of publications and technical data required to introduce the weapon system into inventory, and the materiels and actions necessary to maintain productive facilities in condition to produce during the production cycle are not available.

An overall analysis of the two contractors, H&R and Olin Mathieson, seems to be that, they bid low on the first contract and then subsequently increased their unit prices to about where the Springfield Armory unit price would have been had the Armory's 92% learning curve been used. All subsequent contracts have declined relative to a unit price according to that projected learning curve of 92%.

VI. OPERATING COSTS AND ANALYSIS

The costs of POL consumption, lubricating oil, and bore cleaner, under peacetime conditions, are considered to be negligible. The costs of training, central supply activities, annual service practice, operating forces, medical services, Army-Wide activities, and family housing activities are not available.

Table 8 is a list of operating costs factors and estimated annual unit costs.

Table 8
M14 Rifle Operating Costs and Factors

Operating Costs

Reference

Estimated Annual Unit Cost

    A. Repair Parts

Weapon Command

$5.95

    B. POL consumption

N/A

N/A

    C. Ammo consumption

Munitions Command

$74.36

    D. Crew

Weapons Command

$4,509.00

    E. DS maintenance

Weapons Command

$5.32

    F. GS maintenance

Weapons Command

$3.82

    G. Other direct operating cost



Training



Central Supply Activities



Depot Maintenance



    A. Labor

Weapons Command

$15.73

    B. Materiel

Weapons Command

$19.70

Operating Factors



    A. Estimated useful life of each unit

Unknown


    B. Average Rounds
    (or flying hours, etc.) per year

610 Ball
50 Tracer
150 Blank

The Army Small Arms Weapons System (SAWS) Procurement & Cost Data Study (U) Secret November 1965

    C. Meantime to overhaul (MTTO)

1.5 hours

Weapons Command

    D. Time between overhaul (TBO)

5 years

Weapons Command

    E. Meantime between failure (MBTF)

270 days

Weapons Command

    F. Meantime to repair (MTTR)

0.6 hour

Weapons Command

Publication and data costs are not sensitive to quantity changes. It is estimated that $4,800 will be expended in FY 69 and $10,200 in FY 70 for M14 publication changes.

VII. SUMMARY

The total RDTE Cost was 10.928 million and investment cost of M14 rifle was 177.496 million. Total system cost of RDTE and PEMA (Investment) was 217.945 million.

During the past few years, the Army has been building up its troop strength to meet the nations demands, consequently, in the Operating and Maintenance Cost, ammunition consumption for training has increased during the past three years significantly and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future.

Table 9 shows the total actual costs by fiscal year.

Table 9
M14 Rifle RDTE, Investment, and Operating Cost by Year

OCR NOTE: Where the original was too poor to decipher totally the number, I have marked that cell with (Uncert) for Uncertain.

DESCRIPTION OF WORK

FY 57
&
Prior

FY 58

FY 59

FY 60

FY 61

FY 62

FY 63

FY 64

FY 65

FY 66

FY 67

FY 68

RDTE TOTAL

10,928












INVESTMENT
NON-RECURRING

FY 57
&
Prior

FY 58

FY 59

FY 60

FY 61

FY 62

FY 63

FY 64

FY 65

FY 66

FY 67

FY 68

Production Base Supply


289

4,959

3,801

6,621

451

68

539





Advance Production Engineering


172

55


92

180

25

50

60

60



Tooling & Test Equip.


2,470

2,308

2,230

3,831

1,238







Other

10

12











TOTAL

10

2,943

7,322

6,031

10,544

1,869

93

589

60

60



INVESTMENT
RECURRING

FY 57
&
Prior

FY 58

FY 59

FY 60

FY 61

FY 62

FY 63

FY 64

FY 65

FY 66

FY 67

FY 68

Prime Mission Product













A. M14 Rifle


2,772

6,754

22,283

31,683

39,915

41,195






B. BILI


417

632

1,348

2,311

2,508

2,816






C. Ancillary Equip.




1,469

1,658

2,018

347






D. Engineering


571

60

2,185

2,038

1,303

526






E. Selected Repair Parts


1,436

1,965

4,968

1,934








F. First Dest. Trans.




3

41

104

137

97

2




TOTAL


3,196

9,411

32,256

39,665

45,848

45,021

97

2




OMA

FY 57
&
Prior

FY 58

FY 59

FY 60

FY 61

FY 62

FY 63

FY 64

FY 65

FY 66

FY 67

FY 68

Repair Parts





466

1,575

2,940

3,894

4,352

4,666

9,663

7,179

POL Consumption













Ammo Consumption (1)





23

13,861

12,855

36,873

26,132

31,279

45,456

47,233

DS Maintenance





417

1,408

2,628

3,481

3,890

4,171

4,472
(Uncert)

4,431

GS Maintenance





300

1,013

1,890

2,503

2,798

3,000

3,216

3,186

Depot Maintenance













    A. Labor










533

390

1,079

    B. Materiel










723

243

1,069

Other (2)













TOTAL





1,206

17,857

20,313

46,751

37,172

44,372
(Uncert)

63,440

64,179

1.) Includes Ball, Blank, Tracer and some match used in training.
2.) Publication cost only.
3.) Cost to layaway production machinery; $2,000 in FY 69, $1,00 in FY 70, $1,000 in FY 73.