User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 6:42:10 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SnowMexican: Yeah. You have to replace them a lot more frequently than you would on an AK or just about any other design, and they're relatively expensive too. Pencil barrels did bend easily, which is one of the reasons that they're no longer the standard. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SnowMexican: Originally Posted By 03RN: You think bolt carrier groups are short lived wear items? You still believe they had issues with barrels bending? Yeah. You have to replace them a lot more frequently than you would on an AK or just about any other design, and they're relatively expensive too. Pencil barrels did bend easily, which is one of the reasons that they're no longer the standard. No. The reason they switched to the government profile is due to port erosion stopping their rods when checking. It had nothing to do with bending barrels. I prefer govt profile but I'm 5'11 and 220. Between being active duty infantry and as a private citizen with 10s of thousands of rounds through single barrels I can assure you the bolt carrier group isn't a huge wear item. I'm not sure where you're getting you info from |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 6:55:25 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 03RN: No. The reason they switched to the government profile is due to port erosion stopping their rods when checking. It had nothing to do with bending barrels. I prefer govt profile but I'm 5'11 and 220. Between being active duty infantry and as a private citizen with 10s of thousands of rounds through single barrels I can assure you the bolt carrier group isn't a huge wear item. I'm not sure where you're getting you info from It wasn’t port erosion, it was a burr where the gas port was drilled in the new barrel. A burr that hadn’t been shot out yet. |
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 6:56:37 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ARCNA442: This idea doesn't stand up to scrutiny because none of those countries actually had a modern intermediate caliber rifle. The Germans and Soviets were both using chopped down full-caliber rifle rounds shoved in to oversized SMGs that had extremely poor ballistics and were doctrinally considered SMGs that still had to be supported by full power rifles. It should also be remembered that the vaunted Stg 44 and the original milled receiver AKs were actually heavier than the M14. The Brits and Belgians were just proposing a full power rifle in a slightly different caliber than the Americans. The final version of .280 Brit was firing a 140gr bullet at 2550 fps - that's actually more powerful than the reduced-charge 7.62x51 loads adopted by the Japanese and Spanish. The modern intermediate caliber cartridge that is effective at rifle ranges was invented by the US Army with 5.56x45 and subsequently copied by other nations with 5.45x39 and 5.8x42 The final version of .280 British ended up as a full power rifle cartridge because the US rejected the earlier versions as not powerful enough. The first version features a 130 grain bullet at 2270 fps; very clearly an intermediate cartridge. Small caliber high velocity intermediate cartridges proved superior to medium caliber intermediate cartridges, but prior to SCHV everyone except the US wanted a medium caliber intermediate cartridge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 7:27:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: R2point0]
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SnowMexican: ... Pencil barrels did bend easily, which is one of the reasons that they're no longer the standard. That and a few bucks will get you a coffee at Starbucks. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 7:37:53 PM EDT
[#5]
Originally Posted By HeavyMetal: It wasn’t port erosion, it was a burr where the gas port was drilled in the new barrel. A burr that hadn’t been shot out yet. Originally Posted By R2point0: I thought the "barrels bending" thing was because soldiers were using their rifles with duck bill flash hiders as pry bars to pop open the steel strapping on pallets of supplies. That and a few bucks will get you a coffee at Starbucks. @Coldblue |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 7:39:03 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R2point0: I thought the "barrels bending" thing was because soldiers were using their rifles with duck bill flash hiders as pry bars to pop open the steel strapping on pallets of supplies. That and a few bucks will get you a coffee at Starbucks. That was likely loosening the flash hider and one reason they closed it. Other than being run over by a vehicle, airborne ops are the hardest on equipment. What people who complain about A1 barrels also fail to notice is there is more meat between the bore and the outer diameter of an A1 barrel than between the same on an M-14. I bet all things considered, it takes less force to bend a standard M-14 barrel than an M-16/A1 barrel. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 9:08:17 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ARCNA442: This idea doesn't stand up to scrutiny because none of those countries actually had a modern intermediate caliber rifle. The Germans and Soviets were both using chopped down full-caliber rifle rounds shoved in to oversized SMGs that had extremely poor ballistics and were doctrinally considered SMGs that still had to be supported by full power rifles. It should also be remembered that the vaunted Stg 44 and the original milled receiver AKs were actually heavier than the M14. The Brits and Belgians were just proposing a full power rifle in a slightly different caliber than the Americans. The final version of .280 Brit was firing a 140gr bullet at 2550 fps - that's actually more powerful than the reduced-charge 7.62x51 loads adopted by the Japanese and Spanish. The modern intermediate caliber cartridge that is effective at rifle ranges was invented by the US Army with 5.56x45 and subsequently copied by other nations with 5.45x39 and 5.8x42 Prototype FAL in 7.92Kurz  |
|
|
|
BC, CAN
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 9:16:02 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 03RN: No. The reason they switched to the government profile is due to port erosion stopping their rods when checking. It had nothing to do with bending barrels. I prefer govt profile but I'm 5'11 and 220. Between being active duty infantry and as a private citizen with 10s of thousands of rounds through single barrels I can assure you the bolt carrier group isn't a huge wear item. I'm not sure where you're getting you info from Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 03RN: No. The reason they switched to the government profile is due to port erosion stopping their rods when checking. It had nothing to do with bending barrels. I prefer govt profile but I'm 5'11 and 220. Between being active duty infantry and as a private citizen with 10s of thousands of rounds through single barrels I can assure you the bolt carrier group isn't a huge wear item. I'm not sure where you're getting you info from I respect that, but it's hardly a controversial statement to say that AR BCGs need be replaced at much lower round counts than ones on the likes of the AUG and AK. Originally Posted By R2point0: I thought the "barrels bending" thing was because soldiers were using their rifles with duck bill flash hiders as pry bars to pop open the steel strapping on pallets of supplies. That and a few bucks will get you a coffee at Starbucks. That, or using the rifle as a "step". Even vigorous bayonet work, while unlikely to cause a noticable bend, could significantly shift the rifle's point of aim. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2024 11:06:15 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 03RN: @Coldblue Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By HeavyMetal: It wasn’t port erosion, it was a burr where the gas port was drilled in the new barrel. A burr that hadn’t been shot out yet. Originally Posted By R2point0: I thought the "barrels bending" thing was because soldiers were using their rifles with duck bill flash hiders as pry bars to pop open the steel strapping on pallets of supplies. That and a few bucks will get you a coffee at Starbucks. @Coldblue It was a Burr from the gas port that would catch and build up bullet jacket material that caused the barrel straightness gauges to be off. I just re-read his response in the A1 grip thread. The GI's bending barrels open C-rations was an old Wifes tale. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 6:40:34 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Quintin: Someone showed John C. Garand an M-14 and I think he was quoted as saying "get that fucking thing away from me." The M-14 is a cool rifle. It is not a good or practical rifle though, especially in 2024.  It may not be better than some other offerings (especially the M16/M4/AR15), but calling it "not a good or practical rifle" is silly. If things finally went sideways in this country and for whatever reason an AR wasn't available to me, I'd gladly use an M1A to protect my family and property. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 6:49:26 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: Well established experience is that M1As break a lot while ARs run and run. The AR design is simply superior. FAL, G3, M14, AK are basically late WW2 tech, and inferior. Surely you must remember that even the AR got regularly sh*t on here at this site for poor reliability, so years ago I decided to see for myself just how long an AR could go without cleaning of any kind before experiencing a stoppage or malfunction. It took over a year and 3,000+ rounds before a FTF happened. After that, I took those criticisms with a grain of salt. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 9:03:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: GenYRevolverGuy]
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dragynn: Oh now I understand, you're an expert on AK's because you've watched youtube.  I've seen a video or two myself, so maybe i'm an expert too? Seen one where a guy pulled the dustcover off an AK and crammed a ham sandwich into the receiver, gun still functioned fine. Seen another where a guy pulled out the recoil spring and looped a bunch of rubber bands around the front site and the back of the bolt carrier, gun still worked. Saw another where some guys in Africa pulled an old rusted to hell AK out of a dirt mound where a bunch of conflict weapons had been buried for years, they hosed it off, ran a stick down the bore, opened up a can of motor oil and poured all over it, then put in a mag and the damn thing ran just fine after being buried for 30 years. Maybe some time you might want to have a talk with the guys at BFLV about AK reliability, there is a very large thread on this very site with a ton of info from them. Maybe check with the people who actually use them day in and day out year after year and see what they have to say. I've personally been owning, using and working on them for over 35 years, have hunted and taken dozens of deer with them. How many do you own? https://www.ar15.com/forums/AK-47/AK-abuse-update-on-Page-11-/64-159106/ "...- This may sound crazy but it's fair to say that they finally suffer a catastrophic failure (cracked trunion) at 80,000-100,000 rounds.." (of full-auto fire). 30 days of steel case at BFLV, 80% through AK's, the rest through RPD's and PKM's.: https://i.imgur.com/Vs9GAes.jpeg Ham sandwich video no longer available sadly, but comments from an article about it: "My favorite moment comes when they test the durability of the weapons. With just a little bit of dirt sprinkled on a forward bolt, the M16 jams. Our frustrated host throws it, a feeling many U.S. forces are familiar with. The AK-47, however, perhaps the most durable weapon on the planet, operates when lathered with cottage cheese, peanut butter, and even a ham sandwich. “Daaaangit, I dropped my ham sandwich in my AK again!”  Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dragynn: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: lol Examples of this have been shown by Garand Thumb and InRange. If stuff enters the giant hole on the side of the AK action, it dies. The AR does not have this problem. The AK, like every other thing developed by the Russians, is substandard trash. Oh now I understand, you're an expert on AK's because you've watched youtube. I've seen a video or two myself, so maybe i'm an expert too? Seen one where a guy pulled the dustcover off an AK and crammed a ham sandwich into the receiver, gun still functioned fine. Seen another where a guy pulled out the recoil spring and looped a bunch of rubber bands around the front site and the back of the bolt carrier, gun still worked. Saw another where some guys in Africa pulled an old rusted to hell AK out of a dirt mound where a bunch of conflict weapons had been buried for years, they hosed it off, ran a stick down the bore, opened up a can of motor oil and poured all over it, then put in a mag and the damn thing ran just fine after being buried for 30 years. Maybe some time you might want to have a talk with the guys at BFLV about AK reliability, there is a very large thread on this very site with a ton of info from them. Maybe check with the people who actually use them day in and day out year after year and see what they have to say. I've personally been owning, using and working on them for over 35 years, have hunted and taken dozens of deer with them. How many do you own? https://www.ar15.com/forums/AK-47/AK-abuse-update-on-Page-11-/64-159106/ "...- This may sound crazy but it's fair to say that they finally suffer a catastrophic failure (cracked trunion) at 80,000-100,000 rounds.." (of full-auto fire). 30 days of steel case at BFLV, 80% through AK's, the rest through RPD's and PKM's.: https://i.imgur.com/Vs9GAes.jpeg Ham sandwich video no longer available sadly, but comments from an article about it: "My favorite moment comes when they test the durability of the weapons. With just a little bit of dirt sprinkled on a forward bolt, the M16 jams. Our frustrated host throws it, a feeling many U.S. forces are familiar with. The AK-47, however, perhaps the most durable weapon on the planet, operates when lathered with cottage cheese, peanut butter, and even a ham sandwich. “Daaaangit, I dropped my ham sandwich in my AK again!” Or, maybe I'm a GWOT veteran that's handled and cataloged examples of most 7.62 AK variants including oddities from places like East Germany and North Korea, I've seen some stuff, and I've also sat down and talked to buddies (also GWOT veterans) over some beer/coffee/RipIts about what they've seen. The YouTube videos I mentioned just highlight a pretty obvious vulnerability that AKs do have, at least outside of climate controlled rental ranges. I also have the common sense to understand there's no such thing as an autoloading firearm that possesses the magical, unstoppable reliability the AK supposedly has. The types of examples you have above are extreme exceptions, far from the norm. It's pretty simple, really... If the AK is so good, why does almost nobody good use it professionally? The AK user base is communists, terrorists, cartels, and third world villagers that have to be told not to defecate in their water source. If the AR is so bad, why do the majority of the world's best units STILL use it in the 2020s, even in some nations that don't field M16s/M4s as their infantry rifles? Over the years, they've tested HK33s, AUGs, ACRs, SCARs, and other things, and they still choose the M4 and its derivatives to handle business. I wonder why? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 3:41:46 PM EDT
[#13]
I think the M14 was a perfectly viable rifle. However the military in there infinite wisdom trying to replace every firearm in the arsenal with it was a mistake one rifle shouldn’t try to fill every role in the inventory.
I also think that if from day one it would have been something like a scout configuration it would have helped. People who’ve never carried one complain about them as a combat rifle yet a lot of GIs loved them and spoke highly of there performance. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 4:12:59 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunnie357: I think the M14 was a perfectly viable rifle. However the military in there infinite wisdom trying to replace every firearm in the arsenal with it was a mistake one rifle shouldn’t try to fill every role in the inventory. I also think that if from day one it would have been something like a scout configuration it would have helped. People who’ve never carried one complain about them as a combat rifle yet a lot of GIs loved them and spoke highly of there performance. The ironic thing is that the AR in all of its variations has done a much better job of serving as a single firearm to replace all of those different roles that the M14 was supposed to. Not to take away from the M14, I think a lot of the hate it gets here is exaggerated-but that can also be said for every other gun that isn't an AR or a Glock. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 4:30:06 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: It may not be better than some other offerings (especially the M16/M4/AR15), but calling it "not a good or practical rifle" is silly. If things finally went sideways in this country and for whatever reason an AR wasn't available to me, I'd gladly use an M1A to protect my family and property. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: Originally Posted By Quintin: Someone showed John C. Garand an M-14 and I think he was quoted as saying "get that fucking thing away from me." The M-14 is a cool rifle. It is not a good or practical rifle though, especially in 2024. It may not be better than some other offerings (especially the M16/M4/AR15), but calling it "not a good or practical rifle" is silly. If things finally went sideways in this country and for whatever reason an AR wasn't available to me, I'd gladly use an M1A to protect my family and property. John Garand did design work and prototyping work on the M14. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 4:31:19 PM EDT
[#16]
I wish I had one. I don’t even know what they cost, besides a lot.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 4:56:57 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Or, maybe I'm a GWOT veteran that's handled and cataloged examples of most 7.62 AK variants including oddities from places like East Germany and North Korea, I've seen some stuff, and I've also sat down and talked to buddies (also GWOT veterans) over some beer/coffee/RipIts about what they've seen. The YouTube videos I mentioned just highlight a pretty obvious vulnerability that AKs do have, at least outside of climate controlled rental ranges. I also have the common sense to understand there's no such thing as an autoloading firearm that possesses the magical, unstoppable reliability the AK supposedly has. The types of examples you have above are extreme exceptions, far from the norm. It's pretty simple, really... If the AK is so good, why does almost nobody good use it professionally? The AK user base is communists, terrorists, cartels, and third world villagers that have to be told not to defecate in their water source. If the AR is so bad, why do the majority of the world's best units STILL use it in the 2020s, even in some nations that don't field M16s/M4s as their infantry rifles? Over the years, they've tested HK33s, AUGs, ACRs, SCARs, and other things, and they still choose the M4 and its derivatives to handle business. I wonder why? AKs break all the freaking time when you actually start to use them. They are statistically less reliable than almost any western manufactured design, including the M16. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 5:03:15 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: If the AR is so bad, why do the majority of the world's best units STILL use it in the 2020s, even in some nations that don't field M16s/M4s as their infantry rifles? Over the years, they've tested HK33s, AUGs, ACRs, SCARs, and other things, and they still choose the M4 and its derivatives to handle business. I wonder why? Because they have dedicated, tier 1 18B armorers keeping those shit sticks working. Have you not been paying attention? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 6:15:18 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AK-12: The ironic thing is that the AR in all of its variations has done a much better job of serving as a single firearm to replace all of those different roles that the M14 was supposed to. Not to take away from the M14, I think a lot of the hate it gets here is exaggerated-but that can also be said for every other gun that isn't an AR or a Glock. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AK-12: Originally Posted By Gunnie357: I think the M14 was a perfectly viable rifle. However the military in there infinite wisdom trying to replace every firearm in the arsenal with it was a mistake one rifle shouldn’t try to fill every role in the inventory. I also think that if from day one it would have been something like a scout configuration it would have helped. People who’ve never carried one complain about them as a combat rifle yet a lot of GIs loved them and spoke highly of there performance. The ironic thing is that the AR in all of its variations has done a much better job of serving as a single firearm to replace all of those different roles that the M14 was supposed to. Not to take away from the M14, I think a lot of the hate it gets here is exaggerated-but that can also be said for every other gun that isn't an AR or a Glock. It’s just comical that the AR got the variations to attempt it and the M14 didn’t so the M14 sucked because it couldn’t do what we asked it to. Need a subgun here’s a Commando, need something a bit more compact but not a subgun here’s a Car15 your a rifleman here’s a M16. Yet the M14 they scrapped all the planned variants that were supposed to fill the roles of the other guns then go oh never mind this will handle it all followed by OMG it can’t handle it we need something else. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 6:24:11 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BB: Because they have dedicated, tier 1 18B armorers keeping those shit sticks working. Have you not been paying attention? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BB: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: If the AR is so bad, why do the majority of the world's best units STILL use it in the 2020s, even in some nations that don't field M16s/M4s as their infantry rifles? Over the years, they've tested HK33s, AUGs, ACRs, SCARs, and other things, and they still choose the M4 and its derivatives to handle business. I wonder why? Because they have dedicated, tier 1 18B armorers keeping those shit sticks working. Have you not been paying attention? Are you for real? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 7:18:33 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Are you for real? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Originally Posted By BB: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: If the AR is so bad, why do the majority of the world's best units STILL use it in the 2020s, even in some nations that don't field M16s/M4s as their infantry rifles? Over the years, they've tested HK33s, AUGs, ACRs, SCARs, and other things, and they still choose the M4 and its derivatives to handle business. I wonder why? Because they have dedicated, tier 1 18B armorers keeping those shit sticks working. Have you not been paying attention? Are you for real? Let him go, he’s rolling. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/24/2024 7:19:34 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Are you for real? No, not for real |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 8:00:54 AM EDT
[#23]
The M16A1 barrel bending thing was all about burrs from drilling the gas ports. I have covered that on numerous occasions.
The M14 was a great rifle and really can not be compared side by side with M1A's made from investment cast receivers. Don't ask me how I know. I was first armed with the M14 in the Marine Corps, as were the others in my subsequent units. They just did not jam like later M16's, even with heavy use of blanks. I never had one malfunction, except for the rear peep sight de-elevating during rapid fire due to weak spring pressure. An easy fix if you knew what to inspect for beforehand. Really a minor issue, but it is the only one I personally know of. I think one reason the M14 was so great may be the years and years of Army engineering efforts put forth in order to beat the FN in the several years of 7.62 rifle evaluations in the 50's fixing all its short comings. Efforts that did not evolve for the M16 until way after it was prematurely issued and experienced all kinds of issues like complete jams in fire fights. Also, the Army had to convince the rest of NATO of its powerful 30-cal round being superior to all others, and their M14 was the test bed. So all hands were on deck fixing M14 issues leading to final adoption. The current popularity of AR's around the world has nothing to do with its "inherent" reliability, but due to its flexible design allowing easy configuration changes, ease of productions, etc. I mean have  Attached Fileyou ever changed a M1A barrel in you garage using your workbench vise...? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/25/2024 4:44:04 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dragynn: So after 11 pages of this, doesn't seem like there is much agreement... So how about this, what do most people consider to be the BEST service rifle ever issued? Like to hear mainly from vets who have used multiple different ones if that's okay. I don't know... I think even the most rabid lovers of the M14 will agree that it was the worst service rifle PROGRAM in modern history, and because of that, it was pretty much obsolete before it was issued to a single soldier, and it's roll-out was plagued with problems which doomed it. If America had the equivalent of Beretta or FN within our borders, a less incompetent military bureaucracy and had started putting high quality M14s in the hands of soldiers in the late 40s, we wouldn't be arguing about this. |
|
|
|
BC, CAN
|
Posted: 4/26/2024 7:24:23 PM EDT
[#25]
 Navy SEAL Coch's Top 5 Battle Rifle Picks |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2024 1:49:42 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AK-12: This is wishful cope, the AK's reputation for reliability is well deserved, and one of the reasons its operating system has been so widely copied. I am sorry if this conflicts with your youtube video. It was copied because it was cheap and easy to maintain. I saw an interview where it was said, "Countries but the AK because they cant afford the M16" |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2024 6:57:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AK-12]
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PTR32Sooner: It was copied because it was cheap and easy to maintain. I saw an interview where it was said, "Countries but the AK because they cant afford the M16" The US has given out plenty of AR variants to countries that aren't exactly wealthy. Your reply also does not explain why Finland, RSA, Israel, Switzerland, and other wealthy countries based weapons systems on the AK design. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2024 11:05:47 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AK-12: The US has given out plenty of AR variants to countries that aren't exactly wealthy. Your reply also does not explain why Finland, RSA, Israel, Switzerland, and other wealthy countries based weapons systems on the AK design. Wanted to use Soviet log trains for resupply, just like the previous war. Was mostly boycotted by the west, but Israel would sell them designs. Was impressed with the AK in the field, but not with the round. They went M16 when the aid taps opened. Is it really an AK? Really? Loosely inspired by, perhaps. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2024 11:36:52 PM EDT
[#29]
Socom 16 is a grail gun of mine. I want the one with the regular stock. One day I’ll find one and price you wrong OP!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2024 11:47:38 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AK-12: The US has given out plenty of AR variants to countries that aren't exactly wealthy. Your reply also does not explain why Finland, RSA, Israel, Switzerland, and other wealthy countries based weapons systems on the AK design. Ask yourself if they still use them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/29/2024 11:52:50 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fadedsun: Ask yourself if they still use them. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fadedsun: Originally Posted By AK-12: The US has given out plenty of AR variants to countries that aren't exactly wealthy. Your reply also does not explain why Finland, RSA, Israel, Switzerland, and other wealthy countries based weapons systems on the AK design. Ask yourself if they still use them. Yes, but with their entry into NATO, probably not for long. Yes. Nope. Replaced with the M16 then Tavor. Yes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2024 3:49:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: AbleArcher]
[#32]
 Attached FileI'm back in on the M14 train. ETA: not mine. Garand Thumbs. ETA 2: anyone know what rail that is? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2024 3:54:28 PM EDT
[#33]
This thread is harder to kill than the rifle featured in it!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2024 4:32:51 PM EDT
[#34]
Agreed. Complete garbage.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2024 4:45:19 PM EDT
[#35]
Never understood the M14 fascination. They are ok, but nothing special. fal is a much better weapon, even the G3 is better.
Obviously the m16 ranks alongside the M1 as great weapons of their time. The M16’s time was just a lot longer. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/3/2024 10:10:04 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AbleArcher: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/188236/1000014167_jpg-3204582.JPG I'm back in on the M14 train. ETA: not mine. Garand Thumbs. ETA 2: anyone know what rail that is? Looks like a M14.CA SHG |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/3/2024 10:19:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Nick_Adams]
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Number0neGun: Agreed. Complete garbage. Johnny Strong says otherwise … with a suppressed M1A.  Daylight's End 2016 Street Shootout Vs Bandits 1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 6:35:47 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AbleArcher: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/188236/1000014167_jpg-3204582.JPG I'm back in on the M14 train. ETA: not mine. Garand Thumbs. ETA 2: anyone know what rail that is? That's a nice rifle. From the look of it, it seems quite functional and if there wasn't an AR available, I'd be happy to arm myself with it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 7:21:35 AM EDT
[#39]
I like the M1 and M14, but IMHO if we had gone .280 British we would still be using it.
 The Prototype .280 FAL from 1950s NATO Trials |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 8:07:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: fxntime]
[#40]
Always wonder how many people replying to this thread have ever shot or even handled a M-14 or just parrot what they think people want to hear.
They have some of the absolutely best iron sites on a battle rifle no matter where it came from. Pretty much every other full power battle rifle from anywhere has shit sites compared to them. I Hate shooting my FAL after my M1A, the sites are rancid dog turds with crappy adjustments. I have 2 NM 4 digit M1A's, they are pretty damn accurate with the right ammo. The 5 digit one does fine also. [All have GI barrels, the NM's, Canadian Arsenals] Their downfall is that they are a PITA to scope compared to so many other rifles. Never had any reliability issues with mine. Honestly, I'd bet most younger shooters couldn't use iron sights if their life depended on it. I have no problem with the claim that it was the wrong rifle for the time frame. If it had come out at the beginning of WW2 there wouldn't be all the love for the Garand there is today. I do laugh my ass off though every time some new caliber larger then 5.56 comes out that will replace the 5.56 because it's not ''effective'' enough because it's too small or not powerful enough. 99% of the rifle shooting public would be served perfectly fine [other then the paper punchers looking for that .30 MOA rifle] with a 5.56, .308, and a 30/06 rifle and that is it. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 8:50:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: SteelonSteel]
[#41]
fxn, You’re not wrong. It does what it does.
I was reading a wiki (I know, I know but it is handy on case dimensions) that the .280 British, a concept I really like, was even deemed by the British as having deficiencies, initially accuracy, too little speed which gave an unwanted higher arc trajectory but most damning to them was 800m ability to penetrate steel helmets and body armor of the day. I never read those negatives before. The picked up the speed in the cartridge by moving the bullet farther out of the neck and the accuracy by switching to lead core rounds. The report said that the T65 tests were also improved during this time frame staying ahead of the .280 improvements. It wasn’t just the U.S. going for the 7.62, but also the French and the near ambivalent Canadians who would go either way. Interesting tid bits assuming they are accurate. The final .280 wasn’t that bad but it already lost favor. I like the concept and is kind of like a shorter 7-08 or even a 6.8 spec 2. And as far as M14/M1a’s....I have a few of them still and even with my deteriorating eyesight I still work on mine. My older M1a in a McMillan M3a stock is scoped and I just swapped scopes from an older 1” tube Leupold Police 3-9 to a safe queen U.S. Optics 3.5-17x and swapped out my shimmed gas cylinder to a unitized one which I should have done 20 years ago. It was fun pounding the ten ring on a 20 mph day with some reloads of a 168 SMK over 40.5 grains of 4895. Thats a full grain lower than my old loads. I may even reduce it to 40 grains. I had a fun day with the old safe queen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 8:54:14 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fxntime: Always wonder how many people replying to this thread have ever shot or even handled a M-14 or just parrot what they think people want to hear. They have some of the absolutely best iron sites on a battle rifle no matter where it came from. Pretty much every other full power battle rifle from anywhere has shit sites compared to them. I Hate shooting my FAL after my M1A, the sites are rancid dog turds with crappy adjustments. I have 2 NM 4 digit M1A's, they are pretty damn accurate with the right ammo. The 5 digit one does fine also. [All have GI barrels, the NM's, Canadian Arsenals] Their downfall is that they are a PITA to scope compared to so many other rifles. Never had any reliability issues with mine. Honestly, I'd bet most younger shooters couldn't use iron sights if their life depended on it. I have no problem with the claim that it was the wrong rifle for the time frame. If it had come out at the beginning of WW2 there wouldn't be all the love for the Garand there is today. I do laugh my ass off though every time some new caliber larger then 5.56 comes out that will replace the 5.56 because it's not ''effective'' enough because it's too small or not powerful enough. 99% of the rifle shooting public would be served perfectly fine [other then the paper punchers looking for that .30 MOA rifle] with a 5.56, .308, and a 30/06 rifle and that is it. These two statements can be true at the same time: 1) The M14 is a pretty nice rifle. 2) The M14 was a bad service rifle, and it was the result of a terrible acquisition process only now being surpassed by the XM7/NGSW program. Sitting behind a rifle at a square range is one thing. Running, jumping, shooting, and clearing positions with a rifle is something else. American service rifles have always excelled at the former, but they haven't always been good at the latter. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 8:59:19 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SteelonSteel: fxn, You’re not wrong. It does what it does. I was reading a wiki (I know, I know but it is handy on case dimensions) that the .280 British, a concept I really like, was even deemed by the British as having deficiencies, initially accuracy, too little speed which gave an unwanted higher arc trajectory but most damning to them was 800m ability to penetrate steel helmets and body armor of the day. I never read those negatives before. The picked up the speed in the cartridge by moving the bullet farther out of the neck and the accuracy by switching to lead core rounds. The report said that the T65 tests were also improved during this time frame staying ahead of the .280 improvements. It wasn’t just the U.S. going for the 7.62, but also the French and the near ambivalent Canadians who would go either way. Interesting tid bits assuming they are accurate. The final .280 wasn’t that bad but it already lost favor. I like the concept and is kind of like a shorter 7-08 or even a 6.8 spec 2. Counterpoint: Stupid crap like that should never be in consideration. Shooting helmets at 800m isn't how infantry rifles are used, pretty much ever. The overwhelming majority of infantry combat happens inside of 200M. Wanting the capability to range outside that makes sense within reason. Making major compromises to extend that distance 4x for a theoretical situation that doesn't happen is colossal stupidity. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 9:02:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: SteelonSteel]
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: These two statements can be true at the same time: 1) The M14 is a pretty nice rifle. 2) The M14 was a bad service rifle, and it was the result of a terrible acquisition process only now being surpassed by the XM7/NGSW program. Sitting behind a rifle at a square range is one thing. Running, jumping, shooting, and clearing positions with a rifle is something else. American service rifles have always excelled at the former, but they haven't always been good at the latter. A service rifle that takes down easily for field maintenance, isn’t too long or too damn heavy and can hit targets out to 400m or even 300m if you will limit would be wholly sufficient. A 1000 yard service rifle is silly based on history. An AR pattern in 6.8 would have fit that bill or even the 6.8 cartridge necked to 6.5, ie the the 6.5-6.8Rem. I love my FAL inch patterns but they’re a musket, the sights are adequate for the 300-400m combat rifle. Scale it down and revise the design so that the rear sight is on the same half as the upper. That’s one thing the armalite did not goof on. Edit for a combat rifle I am a set it and forget it guy. No one in modern combat is sitting there playing with the rifle’s sights. Yea, snipers and crew served weapons excepted. The A1 made more sense to me in my old age than the A2. The difference between a combat tool and a competition rifle. The lock bar garand sight had merit in that it locked adjustment to prevent inadvertent loss of zero. Same thing with optics on an infantryman’s rifle. Zero rifle for x ammo and the reticle has your holds if needed. That is progress. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 9:03:04 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: These two statements can be true at the same time: 1) The M14 is a pretty nice rifle. 2) The M14 was a bad service rifle, and it was the result of a terrible acquisition process only now being surpassed by the XM7/NGSW program. Sitting behind a rifle at a square range is one thing. Running, jumping, shooting, and clearing positions with a rifle is something else. American service rifles have always excelled at the former, but they haven't always been good at the latter. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By fxntime: Always wonder how many people replying to this thread have ever shot or even handled a M-14 or just parrot what they think people want to hear. They have some of the absolutely best iron sites on a battle rifle no matter where it came from. Pretty much every other full power battle rifle from anywhere has shit sites compared to them. I Hate shooting my FAL after my M1A, the sites are rancid dog turds with crappy adjustments. I have 2 NM 4 digit M1A's, they are pretty damn accurate with the right ammo. The 5 digit one does fine also. [All have GI barrels, the NM's, Canadian Arsenals] Their downfall is that they are a PITA to scope compared to so many other rifles. Never had any reliability issues with mine. Honestly, I'd bet most younger shooters couldn't use iron sights if their life depended on it. I have no problem with the claim that it was the wrong rifle for the time frame. If it had come out at the beginning of WW2 there wouldn't be all the love for the Garand there is today. I do laugh my ass off though every time some new caliber larger then 5.56 comes out that will replace the 5.56 because it's not ''effective'' enough because it's too small or not powerful enough. 99% of the rifle shooting public would be served perfectly fine [other then the paper punchers looking for that .30 MOA rifle] with a 5.56, .308, and a 30/06 rifle and that is it. These two statements can be true at the same time: 1) The M14 is a pretty nice rifle. 2) The M14 was a bad service rifle, and it was the result of a terrible acquisition process only now being surpassed by the XM7/NGSW program. Sitting behind a rifle at a square range is one thing. Running, jumping, shooting, and clearing positions with a rifle is something else. American service rifles have always excelled at the former, but they haven't always been good at the latter. If you look at the evolution then the m14 makes sense. If you're biased by modern tactics/guns then it's harder to understand why they went with it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 9:08:13 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Counterpoint: Stupid crap like that should never be in consideration. Shooting helmets at 800m isn't how infantry rifles are used, pretty much ever. The overwhelming majority of infantry combat happens inside of 200M. Wanting the capability to range outside that makes sense within reason. Making major compromises to extend that distance 4x for a theoretical situation that doesn't happen is colossal stupidity. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By SteelonSteel: fxn, You’re not wrong. It does what it does. I was reading a wiki (I know, I know but it is handy on case dimensions) that the .280 British, a concept I really like, was even deemed by the British as having deficiencies, initially accuracy, too little speed which gave an unwanted higher arc trajectory but most damning to them was 800m ability to penetrate steel helmets and body armor of the day. I never read those negatives before. The picked up the speed in the cartridge by moving the bullet farther out of the neck and the accuracy by switching to lead core rounds. The report said that the T65 tests were also improved during this time frame staying ahead of the .280 improvements. It wasn’t just the U.S. going for the 7.62, but also the French and the near ambivalent Canadians who would go either way. Interesting tid bits assuming they are accurate. The final .280 wasn’t that bad but it already lost favor. I like the concept and is kind of like a shorter 7-08 or even a 6.8 spec 2. Counterpoint: Stupid crap like that should never be in consideration. Shooting helmets at 800m isn't how infantry rifles are used, pretty much ever. The overwhelming majority of infantry combat happens inside of 200M. Wanting the capability to range outside that makes sense within reason. Making major compromises to extend that distance 4x for a theoretical situation that doesn't happen is colossal stupidity. Do you know the distances soldiers shot at in the boer war? Why were we so impressed with the 7mm mauser vs the .30-40 in the Spanish American War? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 9:13:59 AM EDT
[#47]
I'm going to shoot mine later this morning....I'll report back how horrible it went.
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 9:16:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: SteelonSteel]
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Counterpoint: Stupid crap like that should never be in consideration. Shooting helmets at 800m isn't how infantry rifles are used, pretty much ever. The overwhelming majority of infantry combat happens inside of 200M. Wanting the capability to range outside that makes sense within reason. Making major compromises to extend that distance 4x for a theoretical situation that doesn't happen is colossal stupidity. I agree with pretty much nearly never BUT that overlooks that the plan was to have a General Purpose or Medium Machine gun in the same cartridge. Whether that is a dumb requirement or not that was the desire. Having the cartridge with a modicum of steel penetrating ability at that range (or close to it) makes more sense when you’re putting a cone of fire on a position while your infantrymen maneuver. It’s not all about the service rifle, the picture was broader whether the concept was flawed or not. Edit.....My first MOS was 0331 infantry machine gunner and I carried an M60E3. We kept the pig and the 7.62 for a reason when the AR15 was fielded. The SAW has a place too and was a decent concept with some boogers at the start. A bit parochial then as a MOS machine gunner I was not a SAW fan but in the squad level it has value. It is no direct replacement for a M60 or M240 (which came after my time). If it was you’d have never seen the M240. I was saddened that the MTOE for my MP unit was going to trade the M60s in for SAWs, WTF we were in hardbacked Hmmvs, I thought it was a stupid downgrade of capability. This was post Gulf#1 but pre #2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 9:19:53 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunnie357: Looks like a M14.CA SHG Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunnie357: Originally Posted By AbleArcher: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/188236/1000014167_jpg-3204582.JPG I'm back in on the M14 train. ETA: not mine. Garand Thumbs. ETA 2: anyone know what rail that is? Looks like a M14.CA SHG I little bit better angle to get a positive ID  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 9:20:23 AM EDT
[#50]
The hardest thing about scoping an M1A/M14 is the price. They’re very easy to scope is it as easy as a modern rifle with a pic rail no. It’s also easier than about anything before it.
|
|
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
