User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 6:24:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: eurotrash]
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: Which is why the SCAR was such an unparalleled success and widely adopted. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: Originally Posted By eurotrash: Weren’t the South Vietnamese fighters too petite to handle the M14 and AR10? The battle rifle was perfected with the FN SCAR NRCH. Which is why the SCAR was such an unparalleled success and widely adopted. If your measure of success is wining and dining corrupt military procurement officers, then FN is right up there with the SCAR. Not that I agree with your logic. |
|
|
|
NE, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 6:26:08 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Strela: Another bulls**t, click bait hit piece from the internet. How creative.  yup, Forgotten Weapons has contributed far less knowledge to the internet than you have. wait, you have done what again? oh yeah, nothing My mistake |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 6:28:20 PM EDT
[#3]
not giving the desert hippy the clicks.
|
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 6:33:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: brosnarp]
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheRealBluedog: It’s a shame that your father never taught you to argue. I was tempted to just ignore your comment, but I think it would be good for you if I responded. Your reading comprehension is garbage. Not only did you engage in a classic logical fallacy, it’s clear that you didn’t understand my argument. To a certain extent, that’s my fault as I was always taught that communication is the responsibility of the person attempting to communicate, But your natural inclination is to resort to personal attack. Now to clarify, I did not say that the M14 is better than the FAL. I responded to the argument that the FAL is better than the M14, as proven by the fact that the M14 was quickly phased out once used in combat. That’s the argument that detractors of the M14 Make. What they overlook, is that the FAL was also rapidly phased out when used in the same conditions that led to the M4 being phased out. The only position that I have advocated in this thread, is that criticisms of the M 14, are in fact criticisms of the battle rifle concept in general, and not the M14 in particular. You are free to disagree with that assertion if you would like, but it would behoove you to attempt to do so by citing a fact based argument that the M14 is specifically and uniquely flawed, and that criticisms of that platform do not apply to other battle rifles. Or you can continue to say stupid shit. Here's a way the M14 was uniquely flawed: despite being one of the least advanced battle rifles, the M14 was one of the last to enter service. By the time the M14's production problems were solved and the US Army started receiving rifles we were years behind powerhouse militaries like Venezuela and Syria. Germany managed to adopt the FAL and the G3 before we took delivery of M14s. Sudan took delivery of AR-10s a year before we started getting M14s. That one's pretty crazy if you think about it: Sudanese soldiers running around with AR-10s before a single US soldier had an M14. Fielding one of the worst battle rifles last, after we were the ones who forced the concept on the rest of the world to begin with, is just embarrassing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 6:39:24 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: For the most part they would get carried for the first couple patrols when a unit rotated into country but would quickly become permanent residents of the guard towers or arms room connex until the next unit fell in on the gear. They weren’t worth the enormous amount of money spent on trying to make them relevant for a DMR role. Yep They were cool at first, everyone took pic with them, then they got tucked away in the RGs. Came out a few times when we dug into fighting positions for extended patrol bases |
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 6:44:09 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brosnarp: Here's a way the M14 was uniquely flawed: despite being one of the least advanced battle rifles, the M14 was one of the last to enter service. By the time the M14's production problems were solved and the US Army started receiving rifles we were years behind powerhouse militaries like Venezuela and Syria. Germany managed to adopt the FAL and the G3 before we took delivery of M14s. Sudan took delivery of AR-10s a year before we started getting M14s. That one's pretty crazy if you think about it: Sudanese soldiers running around with AR-10s before a single US soldier had an M14. Fielding one of the worst battle rifles last, after we were the ones who forced the concept on the rest of the world to begin with, is just embarrassing. I think it was a cultural thing, a desire to perfect it rather than accept something good enough. As opposed to how the Italians did it, just modify the M1 until it was a good enough mag fed 308. Ironically the BM59 was one of the best of the "battle rifles". |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 6:44:09 PM EDT
[#7]
I didn't watch the vid but I know Ian looks like he has the upper body strength of a 14 year old girl to go along with the pony tail.
I bet a lot of his dislike is the gun's weight. And he completely trashed the Shockwave until Clint Smith put out his vid on how correctly using the Shockwave went a long way towards showing how effective it could be inside a building. I think maybe he's more suited to reading history than making it. |
|
|
BC, CAN
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 6:44:18 PM EDT
[#8]
A decent muzzle break helps tame the recoil considerably.
 SEI Good Iron Muzzle Brake on a M14 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 6:45:41 PM EDT
[#9]
Tell me you’re a trans without telling me you’re trans
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 6:47:37 PM EDT
[#10]
So why does GD hate Ian now? Is it due to his Satan douche friend or is it because he said something that ruffled our feathers?
This another Hickok 45 we hate then turn around and love until we remember why we hate? I can’t keep up. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 6:48:15 PM EDT
[#11]
As one who used both M-16 and M-14 (I replaced the 16 after it failed miserably with the 14), the M-14 is head and shoulders above the M-16.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 6:50:13 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By greenranger: Tell me you’re a trans without telling me you’re trans I'm trans. Male to Alpha Male. Ill take an M4. |
|
|
|
AK, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 6:51:58 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By eurotrash: If your measure of success is wining and dining corrupt military procurement officers, then FN is right up there with the SCAR. Not that I agree with your logic. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By eurotrash: Originally Posted By 45-Seventy: Originally Posted By eurotrash: Weren’t the South Vietnamese fighters too petite to handle the M14 and AR10? The battle rifle was perfected with the FN SCAR NRCH. Which is why the SCAR was such an unparalleled success and widely adopted. If your measure of success is wining and dining corrupt military procurement officers, then FN is right up there with the SCAR. Not that I agree with your logic. Proprietary mags really seal the deal 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 6:52:03 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By M1Zeppelin: So why does GD hate Ian now? Is it due to his Satan douche friend or is it because he said something that ruffled our feathers? This another Hickok 45 we hate then turn around and love until we remember why we hate? I can’t keep up. Comments like “hippie boy” come from jealousy. Ian is younger, better looking, knows more about guns, and makes more money than them. He also makes that money doing what he loves. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 6:52:31 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Orion10182011: I was thinking how could the M1 be all that and a bag of chips but the M14 be shit. Other than the full auto issue. Seems to me the M14 is the M1 perfected. The M1 was great due to the context it was used. It was the only self loading rifle of any service rifle in WW2. It was a great rifle for the time but quickly aged in the post war. The M14 is an improved garand but by 1959, there were a lot better rifles available. The M14 was a failure and should not have been selected over the T48 FAL in US trials. The testing was flawed as the m14 designers were given heads up about testing regimens. You can even argue the FAL would’ve been a bad choice as well because intermediate rifles was the way of the future but that’s a different topic… |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 6:59:48 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By eurotrash: Comments like "hippie boy" come from jealousy. Ian is younger, better looking, knows more about guns, and makes more money than them. He also makes that money doing what he loves. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By eurotrash: Originally Posted By M1Zeppelin: So why does GD hate Ian now? Is it due to his Satan douche friend or is it because he said something that ruffled our feathers? This another Hickok 45 we hate then turn around and love until we remember why we hate? I can't keep up. Comments like "hippie boy" come from jealousy. Ian is younger, better looking, knows more about guns, and makes more money than them. He also makes that money doing what he loves. You think he's better looking??? Hmmm...  |
|
|
|
AK, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 7:01:17 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brosnarp: If you like the M14 as a person, that's totally cool. I think they're neat on a personal level. Never the less, the M14 was a disaster as a service rifle: a rifle purchased by a nation for it's army. It was supposed to be cheap and easy to produce using existing machinery; it was actually expensive and difficult to produce, requiring the invention of new manufacturing and analysis techniques. It was supposed to replace smaller weapons as well as the previous service rifle; it ended up larger than the previous rifle, let alone the smaller weapons. It was a poor execution of a fundamentally bad idea, which is why it had such a short service life as a service rifle. That's not what I saw in my part of Afghanistan; at least not for dismounted stuff. What I saw was more like what BobRoberts reported. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brosnarp: Originally Posted By Strela: So. like all the "bad heat treat" 01A1 problems? Or, because specifically some H&R receivers had problems we can generalize to "more likely to blow up?" Yeah, I get it. You don't like the M-14. I do, so that's where we are. If you like the M14 as a person, that's totally cool. I think they're neat on a personal level. Never the less, the M14 was a disaster as a service rifle: a rifle purchased by a nation for it's army. It was supposed to be cheap and easy to produce using existing machinery; it was actually expensive and difficult to produce, requiring the invention of new manufacturing and analysis techniques. It was supposed to replace smaller weapons as well as the previous service rifle; it ended up larger than the previous rifle, let alone the smaller weapons. It was a poor execution of a fundamentally bad idea, which is why it had such a short service life as a service rifle. Originally Posted By FightingHellfish: The M14 EBR rifles were carried outside the wire pretty often in Afghanistan in 2010. They had some issues but they were certainly in active use as SDM rifles. That's not what I saw in my part of Afghanistan; at least not for dismounted stuff. What I saw was more like what BobRoberts reported. I'll unfortunately have to parrot this sentiment. We had an M14 issued per platoon in my Troop. The 03-04 deployment it stayed with our section leader who took an advanced marksmanship course. (it may have actually been full on sniper one but I don't remember) When we were relieved by the incoming unit. We signed the vehicles we were using over to them and a lot of our equipment. That included the M14 (cheaper than shipping it all back.) In the 06-07 deployment. We got that same M14 back. But this time no one over E-5 really wanted anything to do with it. It bounced around in the back of the Stryker for months. Then we found a use for it. The things had a fixed 10X Leupold scope on them. So we started bringing them on roofs and into OP's during dismounted operations. So I handled it a bunch then. One guy had to carry the big radio the other got the M14. So I picked the M14 and got to carry it a bunch. So I went on leave at some point in the year. When I got back. They told me the bad news. The M14 had been bouncing around in vehicles for the last 4 years with little maintenance. So on one of the range trips to confirm zeros they found out the scope was screwed couldn't be zeroed anymore. There was no interest in getting it serviced and we just stopped using it at that point. |
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 7:05:52 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xoldsmugglerx: The M1 was great due to the context it was used. It was the only self loading rifle of any service rifle in WW2. It was a great rifle for the time but quickly aged in the post war. The M14 is an improved garand but by 1959, there were a lot better rifles available. The M14 was a failure and should not have been selected over the T48 FAL in US trials. The testing was flawed as the m14 designers were given heads up about testing regimens. You can even argue the FAL would’ve been a bad choice as well because intermediate rifles was the way of the future but that’s a different topic… Really I think the US should have had something more along the lines of the BM59 shortly after WW2. In particular continue using modified M1 receivers, and existing tooling. That's assuming we stay with a full power 30. The issue isn't the difference in performance between the FAL and M14, but spending so much development time on an incremental improvement while throwing away the resources invested in the M1. Otherwise, move to intermediate power and a complete new design. Which should happen anyway, eventually. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 7:09:13 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Orion10182011: I was thinking how could the M1 be all that and a bag of chips but the M14 be shit. Other than the full auto issue. Seems to me the M14 is the M1 perfected. The M14 is what the M1 should have been. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 7:11:40 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By eurotrash: If your measure of success is wining and dining corrupt military procurement officers, then FN is right up there with the SCAR. Not that I agree with your logic. There’s always an excuse for it being a dead end. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 7:13:59 PM EDT
[#21]
He's right.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 7:58:51 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By eurotrash: Comments like “hippie boy” come from jealousy. Ian is younger, better looking, knows more about guns, and makes more money than them. He also makes that money doing what he loves. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By eurotrash: Originally Posted By M1Zeppelin: So why does GD hate Ian now? Is it due to his Satan douche friend or is it because he said something that ruffled our feathers? This another Hickok 45 we hate then turn around and love until we remember why we hate? I can’t keep up. Comments like “hippie boy” come from jealousy. Ian is younger, better looking, knows more about guns, and makes more money than them. He also makes that money doing what he loves. I remember his dad being on the History Channel back in the 90’s. I believe he was a collector of Japanese firearms. I figured Ian followed in his steps. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:00:56 PM EDT
[#23]
Next do how bad the BM59 is.....
 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:01:50 PM EDT
[#24]
They were fine for the time.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:02:02 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brosnarp: If you like the M14 as a person, that's totally cool. I think they're neat on a personal level. Never the less, the M14 was a disaster as a service rifle: a rifle purchased by a nation for it's army. It was supposed to be cheap and easy to produce using existing machinery; it was actually expensive and difficult to produce, requiring the invention of new manufacturing and analysis techniques. It was supposed to replace smaller weapons as well as the previous service rifle; it ended up larger than the previous rifle, let alone the smaller weapons. It was a poor execution of a fundamentally bad idea, which is why it had such a short service life as a service rifle. That's not what I saw in my part of Afghanistan; at least not for dismounted stuff. What I saw was more like what BobRoberts reported. They definitely had utility on patrol due to the optic if nothing else. There is lots of use for a 10x rifle if the main TIC is some assholes randomly shooting a PKM from 800 meters. We also carried the Mk48s and SAWs and 240s before we got the 48s, and set up a mortar at a patrol base (with the trucks) when we dismounted. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:18:47 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By naseby: Are you fucking serious? Ian McCollum is now a "subject matter expert?" Why? Is it because he goes to museums, and makes videos about guns? Or is it because he wears a pony tail, and always spells "armory" with a "u" (cuz, you know, if you spell it the way the English do, it means you're more intelligent than everyone else) ? I watched the video, and I can say that, thanks to GD's butt-fucking homosexual obsession with "muh obsolete rifle and cartridge," there is not one thing there that hasn't been excreted into this forum at least 87x per week for the last 20 years. Stupid, redundant clickbait video by a pretentious motherfucker is clickbait. Ian is absolutely a subject matter expert given his multiple books authored, access to manufacturer and countries archives and wide access to other subject matter experts. Just because he presents in a simpler format doesn’t mean that’s the depth of his knowledge or research. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:20:26 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: Ian is absolutely a subject matter expert given his multiple books authored, access to manufacturer and countries archives and wide access to other subject matter experts. Just because he presents in a simpler format doesn't mean that's the depth of his knowledge or research. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:31:42 PM EDT
[#28]
I believe my unit was the first conventional Army unit to redeploy the M14. This was fall of 2002 just prior to our 2003 deployment to Afghanistan. They were equipped with an acog and bipod, but traditional stock. We were given a crash course on long range shooting from big brother at SOTIC. It served me well
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:37:49 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brosnarp: The M1 was brilliant for it's time. The M14 was terrible for it's time; in many ways worse than the M1 it replaced. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brosnarp: Originally Posted By LongTrang: lol So why does the M1 get a pass? It's all 1930's tech. The M1 was brilliant for it's time. The M14 was terrible for it's time; in many ways worse than the M1 it replaced. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:38:43 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: Ian is absolutely a subject matter expert given his multiple books authored, access to manufacturer and countries archives and wide access to other subject matter experts. Just because he presents in a simpler format doesn't mean that's the depth of his knowledge or research. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: Originally Posted By naseby: Are you fucking serious? Ian McCollum is now a "subject matter expert?" Why? Is it because he goes to museums, and makes videos about guns? Or is it because he wears a pony tail, and always spells "armory" with a "u" (cuz, you know, if you spell it the way the English do, it means you're more intelligent than everyone else) ? I watched the video, and I can say that, thanks to GD's butt-fucking homosexual obsession with "muh obsolete rifle and cartridge," there is not one thing there that hasn't been excreted into this forum at least 87x per week for the last 20 years. Stupid, redundant clickbait video by a pretentious motherfucker is clickbait. Ian is absolutely a subject matter expert given his multiple books authored, access to manufacturer and countries archives and wide access to other subject matter experts. Just because he presents in a simpler format doesn't mean that's the depth of his knowledge or research. He should hit the books a little harder before making those mistakes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:39:19 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By firedog51d: M1 was outdated when it was adopted. It was just the best old tech of ww2. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By firedog51d: Originally Posted By brosnarp: Originally Posted By LongTrang: lol So why does the M1 get a pass? It's all 1930's tech. The M1 was brilliant for it's time. The M14 was terrible for it's time; in many ways worse than the M1 it replaced. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:40:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Kingdead]
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By firedog51d: M1 was outdated when it was adopted. It was just the best old tech of ww2. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:41:30 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheRealBluedog: What Ian McCollum, and most detractors of the M4 do not seem to realize, is that most of the criticisms they level at the M14, Are really criticisms of the battle rifle concept in general. I’m well aware of all of the attempts by the army to sabotage the AR 15 and the AR10 before it. But if the United States had adopted the FAL, it would’ve had all of the same problems in Vietnam, that the M4 had. None of the criticisms were unique to that rifle, but were in fact, criticisms of 30 caliber rifles, firing, full powered ammunition. The Rhodesians settled this debate 50 years ago. In their testing, they determined that any shooter, regardless of skill level could consistently put 1.5 to 2 rounds on target with an AK-47, for every round they could put on target with an FAL. After determining this, the Rhodesians attempted to train their soldiers to better use the FAL, and repeated the tests and found that training them more on the FAL made them even better with the AK. The end result was the better you got with the FAL the better you also got with the AK, and you were still able to deliver accurate fire, from a less accurate rifle, at double the speed. I wonder how an FAL in the Brit .280 would have fared. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:43:01 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jeremy2171: Except it wasn't. I just realized you are a NRA certified Instructor. No wonder you consider yourself an SME. It all makes sense now. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:44:12 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: There's always an excuse for it being a dead end. Lots of great guns dead end. Would you really grab an off the shelf M14 over a SCAR-17?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:45:28 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SemperGumbi: I just realized you are a NRA certified Instructor. No wonder you consider yourself an SME. It all makes sense now. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SemperGumbi: Originally Posted By Jeremy2171: Except it wasn't. I just realized you are a NRA certified Instructor. No wonder you consider yourself an SME. It all makes sense now. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:48:28 PM EDT
[#37]
The Fal is a better battle rifle. The stock design of the M14 makes it difficult to control in full auto.
The main problem with the M-14 in Vietnam was that they couldn't produce them fast enough. They lied when it was adopted saying it could be done on same machines that made the M1. At least one Vietnam vet I've talked with said they preferred the M-14 over the M-16 as it could shoot through trees. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:56:39 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By nvcdl: ... At least one Vietnam vet I've talked with said they preferred the M-14 over the M-16 as it could shoot through trees. |
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:56:55 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: Ian is absolutely a subject matter expert given his multiple books authored, access to manufacturer and countries archives and wide access to other subject matter experts. Just because he presents in a simpler format doesn’t mean that’s the depth of his knowledge or research. Thanks for making my point for me, and for doing it so succinctly. He is better qualified than anyone else in GD to talk about shit. Who wouldn't be impressed by that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 8:57:42 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AbleArcher: Wait, what? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AbleArcher: Originally Posted By RedFox1911: Originally Posted By AbleArcher: This is fun back and forth, but no one's arguing for using one in a serious capacity in 2024 right? Beyond a DMR I don't think so. Wait, what? As a stand in DMR its serviceable. Is is better than modern options? No |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 9:00:07 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By firedog51d: M1 was outdated when it was adopted. It was just the best old tech of ww2. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 9:00:13 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jeremy2171: Feel free to come discuss garands with me whenever you want. OMG man you are just making it worse.  Please keep going! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 9:13:49 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By firedog51d: M1 was outdated when it was adopted. It was just the best old tech of ww2. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 9:17:23 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fttam: My old man humped one back in the day. He swears by it. Same. He qualified expert with one. I was very happy to be able to buy him a Springfield Loaded many years ago. I’ve got a couple more M1A’s in my safe and enjoy them a lot. I know my AR10 pattern rifles are better in pretty much every way but I’ll always have a place in my heart for the M14. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 9:19:47 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dunderway: Lots of great guns dead end. Would you really grab an off the shelf M14 over a SCAR-17? Oh no, it’s better than the M-14. It has that going for it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 9:22:37 PM EDT
[#46]
This thread makes me miss LARRYG.
|
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 9:25:20 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JKH62: Next do how bad the BM59 is..... https://i.imgur.com/cmk8zkb.jpg?1 https://i.imgur.com/WjAK7MS.jpg?1 Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JKH62: Next do how bad the BM59 is..... https://i.imgur.com/cmk8zkb.jpg?1 https://i.imgur.com/WjAK7MS.jpg?1 The BM59 is basically an M14, but executed competently. The M14 was supposed to be cheap because it shared parts and production processes with the Garand, but was actually expensive because it didn't share many parts and required all new production processes. The BM59 actually shared parts and production processes with the Garand, and thus actually was cheap. As a result, countries actually chose to spend money on the BM59, while no one got M14s unless we subsidized them. We're talking 1/2 the price of the M14 or less for something that does exactly the same thing. Originally Posted By FightingHellfish: They definitely had utility on patrol due to the optic if nothing else. There is lots of use for a 10x rifle if the main TIC is some assholes randomly shooting a PKM from 800 meters. We also carried the Mk48s and SAWs and 240s before we got the 48s, and set up a mortar at a patrol base (with the trucks) when we dismounted. Saw plenty of Mk48s, M240s, and later M240Ls on patrol. Saw 60mm mortars on patrol. Carried an M249. Didn't see a whole lot of M14s carried outside the wire. If you did that's cool. I didn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 9:27:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: ACDer]
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: Really I think the US should have had something more along the lines of the BM59 shortly after WW2. In particular continue using modified M1 receivers, and existing tooling. That's assuming we stay with a full power 30. The issue isn't the difference in performance between the FAL and M14, but spending so much development time on an incremental improvement while throwing away the resources invested in the M1. Otherwise, move to intermediate power and a complete new design. Which should happen anyway, eventually. The select fire T20E2 was on deck with 100k requested by Ordnance but canceled at the end of the war.  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 9:31:30 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ACDer: The select fire T20E2 was on deck with 100k requested by Ordnance but canceled at the end of the war. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/69887/1000003728_jpg-3189088.JPG Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ACDer: Originally Posted By DonS: Really I think the US should have had something more along the lines of the BM59 shortly after WW2. In particular continue using modified M1 receivers, and existing tooling. That's assuming we stay with a full power 30. The issue isn't the difference in performance between the FAL and M14, but spending so much development time on an incremental improvement while throwing away the resources invested in the M1. Otherwise, move to intermediate power and a complete new design. Which should happen anyway, eventually. The select fire T20E2 was on deck with 100k requested by Ordnance but canceled at the end of the war. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/69887/1000003728_jpg-3189088.JPG |
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 9:33:23 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ACDer: The select fire T20E2 was on deck with 100k requested by Ordnance but canceled at the end of the war. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/69887/1000003728_jpg-3189088.JPG Didn't that use BAR mags which was an issue? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
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.
