User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 9:36:26 PM EDT
[#1]
Everybody that's bitching about the M14/M1A needs to remember that virtually every nation has failed numerous times at making "top tier" rifles. In the '50s, what was the competition?
The FAL? Sure, I'll be willing to grant the FAL was mechanically a better design for the most part, but the FAL was never a better shooter, never had a better trigger, never had better irons, and the M14 was similar to the M1, so it had familiarity with troops that the FAL didn't. Even today, I'd probably never choose an FAL over an M1A, whether we're talking about shooting hogs or zombies. The G3? Please. Just no. The AK47? It's not quite apples-to-apples, but still no. It took a while, but we eventually ended up with something that has almost no peer...and yet we're now looking to ditch it in favor of this new Sig. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 9:37:12 PM EDT
[#2]
Shoot a tanker and get back to me thing SLAPS!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 9:37:52 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. I think M14 was a US government thing and not something anyone else could buy. That said the BM59 was the right way to go. The US should have come up with something like that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 9:38:42 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Everybody that's bitching about the M14/M1A needs to remember that virtually every nation has failed numerous times at making "top tier" rifles. In the '50s, what was the competition? The FAL? Sure, I'll be willing to grant the FAL was mechanically a better design for the most part, but the FAL was never a better shooter, never had a better trigger, never had better irons, and the M14 was similar to the M1, so it had familiarity with troops that the FAL didn't. Even today, I'd probably never choose an FAL over an M1A, whether we're talking about shooting hogs or zombies. The G3? Please. Just no. The AK47? It's not quite apples-to-apples, but still no. It took a while, but we eventually ended up with something that has almost no peer...and yet we're now looking to ditch it in favor of this new Sig. The SCAR is better rifle than that SIG MIM mess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 9:39:41 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You are responding to an anecdote with an anecdote. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That's anecdotal though. Outside of my realm of acquaintances and coworkers, we had at least two very successful active duty Army Soldiers on Arf that employed the M14 while forward in Afghanistan and they definitely weren't fobbits lol. I wish both would post here more often. Exactly! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 9:41:42 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Shoot a tanker and get back to me thing SLAPS! Sure. It's fun. For the range.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 9:48:24 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you really not understand that it's because of the context of its time? Technology and design philosophy generally improve with time. There were significant advancements in both before/around the time the M14 entered service, and the M14 incorporated none if it after tacking on a full auto switch and box fed magazine. People need to get a grip though. He talks about the shortcomings of the M14 (of which there are many) and explains why they make the it the worst US service rifle, not why it's an inherently bad gun or the worst service rifle ever in world history.  If you take the 10 hottest women on the planet, one of them will be "the loser" and "the worst" when you decide to rank them. It doesn't mean that she's ugly. Do you people not speak and understand English? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: lol So why does the M1 get a pass? It's all 1930's tech. 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. People need to get a grip though. He talks about the shortcomings of the M14 (of which there are many) and explains why they make the it the worst US service rifle, not why it's an inherently bad gun or the worst service rifle ever in world history. If you take the 10 hottest women on the planet, one of them will be "the loser" and "the worst" when you decide to rank them. It doesn't mean that she's ugly. Do you people not speak and understand English? Some of us understand it quite well. We also understand that posting said video was really a dog whistle to get legions of M14/M1A haters to piss on the rifle, which they have faithfully done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 9:50:29 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Anyone who thinks that the FAL was a better rifle than the M14 can try to explain why the Australian troops in Vietnam phased out the FAL in favor of the M-16. If it was so great, and we would’ve been so much better off if we had adopted The FAL, then why did the Australian Australian do the same thing we did? This simply reinforces the point that I made earlier. Every legitimate criticism of the M14 based on its actual use in combat is in fact, a criticism of the battle rifle concept in general, and not the M14 in particular. I agree. When I say I'd choose an M1A over an FAL today, that's only if an AR15 isn't available. Nothing that is widely available beats an AR15. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 9:51:31 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree. When I say I'd choose an M1A over an FAL today, that's only if an AR15 isn't available. Nothing that is widely available beats an AR15. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Anyone who thinks that the FAL was a better rifle than the M14 can try to explain why the Australian troops in Vietnam phased out the FAL in favor of the M-16. If it was so great, and we would’ve been so much better off if we had adopted The FAL, then why did the Australian Australian do the same thing we did? This simply reinforces the point that I made earlier. Every legitimate criticism of the M14 based on its actual use in combat is in fact, a criticism of the battle rifle concept in general, and not the M14 in particular. I agree. When I say I'd choose an M1A over an FAL today, that's only if an AR15 isn't available. Nothing that is widely available beats an AR15. This man speaks truth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 9:53:03 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Everybody that's bitching about the M14/M1A needs to remember that virtually every nation has failed numerous times at making "top tier" rifles. In the '50s, what was the competition? The FAL? Sure, I'll be willing to grant the FAL was mechanically a better design for the most part, but the FAL was never a better shooter, never had a better trigger, never had better irons, and the M14 was similar to the M1, so it had familiarity with troops that the FAL didn't. Even today, I'd probably never choose an FAL over an M1A, whether we're talking about shooting hogs or zombies. The G3? Please. Just no. The AK47? It's not quite apples-to-apples, but still no. It took a while, but we eventually ended up with something that has almost no peer...and yet we're now looking to ditch it in favor of this new Sig. That's about where I'm at. The M14 did some things worse than other 7.62 battle rifles and some things better. I still think 5.56mm should be the standard issue round and keep developing better rounds. Projectile improvements have brought the 9mm a long long way in the past 20-30 years. I don't have a problem with iterating on the AR15/M4 including being piston operated like the 416 and MCX. What's stupid to me is you give 11B's these long range cartridges like the Spear but they won't be trained competently if at all to hit targets the round is capable of. You're basically giving a LR gun to guys who get trained predominately on shorter range engagements. IMO they're poorly responding to Afghanistan where the ranges could easily outstrip the ability of the M4 to engage targets across mountains but ditching the M4 because of that is a good idea fairy solution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 10:03:31 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: lol So why does the M1 get a pass? It's all 1930's tech. 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. It is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 10:06:51 PM EDT
[#12]
I prefer the form factor of the M14 over the clunkers that are its NATO contemporaries, and the sights are some of the best irons ever put on an infantry rifle.
While its difficult to manufacture correctly, to me the only really glaring flaw is the open topped receiver, which easily allows dirt to get into the action and magazine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 10:07:56 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It is. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: lol So why does the M1 get a pass? It's all 1930's tech. 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. It is. The mag design on the M14 sucks TBH. The FAL, G3, AR10, and BM59 all have better mag designs. Especially inserting and rocking in a mag in on the M14 is just a kludge for some reason. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 10:08:33 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This thread makes me miss LARRYG.  And Different. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 10:11:10 PM EDT
[#15]
I qualified with the M14 and the year after I landed in Da Nang they handed me an M16A1, I never looked back.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 10:13:44 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The SCAR is better rifle than that SIG MIM mess. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Everybody that's bitching about the M14/M1A needs to remember that virtually every nation has failed numerous times at making "top tier" rifles. In the '50s, what was the competition? The FAL? Sure, I'll be willing to grant the FAL was mechanically a better design for the most part, but the FAL was never a better shooter, never had a better trigger, never had better irons, and the M14 was similar to the M1, so it had familiarity with troops that the FAL didn't. Even today, I'd probably never choose an FAL over an M1A, whether we're talking about shooting hogs or zombies. The G3? Please. Just no. The AK47? It's not quite apples-to-apples, but still no. It took a while, but we eventually ended up with something that has almost no peer...and yet we're now looking to ditch it in favor of this new Sig. The SCAR is better rifle than that SIG MIM mess. I've got limited experience with the SCAR and no experience with the SIG, so I can't really comment. Having said that, I'm a fan of .223/5.56 and cannot conceive of a scenario where I'd choose anything over an AR15. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 10:18:58 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I qualified with the M14 and the year after I landed in Da Nang they handed me an M16A1, I never looked back. My dad went through basic with the M14, although he did say they there was a quick familiarization course with the M16. When he was in Vietnam, he carried and M14 during the day and a Winchester shotgun at night (he guarded ammo dumps). |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 10:22:12 PM EDT
[#18]
I've always read the M14 wasn't the right rifle for the jungles of Vietnam. The reasons certainly make sense - too heavy, difficult to control on full auto, and the larger ammunition limited what you could carry - it was not an ideal weapon for dense jungle warfare. Makes sense.
My question is in regards to the M1 Garand's service in the South Pacific in WWII - wouldn't the M1 have suffered from virtually the same drawbacks (minus the full auto obviously) in basically the same or similar types of fighting environments? Or did it not really matter as much because the Japs were primarily using bolt action Arisakas? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 10:25:42 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've always read the M14 wasn't the right rifle for the jungles of Vietnam. The reasons certainly make sense - too heavy, difficult to control on full auto, and the larger ammunition limited what you could carry - it was not an ideal weapon for dense jungle warfare. Makes sense. My question is in regards to the M1 Garand's service in the South Pacific in WWII - wouldn't the M1 have suffered from virtually the same drawbacks (minus the full auto obviously) in basically the same or similar types of fighting environments? Or did it not really matter as much because the Japs were primarily using bolt action Arisakas? The M14 had a lot of behind the scenes production problems that the M1 did not have. Remember at the same time the US is trying to figure out how to make a M14 that AR10s exist. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 10:28:43 PM EDT
[#20]
The US should have adopted the M14 in 1950, and they STILL would have replaced it with the M16 in 1960 anyway.
The M14 is not a bad rifle, and I like US rifles, if you're fighting a land war in continental Europe in 1959. Vietnam changed that. Fine rifle in a lot of ways, but not according to US foreign policy and the changing nature of warfare in the 1960's/1970's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 10:31:21 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The US should have adopted the M14 in 1950, and they STILL would have replaced it with the M16 in 1960 anyway. The M14 is not a bad rifle, and I like US rifles, if you're fighting a land war in continental Europe in 1959. Vietnam changed that. Fine rifle in a lot of ways, but not according to US foreign policy and the changing nature of warfare in the 1960's/1970's. I agree, I stated earlier in this thread, and I stand by it, we have the power of hindsight. Weapon developers post world war 2 did not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 10:33:31 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The M14 had a lot of behind the scenes production problems that the M1 did not have. Remember at the same time the US is trying to figure out how to make a M14 that AR10s exist. To be fair there was plenty of issues getting the M1 up and running full scale production. Switching from gas trap to tapped gas from barrel. 7th round stoppage. And we didn’t have enough of the rifles in the beginning… ask the marines who has 03s in the early days of the pacific theater. Imagine going from a bolt action to that M1 when fighting boards of japs in close quarters. Must have felt like “god mode activated” |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 10:43:39 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree, I stated earlier in this thread, and I stand by it, we have the power of hindsight. Weapon developers post world war 2 did not. They did in 1959 and the US military establishment resisted it mercilessly, along with the 5.56 cartridge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 10:44:47 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I agree. When I say I'd choose an M1A over an FAL today, that's only if an AR15 isn't available. Nothing that is widely available beats an AR15. yep |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 11:07:07 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've always read the M14 wasn't the right rifle for the jungles of Vietnam. The reasons certainly make sense - too heavy, difficult to control on full auto, and the larger ammunition limited what you could carry - it was not an ideal weapon for dense jungle warfare. Makes sense. My question is in regards to the M1 Garand's service in the South Pacific in WWII - wouldn't the M1 have suffered from virtually the same drawbacks (minus the full auto obviously) in basically the same or similar types of fighting environments? Or did it not really matter as much because the Japs were primarily using bolt action Arisakas? I agree with your conclusion. While the M1 was very widely issued, you also had solders carrying M1 Carbines, 1903s, Thompsons, the BAR, Grease Guns, and a few others. On the other side were largely bolt action Arisaka's, which is to say given the alternatives and the weapons of the enemy, the shortcomings of the M1 may be have been significantly less obvious and the M1 was supplemented by other soldiers with other weaponry. Needless to say the arrival of the AK and M16 were game changers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 11:19:43 PM EDT
[#26]
It’s the nut behind the butt, the rifle shoots just fine.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 11:28:22 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The mag design on the M14 sucks TBH. The FAL, G3, AR10, and BM59 all have better mag designs. Especially inserting and rocking in a mag in on the M14 is just a kludge for some reason. I think FAL mags suck balls compared to the M14’s |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 11:30:05 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think FAL mags suck balls compared to the M14’s Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The mag design on the M14 sucks TBH. The FAL, G3, AR10, and BM59 all have better mag designs. Especially inserting and rocking in a mag in on the M14 is just a kludge for some reason. I think FAL mags suck balls compared to the M14’s Please expound. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 11:51:54 PM EDT
[#29]
The M14 hatred is absolutely retarded. By any objective measure it was a world-class service rifle. The G3 and FAL do absolutely nothing better than it and those were the most successful of its contemporaries - there was also stuff like the MAS-49, FN-49, Vz 52, Stg 57, and others that have been rightfully forgotten about (and yes, the BM 59 is in that category as well).
If it weren't for the botched rollout coming in the middle of Vietnam and LeMay's personal intervention to get the AR15 in service, we'd probably have kept the M14 up through the end of the Cold War just like the vast majority of our allies kept their 7.62 service rifles. Who knows, we might have jumped straight from 7.62x51 to something like the new 6.8 and everyone would be whining about how pathetically weak the new cartridge is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 12:00:03 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Pot meet kettle. You make a lot of assumptions. You really think anything this person tells us won't be the same rehashed arguments that have been done ad nauseam for 50+ years? Sorry I didn't swing off the camel toe of your "expert" ponytail girl and pointing out the clickbait title triggered you. It's clickbait regardless of which side the YouTuber is taking on the subject matter. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I read your post and I have decided to reword it for you thusly: "I am not capable of reading and comprehending a conditional phrase. Furthermore, opinions that differ from mine threaten me, and I will refuse to hear anything that could cause me to question my world view, even when said information comes from a trusted subject matter expert that provides insightful and well reasoned information and logic to support his assertion." Pot meet kettle. You make a lot of assumptions. You really think anything this person tells us won't be the same rehashed arguments that have been done ad nauseam for 50+ years? Sorry I didn't swing off the camel toe of your "expert" ponytail girl and pointing out the clickbait title triggered you. It's clickbait regardless of which side the YouTuber is taking on the subject matter. Quoted: 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.  We must have different definitions of when somebody meets criteria to qualify that descriptor, but I would say performing research on the history of countless weapon systems from all over the world and explaining their operation, workings, performance, manufacturing, and giving a demonstration and analysis of of them tends to make one a small arms subject matter expert. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 1:01:47 AM EDT
[#31]
I have a few Garands, a NM M1A, and multiple AR-10’s in 308.
I can shoot the M1A best when shooting over 400 yards using open sights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 1:22:14 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No worries if you like the M14/M1A. It's no sweat off my back. If you really have read and informed yourself that much about the subject and side disagree, that's cool. I just try to help steer people to be a little more objective and less emotional (like the next guy that responded to be after you) about things that really don't need to involve emotion as we can talk about verifiable and quantifiable bits of data to form an opinion. YEAH! I'M FUCKING SERIOUS MAN! We must have different definitions of when somebody meets criteria to qualify that descriptor, but I would say performing research on the history of countless weapon systems from all over the world and explaining their operation, workings, performance, manufacturing, and giving a demonstration and analysis of of them tends to make one a small arms subject matter expert. https://media.tenor.com/FHhOIcmmGNYAAAAM/anton-chigurh-no-country-for-old-men.gif Great. But, since he's your Superman, maybe you can explain why, with all of his unassailable credentials, he chose to produce a clickbait video that contained no information that hasn't already been hashed, re-hashed and re-re-hashed 87 million times in the last 65 years. And if you really want to make it a question of sme's, I choose as my M-14 SME Mr. Gerald R. "Hook" Boutin, whose credentials, in somewhat abbreviated form, are listed here: Hook Boutin ObituaryHook Boutin Obituary Before building M1 and m14 -type rifles for me and lots of other guys, Hook actually saw combat in two major wars during which he actually used those rifles to kill other people. Thereafter, he worked extensively on both the m16 and m21 rifle programs. His judgment of the m-14: "Best all-around battle rifle today." He was especially impressed by the rifle's ability to cycle multiple high-pressure test rounds without incurring damage. (Spoken in 2010, and in reference specifically to the M1A.) His take on the M-16: "FAILED EVERY GODDAMNED TEST WE EVER GAVE IT!" So, you rely on book and movie boy if you like; I'll take my advice from the guy who was out doing the things that book boy only writes about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 1:30:59 AM EDT
[#33]
I don't think its the.worst but it was way outdated when it was adopted.
Using hindsight, the German stg44 made every rifle outdated in 1943. We got it right end, the m14 being crappy got us the m16 sooner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 1:33:54 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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: 4/16/2024 1:40:07 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Great. But, since he's your Superman, maybe you can explain why, with all of his unassailable credentials, he chose to produce a clickbait video that contained no information that hasn't already been hashed, re-hashed and re-re-hashed 87 million times in the last 65 years. And if you really want to make it a question of sme's, I choose as my M-14 SME Mr. Gerald R. "Hook" Boutin, whose credentials, in somewhat abbreviated form, are listed here: Hook Boutin ObituaryHook Boutin Obituary Before building M1 and m14 -type rifles for me and lots of other guys, Hook actually saw combat in two major wars during which he actually used those rifles to kill other people. Thereafter, he worked extensively on both the m16 and m21 rifle programs. His judgment of the m-14: "Best all-around battle rifle today." He was especially impressed by the rifle's ability to cycle multiple high-pressure test rounds without incurring damage. (Spoken in 2010, and in reference specifically to the M1A.) His take on the M-16: "FAILED EVERY GODDAMNED TEST WE EVER GAVE IT!" So, you rely on book and movie boy if you like; I'll take my advice from the guy who was out doing the things that book boy only writes about. Did Ian make the title of the video a little controversial to increase clicks.... maybe. He also has a business. I don't think he is that far off base and he is much better than a lot of the other obvious clickbait garbage out there. It's a fucking 36 min video, not some 5s tik tok video. ETA: I love my springfield M1a's. Their trigger is super smooth and I can shoot them really well. I like the platform in general, but I also understand the US would have done a lot better waiting 5 or 10 years and just adopting the AR10 or the AR15. Maybe the M14 was the impetus to force them to a smaller cartridge and for that it was worth it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 1:50:01 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Being the "worst" of the US service rifles isn't really that bad. The US doesn't adopt total dogshit weapons usually. If all I had was an M1a/M14 and that was the worst of it, well I think I could do a whole lot worse. Did Ian make the title of the video a little controversial to increase clicks.... maybe. He also has a business. I don't think he is that far off base and he is much better than a lot of the other obvious clickbait garbage out there. It's a fucking 36 min video, not some 5s tik tok video. The issue here is whether he is qualified to make that determination purely on the basis of his protected, indoor archival pursuits (since I have seen not one of his simps here go so far as to suggest that he has actual service time that might lend some weight to his otherwise-unremarkable proposition). Obviously, for any reasonably objective individual, that is a question that pretty well answers itself. Oh, and BTW, since this is post #167:  DEO VINDICI |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 1:57:56 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The issue here is whether he is qualified to make that determination purely on the basis of his protected, indoor archival pursuits (since I have seen not one of his simps here go so far as to suggest that he has actual service time that might lend some weight to his otherwise-unremarkable proposition). Obviously, for any reasonably objective individual, that is a question that pretty well answers itself. Oh, and BTW, since this is post #167: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/167th_Infantry%2C_4th_Alabama%2C_Manassas_General_Bee_leading.jpg/1920px-167th_Infantry%2C_4th_Alabama%2C_Manassas_General_Bee_leading.jpg DEO VINDICI John Moses Browning Hiram Maxim John Garand None of them served in the US military as far as I know and they are some of the best firearms inventors of our time. I really don't understand the attack on Ian's character instead of his arguments. ETA: Ian has a somewhat hidden channel of him doing some basic gunsmithing, lathe work, and headspacing. He's more than just a "traveling gun nerd". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 1:58:14 AM EDT
[#38]
I also don't think I'd rate it as worst for any real reason, that's just ridiculous. I think you could make a better case for the 1873 Trapdoor carbine for that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 2:12:41 AM EDT
[#39]
I like the M1A HOWEVER, it is well known that it takes money, and a good gunsmith to work on it to get it accurate.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 2:33:38 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't think Ian served in the US military nor does he profess that he did. While that has its own unique experiences, I don't think serving in the military is absolutely necessary to study the mechanical and historical aspects of military firearms. I don't even know how one would proclaim it's necessary to be a veteran to understand and design arms. John Moses Browning Hiram Maxim John Garand None of them served in the US military as far as I know and they are some of the best firearms inventors of our time. I really don't understand the attack on Ian's character instead of his arguments. ETA: Ian has a somewhat hidden channel of him doing some basic gunsmithing, lathe work, and headspacing. He's more than just a "traveling gun nerd". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 2:44:56 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Everybody that's bitching about the M14/M1A needs to remember that virtually every nation has failed numerous times at making "top tier" rifles. In the '50s, what was the competition? The FAL? Sure, I'll be willing to grant the FAL was mechanically a better design for the most part, but the FAL was never a better shooter, never had a better trigger, never had better irons, and the M14 was similar to the M1, so it had familiarity with troops that the FAL didn't. Even today, I'd probably never choose an FAL over an M1A, whether we're talking about shooting hogs or zombies. The G3? Please. Just no. The AK47? It's not quite apples-to-apples, but still no. It took a while, but we eventually ended up with something that has almost no peer...and yet we're now looking to ditch it in favor of this new Sig. I would probably take any of those rifles as a general issue rifle before the M14. G3 is debatable, but the fal and ak are an easy choice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 2:51:38 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Great. But, since he's your Superman, maybe you can explain why, with all of his unassailable credentials, he chose to produce a clickbait video that contained no information that hasn't already been hashed, re-hashed and re-re-hashed 87 million times in the last 65 years. And if you really want to make it a question of sme's, I choose as my M-14 SME Mr. Gerald R. "Hook" Boutin, whose credentials, in somewhat abbreviated form, are listed here: Hook Boutin ObituaryHook Boutin Obituary Before building M1 and m14 -type rifles for me and lots of other guys, Hook actually saw combat in two major wars during which he actually used those rifles to kill other people. Thereafter, he worked extensively on both the m16 and m21 rifle programs. His judgment of the m-14: "Best all-around battle rifle today." He was especially impressed by the rifle's ability to cycle multiple high-pressure test rounds without incurring damage. (Spoken in 2010, and in reference specifically to the M1A.) His take on the M-16: "FAILED EVERY GODDAMNED TEST WE EVER GAVE IT!" So, you rely on book and movie boy if you like; I'll take my advice from the guy who was out doing the things that book boy only writes about. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: No worries if you like the M14/M1A. It's no sweat off my back. If you really have read and informed yourself that much about the subject and side disagree, that's cool. I just try to help steer people to be a little more objective and less emotional (like the next guy that responded to be after you) about things that really don't need to involve emotion as we can talk about verifiable and quantifiable bits of data to form an opinion. YEAH! I'M FUCKING SERIOUS MAN! We must have different definitions of when somebody meets criteria to qualify that descriptor, but I would say performing research on the history of countless weapon systems from all over the world and explaining their operation, workings, performance, manufacturing, and giving a demonstration and analysis of of them tends to make one a small arms subject matter expert. https://media.tenor.com/FHhOIcmmGNYAAAAM/anton-chigurh-no-country-for-old-men.gif Great. But, since he's your Superman, maybe you can explain why, with all of his unassailable credentials, he chose to produce a clickbait video that contained no information that hasn't already been hashed, re-hashed and re-re-hashed 87 million times in the last 65 years. And if you really want to make it a question of sme's, I choose as my M-14 SME Mr. Gerald R. "Hook" Boutin, whose credentials, in somewhat abbreviated form, are listed here: Hook Boutin ObituaryHook Boutin Obituary Before building M1 and m14 -type rifles for me and lots of other guys, Hook actually saw combat in two major wars during which he actually used those rifles to kill other people. Thereafter, he worked extensively on both the m16 and m21 rifle programs. His judgment of the m-14: "Best all-around battle rifle today." He was especially impressed by the rifle's ability to cycle multiple high-pressure test rounds without incurring damage. (Spoken in 2010, and in reference specifically to the M1A.) His take on the M-16: "FAILED EVERY GODDAMNED TEST WE EVER GAVE IT!" So, you rely on book and movie boy if you like; I'll take my advice from the guy who was out doing the things that book boy only writes about. Being an SME of small arms doesn't mean you have to have been in combat and killed people with them. Plenty of people have done that and don't know shit about guns. I'm not really sure what you are getting at though. Saying Ian is knowledgeable doesn't preclude anybody else from being knowledgeable and having their own opinion. That's all it is, is an opinion. People are free to disagree when it comes to opinions. What matters is that your opinion is based on logic and reason and not an emotional and anecdotal account, but if it is, that's fine too. Whatever. I'm not threatened by it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 3:35:04 AM EDT
[#43]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 3:49:05 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The M1 and M14 have similar rates of sustained fire because the clips change so much faster than magazines. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 4:26:34 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Next do how bad the BM59 is..... https://i.imgur.com/cmk8zkb.jpg?1 https://i.imgur.com/WjAK7MS.jpg?1 @JKH62 Thing is, is the BM59 IS better than the M14.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 4:28:55 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except it wasn't. Correct. However, the M14 sure as hell was. We should've had the FAL or the superior BM59 for that matter. Unfortunately the "Rah Rah America Only" thing was in full effect. For further proof just look at the shitty M60 we got stuck with vs the superior MAG58... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 4:31:29 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It had its own set of issues. @Jeremy2172 IIRC the receiver flexing due to all the material removed for that detachable mag was one of the main issues. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 5:08:27 AM EDT
[#48]
For those saying how much better the BM59 is than the M14 and didn’t have as many production problems, keep in mind it’s an M1 length action with a box magazine. When designing the M14 the USA had the money and resources to properly shorten the M1 receiver and redesign it to be packaged more efficiently with the shorter 7.62X51mm. The USA also went to the trouble to redesign the gas system and improve it by reducing the reciprocating mass of the M1s longer bolt and op rod.
When Italy produced the BM59 they used M1 tooling they got from Winchester so they were basically stuck with the Garand length action. It’s a Garand with a box magazine and the Tri-compensator screwed on the end. They look cool, but Beretta sort of had to work with what they had, and they did a decent job. I’ve got one and it’s a novelty, but doesn’t really do anything an M14 doesn’t. Getting wrapped up about how much better one of the Cold War 7.62X51mm rifles is than the other is dumb. They all worked. If the USA had adopted the FAL instead, it would have gone to the scrap heap just as fast as the M14 with priorities, tactics, and technology changing during the Vietnam War. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 5:15:59 AM EDT
[#49]
It is sad to see the POINT has sailed over so many heads here.
It is not about the rifle, it is about the concept of the rifle and cartridge. Too much rifle, too much cartridge. We SHOULD have replaced the M1 with a true assault rifle firing a true intermediate round. We did not. It is not the M14's fault, nor is it the 7.62x51mm round's fault. Both are fine. Great, even. US Ordnance dropped the ball and refused to arm our Fighting Men with a modern weapon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 5:38:03 AM EDT
[#50]
Have not gone through all the pages, I think there is something to be said about how many nations kept a service squad support lmg version of the FAL as compared to the short lived full auto of the M14.
In semi, the main battle rifles are all pretty negligible in difference. |
|
|
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.
