Other countries kept the FAL and the G3 longer than the USA kept the M14 because they lacked the financial resources and motivation (Vietnam War) to replace their weapons with something more.modern.

Correct

And keep it accurate.

Have you owned a M14 or M1A?

Meh, have both and if you prefer accuracy the M14 betters it.
The BM59 does have the best 7.62 magazine ever made.

I bought my M1A super match in 1994. I wanted to get into service rifle. The AR's were just starting to beat the M14 across the course, but I likes the M1A.
The trigger, the sights, the feel of the wood stock....

I still have it and still shoot it, I've got a lot of rds thru that gun, and never have I ever experienced a malfunction.

If it's all I had, I would carry and use it. But it would not be my first choice. Not at all.

Luckily, I have multiple AR's in the arsenal....

It's a rifle that's time came and quickly went. There are much better choices.

Solid reading comprehension fail.

You obviously missed the part where I pointed out that Hook Boutin (who, as to M-14 rifles, is not just "some guy") was one of the key players in the early days of the M-21 rifle program. Maybe you think that McCollum's "access to company archives" somehow trumps the level of expertise that required.

In my view, however, a man who actually built and tested the rifles is far better qualified to make a judgment about the rifle's worth, than somebody who makes his living by merely reporting what other people have said about it.

I love the purse swinging in these threads.

Feel free at any time to show me any post on this site in which I, as an attorney, have ever seriously mocked, derided or otherwise denigrated scholarship.

I have, as in this case, pointed out that scholarship has its limits, especially when the "scholarship" involved requires its author to do little more than report what other people have already said--in this case have already said many, many times before now.

Writing books and articles--without more--in no way qualifies Mr. McCollum to declare the M-14, or any other rifle, for that matter, to be "the worst U.S. service rifle ever."

His opinion is just that, and it is entitled to no more deference than the opinion of anyone else posting here about the same thing.

He's not a god; he's just another writer.

Attached File

the 30-40 krag would like a word.

The INSAS and the SA80 say you’re wrong.

The M14 was a bad service rifle for its era though. Whoever thought a 22 inch barrel full auto with a wood stock and exposed action was the future of rifles was extremely detached from reality, even in the late 50’s.

It’s not a truly bad rifle like the examples above, it was just outdated the day it was issued with very little room for evolution.

I own m14s

I hate working on them.

Old school cool though.

You’d take an M14 over an AK47? Really?

What’s your thought process for that decision?

Laughs in 30/40 Krag

The M1 was innovative for its time, the M14 is objectively a superior rifle but it came too late and had already been surpassed by other designs.

Had the M14 been introduced 10-15 years earlier it wouldn’t be hated as it is today.

But can you load 8rds into an M14 via 5rd stripper clips faster than 8rds into a Garand via enbloc clip?

I’ve never messed with stripper clips in an M14, but my experience with SKS stripper clips leads to me to believe the enbloc clip is going to win the race.

Agreed. And lighter. And with a larger capacity magazine. And with a lighter cartridge which allows you to carry more ammo for the same weight. And less recoil for the shooter in semi and full auto.

Outside of using an accurized M14, which apparently needs that work done over and over agin during its life, to engage point targets beyond 300m, I don’t see why someone would chose it over an AK47. Moving to the even lighter AKM makes the position even more odd, in my opinion.

Contemporaneous thinking separates history buffs from actual historians. "Should have" comes from our perspective today. Don't forget that the SKS wasn't overtaken by the AK-47 as a Soviet general infantry weapon until just a few years before the M14 comes out. "Immediately obvious" is again a today thing.

You can tell who did and didn't watch the video.

Rifle design is one thing.  Manufacturing design is another.

The problem with the M14 as a service rifle was production.  They could not make them in large enough quantity in acceptable quality at reasonable cost.

As an engineer, Ian blames that on quality control.  I blame it on overly complicated processes from the engineers.

The EBR is was a good rifle built up from M14 receivers at Rock Island.  A M1A or M14 worked over by Fulton Armory is akin to a Swiss watch.  They are both heavily hand fitted and individually tested.

Today's M1As from Springfield Armory (the company) are hit and miss.  There is a reason "swap with GI parts" is the mantra.  Those GI parts are hand selected.  They are the wheat separated from the chaff of years gone by.

Even with modern manufacturing process, I doubt reliable M14s could be mass produced today in quantity to equip US infantry as a service rifle.

My buddy says:

"Page 2 post #9

The US Ordnance Department is responsible for a lot of dead USGIs, post WW2, especially in Korea. They should have immediately adopted the German MG-42, FG-42 & especially the MP-43/44/StG-44, after WW2. The Beretta 38A would have been a decent choice for a 9mm SMG due to it's simply design and magazines, especially with a folding stock. The GP-35 should have been adopted as a side arm at the same time. Holding onto .30 cal for so long was pure stupidity. 8x33, 8x57 & 9x19 would have worked fine, especially with those superior weapons. A few G/K-43s could have been used for DM rifles.

ETA: 5.56 could have been looked into an adopted later just as it did eventually happen. The main issue is US Ordnance Department clinging onto obsolete weapon systems and ideals, or fielding garbage like the M-60, instead of proven winners like the MG-42.

ETA 2

The only reason semi auto M-14 clones are so popular for older people in the US is because of the NFA of '34 and Ray-gun's machine gun ban in '86. Take that BS away and the other ridiculous crap like the sporting importation restrictions, I bet very few people would care about the battle rifle that never should have been built.

I used to own an M-14S with USGI parts."

It was a great rifle for its time period, vs the German G-3, the fn-fal, and other 7.62 rifles, just as the m1 garand was a great rifle compared to other choices of the time period.

This always turns out like this, guns, planes, ships etc. Building a jack of all trades always fails

Especially trying to replace the M1 carbine and sub guns with a 7.62 full sized heavy rifle WTF..

I think the majority of the M14 hate comes from modern eyes which is not a completely fair assessment.   I got no problem lambasting the Army on the delays in search of perfection while suffering the whole thing to mission creep causing further delay.

Too many people just say oh it has a shitty method of optics mounting (in comparison they were drilling and tapping M1c rifles and the M1Ds were a bit lame in accuracy). Well no shit it wasn’t the greatest system as it was still going on the idea of the M1c mounts and 99.9% were never going to see an optic.   They were still in the full sized rifle that can be used with a bayonet mode.   The FAL was even worse for optics mounting at that time.  Big army still correctly believed the irons were more durable than optics of the day.

To me the whole trigger guarding take down clamping method on a wood stock was an achilles heel of the system.  Ok for the average joe with a rifle that gets to the armorer for inspection of the compressed stock.  The fiberglas M14 stock was a step in the right direction but if I was buiding a service rifle from a clean sheet I’d go back to screws to secure an action in a stock.  

The shape of the gun.......again goes to useful with a bayonet along with the firearm length.   Bayonets weren’t seen as archaic yet.  

One really has to look at the whole deal with the knowledge and experience OF THE TIMES, not what we know and have now.   I couldn’t imagine an army fielding a Bushnell grade optic of that era and letting the joes break them in two months afield.

Now if they had a solid completely waterproof quick detach 2.5x optic and a back up iron sight system and the scope wasn’t mounted at an obscene height they would have had something.   They never intended for an optic to be general issue at that time.

And the people pointing fingers at the H&R bad steel lots.  It was a fuck up of supply and production not a design flaw.   Unlike the idiots that monkeyed with the M16 specs for cost cutting after the original design was proven.  That was bad management.   The M1903 had its steel issues too. Winchester M1 quality was terrible and the Army got on their ass.  I’ve had three Winchester M1s and the machining quality is rough.  The first Winchester M1 I got from CMP shot like shit.  Further analysis.....it was a Greek return with a replacement barrel. The barrel had been brazed in place as it didn’t draw tight because the receiver face was too short.  Winchester probably short shanked the original barrel to salvage a reject receiver and still slipped it to the army.  The Greek armorer just made it work.  That rifle got replaced by CMP.  Another Winchester M1 I got is missing finish cuts on the right side of the receiver below the rear sight.  I guess that guy on the line had to take a piss.  Cosmetic  but off spec.

My H&R M1s are absolutely beautiful.

This.

Just as the German Tiger 1 with 88mm gun and 100mm of frontal armor was an amazing ass kicking war machine when compared to other countries tanks 1938-1942/1943. But it wouldn’t be considered good vs 1945 and newer tanks. M1 garand had its time, so did the m1 carbine, Thompson, m-14, m16a1, fn-fal, g-3, pistol caliber smgs, etc.

And while much better options exist today, none of them were  “shit” for their time period.

I am sure you are correct.   I recall someone posting some military test results on rate of fire on the M1 vs M14.  The M14 was the faster of the two until you ran out of magazines that comprised your basic load.  Once you reached that point of needing to reload mags the Garand simply kept on pace and overall would be faster in the longer runs.

So it is totally dependent on how long your need to keep fire up is.  

So a wash.

For me the Garand is a nicer position shooting rifle and just hangs better for me in offhand.

I am a gen x that likes the old boomer gun but I don’t pretend it is on par with the more modern guns.

Ya know... sometimes it isn't about the rifle but more about the rifleman.

The M14/M1A is an outstanding rifle. It has certain operational and handling attributes, both positive and negative, just like its contemporaries (G3/HK91 and FAL/L1A1). When a rifleman learns that weapon, trains for various scenarios using specific tactics, that M14/M1A will be an awesome tool. A trained rifleman armed with an M14 that he is very familiar with would be an outstanding combination.

For anyone who wants to discount the M1A and knee-jerk to the HK91 or FAL, I'm thinking that guy hasn't spend legit time behind the various platforms. But alas....

I must have missed when the us military adopted the INSAS and sa80

My introduction to the M14 was in my third year of Naval service.  I had joined the ASF--auxiliary security force--and back then our initial two-week instruction came from a USMC Cadre on base (this was in Pax River in '87).
During the course of instruction in weapons (M14, M16, 870, .38 revolver and 1911), we were allowed to attempt to qualify for Navy marksmanship certification.

I'd never shot an M14--well, I'd never shot any military service rifles at this point other than my Dad's Enfield--and when I was handed my M14, I was immediately in love.  The Marine sniper from Panama unhooked the sling from the back of the rifle, did something with it that looped it onto my upper arm so that when shooting in prone the rifle literally locked into position.  Open sights.

Brothers, I could not miss.  That rifle made me seem like I'd been shooting it all my life.  I know there are horror stories of guys going to qualify with weapons that were literally coming apart on them, but this rifle was like...I don't know...buttered accuracy is the only thing that comes to mind.  I don't know if I got one that had been accurized for some reason, or that our little base's weapons just didn't get used that much, but mine was the sweetest rifle I'd ever fired.  Qualified expert handily, with a target that even the Marine cadre remarked on.

I've owned an M1-A ever since, though I vastly prefer the AR15...even though to this day, I've never had as perfect a shooting session as with that first M14.

Other than saying it's terrible explain why?

The LRB Arms M25 (M14 pattern) is perfection. They have made a great rifle that fixes all the deficiencies of the original M14.

So much emotion !

No one ever showed you the proper way to insert a magazine into an M14. The front of the M14 mag well slants backward, and you simply insert the magazine straight in while riding the front of the Mag well. You’ll feel the retainer pop into the indexing hole, and you rock it backward. With a little practice, that’s far superior to the FAL design, which requires you to hook the magazine on the front of the Mag well before rocking it back. The G3 design would’ve been best of all if they had bothered to flare the mag well.

The fact that you buddy thinks replacing M2 Ball with 8x57 JS would be useful at all makes the rest of his assertions suspect as well.

Not even the worst service rifle in US history even if you add qualifiers like "for its time".

That award, as far as I am concerned, goes to Springfield trapdoor conversions along with the 1873 production model.

Good bolt and lever actions had existed for a long time and they instead decide to arm our troops with a shitty single loading conversions of a muzzle loader.

At least the m14 was semi/full auto and magazine fed with a modern nato standard cartridge

This is the conclusion I've arrived at. You run what you have in your hands.

Only american boomers think that the M14 is better than a FAL or G3.

The M14 is really sexy though and a brilliant wallhanger

Thank you

I’m not a boomer, and logistics and manufacturing problems aside, I believe the  M14 is superior to the G3 or the FAL by any objective standard. If you subjectively prefer the other rifles, that’s cool, but you cannot point to any objective criteria by which they are superior.  As I stated, previously, if you use these rifles in a way that plays to the strength of a battle rifle, specifically longer range engagements, the M14 is inherently more accurate and has far superior sights. The G3 and the FAL are scaled up assault rifles. The G3 has always been famous for its sloppy ergonomics and exaggerated recoil. That is both a function of the operating system, and the sloppy ergonomics. The FAL will give you AK accuracy at best and the sights are not suitable for Longer range engagements.  It has the well-known problem of vertical stringing due to its operating system, and no gunsmith can fix that. You just have to live with it. Neither one has an advantage when it comes to mounting optics or accessories. About the only thing you need to say about employing any of these rifles for close quarters combat, is that pistol caliber submachine guns were still quite popular during the era of the battle rifle. For longer range engagements, the M4 is the superior platform, and it’s not even close.

There's so much going on in this thread.

OP's title says "worst service rifle ever," but Ian's video title says "worst US service rifle ever."

OP's title is definitely false. Ian's title is probably true.

The Garand was the best service rifle fielded during the biggest war in world history. That shouldn't have to be explained, but apparently that needs to be said to some here.

Based on the lessons learned from WWII, both the M14 and the 7.62x51 cartridge were objectively bad decisions. The Russians learned and immediately adopted smaller rifles with intermediate cartridges. The Brits tried to adopt an intermediate cartridge but were forced (by the US) to adopt 7.62 NATO. Meanwhile, US Ordnance mouth-breathers refused to do anything other than a full power .30 caliber cartridge. It's 100% fair to judge the M14 as a failure against that backdrop.

The US tends to make questionable to bad small arms decisions in inter-war periods, and the M14 is absolutely an example of that as (is the XM7). Niche rifle choices are made based on theoretical wartime situations that might be encountered instead of more general wartime situations that probably will be encountered.

Going back to the M1903, there are jokes about the Americans showing up to war with target rifles. Despite the difficulty in accurizing the M14, I think that's also true here. That's also part of why the M14 is so fun to shoot, but less than ideal for combat. Maybe it's perception, but I find the FAL and G3 to both be more rugged.

I think difficulty in manufacture is a legitimate criticism. Winchester and H&R had problems building them as USGI contractors, and complaints about modern Springfield M1As and other variants are common. Getting a "good" M14 clone means spending $3k from a company like Fulton? Right...

Lastly, I think GWOT service is a questionable resume bullet for the M14. Sure, they were there, but in very limited numbers and in questionable usage. I only served with one guy who carried one, and that was on an earlier deployment. He was a 19K PFC at the time, and he volunteered to carry it because he thought it was cool and he liked the idea of a bigger cartridge. I'm sure a couple units did cool things with them, but most did not.

 You don't really have a buddy do you?  Imaginary friends don't count.

Turn your argument around: what does the M14 do that the BM59 doesn't? Besides cost more than twice as much, that is. Average contract cost for an M14 was more than $100, while Beretta sold BM59s for just over $40.

I don't think it's fair to separate the M14 from the general concept of the battle rifle when the people who gave us the M14 and the people who forced 7.62 NATO on the rest of the world are the same people. We could've had FALs in an intermediate cartridge in the early 50s, instead we got M14s in 1959.

This.  The SKS has soldiered on as long as the M1A, or arguably longer.  A dude fighting a war could do a hell of a lot worse than those two outdated examples, but he could also do a lot better as well.

Attached File

I agree 100%.  It's not particularly good at anything.  I owned a neutered .civ one for a while when I was a starry eyed child who thought it was KEWL.

I learned pretty fast it was not for many reasons.  I know that the 1911 and garand boomers here will decry that as woke or something else but that doesn't strip the truth away from it.

Sorry for the dumb question:  What made the BM59 better than the M-14?  Thanks!

ETA:  crap, I didn't realize this was a 7 page thread.  

Eh...

One of the more simplistic but hard to refute arguments in favor of the M16/M4 is that most organizations that could choose them has done so, even to the point of some militaries and agencies buying/building M4 derivatives to replace guns that were developed after the M16 was adopted.

The inverse is basically true of the M14. Militaries that could have something other than the M14 generally chose anything other than the M14 outside of DMR work. The rest of the non-communist world chose either the G3 or FAL.

Long range accuracy is basically the only quantifiable advantage the M14 has over the G3 or FAL, and long range engagements with individual infantry rifles is a pretty rare occurrence in combat. At normal combat distances, the M14 does nothing to distinguish itself in a good way.

Because that's what we had in inventory. Once the M110 and the likes came into inventory, they began phasing the M14 out