User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:34:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: GI-45]
[#1]
Sounds like Forgotten Weapons is scraping the bottom of the barrel for video ideas.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:37:30 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GI-45: Sounds like Forgotten Weapons is scrapping the bottom of the barrel for video ideas. FWIW, my M1A is my favorite gun to shoot...but if it was a life or death situation, it wouldn't be my number 1 pick to take out. I wouldn't feel disadvantaged with it, but time moved on. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:38:05 PM EDT
[#3]
My uncle died in Vietnam and he talked fondly of the m14 in his letters to his aunt and his AARs. One of his marine buddies who survived still talks greatly of it. But today, one of his mates who lives nearby shoots an SIG 716 in 6.5CM and he adores it.
I think it was about keeping the VC and NVA down when they got hit is why they liked the M14. From reading their accounts, the m16 sometimes wasn't cutting it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:39:17 PM EDT
[#4]
Op is a commie. That is all.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:41:16 PM EDT
[#5]
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. Well there it is in black and white on the internet, so it must be true. LOL. |
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:41:52 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jozsi: My uncle died in Vietnam and he talked fondly of the m14 in his letters to his aunt and his AARs. One of his marine buddies who survived still talks greatly of it. But today, one of his mates who lives nearby shoots an SIG 716 in 6.5CM and he adores it. I think it was about keeping the VC and NVA down when they got hit is why they liked the M14. From reading their accounts, the m16 sometimes wasn't cutting it. From what I've read many loved the effectiveness of the 5.56. I noticed that a lot of the stories of 5.56 failure were by guys armed with the XM177. Hal Moore thought the M16 is what allowed his unit to survive. |
|
|
KY, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:42:19 PM EDT
[#7]
The one thing I'll say about the M14/M1A versus the Garand is that the box magazine is right in the way for optimum offhand shooting. Sitting or prone it isn't terrible, but for overall positional shooting it is inferior to the M1. I'm not alone in that sentiment.
The M14 design does have improvements over the M1, but optimum positional shooting isn't one of them. Actualy, while the M16 design has huge advantage over the M1, it isn't ideal for positional shooting, either. The M1 was the last US service rifle that excells at all three positions. The pistol grip is extremely low in relationship to the handguard, putting the front hand in an awkward position to support the rifle. Also, it causes the stock to have to be extremely high on the shoulder. It's just different design philosophy from the days of the Garand to the 1950s and later. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:42:58 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jozsi: My uncle died in Vietnam and he talked fondly of the m14 in his letters to his aunt and his AARs. One of his marine buddies who survived still talks greatly of it. But today, one of his mates who lives nearby shoots an SIG 716 in 6.5CM and he adores it. I think it was about keeping the VC and NVA down when they got hit is why they liked the M14. From reading their accounts, the m16 sometimes wasn't cutting it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:44:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: StraightShootinGal]
[#9]
My buddy says:
"The US Ordnance Department is responsible for a lot of 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." |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:45:55 PM EDT
[#10]
M14 EBR / FTW.
 
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:46:47 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LongTrang: lol Have you ever held an M1 and thought to yourself, "this rifle is ok, but it would be great if it was longer, harder to produce, more expensive, and more likely to blow up?" If so then I can see how you might think the M14 was a good rifle. |
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:47:15 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Strela: Well there it is in black and white on the internet, so it must be true. LOL. All considered M14 was bad, the US should have done much better, particularly considering how much effort we put into the program. It seems to me the normal state of US army ordinance was to fuck up, unless they had some geni (Browning, Garand) doing their development. It's how you end up rejecting Spencer and Henry repeaters during the Civil War. Or pulling out the Spencers so the 7th can use trapdoors at the Little Bighorn. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:47:23 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: That's the problem. You couldn't perfect the M1. The Italians with the BM59 did it right. They developed an improved M1 in one or two years. The US spent a decade developing the M14 and it wasn't any better than the BM59. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: Originally 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. That's the problem. You couldn't perfect the M1. The Italians with the BM59 did it right. They developed an improved M1 in one or two years. The US spent a decade developing the M14 and it wasn't any better than the BM59. I like the M-1 and the M14 both, but the BM59 is a better rifle in many ways than the M14 |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:49:31 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brosnarp: Have you ever held an M1 and thought to yourself, "this rifle is ok, but it would be great if it was longer, harder to produce, more expensive, and more likely to blow up?" If so then I can see how you might think the M14 was a good rifle. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brosnarp: Originally Posted By LongTrang: lol Have you ever held an M1 and thought to yourself, "this rifle is ok, but it would be great if it was longer, harder to produce, more expensive, and more likely to blow up?" If so then I can see how you might think the M14 was a good rifle. Are you referring to metallurgical problems with the bolts? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:49:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: eurotrash]
[#15]
Weren’t the South Vietnamese fighters too petite to handle the M14 and AR10?
The battle rifle was perfected with the FN SCAR NRCH. |
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:52:20 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R2point0: It's my understanding that the M-16 had a lot of teething problems, mainly due to changing specs to cut costs from the original design (I'm looking at you, McNamara.) So I'm imagining that, at the time, the M-14 was much more attractive to soldiers. Mostly it was due to the wrong powder being used in Vietnam. IIRC it was designed for IMR type powder and they issued it will ball powder. It was supposed to cycle at 750 rpm but was more like 1,000 rpm due to the powder change. It was operating outside of its design range. Also they were using the softer civilian brass. I understand they tested the rifles before sending them to 'nam, but they tested with the IMR type powder. I think we could debate if it was intentional or fuckup. I know there is some evidence there were people in big army trying to destroy the AR15 program. |
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:53:34 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. One of my coworkers was ARVN and didn't like the M1 rifle because of it's size. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:55:27 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:55:59 PM EDT
[#19]
M14 was the worst service rifle for the US military in the 20th century.
I'd choose an M14 over that Indian piece of junk, for example. And there were many rifles from the 1800s that were terrible around the world. |
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:57:37 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By cyclone: I like the M-1 and the M14 both, but the BM59 is a better rifle in many ways than the M14 It's really the quick development of the BM59 and its commonality with the M1 that's the biggest advantage. M14 was an attempt to perfect the M1, which wasn't possible. Either modify the M1 to be a stop gap, or else develop something new and use M1 for lessons learned. Dumping massive effort into trying to perfect M1 was doomed to fail. |
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:58:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: brosnarp]
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brownbomber: Are you referring to metallurgical problems with the bolts? I'm referring to the metallurgical problems with H&R bolts and receivers that lead to guns blowing up in testing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:58:48 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JWnTN: Neither did the M14, but in the hands of Ukrainians, the M14 has slain more than a few Russians. How many? Aren’t those a few of the Clinton rifles provided to the Baltic countries? Did they see frontline service or did they go to rear area troops? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:58:58 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: One of my coworkers was ARVN and didn't like the M1 rifle because of it's size. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: 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. One of my coworkers was ARVN and didn't like the M1 rifle because of it's size. It's funny when you see old photos of ARVN holding a garand it looks like a kid holding a 2x4 
|
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:59:55 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Capt-Planet: M14 was the worst service rifle for the US military in the 20th century. I'd choose an M14 over that Indian piece of junk, for example. And there were many rifles from the 1800s that were terrible around the world. Considering US resources and the small arms knowledge we had after WW2 the M14 project was pretty bad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:00:48 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: I think we could debate if it was intentional or fuckup. I know there is some evidence there were people in big army trying to destroy the AR15 program. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:01:09 PM EDT
[#26]
The M-14 may not have been a perfect choice for a service rifle in the 1960s, but it is a pretty decent rifle for civilian uses, especially if the civilian wants to have just one rifle, and he’s old.
|
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:01:13 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 45-Seventy: Which is why the SCAR was such an unparalleled success and widely adopted. The whole "battle rifle" thing is just to try to keep 308 rifles relevant. |
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:02:24 PM EDT
[#28]
 He's right. Worst rifle ever made--especially for fags who never even heard the expression "natural point of aim," to say nothing of actually knowing how to use it. The guy spends his time going to museums and making videos. How the fuck does that make him an authority on anything . . . other than going to museums and making videos? |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:02:51 PM EDT
[#29]
Chuck Mawhinney did pretty good with one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:03:21 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: One of my coworkers was ARVN and didn't like the M1 rifle because of it's size. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: 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. One of my coworkers was ARVN and didn't like the M1 rifle because of it's size. They liked the M-1 Carbine alot, according to many reports |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:03:22 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: One of my coworkers was ARVN and didn't like the M1 rifle because of it's size. |
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:03:28 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R2point0: I have mixed feelings about that. Military procurement is generally a mess, and it needed (and needs) to be cleaned up. But Curtiss LeMay attending a watermelon shoot doesn't seem like a reasonable alternative. The watermelon shoot seems to have worked out better than the US Army Ordinance Department M14 program. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:04:24 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: Considering US resources and the small arms knowledge we had after WW2 the M14 project was pretty bad. atom bombs and jet aircraft were the pentagon focus infantry rifles were a low priority ….until Vietnam |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:04:47 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brosnarp: Have you ever held an M1 and thought to yourself, "this rifle is ok but it would be great if it was longer, harder to produce, more expensive, and more likely to blow up?" If so then I can see how you might think the M14 was a good rifle. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brosnarp: Originally Posted By LongTrang: lol Have you ever held an M1 and thought to yourself, "this rifle is ok but it would be great if it was longer, harder to produce, more expensive, and more likely to blow up?" If so then I can see how you might think the M14 was a good rifle. Said no enduser ever. As far as "more likely to blow up"...  . Was that a problem with the rifles in your unit?
|
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:07:12 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R2point0: I worked with a guy who was one of the original military advisors we sent over. He had a picture of him and his ARVN team - they all had M1 carbines. According to him they worked well for the shorter, lighter bodied troops he worked with. Though he didn't comment on its effectiveness. M1 and M2 carbines were a big deal early Vietnam. I used to have old National Geographics from the period, with articles on Green Berets working with villagers. The carbine was the main weapon they were using early 60s. The female Nat Geo reporter/photographer also carried one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:07:29 PM EDT
[#36]
I really like the M1A, especially in a Scout length with proper optic, but it wouldn't be my first choice.
|
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:07:31 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brosnarp: I'm referring to the metallurgical problems with H&R bolts and receivers that lead to guns blowing up in testing. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brosnarp: Originally Posted By brownbomber: Are you referring to metallurgical problems with the bolts? I'm referring to the metallurgical problems with H&R bolts and receivers that lead to guns blowing up in testing. AISI 8620 is a fairly low-hardenability low-alloy steel. It must be quenched rather severely to reliability form martensite. Complicating this further, the austenitizing (hardening) temperature for the core is significantly higher than it is for the case, due to the differing carbon content. Failure to either fully austenitize the part or failure to quench it sufficiently fast can result in free ferrite in the core, with very low impact toughness values. What I don't understand is why the M1 Garand bolts/receivers apparently never had this problem, since they are virtually identical in any way that could possibly matter from a heat-treating perspective. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:09:46 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: The watermelon shoot seems to have worked out better than the US Army Ordinance Department M14 program. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:10:39 PM EDT
[#39]
I was happy when they took away my M-14 and gave me a M-16. The joy over the lighter weight soon weaned when they decided I could now carry more belted ammunition for the Pig the weapons guys carried.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:11:02 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: M1 and M2 carbines were a big deal early Vietnam. I used to have old National Geographics from the period, with articles on Green Berets working with villagers. The carbine was the main weapon they were using early 60s. The female Nat Geo reporter/photographer also carried one. |
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:11:35 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Colt653: atom bombs and jet aircraft were the pentagon focus infantry rifles were a low priority ….until Vietnam The M14 resulted from an expensive and long term project. When they could have developed something like BM59 in a year or two tops, or even before the end of WW2. I think the problem was with Army Ordinance. Not saying the Pentagon had it's act together, either. |
|
|
ISR
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:12:04 PM EDT
[#42]
Everyone I’ve ever talked to that was issued an M14 in GWOT loved them. US Army, ARNG, USMC.
Then there’s the Internet experts… |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:13:22 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: M1 and M2 carbines were a big deal early Vietnam. I used to have old National Geographics from the period, with articles on Green Berets working with villagers. The carbine was the main weapon they were using early 60s. The female Nat Geo reporter/photographer also carried one. They were little people and the carbine was not only a smaller rifle, it had a shorter length of pull stock. When my dad had one he added a two inch extension to the butt just to get a proper length of pull. He was issued the carbine as a medic in Korea and still thought the garand was the better battle rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:13:28 PM EDT
[#44]
When he mentioned the rewelded receivers near the end of the video it reminded me that a welder in a crew I worked in late 70's told me had served prison time for welding them back together. I guess it used to be a thing years ago.
|
|
|
|
MT, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:15:21 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StraightShootinGal: My buddy says: "The US Ordnance Department is responsible for a lot of 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." Sounds like your "buddy" is a bit of a Wehraboo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:15:31 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bacon_Grease: Thread title is a bit click bait. But video is solid as usual for ForgottenWeapons. TLDW. M14 is a good rifle. It was Springfield's second choice and was chosen over the FAL because we make it here. The contract to make the rifles went poorly as the rifles shipped didn't meet the expectations of the military. Things broke, many rifles had sub par accuracy. Honestly sounds like a lot of the same stuff that tanked the AR's reputation for reliability in Vietnam. Nobody talks about 7th round stoppage on M1s because the teething problems got fixed as the production got going. Took a couple of years to sort that out. And 1903s could not be produced fast enough in WWI and so on .... |
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:15:48 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R2point0: Hence my mixed feelings. It's similar to Lincoln ordering the army to buy Spencers during the Civil War. And it fits in with my view on "the experts". Establishment experts, even when they are real experts (which is usually not the case) seem to fuck up a lot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:16:52 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jozsi: My uncle died in Vietnam and he talked fondly of the m14 in his letters to his aunt and his AARs. One of his marine buddies who survived still talks greatly of it. But today, one of his mates who lives nearby shoots an SIG 716 in 6.5CM and he adores it. I think it was about keeping the VC and NVA down when they got hit is why they liked the M14. From reading their accounts, the m16 sometimes wasn't cutting it. A lot of that talk was because with the M-14 were mostly fired in semi automatic causing you to take aim. With the M-16 it was spray and pray with most of the rounds off target not hitting shit. Everyone I saw shot at and hit with an M-16 were fucked up and out of the fight. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:17:28 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LongTrang: lol So why does the M1 get a pass? It's all 1930's tech. The M-14 would've been a wundergewehr in 1940. It would've been highly advanced in 1945. It would've stacked bodies in Korea as well as or better than the Garand. But by 1957 the world had moved on. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:17:29 PM EDT
[#50]
This is my uncles Silver Star citation.
"The President of the United States of America takes pleasure in presenting the Silver Star to Sergeant Clarence Tolentino (MCSN: 1268075), United States Marine Corps, for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action while serving as the Squad Leader of a Machine Gun Squad, attached to the 1st Platoon, Company C, Third Battalion, Fifth Marines, FIRST Marine Division, in action against insurgent Communist Viet Cong forces in the Republic of Vietnam. On 5 March 1966, during Operation UTAH, in Quang Ngai Province, Sergeant Tolentino was moving his squad in the Company's assault when the platoon was pinned down by intense automatic weapons fire and a grenade barrage. After heroically exposing himself to the enemy fire in order to pinpoint the enemy positions, he picked up the machine gun of a wounded member of his squad and single-handedly assaulted the enemy positions. During his valiant effort, he was forced to stop because the machine gun malfunctioned. Undaunted, he returned to his position, retrieved his M-14 rifle and again gallantly moved against the enemy positions, remaining there so that they could not be reoccupied by the Viet Cong until his platoon could organize for the final assault on the well-entrenched enemy. He then joined the rest of the platoon in their final assault. By his heroic actions and gallant display of bravery, Sergeant Tolentino decisively contributed to ultimate victory over the enemy and upheld the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service." If the rifle was a fucken piece of shit, why is it cited in his presentation? Action Date: 5-Mar-66 |
|
|
|
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.
.jpg)
