User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:18:36 PM EDT
[#1]
The fact the government spent 15 years and who knows how much money just to make a rifle almost as good as its predecessor while simultaneously offering no meaningful new ideas… is just an impressive feat of incompetence and waste only a government bureaucracy is capable of achieving.
Especially that this was done after seeing the progress which occurred during WWII in development is astonishing. If you’re going to adopt a new rifle… why redesign it only to incorporate only the flaws of the prior generation? Everything inherently flawed in the M1 such as taking the action out of the stock for cleaning and a bolt that is disassembled out of the top of the action they kept. They got rid of the en bloc clip system which was fast to load and simple in favor of magazines and stripper clips? Was the goal just to take an M1 and make it more clumsy and less streamlined? Not to mention that after having previously developed .276 Petersen we then insisted on the 7.62mm NATO… just to make sure we could go through all the hassle of a new rifle and new cartridge without worrying about having to deal with any actual improvements? Add in the context of the time that we were looking at potentially fighting WWIII with the Soviets but not implementing any more rapid manufacturing techniques. Stupid rifle at a stupid time with a stupid cartridge. It is a monument to government waste. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:19:05 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: 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. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: Originally 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.  The Expert (Short Comedy Sketch) |
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:19:51 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Strela: Said no enduser ever. As far as "more likely to blow up"...  . Was that a problem with the rifles in your unit?Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Strela: Said no enduser ever. As far as "more likely to blow up"... . Was that a problem with the rifles in your unit?Oh, shit the end users don't care about back end problems? Guess they weren't problems then. That was a big enough problem for the government buying the things that Springfield had to invent Magnetic Comparative Analysis to sort out the good ones from the bombs. But again, the end users didn't see the problems so they didn't exist I guess. You know what the end users got? A "universal rifle" intended to replace carbines and submachine guns that was longer than the full size rifle it was developed from despite using a shorter cartridge and barrel. It was a bad design for it's time; deal with it. Originally Posted By brownbomber: 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. H&R built a bunch of receivers and bolts out of 1330 instead of 8620. Turns out that's bad. Originally Posted By USMCTanker: 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… Every M14 I saw being toted in GWOT was being carried by a fobbit, while the guys who actually went outside the wire carried M4s. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:26:53 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brosnarp: H&R built a bunch of receivers and bolts out of 1330 instead of 8620. Turns out that's bad. I was unaware of that. Was that an unauthorized material substitution? I don't believe 1330 is listed as an acceptable alternate on the drawing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:27:37 PM EDT
[#5]
Yeah, its from Wiki(M1 Garand, Design Details) , but there's other articles (and I remember hearing this years ago) that state it was U.S. Ordinance officials, not John Garand, who did not want a detachable magazine.
Officials in Army Ordnance circles demanded a fixed, non-protruding magazine for the new service rifle. At the time, it was believed that a detachable magazine on a general-issue service rifle would be easily lost by U.S. soldiers (a criticism made of British soldiers and the Lee–Enfield dozens years previously), would render the weapon too susceptible to clogging from dirt and debris and that a protruding magazine would complicate existing manual-of-arms drills. As a result, inventor John Garand developed an en bloc clip system that allowed ammunition to be inserted from above, clip included, into the fixed magazine. While this design provided the requisite flush-mount magazine, the clip system increased the rifle's weight and complexity, and made only single loading ammunition possible without a clip. |
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:28:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: naseby]
[#6]
LONG OVERDUE PSA FOR ARFCOM: THE WORD IS "ORDNANCE." "O-R-D-N-A-N-C-E" THERE IS NO FUCKING "I" IN "ORDNANCE."  https://goordnance.army.mil/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Ordnance_Corps ordnance ord·nance ˈȯrd-nən(t)s Synonyms of ordnance 1 a : military supplies including weapons, ammunition, combat vehicles, and maintenance tools and equipment bombers dropped heavy concentrations of ordnance on every targeted airfield b : a service of the army charged with the procuring, distributing, and safekeeping of ordnance 2 : CANNON, ARTILLERY Several pieces of ordnance bombarded the entrenched enemy. ordinance
noun or·di·nance ˈȯr-də-nən(t)s ˈȯrd-nən(t)s Synonyms of ordinance 1 a : an authoritative decree or direction : ORDER On that day the king signed three ordinances. b : a law set forth by a governmental authority specifically : a municipal regulation A city ordinance forbids construction work to start before 8 a.m. 2 : something ordained or decreed by fate or a deity Let ordinance come as the gods foresay 3 : a prescribed usage, practice, or ceremony observes the ordinance of abstinence during Lent Being one of GD's beloved "SME's" doesn't count for much if you can't fucking communicate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:29:50 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: Actually what the Italians did with the BM59 was the right way to do it. BM59 was literally just an improved M1, and with the BM59 you could use M1 tooling and M1 parts. The problem with the US approach was we attempted perfection which you can't achieve if you are trying to improve the M1 design. A stop gap improvement like the BM59 made lots of sense if you accept it for what it is. But that doesn't make sense if you do it the way the US did in developing the M14 for over a decade. I agree with you. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:31:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: towerofpower94]
[#8]
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." What? FG-42? So we should have gotten an even goofier battle rifle than the M14, shooting an even more powerful and less controllable in FA cartridge? STG-44 and MG-42 or 34 derivatives should have been the way forward. Hell, just do the STG-44 and stick with the Browning .30cal machineguns. They seemed to do pretty well for quite a bit after WWII. |
|
|
|
ISR
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:38:05 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brownbomber: 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. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brownbomber: Originally 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. It was incorrect steel from the foundry sent to H&R. The problem was identified and receivers and bolts made of non-specified materials were recalled, destroyed, and replacements made from proper materials manufactured to complete the contract. |
|
|
ISR
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:41:39 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brosnarp: Oh, shit the end users don't care about back end problems? Guess they weren't problems then. That was a big enough problem for the government buying the things that Springfield had to invent Magnetic Comparative Analysis to sort out the good ones from the bombs. But again, the end users didn't see the problems so they didn't exist I guess. You know what the end users got? A "universal rifle" intended to replace carbines and submachine guns that was longer than the full size rifle it was developed from despite using a shorter cartridge and barrel. It was a bad design for it's time; deal with it. H&R built a bunch of receivers and bolts out of 1330 instead of 8620. Turns out that's bad. Every M14 I saw being toted in GWOT was being carried by a fobbit, while the guys who actually went outside the wire carried M4s. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brosnarp: Originally Posted By Strela: Said no enduser ever. As far as "more likely to blow up"... . Was that a problem with the rifles in your unit?Oh, shit the end users don't care about back end problems? Guess they weren't problems then. That was a big enough problem for the government buying the things that Springfield had to invent Magnetic Comparative Analysis to sort out the good ones from the bombs. But again, the end users didn't see the problems so they didn't exist I guess. You know what the end users got? A "universal rifle" intended to replace carbines and submachine guns that was longer than the full size rifle it was developed from despite using a shorter cartridge and barrel. It was a bad design for it's time; deal with it. Originally Posted By brownbomber: 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. H&R built a bunch of receivers and bolts out of 1330 instead of 8620. Turns out that's bad. Originally Posted By USMCTanker: 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… Every M14 I saw being toted in GWOT was being carried by a fobbit, while the guys who actually went outside the wire carried M4s. Sure |
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:42:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: brosnarp]
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brownbomber: I was unaware of that. Was that an unauthorized material substitution? I don't believe 1330 is listed as an acceptable alternate on the drawing. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brownbomber: I was unaware of that. Was that an unauthorized material substitution? I don't believe 1330 is listed as an acceptable alternate on the drawing. Very unauthorized. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0257000.pdf Originally Posted By USMCTanker: Sure Did you see a lot of M14s outside the wire during your time in GWOT? |
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:42:28 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DistanceX: Yeah, its from Wiki(M1 Garand, Design Details) , but there's other articles (and I remember hearing this years ago) that state it was U.S. Ordinance officials, not John Garand, who did not want a detachable magazine. Yep. And they extended M1 development because of their changes. The full development really goes from 1919 until 1959. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:47:13 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brosnarp: Oh, shit the end users don't care about back end problems? Guess they weren't problems then. That was a big enough problem for the government buying the things that Springfield had to invent Magnetic Comparative Analysis to sort out the good ones from the bombs. But again, the end users didn't see the problems so they didn't exist I guess. You know what the end users got? A "universal rifle" intended to replace carbines and submachine guns that was longer than the full size rifle it was developed from despite using a shorter cartridge and barrel. It was a bad design for it's time; deal with it. H&R built a bunch of receivers and bolts out of 1330 instead of 8620. Turns out that's bad. Every M14 I saw being toted in GWOT was being carried by a fobbit, while the guys who actually went outside the wire carried M4s. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brosnarp: Originally Posted By Strela: Said no enduser ever. As far as "more likely to blow up"... . Was that a problem with the rifles in your unit?Oh, shit the end users don't care about back end problems? Guess they weren't problems then. That was a big enough problem for the government buying the things that Springfield had to invent Magnetic Comparative Analysis to sort out the good ones from the bombs. But again, the end users didn't see the problems so they didn't exist I guess. You know what the end users got? A "universal rifle" intended to replace carbines and submachine guns that was longer than the full size rifle it was developed from despite using a shorter cartridge and barrel. It was a bad design for it's time; deal with it. Originally Posted By brownbomber: 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. H&R built a bunch of receivers and bolts out of 1330 instead of 8620. Turns out that's bad. Originally Posted By USMCTanker: 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… Every M14 I saw being toted in GWOT was being carried by a fobbit, while the guys who actually went outside the wire carried M4s. So you just ignored my red highlighted "harder to produce, more expensive" as for as endusers? Where did I say anything about endusers "back end problems." As far as the "more likely to blow up", again I'll ask how many examples have you seen? |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:53:32 PM EDT
[#14]
How we got it doesn't matter,I have significant time on it and all the platforms that followed up to the M4A1 . The 14 is a pita to scope or add modern accessories to ,but for pure killing even at my current age I can still smoke check savages at 600 meters with irons . I qualified with FN's & G3's back in the day but still like the 14 M1A better. In a Mac M2A with Brookfield My and decent glass it is a great DMR rifle . Rant off.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:55:03 PM EDT
[#15]
I don't have time for hippie boy today.
|
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 2:55:06 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Strela: So you just ignored my red highlighted "harder to produce, more expensive" as for as endusers? Where did I say anything about endusers "back end problems." As far as the "more likely to blow up", again I'll ask how many examples have you seen? I referred to "harder to produce, more expensive" as back end problems, meaning problems not seen by the end user, who works on the front end. Does a well documented problem only exist if I've personally seen it? It is a fact that H&R made M14 receivers that blew up, requiring Springfield to invent a completely new method of testing to separate the pipe bombs from the usable rifles. The M14 had other manufacturing problems too, but that's the most dramatic one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 3:00:04 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NCshooter: How we got it doesn't matter,I have significant time on it and all the platforms that followed up to the M4A1 . The 14 is a pita to scope or add modern accessories to ,but for pure killing even at my current age I can still smoke check savages at 600 meters with irons . I qualified with FN's & G3's back in the day but still like the 14 M1A better. In a Mac M2A with Brookfield My and decent glass it is a great DMR rifle . Rant off. This is all really true. It's a much better shooter than the FAL or G3. And not by just a little bit. But all of these are severely lacking compared to something like an AR10, HK 417 or SCAR. I sold my M1As mostly because they were super hard on brass, tricky to load for, and while generally accurate, very finicky. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 3:07:56 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By deadmau5er: Maybe in theory but a Harvester M1 will go bang more reliably than any M14 will. The guts work the same. They have the same failure modes ie sand in either action. If anything the M14 gas system is more rubust. Unless you’re using some POS aftermarket magazine. Then you get what they magazine delivers. |
|
|
ISR
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 3:09:41 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brosnarp: Very unauthorized. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0257000.pdf Did you see a lot of M14s outside the wire during your time in GWOT? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brosnarp: Originally Posted By brownbomber: I was unaware of that. Was that an unauthorized material substitution? I don't believe 1330 is listed as an acceptable alternate on the drawing. Very unauthorized. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0257000.pdf Originally Posted By USMCTanker: Sure Did you see a lot of M14s outside the wire during your time in GWOT? No, but the users I know weren’t so-called “fobbits” either. |
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 3:11:19 PM EDT
[#20]
The M14 really should have never made it past the initial thought. The M1 should have been adopted in it's original caliber not .30-06 and when we captured German StG 44 rifles we should have taken all the machinery and manufactured them here in the States.
Then we should have put our best firearms designers to work perfecting the rifle. Sadly America has done some real stupid shit when it comes to military arms. Hell they even screwed up the AR in the beginning changing the powder leaving out the chrome lining etc. We have some real turds who think they know better. Even today with the retarded sig rifles. I have a few M1 and M1A rifles and my Father had an M14 so it's not that I don't like them but we could have done so much better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 3:12:44 PM EDT
[#21]
For sure it had its issues but I love the M14/M1A. It’s quirky but sexy.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 3:14:10 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HenryKnoxFineBooks: The Krag didn't have a long service life, either. The M14 program was a forerunner of modern military procurement. It started off being a magazine fed M1 for 7.62 NATO ammunition. And then it became the replacement for the M1, BAR, M1 Carbine, the submachine gun ..... trying to do everything meant doing almost nothing well. They could have picked the FAL (or the AR10). But no, not made here thingy. |
|
|
|
IA, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 3:16:38 PM EDT
[#23]
I have one. I like it, but yeah, there's much better stuff to go war with. The last gasp of the Camp Perry Mafia.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 3:23:00 PM EDT
[#24]
The rifle was good, except the wood did not like southeast Asia.
The round was too overpowered for automatic fire but the US head of ordinance was determined that anything less than a full power .30 caliber was unacceptable. |
|
|
|
KY, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 3:23:45 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jozsi: 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 Because it wasn’t a piece of shit Most complaints about it with some exceptions are people who have never used it in combat. The majority of soldiers liked it in actual combat use. Biggest complaint from most was its weight |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 3:24:35 PM EDT
[#26]
hold on like a Man and its highly controllable. fired alot of M14 FA. its a great firearm. ill buy all yours cheap
since Arfcom hates them. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By kells81: Worst- debatable Useless in FA- yes An absolute must own for any collection- yes https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/43495/IMG_0001-3025425.jpg |
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 3:25:43 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By USMCTanker: No, but the users I know weren’t so-called “fobbits” either. I saw, with my own eyes, M14s in Afghanistan. They were carried by FOB mayors, or carried along in trucks as additional weapons, but when guys got out to walk places they took their M4s. Different people saw different things, especially if they were in different places or at different times, but my experience is that by 2010 no one carried those things when they had to walk anywhere farther than the chow hall. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 3:35:04 PM EDT
[#28]
The 14 was a great rifle that was executed poorly. We have the power of hindsight and we know what the future was going to be when we look back to the 1950’s.
But it’s the internet, so experts are dumbasses and dumbasses are experts. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 3:40:13 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Colt653: I LOVE the M14 . . . . . . ….but the STG.44 and AKM took things to the next level This |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 3:41:06 PM EDT
[#30]
send em all to me... LOL
|
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 3:45:46 PM EDT
[#31]
How we got it doesn't matter,I have significant time on it and all the platforms that followed up to the M4A1 . The 14 is a pita to scope or add modern accessories to ,but for pure killing even at my current age I can still smoke check savages at 600 meters with irons . I qualified with FN's & G3's back in the day but still like the 14 M1A better. In a Mac M2A with Brookfield My and decent glass it is a great DMR rifle . Rant off.
|
|
|
CA, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 3:53:19 PM EDT
[#32]
Personally, I think the M1A/M14, was fun to shoot, but then I am only carrying it from the trunk of my to the shooting bench maybe a couple hundred feet, under combat conditions that maybe different. Each 7.62NATO rifle has its plusses and minuses. Personally like the HK G3/HK91 configuration. BTW there are very rare HK93/5.56NATO/223 Rem in the US before there was a ban on importing assault rifles, I recall reading there is like only 3.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 3:55:57 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fargo007: Then why is it so fuckin' fun to shoot? huh? HUH?!?!? I snorted |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 3:56:14 PM EDT
[#34]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 3:58:41 PM EDT
[#35]
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. You forgot less accurate. I had no idea that the accuracy requirements for the M14 were so loose. 5.5. MOA for a 5 shot group is really not good at all and they had tons of trouble just getting rifles to pass that. That being said (and yes I own both M14 and FAL type rifles) the FAL is a far superior military issue weapon in every way. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 4:01:33 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By akcaribouhunter: Certain relatives that served in Vietnam would say no. They learned real quick how to handle and shoot it. Loved mine in basic would have hated it in VN |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 4:04:19 PM EDT
[#37]
I like playing with them. My personal M1As are pretty sweet and it wouldn't really bother me to use them as general purpose rifles.
But I'm happy with my M4s as a service weapon. I do miss my A2 a bit though. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 4:06:54 PM EDT
[#38]
My dad carried an M14 in Vietnam. He did not fight in the jungles. He was in rice paddy country around Da Nang. He was quite fond of the rifle, but typical engagements involved VC firing on patrols from tree lines several hundred yards away, trying to inflict some casualties, and then get out before the counter attack. Obviously, the M14 shined in that type of environment. Long range fire at fleeing VC was far more common than up close firefights on full auto.
|
|
|
|
ISR
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 4:16:26 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brosnarp: I saw, with my own eyes, M14s in Afghanistan. They were carried by FOB mayors, or carried along in trucks as additional weapons, but when guys got out to walk places they took their M4s. Different people saw different things, especially if they were in different places or at different times, but my experience is that by 2010 no one carried those things when they had to walk anywhere farther than the chow hall. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brosnarp: Originally Posted By USMCTanker: No, but the users I know weren’t so-called “fobbits” either. I saw, with my own eyes, M14s in Afghanistan. They were carried by FOB mayors, or carried along in trucks as additional weapons, but when guys got out to walk places they took their M4s. Different people saw different things, especially if they were in different places or at different times, but my experience is that by 2010 no one carried those things when they had to walk anywhere farther than the chow hall. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 4:18:26 PM EDT
[#40]
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. Its is but it's 30 years out of date. It was eclipsed by better designs. That being read, I read Garand actually intended the M1 to be mag fed, and went with the 8 round clip for the Army submission. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 4:18:49 PM EDT
[#41]
I’ll pass on the M1A fandom. AR10 every day in every way…. Master race
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 4:19:48 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By USMCTanker: 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 4:24:09 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By motoguzzi: The rifle was good, except the wood did not like southeast Asia. The round was too overpowered for automatic fire but the US head of ordinance was determined that anything less than a full power .30 caliber was unacceptable. I've heard that before. Strange you never hear that about the M1 and it was all over the Jungles in WWII. |
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 4:26:00 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LongTrang: lol So why does the M1 get a pass? It's all 1930's tech. Because the M1 was adopted in 1936…. The M1 Garand was awesome for its time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 4:35:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TheRealBluedog]
[#45]
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. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 4:39:43 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brosnarp: Very unauthorized. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0257000.pdf Did you see a lot of M14s outside the wire during your time in GWOT? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brosnarp: Originally Posted By brownbomber: I was unaware of that. Was that an unauthorized material substitution? I don't believe 1330 is listed as an acceptable alternate on the drawing. Very unauthorized. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0257000.pdf Originally Posted By USMCTanker: Sure Did you see a lot of M14s outside the wire during your time in GWOT? Thanks bro. |
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 4:40:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: deanwormer]
[#47]
Clicked thread expecting it to be full of boomer Copium and was NOT disappointed.
Y’all do realize “worst” doesn’t mean “bad”. All US service rifles have been at least decent, even the Krag. But such a very short service life, and the fact Springfield armory effectively ceased to exist after this rifle (and from then on the military relied on commercial vendors)… is a big clue it’s not at the top end of ranking us service rifles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 4:40:17 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheRealBluedog: My dad carried an M14 in Vietnam. He did not fight in the jungles. He was in rice paddy country around Da Nang. He was quite fond of the rifle, but typical engagements involved VC firing on patrols from tree lines several hundred yards away, trying to inflict some casualties, and then get out before the counter attack. Obviously, the M14 shined in that type of environment. Long range fire at fleeing VC was far more common than up close firefights on full auto. Arty and gunships the PRC-25 being the most effective weapon. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 4:40:32 PM EDT
[#49]
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. It is. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 4:42:52 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By USMCTanker: 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. 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. |
|
|
|
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.
