User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 4:43:27 PM EDT
[#1]
Funny how the M14 was built for the war before. With the probability of a Pacific war in the future, I wonder if history is repeating itself with the NGSW, and what will precipitate from that decision when we're back on islands and in jungles. |
|
|
|
AK, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 4:44:29 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: If I was defending an area and had to pick something in .308, I'd take an M134 and not worry about it. FAL would be my second choice. FIFY |
|
|
LA, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 4:46:05 PM EDT
[#3]
Around 1987-1988, the guys at Ft Bragg would build you a nice M1A if you provided a receiver and match grade barrel.
With young eyes you shoot golf balls at 100 yards with all the cheap Lake city match ammo in the white boxes. Just another one of those guns I should have kept. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 4:48:18 PM EDT
[#4]
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. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Orion10182011: Originally Posted By LongTrang: 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. Compared to a 5 shot bolt action the M1 is a good upgrade. The M-14, compared to other designs at the time, was underwhelming. |
|
|
AK, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 4:49:58 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By deanwormer: 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. Yep that's what I got from the video. A decent rifle picked at a time when many didn't know the shape war would take in the future. That ended up not right for that future war with a sub par roll out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 4:50:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: BB]
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Creole_Cat: Around 1987-1988, the guys at Ft Bragg would build you a nice M1A if you provided a receiver and match grade barrel. With young eyes you shoot golf balls at 100 yards with all the cheap Lake city match ammo in the white boxes. Just another one of those guns I should have kept. Hook Boutin built my M14S 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 4:52:04 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Orion10182011: I've heard that before. Strange you never hear that about the M1 and it was all over the Jungles in WWII. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Orion10182011: Originally 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. The "cheating" involved in getting the T44/M14 to beat the T48 FAL was pretty epic. If nothing else, it gives a good example of why getting rid of Springfield Armory was overdue. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 4:52:07 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 9divdoc: Arty and gunships the PRC-25 being the most effective weapon. Lol you can say that all the way back to the start of artillery. Battles were always won with prompt and accurate comms no matter the form. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 4:53:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Alien]
[#9]
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. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Orion10182011: Originally Posted By LongTrang: 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? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 4:55:04 PM EDT
[#10]
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. |
|
|
|
KS, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 4:55:39 PM EDT
[#11]
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. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Orion10182011: Originally Posted By LongTrang: 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. The same way the P-51 could be a great fighter in 1944 and obsolete as a fighter in 1954. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 4:58:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Square66]
[#12]
Not taking the bait and giving them a click.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 4:59:17 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fssf158: The same way the P-51 could be a great fighter in 1944 and obsolete as a fighter in 1954. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fssf158: Originally Posted By Orion10182011: Originally Posted By LongTrang: 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. The same way the P-51 could be a great fighter in 1944 and obsolete as a fighter in 1954.  WHY DID WE NOT THINK OF THIS BEFORE NOW?!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 5:01:15 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheRealBluedog: 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. You are correct that the Battle Rifle concept as whole was flawed. It should have been abandoned the second an STG-44 was captured. That doesn’t mean that M-14 didn’t have issues outside of the failed battle rifle experiment. The manual of arms was very dated even for the time, compared to the FAL as an example. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 5:01:28 PM EDT
[#15]
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. Why? I'd much rather have a m14 then a garand. I'd agree it was outdated for it's time. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 5:01:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Alien]
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Square66: Not taking the bait and giving them a click. "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." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 5:05:29 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheRealBluedog: 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? So you are saying that because Group A picked the Apple over the Pear, and Group B picked the Apple over the Bananna then the Bananna is worse than the Pear? What about the Orange? Your analytical method is garbage. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 5:09:55 PM EDT
[#18]
OP is correct today.
The m14 only existed because of the corrupt US ordnance board trying to protect it's existence instead of trying to find better options and more effective weapons for soldiers. |
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 5:10:25 PM EDT
[#19]
I had a FAL, HK91 and an M1A. I kept the M1A. In all fairness, I didn't try an AR10. I think I will and then make my final choice.
|
|
|
MN, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 5:10:36 PM EDT
[#20]
-FAL
-G3 -M14 -all others including SCAR |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 5:10:59 PM EDT
[#21]
As a main battle rifle in the hands of the majority of an infantry platoon, it leaves much to be desired.
As a designated marksman rifle, it does pretty well. We had a few guys sporting M14s with optics on them during OIF in the mid 2000s. |
|
|
|
KS, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 5:11:57 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IceChimp: Well, just in response to the thread title - Nobody would pick, say, a trapdoor Springfield or a P17 or anything that predates them over an M14 if offered both and told to pick one to go into combat with, I think most would even pick an M14 over an M1 Garand because it is an incremental improvement so definitely not the worst ever even if it had its problems at the time it was adopted. I think you’re looking at it from the wrong angle. The question is not how it compares to what came before it, but how it compares to competing options from its own time. Few would argue that the Brewster Buffalo wasn’t better than an F4B. It was known as a poor fighter because it sucked compared to its contemporaries, the Wildcat and Zero. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 5:12:34 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brosnarp: 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. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brosnarp: Originally 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. So. like all the "bad heat treat" 01A1 problems? Or, because specifically some H&R receivers had problems we can generalize to "more likely to blow up?" Yeah, I get it. You don't like the M-14. I do, so that's where we are. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 5:13:23 PM EDT
[#24]
I've enjoyed several mags of FA fire behind one. The E2 stock helps and with a bi pod it's pretty easy to stay on target. Off hand it becomes a handful.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 5:14:48 PM EDT
[#25]
I've had multiple G3 derivatives and I'd take an M14 over that all day. Better sights, trigger, and mag changes. FAL also has worse sights and trigger, but slightly better mag changes. VS a Para FAL I'd probably give it a tie.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 5:17:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: M1Zeppelin]
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fadedsun: OP is correct today. The m14 only existed because of the corrupt US ordnance board trying to protect it's existence instead of trying to find better options and more effective weapons for soldiers. But now we have an army ordinance adopting fire arms with out even real testing. (See Sig pistol) The only thing Springfield Armory was guilty of was claiming they could do more than they actually could. Even in the video he says that the SA rifles were the only ones that didn’t lack in quality control. While the whole endeavor actually hurt Winchester and any other company that touched the contract. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 5:21:51 PM EDT
[#27]
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. The M14 EBR rifles were carried outside the wire pretty often in Afghanistan in 2010. They had some issues but they were certainly in active use as SDM rifles. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 5:21:56 PM EDT
[#28]
Laughs in Ross rifle. Keep it super clean and don't reassemble the bolt backwards.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 5:24:59 PM EDT
[#29]
I don’t agree with this guy on anything but here’s his take.
 Why I Despise the M14... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 5:33:25 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Alien: No dude, if you strap a radar pod and some guided A2A missiles onto it, it'll totally be the best plane of all time! WHY DID WE NOT THINK OF THIS BEFORE NOW?!They did try to revamp the P51 as a ground attack plane in the 70s (80s?) for use against the WP in Europe. |
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 5:34:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: brosnarp]
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Strela: So. like all the "bad heat treat" 01A1 problems? Or, because specifically some H&R receivers had problems we can generalize to "more likely to blow up?" Yeah, I get it. You don't like the M-14. I do, so that's where we are. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Strela: So. like all the "bad heat treat" 01A1 problems? Or, because specifically some H&R receivers had problems we can generalize to "more likely to blow up?" Yeah, I get it. You don't like the M-14. I do, so that's where we are. If you like the M14 as a person, that's totally cool. I think they're neat on a personal level. Never the less, the M14 was a disaster as a service rifle: a rifle purchased by a nation for it's army. It was supposed to be cheap and easy to produce using existing machinery; it was actually expensive and difficult to produce, requiring the invention of new manufacturing and analysis techniques. It was supposed to replace smaller weapons as well as the previous service rifle; it ended up larger than the previous rifle, let alone the smaller weapons. It was a poor execution of a fundamentally bad idea, which is why it had such a short service life as a service rifle. Originally Posted By FightingHellfish: The M14 EBR rifles were carried outside the wire pretty often in Afghanistan in 2010. They had some issues but they were certainly in active use as SDM rifles. That's not what I saw in my part of Afghanistan; at least not for dismounted stuff. What I saw was more like what BobRoberts reported. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 5:37:19 PM EDT
[#32]
This is my poor man's attempt as a sort of DMR/lets-make-this-as-heavy-as-possible rig...
 Attached File Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 5:40:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Jason280]
[#33]
What's crazy, I know that AR platform .308s are cheaper. Are much more user friendly and easier to scope and rebarrel. Have much better trigger options. Mags are cheaper. And are almost always more accurate without any tinkering. That being said, none of my .308 ARs make me smile the way I do when I pick up an MIA.
Eta: or Garand, for that matter. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 5:40:27 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By yamahawarrior89: Rated troll Rated Troll+++ |
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 5:42:15 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheRealBluedog: What Ian McCollum, and most detractors of the M4 do not seem to realize, is that most of the criticisms they level at the M14, Are really criticisms of the battle rifle concept in general. I’m well aware of all of the attempts by the army to sabotage the AR 15 and the AR10 before it. But if the United States had adopted the FAL, it would’ve had all of the same problems in Vietnam, that the M4 had. None of the criticisms were unique to that rifle, but were in fact, criticisms of 30 caliber rifles, firing, full powered ammunition. The Rhodesians settled this debate 50 years ago. In their testing, they determined that any shooter, regardless of skill level could consistently put 1.5 to 2 rounds on target with an AK-47, for every round they could put on target with an FAL. After determining this, the Rhodesians attempted to train their soldiers to better use the FAL, and repeated the tests and found that training them more on the FAL made them even better with the AK. The end result was the better you got with the FAL the better you also got with the AK, and you were still able to deliver accurate fire, from a less accurate rifle, at double the speed. It isn't just that, although that was most of it. It's also that the M14 is just an improved M1, and continues the faults of that rifle. The FAL also has it's faults, it's basically the same design as the SVT-38, with well established accuracy issues due to the tilting bolt locking system. |
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 5:44:01 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SemperGumbi: 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. Similar to M1. IIRC: three ten shot groups, average no worse than 5.5 MOA and worst no more than 8 MOA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 5:44:41 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FightingHellfish: They did try to revamp the P51 as a ground attack plane in the 70s (80s?) for use against the WP in Europe. Now back to the normally scheduled purse swinging... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 5:46:18 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Square66: Not taking the bait and giving them a click. Very good thought process.  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 5:47:55 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By K30MuleLAR15: Very good thought process. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/this-gif-793.gif Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By K30MuleLAR15: Originally Posted By Square66: Not taking the bait and giving them a click. Very good thought process. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/this-gif-793.gif A vow of chastity from the guntube. The piety is noted. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 5:52:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Square66]
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Alien: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 6:01:03 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By kells81: Useless in FA- yes I would like to try one full auto, chambered in .243. Tony |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 6:01:33 PM EDT
[#42]
As I sit here having a M14 on my table I know that it will do the job near and far. With my Nightforce and thermal I know day or night the floppies will succumb to freedom. There is a reason that the M14 Serves today.  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 6:03:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TheRealBluedog]
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SemperGumbi: So you are saying that because Group A picked the Apple over the Pear, and Group B picked the Apple over the Bananna then the Bananna is worse than the Pear? What about the Orange? Your analytical method is garbage. It’s a shame that your father never taught you to argue. I was tempted to just ignore your comment, but I think it would be good for you if I responded. Your reading comprehension is garbage. Not only did you engage in a classic logical fallacy, it’s clear that you didn’t understand my argument. To a certain extent, that’s my fault as I was always taught that communication is the responsibility of the person attempting to communicate, But your natural inclination is to resort to personal attack. Now to clarify, I did not say that the M14 is better than the FAL. I responded to the argument that the FAL is better than the M14, as proven by the fact that the M14 was quickly phased out once used in combat. That’s the argument that detractors of the M14 Make. What they overlook, is that the FAL was also rapidly phased out when used in the same conditions that led to the M4 being phased out. The only position that I have advocated in this thread, is that criticisms of the M 14, are in fact criticisms of the battle rifle concept in general, and not the M14 in particular. You are free to disagree with that assertion if you would like, but it would behoove you to attempt to do so by citing a fact based argument that the M14 is specifically and uniquely flawed, and that criticisms of that platform do not apply to other battle rifles. Or you can continue to say stupid shit. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 6:03:37 PM EDT
[#44]
This is fun back and forth, but no one's arguing for using one in a serious capacity in 2024 right?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 6:12:06 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AbleArcher: This is fun back and forth, but no one's arguing for using one in a serious capacity in 2024 right? Beyond a DMR I don't think so. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 6:12:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TheRealBluedog]
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AbleArcher: This is fun back and forth, but no one's arguing for using one in a serious capacity in 2024 right? I’m certainly not. I am simply arguing that the M14 was no worse choice at the time it was adopted than the FAL, or the G3. Yes it would have been better if the United States had adopted the AR 15 from the outset, and a little bit better if the AR 10 had been chosen, but any full power battle rifle that the United States chose to adopt would have been quickly phased out in favor of the AR 15, once its flaws in combat were demonstrated. The FAL or G3 would have fared no better, and there is no criticism you can level at the M14, based on its use in Vietnam, that could not also be leveled at the G3 and the FAL. In fact, if you use all three rifles where they are best suited, such as wide, open spaces and long range encounters, the M14 is superior to either of the other two because of its superior sites and better inherent accuracy. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 6:15:57 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RedFox1911: Beyond a DMR I don't think so. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RedFox1911: Originally Posted By AbleArcher: This is fun back and forth, but no one's arguing for using one in a serious capacity in 2024 right? Beyond a DMR I don't think so. Wait, what? |
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 6:20:39 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Alien: 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." 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 6:22:41 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheRealBluedog: 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. The battle rifle concept was overtaken by events. That does not change the fact that the M-14 was an especially-flawed example of a battle rifle. It had no reason to exist at all aside from the FAL not being invented here. A gun that imprecise or inaccurate should at least be reliable. A gun that unreliable should at least be accurate without 87 extra steps that have to be redone every few hundred rounds. It has all the accuracy of the FALs I've owned without the reliability or the ergonomics. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 6:23:12 PM EDT
[#50]
  
|
|
|
|
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.
