User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 11:54:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: towerofpower94]
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StraightShootinGal: 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." Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StraightShootinGal: Originally Posted By Papaw: It is sad to see the POINT has sailed over so many heads here. It is not about the rifle, it is about the concept of the rifle and cartridge. Too much rifle, too much cartridge. We SHOULD have replaced the M1 with a true assault rifle firing a true intermediate round. We did not. It is not the M14's fault, nor is it the 7.62x51mm round's fault. Both are fine. Great, even. US Ordnance dropped the ball and refused to arm our Fighting Men with a modern weapon. 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." I quoted your buddy once, but I’ll do it again. You think adopting the FG-42 and its cartridge was a good idea? You come across a German arms room in 1944, see the STG-44 and FG-42, and you think ‘grab that big ass one with the mag hanging out the side that’s chambered in a cartridge with even more recoil than our 30-06’ is the path you’d take? |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 11:55:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: SteelonSteel]
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: 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. As the world has come to terms with realizing that 87% of combat rifle use is under 300 meters, most often well under. Any of them are good enough for that. Our accuracy mean radius on the garand was 4 inches iirc. That’s an 8 inch ish group (mean radius isn’t strictly radius so it’s not exact). I forgot the rest of the details but it wasn’t that hard a standard and most rifles as built exceeded the requirement easily. Can a rifle hit a head and shoulders target sticking out of a foxhole? That’s about all it required at a reasonable distance. I wouldn’t have felt ill armed with a L1a1. Well until you also add their optic which was on a fragile craptastic mount. Personally I think an intermediate cartridge with a 6-7mm diameter projectile would be ideal, don’t even make it a big fat one. a .400 or slightly bigger sized case head. Keep a 7.62 sized medium machine gun. The 6.5 Lapua or 6mm Lapua is about the high end of power needed. The new fangled super high pressure army round I think is going to end up being problematic in wear and tear. I am guessing of course but there is no free lunch. I liken the new cartridge to the ten year mission creep development of the M14 rifle. A bit of a boondoggle. |
|
|
TN, USA
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 12:08:58 PM EDT
[#3]
The .gov f*cks up everything it touches.
We don't want .276 Pedersen because we have so much .30-06 stacked > larger gun with less capacity .30 cal M1 Garand We don't want semi-auto guns because it wastes too much ammunition > M1 Garand We don't want box magazines because it wastes too much ammunition > M-14 We don't want infantry rifle full auto because it wastes too much ammunition > M-14, M-2 Carbine We want a different cartridge > .30-06 to .308 and NATO must adopt We don't want .280 British round because it's not powerful enough > 5.56x45 and NATO must adopt I personally enjoyed the Garands and M1A I owned, even the PTR-91 clones. I never owned a FAL so I have no opinion on those. I thought they were great rifles and preferred the M1A over the others. But I found to get the most out of that caliber they should be scoped, that's when I discovered adding a scope and mount made a heavy rifle, heavier and more cumbersome. Even though I never got to fire, hold or even see one in real life, it appears the Italians got it right with the BM-59. But the insanity of the U.S. military arms dept. and their spending of millions in R&D to save money on creating a one weapon to replace 3 or 4 other weapons is apparent. I believe they had to change the M1 Garand drastically enough to justify it's existence and adoption, otherwise it made no sense to adopt it. The BM-59 was the perfect upgrade to the Garand although I'm not a fan of bipods on a rifle and the grenade sight wasn't obtrusive enough to tolerate. I also liked the detachable muzzle device which when removed seemed to shorten the overall length some. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 12:13:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Square66]
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brosnarp: 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. I have fired plenty of rounds through both and still own both (own a FAL and a PTR-91 too for comparison). Objectively I would say the M14 offers better accuracy than the BM59 in my experience. It’s a more efficient package with the shorter action designed around the 7.62X51 NATO cartridge. Thus why the BM59 has to make do with those bulkier mags going into a receiver designed around the 30-06. They are both good rifles either way. Then again my reply wasn’t making the claim that the M14 is so much better than the BM59. It was more a response to some of the people that seemed to take the position that the M14 was garbage and that the BM59 is vastly superior. It is with those people I would take exception and ask them the same question you just asked me but in reverse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 12:37:58 PM EDT
[#5]
My buddy says:
"MG-42 in 8x57 GPMG FG-42 in 8x57 as a sort of squad auto. Direct replacement for the BAR. For those unaware, it was a righteous weapon and very controllable. MP-43/44/StG-44 in 8x33 as an assault rifle. Most would be carrying these. G/K-43 in 8x57 as a DMR. Maybe have a few K-98s as sniper rifles. A few 9x19 SMGs that use a double feed magazine or drum. GP-35 in 9x19 as side arms. The main point of using mostly German WW2 stuff in their original caliber is to immediately get away from our very obsolete WW2 small arms. Apparently most on GD don't realize how underarmed we were post WW2. Korea was a disaster because of that. There was no legitimate reason to hang onto our small arms and .30 cal after WW2, just politics. Use as much German WW2 stuff as we could get RFN, then start developing a modern sub .30 cal replacement." |
|
|
|
AK, USA
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 12:41:43 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Alex_F: 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. I owned one in a similar time in my life. My previously mentioned experience had me buying an NM M1A for an incredible deal post deployment. I even went and bought an EBR Chassis for it. Finding and buying those things in 2007 was a bit different than it is today. After lots of money spent trying to make it all cool and uber tactical I realized my error. Same as when people get the tapco for their SKS. Old relics of the past like these are best kept in their original set up. Stick to the iron sights, wood furniture, stripper clips, and just have fun. These things aren't suited to be used with optics, rails, and lights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 12:53:38 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By -OdieGreen-: 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. Solid post. Agreed. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 12:58:55 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By towerofpower94: You’d take an M14 over an AK47? Really? What’s your thought process for that decision? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By towerofpower94: Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: Everybody that's bitching about the M14/M1A needs to remember that virtually every nation has failed numerous times at making "top tier" rifles. In the '50s, what was the competition? The FAL? Sure, I'll be willing to grant the FAL was mechanically a better design for the most part, but the FAL was never a better shooter, never had a better trigger, never had better irons, and the M14 was similar to the M1, so it had familiarity with troops that the FAL didn't. Even today, I'd probably never choose an FAL over an M1A, whether we're talking about shooting hogs or zombies. The G3? Please. Just no. The AK47? It's not quite apples-to-apples, but still no. It took a while, but we eventually ended up with something that has almost no peer...and yet we're now looking to ditch it in favor of this new Sig. You’d take an M14 over an AK47? Really? What’s your thought process for that decision? When your property is measured by an odometer, not a tape measure, it tends to steer you in certain directions with regard to tools and equipment. Also, as previously stated, the M1A's trigger, recoil pulse, and iron sights set a pretty high bar for anything chambered in .30 cal. The AK has its place, but that place isn't around here. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 1:00:40 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StraightShootinGal: My buddy says: "MG-42 in 8x57 GPMG FG-42 in 8x57 as a sort of squad auto. Direct replacement for the BAR. For those unaware, it was a righteous weapon and very controllable. MP-43/44/StG-44 in 8x33 as an assault rifle. Most would be carrying these. G/K-43 in 8x57 as a DMR. Maybe have a few K-98s as sniper rifles. A few 9x19 SMGs that use a double feed magazine or drum. GP-35 in 9x19 as side arms. The main point of using mostly German WW2 stuff in their original caliber is to immediately get away from our very obsolete WW2 small arms. Apparently most on GD don't realize how underarmed we were post WW2. Korea was a disaster because of that. There was no legitimate reason to hang onto our small arms and .30 cal after WW2, just politics. Use as much German WW2 stuff as we could get RFN, then start developing a modern sub .30 cal replacement."  Your buddy is tier 5+. Wars generally aren't won or lost by small arms, particularly those that aren't crew served. Korea in particular was decided more by geopolitics and RoE than outcomes of tactical engagements on the ground. The idea that we should have "immediately" adopted the full suite of German small arms at the end of WWII is pants on head clown level nonsense. The most important and most successful firearm of WWII was built and fielded by the United States of America, and she's still on the front lines today:  Lastly, if we're going to get into revisionist hypotheticals, the obvious one would be that the US should have developed a rifle about halfway in between the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine, and this should have been a magazine fed rifle with an intermediate cartridge of some flavor. Basically it, it should have been a Mini 14 type of thing that was less investment cast Ruger with cheap parts and more 1940s USGI in construction. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 1:09:57 PM EDT
[#10]
The M-14 was designed to fight on the plains of europe not in the soggy jungles in southeastern asia. It was intended to be an intermediate term solution until the U.S. Army sorted out what it really needed.
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 1:13:42 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Square66: I have fired plenty of rounds through both and still own both (own a FAL and a PTR-91 too for comparison). Objectively I would say the M14 offers better accuracy than the BM59 in my experience. It’s a more efficient package with the shorter action designed around the 7.62X51 NATO cartridge. Thus why the BM59 has to make do with those bulkier mags going into a receiver designed around the 30-06. They are both good rifles either way. Then again my reply wasn’t making the claim that the M14 is so much better than the BM59. It was more a response to some of the people that seemed to take the position that the M14 was garbage and that the BM59 is vastly superior. It is with those people I would take exception and ask them the same question you just asked me but in reverse. The BM59 is the more efficient package. The longer action on it makes recoil smoother improving controllability. Also, it can use modified Garand receivers and can be built on Garand tooling, one of the few reasons to continue using what was just an improved Garand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 1:16:42 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Different: This is the conclusion I've arrived at. You run what you have in your hands. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Different: Originally Posted By Papaw: It is not about the rifle, it is about the concept of the rifle and cartridge. Too much rifle, too much cartridge. We SHOULD have replaced the M1 with a true assault rifle firing a true intermediate round. We did not. It is not the M14's fault, nor is it the 7.62x51mm round's fault. Both are fine. Great, even. US Ordnance dropped the ball and refused to arm our Fighting Men with a modern weapon. This is the conclusion I've arrived at. You run what you have in your hands. I haven't noticed you around the board for quite a while. Nice to see you drop in! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 1:27:47 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StraightShootinGal: My buddy says: "MG-42 in 8x57 GPMG FG-42 in 8x57 as a sort of squad auto. Direct replacement for the BAR. For those unaware, it was a righteous weapon and very controllable. MP-43/44/StG-44 in 8x33 as an assault rifle. Most would be carrying these. G/K-43 in 8x57 as a DMR. Maybe have a few K-98s as sniper rifles. A few 9x19 SMGs that use a double feed magazine or drum. GP-35 in 9x19 as side arms. The main point of using mostly German WW2 stuff in their original caliber is to immediately get away from our very obsolete WW2 small arms. Apparently most on GD don't realize how underarmed we were post WW2. Korea was a disaster because of that. There was no legitimate reason to hang onto our small arms and .30 cal after WW2, just politics. Use as much German WW2 stuff as we could get RFN, then start developing a modern sub .30 cal replacement." We were not under armed in Korea. We were understaffed. American doctrine was still top notch. Our institutional memory on how to fight a war was extremely fresh. That being said, German equipment was good but it is not what everyone thinks it was. Everyone thinks it’s all STG-44’s, MG-42’s and Tigers when in reality it was 98k’s, MG-34’s and Stugs. There’s a reason Americans had a saying “every tank a Tiger and every gun a 88”. German propaganda was so good that it’s still being repeated 70 years later. Now M1’s, Corsair’s, and Sherman’s killed a shit ton of communist. You want to talk about being under equipped, the Brits didn’t ditch the water cooled Vickers and Enfields until the late 50’s and early 60’s. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 1:28:09 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Foxtrott_4: Only american boomers think that the M14 is better than a FAL or G3. The M14 is really sexy though and a brilliant wallhanger  As someone who qualifies for that statement, I'll take you on, As I've had extensive experience in all three. The HK was crap, crap trigger, crap ergos, and the recoil impulse was wicked awful. Sights were mediocre. Mag changes were awful. Was it reliable, sure. FN Long, crap trigger, Ok sights, accuracy was nothing to write home about. I shot crates of Hirtenberg and Portuguese thru mine. recoil was a bit stiff due to the lighter weight, but that trigger..... god awful. I liked the safety on it and field stripping was very good. M1A Great trigger, consistent, great irons if you were trained and had a clue. reliable, accurate. I got rid of everything else and kept the M1A. You keep your Belgian and German design. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 1:28:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Square66]
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: The BM59 is the more efficient package. The longer action on it makes recoil smoother improving controllability. Also, it can use modified Garand receivers and can be built on Garand tooling, one of the few reasons to continue using what was just an improved Garand. I’d love to see some objective scientific evidence that the M1 Garand / BM59 long stroke gas system reduces recoil over the White gas piston system found on the M14. It isn’t my experience. As far as using more Garand tooling for production, we are now confusing the issues of operating efficiency of the weapon itself with efficiency of production. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 2:00:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: towerofpower94]
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: When your property is measured by an odometer, not a tape measure, it tends to steer you in certain directions with regard to tools and equipment. Also, as previously stated, the M1A's trigger, recoil pulse, and iron sights set a pretty high bar for anything chambered in .30 cal. The AK has its place, but that place isn't around here. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: Originally Posted By towerofpower94: Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: Everybody that's bitching about the M14/M1A needs to remember that virtually every nation has failed numerous times at making "top tier" rifles. In the '50s, what was the competition? The FAL? Sure, I'll be willing to grant the FAL was mechanically a better design for the most part, but the FAL was never a better shooter, never had a better trigger, never had better irons, and the M14 was similar to the M1, so it had familiarity with troops that the FAL didn't. Even today, I'd probably never choose an FAL over an M1A, whether we're talking about shooting hogs or zombies. The G3? Please. Just no. The AK47? It's not quite apples-to-apples, but still no. It took a while, but we eventually ended up with something that has almost no peer...and yet we're now looking to ditch it in favor of this new Sig. You’d take an M14 over an AK47? Really? What’s your thought process for that decision? When your property is measured by an odometer, not a tape measure, it tends to steer you in certain directions with regard to tools and equipment. Also, as previously stated, the M1A's trigger, recoil pulse, and iron sights set a pretty high bar for anything chambered in .30 cal. The AK has its place, but that place isn't around here. I do not own an M1A, but have read a fair amount about what it required to get them to shoot at known distance matches and the like. Doesn’t seem like a bedded NM M1A is the kind of gun that maintains that level of precision when banged around on a side by side or horse around the property. If Gun Jesus’ statements were correct, the M14 was a 5-6MOA rifle. How many more hundreds of accurate yards are you getting from a rack grade M14 with irons and 147gr FMJ compared to an AKM and steel cased 123gr FMJ? Happy to hear from those who have accurized M1As and used them in the field for extended periods of time. The Vendiagram of M1A owners and action sports shooters doesn’t appear to overlap much though, so I’m not sure how many folks have done both. ETA: I’ll own an M1A eventually and do a |
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 2:03:37 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: The most important and most successful firearm of WWII was built and fielded by the United States of America, and she's still on the front lines today: https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e2b4d72e0e8a059e2f0fbd2375211775.webp As an aircraft gun or perhaps vehicle mount gun, perhaps, but not as an infantry weapon. The MG34/MG42 was probably the most consequential infantry weapon used in large quantity in WW2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 2:06:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: HeavyMetal]
[#18]
Vendiagram Is that like a Wendygram? The M-7 says: “Hold my beer!” |
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 2:07:47 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Square66: I’d love to see some objective scientific evidence that the M1 Garand / BM59 long stroke gas system reduces recoil over the White gas piston system found on the M14. It isn’t my experience. As far as using more Garand tooling for production, we are now confusing the issues of operating efficiency of the weapon itself with efficiency of production. It isn't the gas system but the fact the BM59 used 308 in a 30-06 length action, giving the bolt an extra 1/2" of travel. The AR10 buffer system was designed for basically that reason, but in the case of the BM59 it was a consequence of chambering 308 in a 30-06 length action. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 2:10:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Alex_F]
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: https://preview.redd.it/ez3ggxxabz521.jpg?auto=webp&s=077ede226dcbbeda7da2b92d40591fe34804de2c Your buddy is tier 5+. Wars generally aren't won or lost by small arms, particularly those that aren't crew served. Korea in particular was decided more by geopolitics and RoE than outcomes of tactical engagements on the ground. The idea that we should have "immediately" adopted the full suite of German small arms at the end of WWII is pants on head clown level nonsense. The most important and most successful firearm of WWII was built and fielded by the United States of America, and she's still on the front lines today: https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e2b4d72e0e8a059e2f0fbd2375211775.webp Lastly, if we're going to get into revisionist hypotheticals, the obvious one would be that the US should have developed a rifle about halfway in between the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine, and this should have been a magazine fed rifle with an intermediate cartridge of some flavor. Basically it, it should have been a Mini 14 type of thing that was less investment cast Ruger with cheap parts and more 1940s USGI in construction. Eh, I get the humor in this post but the MG42 was a fantastic GPMG and is still used in various forms today. The German idea of riflemen supporting the MG team... hmm. What happened to that? *scratches head* /edit: missed the thing about the M2. M2 is not an infantry GPMG. Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Yes, I'd love an M2 in a fixed position with lots of ammo. Tote it around in an infantry squad? Did/do you even hump, bro? |
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 2:14:32 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By towerofpower94: I do not own an M1A, but have read a fair amount about what it required to get them to shoot at known distance matches and the like. Doesn’t seem like a bedded NM M1A is the kind of gun that maintains that level of precision when banged around on a side by side or horse around the property. If Gun Jesus’ statements were correct, the M14 was a 5-6MOA rifle. How many more hundreds of accurate yards are you getting from a rack grade M14 with irons and 147gr FMJ compared to an AKM and steel cased 123gr FMJ? Happy to hear from those who have accurized M1As and used them in the field for extended periods of time. The Vendiagram of M1A owners and action sports shooters doesn’t appear to overlap much though, so I’m not sure how many folks have done both. ETA: I’ll own an M1A eventually and do a MSG Shugart clone build to go with my MSG Gordon build. The USMC shooting teams would re-bed their M1As after ~800 rounds, then after another ~800 completely rebuild them. Minimum accuracy requirement for the M1 was three ten shot groups, average no worse than 5.2 MOA with worst allowed 8 MOA. M1A would be pretty much the same, and 308 M1s are noted for being particularly good for matches. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 2:15:52 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By LongTrang: lol So why does the M1 get a pass? It's all 1930's tech. Because the M1 was actually made in the 1930s, not 1957. Also if you actually watch the video he absolutely does not say that the M14 was the "worst service rifle" or anything like that. Only that early production was swamped with QC issues and that by the time they got their shit together it was being replaced with the M16. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 2:38:32 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HeavyMetal: Is that like a Wendygram? The M-7 says: “Hold my beer!” Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HeavyMetal: Vendiagram Is that like a Wendygram? The M-7 says: “Hold my beer!” Haha, autocorrect never ceases to amaze with its creations. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 2:42:17 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: The USMC shooting teams would re-bed their M1As after ~800 rounds, then after another ~800 completely rebuild them. Minimum accuracy requirement for the M1 was three ten shot groups, average no worse than 5.2 MOA with worst allowed 8 MOA. M1A would be pretty much the same, and 308 M1s are noted for being particularly good for matches. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: Originally Posted By towerofpower94: I do not own an M1A, but have read a fair amount about what it required to get them to shoot at known distance matches and the like. Doesn’t seem like a bedded NM M1A is the kind of gun that maintains that level of precision when banged around on a side by side or horse around the property. If Gun Jesus’ statements were correct, the M14 was a 5-6MOA rifle. How many more hundreds of accurate yards are you getting from a rack grade M14 with irons and 147gr FMJ compared to an AKM and steel cased 123gr FMJ? Happy to hear from those who have accurized M1As and used them in the field for extended periods of time. The Vendiagram of M1A owners and action sports shooters doesn’t appear to overlap much though, so I’m not sure how many folks have done both. ETA: I’ll own an M1A eventually and do a MSG Shugart clone build to go with my MSG Gordon build. The USMC shooting teams would re-bed their M1As after ~800 rounds, then after another ~800 completely rebuild them. Minimum accuracy requirement for the M1 was three ten shot groups, average no worse than 5.2 MOA with worst allowed 8 MOA. M1A would be pretty much the same, and 308 M1s are noted for being particularly good for matches. I assume the shooting teams weren’t doing anything with the guns between matches and practice that was even remotely fieldcrafty? I imagine that bedding wasn’t designed to survive rucking, water ops, etc? |
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 2:47:01 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Alex_F: Eh, I get the humor in this post but the MG42 was a fantastic GPMG and is still used in various forms today. The German idea of riflemen supporting the MG team... hmm. What happened to that? *scratches head* /edit: missed the thing about the M2. M2 is not an infantry GPMG. Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Yes, I'd love an M2 in a fixed position with lots of ammo. Tote it around in an infantry squad? Did/do you even hump, bro? Also note the US made things like the 1919A6, a stopgap to make up for a shortcoming in our weapons. Also the fact that Marines were using aircraft mounted Brownings to create beltfed LMGs with similar characteristics to the MG42. BAR and tripod mount 1917s and 1919s were excellent WW1 designs but less than ideal for WW2 conditions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 2:57:10 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AEROMechanic: Correct. However, the M14 sure as hell was. We should've had the FAL or the superior BM59 for that matter. Unfortunately the "Rah Rah America Only" thing was in full effect. For further proof just look at the shitty M60 we got stuck with vs the superior MAG58... Should have had the FAL in .280 Probably still be using a version |
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 2:59:48 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By towerofpower94: I assume the shooting teams weren’t doing anything with the guns between matches and practice that was even remotely fieldcrafty? I imagine that bedding wasn’t designed to survive rucking, water ops, etc? It was for Camp Perry competition shooting. Not any field use. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 3:04:59 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheRealBluedog: 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. Both my HK91 and PTR-91 are some of the softest shooting .308 service rifles I have ever shot. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 3:10:44 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: https://preview.redd.it/ez3ggxxabz521.jpg?auto=webp&s=077ede226dcbbeda7da2b92d40591fe34804de2c Your buddy is tier 5+. Wars generally aren't won or lost by small arms, particularly those that aren't crew served. Korea in particular was decided more by geopolitics and RoE than outcomes of tactical engagements on the ground. The idea that we should have "immediately" adopted the full suite of German small arms at the end of WWII is pants on head clown level nonsense. The most important and most successful firearm of WWII was built and fielded by the United States of America, and she's still on the front lines today: https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e2b4d72e0e8a059e2f0fbd2375211775.webp Lastly, if we're going to get into revisionist hypotheticals, the obvious one would be that the US should have developed a rifle about halfway in between the M1 Garand and the M1 Carbine, and this should have been a magazine fed rifle with an intermediate cartridge of some flavor. Basically it, it should have been a Mini 14 type of thing that was less investment cast Ruger with cheap parts and more 1940s USGI in construction. Well in all honesty, the MG42/MG3 probably is the best GPMG ever designed. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 3:17:15 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By StraightShootinGal: My buddy says: "MG-42 in 8x57 GPMG FG-42 in 8x57 as a sort of squad auto. Direct replacement for the BAR. For those unaware, it was a righteous weapon and very controllable. MP-43/44/StG-44 in 8x33 as an assault rifle. Most would be carrying these. G/K-43 in 8x57 as a DMR. Maybe have a few K-98s as sniper rifles. A few 9x19 SMGs that use a double feed magazine or drum. GP-35 in 9x19 as side arms. The main point of using mostly German WW2 stuff in their original caliber is to immediately get away from our very obsolete WW2 small arms. Apparently most on GD don't realize how underarmed we were post WW2. Korea was a disaster because of that. There was no legitimate reason to hang onto our small arms and .30 cal after WW2, just politics. Use as much German WW2 stuff as we could get RFN, then start developing a modern sub .30 cal replacement." While the Germans had good ideas there were real problems with the STG-44 it was not the most reliable or battle proven design. It was in a sense still in its infancy when it was hitting the battel field. The Germans were still refining the rifle till the wars end but were not able to implement many of the refinements and redesigns. While it functioned it also had lots of failures that had the Germans had the resources and time might have been able to fix and field. By the time it hit the battle field though it was already to late and they were just cranking out whatever they could to keep some sort of supply going to the guys fighting off the Red Horde. The FG-42 is an interesting rifle but again it was never fielded in very large numbers, was complicated, and kind of expensive to make. The G-43 I just have to laugh because the rifle was pretty much a joke and no way the US mil would ever let it have been fielded with the atrocious issues it had. It honestly never was a reliable design and had major design flaws that still needed to be worked out. Plus it was never fielded in huge numbers. So adopting all the German weapons after WW2 would be a disaster as the only viable and really good weapon the Germans were fielding was the K98 and the MG-42. Sure they could have rechambered the MG-42 to an American cartridge but to be honest while it was cheap to produce and easy to manufacture it really did not bring a lot more to the table that our 30cal machine guns we already had. Sure it had a high cyclic rate but that does not always translate to better in a machine gun. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 3:19:18 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By towerofpower94: I do not own an M1A, but have read a fair amount about what it required to get them to shoot at known distance matches and the like. Doesn’t seem like a bedded NM M1A is the kind of gun that maintains that level of precision when banged around on a side by side or horse around the property. If Gun Jesus’ statements were correct, the M14 was a 5-6MOA rifle. How many more hundreds of accurate yards are you getting from a rack grade M14 with irons and 147gr FMJ compared to an AKM and steel cased 123gr FMJ? Happy to hear from those who have accurized M1As and used them in the field for extended periods of time. The Vendiagram of M1A owners and action sports shooters doesn’t appear to overlap much though, so I’m not sure how many folks have done both. ETA: I’ll own an M1A eventually and do a MSG Shugart clone build to go with my MSG Gordon build. Maybe I've just been lucky but I haven't come across too many M14 pattern rifles that aren't at least 4moa guns. I think I have one that has 20 year old bedding in the stock that will still shoot around 1 moa with FGMM. They will never likely be as accurate as an AR pattern but generally do better than person holding them. |
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 3:21:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: centurian318]
[#32]
Springfield Armory had to know better than to think they could just hand the tdp to any manufacturing company and expect acceptable weapons at the end, especially after their experience with the M-1 Carbine production during WWII and International Harvester’s issues with the M-1 Garand during Korea. If anything they should have turned it over to GM or Chrysler. It’s like no one learns from history and keeps trying to reinvent the wheel.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 3:21:26 PM EDT
[#33]
Originally Posted By DonS: As an aircraft gun or perhaps vehicle mount gun, perhaps, but not as an infantry weapon. The MG34/MG42 was probably the most consequential infantry weapon used in large quantity in WW2. Originally Posted By Alex_F: Eh, I get the humor in this post but the MG42 was a fantastic GPMG and is still used in various forms today. The German idea of riflemen supporting the MG team... hmm. What happened to that? *scratches head* /edit: missed the thing about the M2. M2 is not an infantry GPMG. Not sure what point you're trying to make here. Yes, I'd love an M2 in a fixed position with lots of ammo. Tote it around in an infantry squad? Did/do you even hump, bro? I'm aware the MG42 and its DNA is still prominent in the medium MG space. That's the exception, not the norm. Nearly all of the other WWII era German rifles, rifle cartridges, and SMGs were dust in the wind when the surplus dried up. If they were as good as the Wehraboos claim, that wouldn't be the case. I'm also aware that the M2 isn't the sort of weapon that squad or team level light infantry guys are running from position to position during assaults, but in the US Army, even the light units have almost always had vehicular support, and often in the form of Jeeps, HMMWVs, and larger vehicles rolling around with M2s. During WWII, M2s killed anything and everything that can be killed by small arms on land, in the air, and at sea. It had a tremendous impact on the battlefield; I'd argue it was was more impactful than any other weapon under 20mm. It's so good, it's still a dominant front line weapon 100+ years after it was developed, and it's still mostly seen in its original form. |
|
|
|
AR, USA
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 4:26:09 PM EDT
[#34]
They're fun as hell to shoot. I've had mine 20 years and have thousands of rounds through it. Iron sights, wood furniture, leather sling. It is a little heavy. Go to the gym. It's a rifle for somebody who's in shape, especially if you're shooting the positions.
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 4:36:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Square66]
[#35]
Regarding bedding an M14, the modern steel bedding compounds will last the life of a Krieger match barrel. That is 5k rounds give or take before barrel replacement at which time a skim bed would be done.
You know why the military teams skim bedded their rifles more frequently? Because they could, and had the resources to do so in a sport where the top shooters were fighting for X count. In the field even if the bedding loosened up after multiple rounds, disassembly and reassembly, it’s not like the rifle just turns into a 10 MOA fence post overnight. It would still be a fine shooting rifle even if not at its absolute pinnacle of performance after some hard use. The XM25 sniper rifle made all of this a non issue with the Brookfield Precision stock liner made by Mitch Mateiko. Basically a precision made steel liner was bedded into a McMillan fiberglass match stock and it indexed the receiver legs for a perfect steel on steel contact, The bedding would last pretty much indefinitely. Not many of these were produced, but they flat out work. I know because I have two XM25 type rifles built in this fashion and they hammer. Lots of BS internet lore exists about match conditioned M14s that gets parroted by people that have no idea what they are talking about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 4:40:11 PM EDT
[#36]
Man, I think that says a lot about the early M16A1s considering how Marines dumped 'em for M14s.
|
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 4:41:43 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: I'm aware the MG42 and its DNA is still prominent in the medium MG space. That's the exception, not the norm. Nearly all of the other WWII era German rifles, rifle cartridges, and SMGs were dust in the wind when the surplus dried up. If they were as good as the Wehraboos claim, that wouldn't be the case. Of all the infantry weapons of WW2 the best combination was Stg-44 and MG-42. Stg-44 died out due to Germany losing the war. and the low wartime production Same with FG-42. Both were advanced designs, although FG-42 was a dead end due to full power cartridge (just as M-14 was a dead end we continued to push). 7.92Kurtz is basically the same concept as 7.62x39. Arguably more advanced. If we were to limit ourselves to a WW2 cartridge, the choice would be between those two (rather than cutting 1/2" off of the 30-06). The first FAL rifle was in 7.92 kurtz. MP-40 was an excellent SMG, much better than the American competition. P-38 continued after the war and also was the basis for the M-9. The Mauser 98 was THE rifle for decades, but by the time the 98k was adopted in 1935 it's time had passed. Also, the Stg-45(M) led to the CETEME and G3 series of weapons. |
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 4:47:55 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: I'm also aware that the M2 isn't the sort of weapon that squad or team level light infantry guys are running from position to position during assaults, but in the US Army, even the light units have almost always had vehicular support, and often in the form of Jeeps, HMMWVs, and larger vehicles rolling around with M2s. During WWII, M2s killed anything and everything that can be killed by small arms on land, in the air, and at sea. It had a tremendous impact on the battlefield; I'd argue it was was more impactful than any other weapon under 20mm. It's so good, it's still a dominant front line weapon 100+ years after it was developed, and it's still mostly seen in its original form. By far it's most impact was in the AN version on aircraft. In that role one could argue about it vs cannon. The Germans, Soviets and Japanese tended more towards 20 mm. The Brits started out using .303s, then switched to 20 mm. Excluding it's aircraft role I suspect mg-34/42 had more impact. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 4:59:33 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By centurian318: Springfield Armory had to know better than to think they could just hand the tdp to any manufacturing company and expect acceptable weapons at the end, especially after their experience with the M-1 Carbine production during WWII and International Harvester’s issues with the M-1 Garand during Korea. If anything they should have turned it over to GM or Chrysler. It’s like no one learns from history and keeps trying to reinvent the wheel. Springfield tried to screw over IHC and H&R by giving them out of spec test models and jigs. H&R caught it quickly and actually helped IHC unF the trouble. SA was playing protectionist dirty pool. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 5:20:23 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JWnTN: Neither did the M14, but in the hands of Ukrainians, the M14 has slain more than a few Russians. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JWnTN: Originally Posted By Fordtough25: I’m enjoying mine, but I’m not slaying waves of Chinamen either Neither did the M14, but in the hands of Ukrainians, the M14 has slain more than a few Russians. Where and when did Ukraine get M14s? There are getting used in Haiti too |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 6:16:20 PM EDT
[#41]
If you watch Ian's video, he gives the reasons it was a bad service rifle. Most of it had to do with how long it took to field and the production execution. Rather than being an inherently bad design, the US military's "system" was so bad that it took far too long to develop the TDP, the design could have been tweaked a few ways, and then they horribly managed the production.
Imagine a competent arsenal system that, immediately upon completion of WW2, actually did a good job of things: a semi-auto only M14, with an 18 or 20" barrel, chambered for something like .280 Pederson, a stock more like the M14E2, going into production by 1949. It should have been doable. Hell, Beretta basically did exactly that. Would a rifle like that had made a significant impact in Korea? Hard to say, but it would have thoroughly had the kinks worked out by the beginning of the Vietnam War and had a long and more successful service life. Something like the M16 would have eventually replaced it, but it would have happened in a less grabasstic and fucked up way. I know, it's dreaming to think something like this is possible. If America had a company like FN within it's borders, it could have happened. Look at what they did with the BAR, when given the chance:  FN Model D: The Last and Best BAR Imagine something like this, for an intermediate cartridge (like .280 Pederson), scaled down in size and weight a little bit. It would have been an awesome light automatic rifle. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 6:22:05 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Harv24: As someone who qualifies for that statement, I'll take you on, As I've had extensive experience in all three. The HK was crap, crap trigger, crap ergos, and the recoil impulse was wicked awful. Sights were mediocre. Mag changes were awful. Was it reliable, sure. FN Long, crap trigger, Ok sights, accuracy was nothing to write home about. I shot crates of Hirtenberg and Portuguese thru mine. recoil was a bit stiff due to the lighter weight, but that trigger..... god awful. I liked the safety on it and field stripping was very good. M1A Great trigger, consistent, great irons if you were trained and had a clue. reliable, accurate. I got rid of everything else and kept the M1A. You keep your Belgian and German design. The L1a1 trigger is scads better than the FN FAL trigger set up. Still not as nice as a garand trigger. I do not like the ability of the the garand trigger to trip again if you don’t pull it beyond that doubling point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 6:39:12 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By towerofpower94: I do not own an M1A, but have read a fair amount about what it required to get them to shoot at known distance matches and the like. Doesn’t seem like a bedded NM M1A is the kind of gun that maintains that level of precision when banged around on a side by side or horse around the property. If Gun Jesus’ statements were correct, the M14 was a 5-6MOA rifle. How many more hundreds of accurate yards are you getting from a rack grade M14 with irons and 147gr FMJ compared to an AKM and steel cased 123gr FMJ? Happy to hear from those who have accurized M1As and used them in the field for extended periods of time. The Vendiagram of M1A owners and action sports shooters doesn’t appear to overlap much though, so I’m not sure how many folks have done both. ETA: I’ll own an M1A eventually and do a MSG Shugart clone build to go with my MSG Gordon build. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By towerofpower94: Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: Originally Posted By towerofpower94: Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: Everybody that's bitching about the M14/M1A needs to remember that virtually every nation has failed numerous times at making "top tier" rifles. In the '50s, what was the competition? The FAL? Sure, I'll be willing to grant the FAL was mechanically a better design for the most part, but the FAL was never a better shooter, never had a better trigger, never had better irons, and the M14 was similar to the M1, so it had familiarity with troops that the FAL didn't. Even today, I'd probably never choose an FAL over an M1A, whether we're talking about shooting hogs or zombies. The G3? Please. Just no. The AK47? It's not quite apples-to-apples, but still no. It took a while, but we eventually ended up with something that has almost no peer...and yet we're now looking to ditch it in favor of this new Sig. You’d take an M14 over an AK47? Really? What’s your thought process for that decision? When your property is measured by an odometer, not a tape measure, it tends to steer you in certain directions with regard to tools and equipment. Also, as previously stated, the M1A's trigger, recoil pulse, and iron sights set a pretty high bar for anything chambered in .30 cal. The AK has its place, but that place isn't around here. I do not own an M1A, but have read a fair amount about what it required to get them to shoot at known distance matches and the like. Doesn’t seem like a bedded NM M1A is the kind of gun that maintains that level of precision when banged around on a side by side or horse around the property. If Gun Jesus’ statements were correct, the M14 was a 5-6MOA rifle. How many more hundreds of accurate yards are you getting from a rack grade M14 with irons and 147gr FMJ compared to an AKM and steel cased 123gr FMJ? Happy to hear from those who have accurized M1As and used them in the field for extended periods of time. The Vendiagram of M1A owners and action sports shooters doesn’t appear to overlap much though, so I’m not sure how many folks have done both. ETA: I’ll own an M1A eventually and do a MSG Shugart clone build to go with my MSG Gordon build. I think you are forgetting one thing about my posts on the subject: I am only comparing the M1A to other semi-auto .30 caliber rifles and I've stated multiple times there would never be a scenario where I'd choose any of them over an AR15. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 6:49:03 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By PTR32Sooner: Should have had the FAL in .280 Probably still be using a version The FAL is a neat weapon. Personally, I think if the following design flaws were addressed, it would have spanked every one of its peers: 1. The crappy trigger. Maaaaaan, those triggers suck. 2. The iron sights leave a lot to be desired. Not only is the design lackluster, but the front and rear sights are mounted on different parts of the rifle. 3. Seating a mag was never a problem for me, but many people are hung up over how it's done. Not sure if it could ever be changed, but I suppose a different method of inserting the mag would have been more universally accepted. 4. Many people bag on the inability to mount optics, but I always thought DSA fixed that with their flat top mount. Pretty simple fix if you ask me. Not sure why people still think this, but they do. So, the two big flaws are the trigger and the sights. If those issues were addressed and significant improvements were made there, I think the FAL would have been really, really hard to beat. But the AR15/M16 is still better. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 7:04:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: BB]
[#45]
Couple points:
Hook Boutin was the US AMU gunsmith at Benning for like a bazillion years. Dude knew his way around an M14. Was he biased? Probably. But he knew what was up with the M14 more than anyone. The M14 is not the worst service rifle the US fielded; the Krag owns that position with no contention |
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 7:12:49 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By hoss622: If you watch Ian's video, he gives the reasons it was a bad service rifle. Most of it had to do with how long it took to field and the production execution. Rather than being an inherently bad design, the US military's "system" was so bad that it took far too long to develop the TDP, the design could have been tweaked a few ways, and then they horribly managed the production. Imagine a competent arsenal system that, immediately upon completion of WW2, actually did a good job of things: a semi-auto only M14, with an 18 or 20" barrel, chambered for something like .280 Pederson, a stock more like the M14E2, going into production by 1949. It should have been doable. Hell, Beretta basically did exactly that. Would a rifle like that had made a significant impact in Korea? Hard to say, but it would have thoroughly had the kinks worked out by the beginning of the Vietnam War and had a long and more successful service life. Something like the M16 would have eventually replaced it, but it would have happened in a less grabasstic and fucked up way. I know, it's dreaming to think something like this is possible. If America had a company like FN within it's borders, it could have happened. Look at what they did with the BAR, when given the chance:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0YfOPrE3u0Imagine something like this, for an intermediate cartridge (like .280 Pederson), scaled down in size and weight a little bit. It would have been an awesome light automatic rifle. Army Ordnance was the root of the problem. And it isn't the US way to allow a company to have that much clout. Also, the basic idea of converting the M1 into a perfect rifle was wrong. The BM-59 was great in large part because the Italians accepted the inherent limitations. The BM-59 was excellent in terms of cost to benefit ratio, the M14 was the opposite. They were both similar rifles with similar performance, the US just managed to throw significantly more resources at it. |
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 7:20:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DonS]
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: The FAL is a neat weapon. Personally, I think if the following design flaws were addressed, it would have spanked every one of its peers: 1. The crappy trigger. Maaaaaan, those triggers suck. 2. The iron sights leave a lot to be desired. Not only is the design lackluster, but the front and rear sights are mounted on different parts of the rifle. 3. Seating a mag was never a problem for me, but many people are hung up over how it's done. Not sure if it could ever be changed, but I suppose a different method of inserting the mag would have been more universally accepted. 4. Many people bag on the inability to mount optics, but I always thought DSA fixed that with their flat top mount. Pretty simple fix if you ask me. Not sure why people still think this, but they do. So, the two big flaws are the trigger and the sights. If those issues were addressed and significant improvements were made there, I think the FAL would have been really, really hard to beat. But the AR15/M16 is still better. The FALs tilting bolt locking is significantly inferior to turning bolt locking. Both in strength and accuracy. On FAL, the force on the bolt goes all the way back to the locking shoulder, at the rear of the bolt and far back on the receiver. It's also not a symmetrical lockup. On M1/M14 it's at the front of the bolt, the front of the receiver, and symmetrical between two opposing locking lugs. On AR15 it's at the front of the bolt, the rear of the barrel extension, and has 7 bearing lugs that are symmetrical. The AR receiver isn't even a traditional reciever in the basic sense, since it doesn't bear any pressure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 7:55:18 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BB: Couple points: Hook Boutin was the US AMU gunsmith at Benning for like a bazillion years. Dude knew his way around an M14. Was he biased? Probably. But he knew what was up with the M14 more than anyone. The M14 is not the worst service rifle the US fielded; the Krag owns that position with no contention I think that's a bit harsh. The jump from the trapdoor to the krag was huge. The m1 to m14 was nearly meaningless. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 7:59:22 PM EDT
[#49]
I think there's a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking here.
The m14 isn't bad. It's not great either. I mean I like them as a civilian. I think things like a synthetic stock. Even something like ramline would have made a huge deal. An 18" barrel and maybe in .243 instead of the .308 I bet it would have hung around a lot longer. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 8:03:22 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Square66: Regarding bedding an M14, the modern steel bedding compounds will last the life of a Krieger match barrel. That is 5k rounds give or take before barrel replacement at which time a skim bed would be done. You know why the military teams skim bedded their rifles more frequently? Because they could, and had the resources to do so in a sport where the top shooters were fighting for X count. In the field even if the bedding loosened up after multiple rounds, disassembly and reassembly, it’s not like the rifle just turns into a 10 MOA fence post overnight. It would still be a fine shooting rifle even if not at its absolute pinnacle of performance after some hard use. The XM25 sniper rifle made all of this a non issue with the Brookfield Precision stock liner made by Mitch Mateiko. Basically a precision made steel liner was bedded into a McMillan fiberglass match stock and it indexed the receiver legs for a perfect steel on steel contact, The bedding would last pretty much indefinitely. Not many of these were produced, but they flat out work. I know because I have two XM25 type rifles built in this fashion and they hammer. Lots of BS internet lore exists about match conditioned M14s that gets parroted by people that have no idea what they are talking about. Sounds like you know a thing or two about match grade M1As and the kit used to make them not 5-6MOA guns. Ref those bedding, lugging, chassis jobs…what kind of abuse would a rifle setup like that take? The M21 chassis guns seem to be ridiculously heavy for what they are, but we didn’t have anything else available at the time. I’ve lusted after an M14 for years, but all the supposed asspain of getting one to turnkey shoot 2MOA or less for the life of the barrel without serious time and energy has made me pass them over a few times. As I stated earlier, I’ll build a MSG Shugart clone of PSA gets into the M1A game with a $999.99 Black Friday special
|
|
|
|
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.
