User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 8:04:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: wayfaerer320]
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wspe1: The LRB Arms M25 (M14 pattern) is perfection. They have made a great rifle that fixes all the deficiencies of the original M14. LRB is awesome. Their customer service is great too. Here's my LRB M14 Classic with surplus stock - I've since added a fake selector switch to complete the vintage look - amazing rifle:  Attached File Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 8:09:09 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By towerofpower94: 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  Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By towerofpower94: Originally 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 Pretty much everything stock Springfield m1a shot 2-3moa with no bedding. Same with my m1s. My 70 year old M1 shoots 3moa with a sling 200 yards  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 8:09:25 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: 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. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin: Originally 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. Apologies if I misread your post a few pages back, but I thought you said ‘no thanks’ to a bunch of rifles, including the AK47, in lieu of the M14/M1A. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 8:14:42 PM EDT
[#4]
The project took a decade to provide a marginal upgrade, that was expensive and more difficult for seasoned manufacturers to produce to TDP. Once in the system, it was quickly replaced. It was a failed doctrine and a botched program.The project was an absolute disaster. Just because you personally like the rifle doesn’t mean it was somehow a successful as a service weapon.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 8:15:38 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 03RN: I think that's a bit harsh. The jump from the trapdoor to the krag was huge. The m1 to m14 was nearly meaningless. Perspective is everything |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 9:18:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Square66]
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By towerofpower94: 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 Most out of the box M14s shoot considerably better than 5 or 6 MOA with some decent ammunition that the rifle likes. If you want a match conditioned M14, first know what you and your wallet are getting into. It’s not an inexpensive endeavor and as I tell people only go down this road if you really WANT to shoot the M14. There are easier and less expensive ways to skin a cat that weren’t as readily available in the past as they are now. After that disclaimer if you still want to proceed take a look at LRB. One of their rear lugged receivers bedded into a McMillan stock would be a great starting place. As far as abuse, like any precision rifle it requires a little more care, but it’s not made out of glass. If the rifle is dirty or been out in inclement weather take it apart, clean it and be happy. Match conditioned M14s can shoot quite well. From Gus Fisher who was an armorer with the USMC Team when the M14 was still the match rifle of choice: “The standard of accuracy on NM M14 rifles we built for THE Marine Corps Rifle Team was a ten shot group fired from a super expensive test rack and the group size had to be at or under 2 1/2" at 300 yards.” |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 9:31:24 PM EDT
[#7]
As A guy that has a FAL, G3 and M1a's... I REALLY enjoy shooting my M1A's. It's a very fun and reliable platform. Not my first choice in SHTF but definitely wouldn't feel under gunned if I got stuck with one. Solid rifle if you run irons.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 10:26:10 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: The project took a decade to provide a marginal upgrade, that was expensive and more difficult for seasoned manufacturers to produce to TDP. Once in the system, it was quickly replaced. It was a failed doctrine and a botched program.The project was an absolute disaster. Just because you personally like the rifle doesn’t mean it was somehow a successful as a service weapon. This, I used the M16 as a service rifle in the army, started out with A1's, then M16A2's, finally the M4 platform, which I used to great effect in my tour in Iraq. I could not imagine using a wood stocked, all steel rifle as a service rifle, based on maintenance alone. Rust never sleeps. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 10:55:18 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By deanwormer: I must have missed when the us military adopted the INSAS and sa80 No, you missed the title of the thread which says “The M14 is the worst service rifle ever” contrary to what the video is about. |
|
|
|
VUT
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 3:18:49 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dennis1979gm: As A guy that has a FAL, G3 and M1a's... I REALLY enjoy shooting my M1A's. It's a very fun and reliable platform. Not my first choice in SHTF but definitely wouldn't feel under gunned if I got stuck with one. Solid rifle if you run irons. Yeah, good zombie gun. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 5:10:58 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By j_hooker: I like the M1A HOWEVER, it is well known that it takes money, and a good gunsmith to work on it to get it accurate. This is the answer right here! |
|
|
|
BC, CAN
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 6:32:57 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: The project took a decade to provide a marginal upgrade, that was expensive and more difficult for seasoned manufacturers to produce to TDP. Once in the system, it was quickly replaced. It was a failed doctrine and a botched program.The project was an absolute disaster. Just because you personally like the rifle doesn’t mean it was somehow a successful as a service weapon. The weapon that replaced it was difficult to manufacture for decades, and didn't become outstanding until the GWOT era. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 6:44:14 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SnowMexican: The weapon that replaced it was difficult to manufacture for decades, and didn't become outstanding until the GWOT era. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 6:47:26 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SnowMexican: The weapon that replaced it was difficult to manufacture for decades, and didn't become outstanding until the GWOT era. What was difficult for the companies with the actual TDP? H&R, Hydromatic and FN all we’re able to pick it up is with comparatively little issue. The M-16A1 was great for the time, the A2 built on that in some regards and a strip back in others, but both were world class service rifles. That wasn’t the case with the M-14 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 6:47:40 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wayfaerer320: LRB is awesome. Their customer service is great too. Here's my LRB M14 Classic with surplus stock - I've since added a fake selector switch to complete the vintage look - amazing rifle: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/269084/M14_1_jpg-3190346.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/269084/M14_2_jpg-3190348.JPG Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wayfaerer320: Originally Posted By wspe1: The LRB Arms M25 (M14 pattern) is perfection. They have made a great rifle that fixes all the deficiencies of the original M14. LRB is awesome. Their customer service is great too. Here's my LRB M14 Classic with surplus stock - I've since added a fake selector switch to complete the vintage look - amazing rifle: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/269084/M14_1_jpg-3190346.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/269084/M14_2_jpg-3190348.JPG My LRB Medium weight on one of their National Match Receivers.  Attached File Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 6:52:51 PM EDT
[#16]
The M-14 was/is a horrible general purpose infantry rifle.
As the M-21, it was decent for its era. The M-16 was/is a better weapon in all respects. 18Z50… |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 6:59:23 PM EDT
[#17]
I trained on one of those M-14 and carried it for a year, and can tell you that you are able to reach with power long distances.
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 7:03:59 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: What was difficult for the companies with the actual TDP? H&R, Hydromatic and FN all we’re able to pick it up is with comparatively little issue. The M-16A1 was great for the time, the A2 built on that in some regards and a strip back in others, but both were world class service rifles. That wasn’t the case with the M-14 A2 was mostly backwards. Although it did form the basis of what made the AR a fine national match rifle. |
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 7:06:10 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SnowMexican: The weapon that replaced it was difficult to manufacture for decades, and didn't become outstanding until the GWOT era. Nothing wrong with the original M16 and M16A1, with the right ammo and with good magazines. |
|
|
AK, USA
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 7:10:18 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SnowMexican: The weapon that replaced it was difficult to manufacture for decades, and didn't become outstanding until the GWOT era. I'd like to see an M14 that could do controllable mag dumps from the hip after being submerged in salt water  The Armalite AR-10 Commercial |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 7:18:26 PM EDT
[#21]
The M-14 was unquestionably the best military rifle of 1930.
|
|
|
|
BC, CAN
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 7:55:01 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: What was difficult for the companies with the actual TDP? H&R, Hydromatic and FN all we’re able to pick it up is with comparatively little issue. The M-16A1 was great for the time, the A2 built on that in some regards and a strip back in others, but both were world class service rifles. That wasn’t the case with the M-14 It took a long time to get where it is now is what I'm saying. For starters, a design that's dependent on CNC machining was tough to get right, at least in mass production context, until the technology greatly matured. Too, it had to wait until all kinds of technical improvements were made, beyond the A1 - A2 era, before you could really call it good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 9:00:52 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1shott: My LRB Medium weight on one of their National Match Receivers. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/27489/lrb2_jpg-3190633.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/27489/lrb1_jpg-3190634.JPG Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 1shott: Originally Posted By wayfaerer320: Originally Posted By wspe1: The LRB Arms M25 (M14 pattern) is perfection. They have made a great rifle that fixes all the deficiencies of the original M14. LRB is awesome. Their customer service is great too. Here's my LRB M14 Classic with surplus stock - I've since added a fake selector switch to complete the vintage look - amazing rifle: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/269084/M14_1_jpg-3190346.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/269084/M14_2_jpg-3190348.JPG My LRB Medium weight on one of their National Match Receivers. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/27489/lrb2_jpg-3190633.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/27489/lrb1_jpg-3190634.JPG Gorgeous rifle. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 9:14:00 PM EDT
[#24]
The perfected version of the M16A1 should have totally jumped into a time machine and transported
itself back to 1957. 
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 9:25:17 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SnowMexican: It took a long time to get where it is now is what I'm saying. For starters, a design that's dependent on CNC machining was tough to get right, at least in mass production context, until the technology greatly matured. Too, it had to wait until all kinds of technical improvements were made, beyond the A1 - A2 era, before you could really call it good. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SnowMexican: Originally Posted By BobRoberts: What was difficult for the companies with the actual TDP? H&R, Hydromatic and FN all we’re able to pick it up is with comparatively little issue. The M-16A1 was great for the time, the A2 built on that in some regards and a strip back in others, but both were world class service rifles. That wasn’t the case with the M-14 It took a long time to get where it is now is what I'm saying. For starters, a design that's dependent on CNC machining was tough to get right, at least in mass production context, until the technology greatly matured. Too, it had to wait until all kinds of technical improvements were made, beyond the A1 - A2 era, before you could really call it good. Why do you think the M16 is dependent on CNC machining? Its part geometry is very simple compared to the M1 and M14. Or am I misunderstanding you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 9:33:00 PM EDT
[#26]
Better than a sharp stick. I used to think the FAL was better and it was then. Now I'd take an AR everytime.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 9:33:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Kihn]
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AEROMechanic: Correct Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AEROMechanic: Originally Posted By Square66: Other countries kept the FAL and the G3 longer than the USA kept the M14 because they lacked the financial resources and motivation (Vietnam War) to replace their weapons with something more.modern. Correct After the US strongarmed them into adopting the 7.62 x 51 to standardize logistics and make it the common infantry rifle round for NATO. Then pulled the transfer over to the 5.56 shortly thereafter, and, then, tried to get them to change over (again) for the same reasons. Not making friends... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 9:34:12 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wayfaerer320: Gorgeous rifle. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wayfaerer320: Originally Posted By 1shott: Originally Posted By wayfaerer320: Originally Posted By wspe1: The LRB Arms M25 (M14 pattern) is perfection. They have made a great rifle that fixes all the deficiencies of the original M14. LRB is awesome. Their customer service is great too. Here's my LRB M14 Classic with surplus stock - I've since added a fake selector switch to complete the vintage look - amazing rifle: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/269084/M14_1_jpg-3190346.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/269084/M14_2_jpg-3190348.JPG My LRB Medium weight on one of their National Match Receivers. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/27489/lrb2_jpg-3190633.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/27489/lrb1_jpg-3190634.JPG Gorgeous rifle. Thank you. I am thinking about placing a deposit for another build. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 9:58:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: fuatos]
[#29]
 I have a bias. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 10:16:39 PM EDT
[#30]
That is a great video. The title should have read "M14 the Worst service rifle PROGRAM ever." The rifle is awesome if you look at in as a improved Garand, but it was the wrong choice since at the time there were better options. The fact that an Air Force general selected the next Army rifle for the next 60+ years shows how far the Army had its head up its ass. McNamara made the right choice of turning S.A. into a museum, since it already was one, producing relic arms. The M14 decision parallels the polish cavalry at the start of WW2. Too much pride and tradition, and too little sense for what was coming.
I love shooting my M1A, like many other rifles designed up to 60-100 years ago. But as others have said, it would not be my first choice if my life depended on it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/17/2024 10:59:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: banditbigdog]
[#31]
LRB M25 / McMillan, one heavy mofo
Anything less than 167 grain is all over the place.  LRB M14SA Never cared for the M14 front sight post, too wide for my preference. Milled the one on this weapon down several thousands each side to make it pretty thin. Don’t recall the thickness now, starting to not matter, each year open sights are more and more of a struggle.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 12:50:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Z09SS]
[#32]
 I've shot all of the NATO battle rifles. The FAL is my preferred one. Got a buddy who served in Rhodesia who agrees. The modern AR-10 is verra nice too.  I like that gun better than the FAL, to be honest. But the entire point of the video, that so many here obviously didn't watch, was that even if the guns getting to the troops were fine (and they were) two companies that had successfully made Garands during the war were not successfully making M14's with any consistency. That's a problem when you're trying to equip an army. Italy humiliated us by spending far less time and money making the BM59, especially since it actually adhered to the hype that Springfield was selling about reusing tooling and processes. While all of the battle rifles are fun, I'm an AR-15 adherent to the bitter end. |
|
|
|
BC, CAN
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 12:56:27 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: Nothing wrong with the original M16 and M16A1, with the right ammo and with good magazines. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: Nothing wrong with the original M16 and M16A1, with the right ammo and with good magazines. Truly good magazines didn't exist until the GWOT era, at least not 30 rounders. Originally Posted By brownbomber: Why do you think the M16 is dependent on CNC machining? Its part geometry is very simple compared to the M1 and M14. Or am I misunderstanding you? Because that's how they were designed to be built. CNC machining in the manufacture of firearms was still a new thing, and in fact only a handful of countries were capable of it at the time. Today of course its trivial to produce them both cost effectively and to a high quality standard, but it was asking a LOT of manufacturers in the past, especially in a rushed mass production context like what happened during Vietnam. |
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 1:36:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Stir_Fry]
[#34]
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. Randall David Shughart was an SSG at the time of his death, and was promoted to SFC posthumously. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 1:54:06 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Stir_Fry: Randall David Shughart was an SSG at the time of his death, and was promoted to SFC posthoumsly Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Stir_Fry: 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. Randall David Shughart was an SSG at the time of his death, and was promoted to SFC posthoumsly Thank you for the correction. |
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 2:03:10 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SnowMexican: Truly good magazines didn't exist until the GWOT era, at least not 30 rounders. Properly built USGI mags were good unless damaged. The problem is that they were built as a nearly disposable item and with hard use could become unreliable. We used to have a list of the USGI mag manufacturers, which were good and which were not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 2:18:21 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wayfaerer320: LRB is awesome. Their customer service is great too. Here's my LRB M14 Classic with surplus stock - I've since added a fake selector switch to complete the vintage look - amazing rifle: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/269084/M14_1_jpg-3190346.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/269084/M14_2_jpg-3190348.JPG On my bucket list |
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 2:26:31 PM EDT
[#38]
It would have been a bad ass rifle in WW2....
It was pretty much outdated once the STG-44 and AK47 came along. And just look at the thing, it screams the mentality of America's Fetishism with the myth of the single rifleman picking off hordes of enemy from long range. At the end of the day though, it worked out for us. Because it allowed a revolution in which was us going to 5.56 and the M16. If not for that, we'd probably be still using a 7.62 main battle rifle as standard issue.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 2:31:20 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ArmyInfantryVet: It would have been a bad ass rifle in WW2.... It was pretty much outdated once the STG-44 and AK47 came along. And just look at the thing, it screams the mentality of America's Fetishism with the myth of the single rifleman picking off hordes of enemy from long range. At the end of the day though, it worked out for us. Because it allowed a revolution in which was us going to 5.56 and the M16. If not for that, we'd probably be still using a 7.62 main battle rifle as standard issue. That's an interesting proposition... Do we think 7.62 battle rifles would have hung around once 5.56 was available if the M14's development and deployment hadn't been so rough? Vietnam was still going to happen, and has been noted, other nations that were there also swapped out the FAL for M16s. My guess is that we'd have still dropped 7.62 rifles for every man while in VN. |
|
|
|
BC, CAN
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 2:42:42 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DonS: Properly built USGI mags were good unless damaged. The problem is that they were built as a nearly disposable item and with hard use could become unreliable. We used to have a list of the USGI mag manufacturers, which were good and which were not. Vintage AR magazines of any kind just weren't that good compared to most of its contemporaries, a significant flaw in the system that wasn't fixed until the 21st century. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 2:42:42 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SnowMexican: Truly good magazines didn't exist until the GWOT era, at least not 30 rounders. Because that's how they were designed to be built. CNC machining in the manufacture of firearms was still a new thing, and in fact only a handful of countries were capable of it at the time. Today of course its trivial to produce them both cost effectively and to a high quality standard, but it was asking a LOT of manufacturers in the past, especially in a rushed mass production context like what happened during Vietnam. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SnowMexican: Originally Posted By DonS: Nothing wrong with the original M16 and M16A1, with the right ammo and with good magazines. Truly good magazines didn't exist until the GWOT era, at least not 30 rounders. Originally Posted By brownbomber: Why do you think the M16 is dependent on CNC machining? Its part geometry is very simple compared to the M1 and M14. Or am I misunderstanding you? Because that's how they were designed to be built. CNC machining in the manufacture of firearms was still a new thing, and in fact only a handful of countries were capable of it at the time. Today of course its trivial to produce them both cost effectively and to a high quality standard, but it was asking a LOT of manufacturers in the past, especially in a rushed mass production context like what happened during Vietnam. CNC didn't exist at the time, and NC was in its infancy. There is nothing particularly outrageous about the part geometry of the M16 components. The M14 parts are a hell of lot more complex. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 3:43:27 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DarkLordVader: That is a great video. The title should have read "M14 the Worst service rifle PROGRAM ever." The rifle is awesome if you look at in as a improved Garand, but it was the wrong choice since at the time there were better options. The fact that an Air Force general selected the next Army rifle for the next 60+ years shows how far the Army had its head up its ass. McNamara made the right choice of turning S.A. into a museum, since it already was one, producing relic arms. The M14 decision parallels the polish cavalry at the start of WW2. Too much pride and tradition, and too little sense for what was coming. I love shooting my M1A, like many other rifles designed up to 60-100 years ago. But as others have said, it would not be my first choice if my life depended on it. Well said. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 4:07:37 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SnowMexican: The weapon that replaced it was difficult to manufacture for decades, and didn't become outstanding until the GWOT era.  The M16 was adopted in 1964. The M16A1 showed up a whopping 3 years later in 1967. Starting in 1967, how many of the world's service rifles would you no-BS choose over a M16A1? The AUG and the FNC showed up in the late '70s, and those are at best debatable. The SG 550 showed up in 1990. This is also debatable. The M4 carbine showed up in 1994, and it's basically been king ever since. |
|
|
|
BC, CAN
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 5:14:05 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: The M16 was adopted in 1964. The M16A1 showed up a whopping 3 years later in 1967. Starting in 1967, how many of the world's service rifles would you no-BS choose over a M16A1? The AUG and the FNC showed up in the late '70s, and those are at best debatable. The SG 550 showed up in 1990. This is also debatable. The M4 carbine showed up in 1994, and it's basically been king ever since. The H&K 33, AUG, BM-59 and yes, the M14. AK and VZ-58 if you want to include Combloc stuff. There's a reason that the AR family, despite being on the market for so long and having the advantage of U.S. military acceptance, did not start to become a no brainer choice until well after the Cold War had ended. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 5:58:54 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SnowMexican: The H&K 33, AUG, BM-59 and yes, the M14. AK and VZ-58 if you want to include Combloc stuff. There's a reason that the AR family, despite being on the market for so long and having the advantage of U.S. military acceptance, did not start to become a no brainer choice until well after the Cold War had ended. I mean it had a pretty strong usage in the Cold War. The the A2 didn’t get a lot of foreign buyers but the A1 was well traveled. Vietnam is still using the ones they captured in the 70s |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 7:07:00 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SnowMexican: The H&K 33, AUG, BM-59 and yes, the M14. AK and VZ-58 if you want to include Combloc stuff. There's a reason that the AR family, despite being on the market for so long and having the advantage of U.S. military acceptance, did not start to become a no brainer choice until well after the Cold War had ended. Of all of those only the AUG was ever a contender. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 7:08:18 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BobRoberts: I mean it had a pretty strong usage in the Cold War. The the A2 didn’t get a lot of foreign buyers but the A1 was well traveled. Vietnam is still using the ones they captured in the 70s Vietnam either bought some from China or made their own or both. The M4 is why A2 sales were weak. |
|
|
|
CHN
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 7:17:08 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SnowMexican: The H&K 33, AUG, BM-59 and yes, the M14. AK and VZ-58 if you want to include Combloc stuff. There's a reason that the AR family, despite being on the market for so long and having the advantage of U.S. military acceptance, did not start to become a no brainer choice until well after the Cold War had ended. Odd, your choices didn't exactly get widespread acceptance. Except the AK, although a big part of that is that it was Soviet so every shithole nation got some. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 9:32:28 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Vietnam either bought some from China or made their own or both. The M4 is why A2 sales were weak. They have a domestic industry to support the M-16s. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/18/2024 10:13:36 PM EDT
[#50]
That’s the right call on their part.
|
|
|
|
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.
