User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/7/2024 9:58:34 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: For a lot of guys it's already replacing the M4. It's a real thing. No it's not. Its is still undergoing testing and trialing. It is not a standard issue item. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/7/2024 10:27:36 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Currahee: Did any version of the Stoner, other than the belt fed, actually see use? I mean is was an (the only?) available option for a 5.56 belt fed. Just belt fed firepower for small units ambushing and breaking contact, that was why the SEALs liked it. If you waved a para-SAW in front of them they would have left the Stoner in the arms room. Having experience with both weapons, I can tell you that the Stoner would not have been left behind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2024 10:29:46 PM EDT
[#3]
M4gery
|
|
|
|
MP, USA
|
Posted: 4/7/2024 10:46:57 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: Have you heard of the XM7? It's a piston rifle and is being adopted by all DoD branches. Delta already uses the MCX. The XM7 is a literal turd. The rail flex issues are insurmountable. The caliber is also absurd as a general issue rifle. I suspect it will be as short lived as the m14. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2024 2:45:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Combat_Diver]
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: For a lot of guys it's already replacing the M4. It's a real thing. One Battalion in the 101st isn't much. M7 is to replacement only to INFANTRY. DoD is sticking with the M4/M16 for all other positions. For a CD weapon that is to be issued you need to look also at costs and suppliers. Right now that is the AR platform. Everything else is just dreaming and if dreaming then make it shoot caseless ammo. I've trained thousands of bugger eaters on how to use and maintain the M4/M16. Not hard, crew served guns go down quicker without maintenance. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2024 2:48:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Combat_Diver]
[#6]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/8/2024 11:18:20 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: Gas rings can go bad after a few k rounds...I've had to replace some myself. I know DI's a misnomer, it's just a short hand. You know what I mean. Just because gas rings "should" be replaced after several thousand rounds does not mean they must be replaced or the weapon won't work. I have talked to a person who worked for colt and he said just one ring instead of all three rings kept the rifle running, and it was not even close to being a new ring. When I was in the Marines, I would bet that most of the rifles in our armoury were well over thousands of rounds over the recommendation of replacing the rings. I was in a rifle company and our rifles saw a lot of use. Most gas rings were pretty worn as the joke was that it was a happy bolt because it was "broken in," moving freely on the bolt carrier with little to no resistance. Failures to feed, fire, or eject were almost never. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2024 2:26:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Andrewsky]
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JoshNC: The XM7 is a literal turd. The rail flex issues are insurmountable. The caliber is also absurd as a general issue rifle. I suspect it will be as short lived as the m14. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2024 2:38:01 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Frank762: Just because gas rings "should" be replaced after several thousand rounds does not mean they must be replaced or the weapon won't work. I have talked to a person who worked for colt and he said just one ring instead of all three rings kept the rifle running, and it was not even close to being a new ring. When I was in the Marines, I would bet that most of the rifles in our armoury were well over thousands of rounds over the recommendation of replacing the rings. I was in a rifle company and our rifles saw a lot of use. Most gas rings were pretty worn as the joke was that it was a happy bolt because it was "broken in," moving freely on the bolt carrier with little to no resistance. Failures to feed, fire, or eject were almost never. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2024 2:39:15 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Combat_Diver: Been using the AR since 83' around the world. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/32677/Page_BASIC_18_jpg-3181802.JPG |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2024 3:03:14 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Combat_Diver]
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: Is that tape on the AR second from left? Where was that photo? Tape on M16A1 stock with rack number IIRC. Fort Leonard Wood Dec 1983 12B AIT. Temps were around zero at night. Also notice they are wearing mittens. Another advantage for the AR, is the built-in hinged winter trigger guard. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2024 3:15:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Frank762]
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: I don't doubt it. Was this with the M16A2? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: Originally Posted By Frank762: Just because gas rings "should" be replaced after several thousand rounds does not mean they must be replaced or the weapon won't work. I have talked to a person who worked for colt and he said just one ring instead of all three rings kept the rifle running, and it was not even close to being a new ring. When I was in the Marines, I would bet that most of the rifles in our armoury were well over thousands of rounds over the recommendation of replacing the rings. I was in a rifle company and our rifles saw a lot of use. Most gas rings were pretty worn as the joke was that it was a happy bolt because it was "broken in," moving freely on the bolt carrier with little to no resistance. Failures to feed, fire, or eject were almost never. Yes. Early 90s rifles with most of the finish scrubbed off. Still very accurate. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2024 3:30:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Frank762]
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DakotaFAL: I agree with you on the benefits of a .308 Garand. I shot my .308 Garand a lot more than I ever shot either of my .30-06 garands. My BM-59 and M1A get far more range time due in large part to the cartridge. The Italians also had the right idea converting their M1 Garands to BM-59s and Beretta did austere BM-59E conversions for other nations wanting a magazine fed 7.62 NATO Garand at minimal cost. If the US was serious about civilian marksmanship and providing rifles for militia use, it would have been doing low cost conversions of M1s to a similar BM-59E configuration for decades. If they were really serious they would have done a conversion to the standard BM-59 configuration. https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/h470/SDBB57/001(175).HEIC?width=590&height=590&fit=bounds —- However, the CMP is incorrect in stating the M1 is the most common semi auto rifle. It’s the most numerous of the rifles that have been distributed through CMP and its predecessor DCM program. But the number of AR-15s in the US is estimated to exceed 20 million. That’s almost 4 times more than the number of M1 Garands ever made (5.4 million). —— Their common use is the strongest argument for the AR-15 as a default civil defense rifle or carbine. However, that said, there were 2.5 million Mini 14s produced between 2000 and 2009 per the ATF, and Ruger is still making about 300,000 per year. There’s an estimated 15 million of them out there. Given the similarity to the M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, and M1A, it could be argued that anyone familiar with one of those commonly encountered rifles could figure out a Mini 14 with no issues or specific training. —- The US is a big country with a lot of wide open spaces, and with the marginal nature of the 5.56mm NATO round there’s a need for the greater velocity the 20” barrel provides, something that offsets the advantages of a short barrel for riding around in an APC, etc. There are also major advantages to keeping things simple. The A1 carry handle sight, when properly zeroed, allowed shooters to engage torso sized targets to 300m using the short range aperture and then to 350m by just flipping up the short range aperture. That’s sufficient to cover 95+% of infantry engagements. The original M16A1 was light, very well balanced and very quick handling. It gained weight and bulk in the A2, and then inherited a short barrel in the M4 but quickly gained the weight back with tactical crap that isn’t necessary on a civil defense rifle. If the government were to start issuing them for civil defense use, they’d do well to take a hard look at the original Colt SP1 or M16A1 configurations. The 20” barrel improves terminal ballistics, particularly with am193. The forward assist adds weight and expense with very little added utility. The carry handle sight with L shaped short and long range aperture was virtually idiot proof, and didn’t misrepresent the M16 as a long range rifle. https://hosting.photobucket.com/albums/h470/SDBB57/AR-15s/.highres/0cdfd7ba-7321-472a-8eab-75bc08184ed9_zpsd6ae413b.jpg?width=590&height=590&fit=bounds If they want something shorter, a lightweight pencil barrel 16” carbine makes more sense, again keeping it as simple as possible: https://hosting.photobucket.com/albums/h470/SDBB57/AR-15s/.highres/e40a8c1a-942c-457b-ac33-098239f9a27e_zps5bc0cd42.jpg?width=590&height=590&fit=bounds Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DakotaFAL: Originally Posted By Nick_Adams: From the CMP right now, the “most common weapon” available is an M1 Garand - chambered in either .30-06 or .308. Owning a .308 M1 these days makes a lotta sense since it’s still 50-states legal. Plus you can get ammo for it anywhere. I agree with you on the benefits of a .308 Garand. I shot my .308 Garand a lot more than I ever shot either of my .30-06 garands. My BM-59 and M1A get far more range time due in large part to the cartridge. The Italians also had the right idea converting their M1 Garands to BM-59s and Beretta did austere BM-59E conversions for other nations wanting a magazine fed 7.62 NATO Garand at minimal cost. If the US was serious about civilian marksmanship and providing rifles for militia use, it would have been doing low cost conversions of M1s to a similar BM-59E configuration for decades. If they were really serious they would have done a conversion to the standard BM-59 configuration. https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/h470/SDBB57/001(175).HEIC?width=590&height=590&fit=bounds —- However, the CMP is incorrect in stating the M1 is the most common semi auto rifle. It’s the most numerous of the rifles that have been distributed through CMP and its predecessor DCM program. But the number of AR-15s in the US is estimated to exceed 20 million. That’s almost 4 times more than the number of M1 Garands ever made (5.4 million). —— Their common use is the strongest argument for the AR-15 as a default civil defense rifle or carbine. However, that said, there were 2.5 million Mini 14s produced between 2000 and 2009 per the ATF, and Ruger is still making about 300,000 per year. There’s an estimated 15 million of them out there. Given the similarity to the M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, and M1A, it could be argued that anyone familiar with one of those commonly encountered rifles could figure out a Mini 14 with no issues or specific training. —- The US is a big country with a lot of wide open spaces, and with the marginal nature of the 5.56mm NATO round there’s a need for the greater velocity the 20” barrel provides, something that offsets the advantages of a short barrel for riding around in an APC, etc. There are also major advantages to keeping things simple. The A1 carry handle sight, when properly zeroed, allowed shooters to engage torso sized targets to 300m using the short range aperture and then to 350m by just flipping up the short range aperture. That’s sufficient to cover 95+% of infantry engagements. The original M16A1 was light, very well balanced and very quick handling. It gained weight and bulk in the A2, and then inherited a short barrel in the M4 but quickly gained the weight back with tactical crap that isn’t necessary on a civil defense rifle. If the government were to start issuing them for civil defense use, they’d do well to take a hard look at the original Colt SP1 or M16A1 configurations. The 20” barrel improves terminal ballistics, particularly with am193. The forward assist adds weight and expense with very little added utility. The carry handle sight with L shaped short and long range aperture was virtually idiot proof, and didn’t misrepresent the M16 as a long range rifle. https://hosting.photobucket.com/albums/h470/SDBB57/AR-15s/.highres/0cdfd7ba-7321-472a-8eab-75bc08184ed9_zpsd6ae413b.jpg?width=590&height=590&fit=bounds If they want something shorter, a lightweight pencil barrel 16” carbine makes more sense, again keeping it as simple as possible: https://hosting.photobucket.com/albums/h470/SDBB57/AR-15s/.highres/e40a8c1a-942c-457b-ac33-098239f9a27e_zps5bc0cd42.jpg?width=590&height=590&fit=bounds My only concern about issuing an M16A1 as a Civil defense rifle is the rear sight aperture. When I made my M16A1 clone I had to have the M16A2 aperture with the small hole for long distance and the larger hole for low light or close up shooting. Since I cheated there, I also used the square front sight post. |
|
|
|
MP, USA
|
Posted: 4/9/2024 7:57:55 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: What are the rail flex issues? I don't know the XM7 well. Let's not get too off topic here, the military jumped all over Sig's POS pistol so don't be surprised if they do something similar with the rifle. The point I was making is that the Stoner "DI" system really was designed for specific requirements back in the late 50s that aren't really on the docket today. The handguard to upper interface design and tolerances are shit. The handguard shifts and lasers will not hold zero. It’s not an occasional phenomenon, it’s every single rifle. Also, SF and Delta have traditional inline gas guns in their inventory. SF’s issue rifles use Geissele/DD URGI uppers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2024 1:39:50 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: What are the rail flex issues? I don't know the XM7 well. Let's not get too off topic here, the military jumped all over Sig's POS pistol so don't be surprised if they do something similar with the rifle. The point I was making is that the Stoner "DI" system really was designed for specific requirements back in the late 50s that aren't really on the docket today. Those requirements? They wanted a lightweight rifle that was easy to use and simple to maintain. It also was getting rushed in after the then current service rifle turned out to be a giant POS... Wait, are we taking about what happened to the M14, or what will happen to the XM7 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/9/2024 6:53:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MK318]
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Combat_Diver: One Battalion in the 101st isn't much. M7 is to replacement only to INFANTRY. DoD is sticking with the M4/M16 for all other positions. For a CD weapon that is to be issued you need to look also at costs and suppliers. Right now that is the AR platform. Everything else is just dreaming and if dreaming then make it shoot caseless ammo. I've trained thousands of bugger eaters on how to use and maintain the M4/M16. Not hard, crew served guns go down quicker without maintenance. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Combat_Diver: Originally Posted By Andrewsky: For a lot of guys it's already replacing the M4. It's a real thing. One Battalion in the 101st isn't much. M7 is to replacement only to INFANTRY. DoD is sticking with the M4/M16 for all other positions. For a CD weapon that is to be issued you need to look also at costs and suppliers. Right now that is the AR platform. Everything else is just dreaming and if dreaming then make it shoot caseless ammo. I've trained thousands of bugger eaters on how to use and maintain the M4/M16. Not hard, crew served guns go down quicker without maintenance. This is why this entire premise of using something other than the M4/M16 is dumb. We have been issuing the M4/M16 for so long now. There are no secrets left. The platform is so fleshed out and the supply chain so complete it is the only logical choice. You have countries like Israel, Britain, Australia, and countless others who either developed their own rifles in country or issue a design other than the M4 but when it comes to their SF units, the people who shoot a lot and see deployments at a higher rate, they are almost always issued an M4. Israel is probably the best example of this. They have developed multiple platforms over the years but their primary issued rifle is some form of M16/M4. From a logistics, maintenance and performance standpoint it just can’t be beat. It is incredibly easy to teach someone how to use and maintain one. If you can teach some Iraqi Police how to use them than you can teach anyone. |
|
|
|
MP, USA
|
Posted: 4/9/2024 9:15:45 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MK318: This is why this entire premise of using something other than the M4/M16 is dumb. We have been issuing the M4/M16 for so long now. There are no secrets left. The platform is so fleshed out and the supply chain so complete it is the only logical choice. You have countries like Israel, Britain, Australia, and countless others who either developed their own rifles in country or issue a design other than the M4 but when it comes to their SF units, the people who shoot a lot and see deployments at a higher rate, they are almost always issued an M4. Israel is probably the best example of this. They have developed multiple platforms over the years but their primary issued rifle is some form of M16/M4. From a logistics, maintenance and performance standpoint it just can’t be beat. It is incredibly easy to teach someone how to use and maintain one. If you can teach some Iraqi Police how to use them than you can teach anyone. Spot on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2024 1:34:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Andrewsky]
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jm11513: Those requirements? They wanted a lightweight rifle that was easy to use and simple to maintain. It also was getting rushed in after the then current service rifle turned out to be a giant POS... Wait, are we taking about what happened to the M14, or what will happen to the XM7 The issue is that it gets judged a little unfairly for a couple reasons. A lot of people seem to have an unreasonably biased view against it, I'm not sure if it's jealousy or if they just don't want the same gun their dad enjoyed or what the logic actually is. People bring up that the bedding shifts in National Match competitions when we're really talking about how the gun is as a battle rifle. Or people say the gun is really heavy and then you find out it's because they had one with the asinine SAGE stock issued to them and don't realize that with a regular stock it's lighter than a FAL or G3. Or they say that it was never designed to accept a scope which is an indication that they have no clue of what they're talking about (it's not great for a scope but to say they never designed it to accept one is incorrect, there's a threaded hole there). Vietnam was probably the toughest environment imaginable for that gun. The issues it had in Vietnam seemed to be mostly related to the insanely wet environment and the weight of the ammo. The synthetic stocks showed up ten years late. If the fight were against the Russians in wide open country in the 60s maybe they'd have just kept it. Being able to carry 2.5x the ammo for the same weight was the main reason for the M16. The SEALs never used them in Vietnam but would carry them in the 80s and 90s. Delta had them too of course. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2024 1:51:21 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Andrewsky]
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MK318: This is why this entire premise of using something other than the M4/M16 is dumb. We have been issuing the M4/M16 for so long now. There are no secrets left. The platform is so fleshed out and the supply chain so complete it is the only logical choice. You have countries like Israel, Britain, Australia, and countless others who either developed their own rifles in country or issue a design other than the M4 but when it comes to their SF units, the people who shoot a lot and see deployments at a higher rate, they are almost always issued an M4. Israel is probably the best example of this. They have developed multiple platforms over the years but their primary issued rifle is some form of M16/M4. From a logistics, maintenance and performance standpoint it just can't be beat. It is incredibly easy to teach someone how to use and maintain one. If you can teach some Iraqi Police how to use them than you can teach anyone. It's not really surprising that the British SAS/SBS would use an AR. They started using it in the early 1960s as it's clearly superior to the FAL they had. They used it in the Falklands too. The SA80 didn't offer any way to mount nightfighting accessories until Daniel Defense made their rail for it. Australia had the same situation, the FAL was inferior to the M16 and the AUG didn't have space for the modern accessories. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2024 2:07:00 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JoshNC: The handguard to upper interface design and tolerances are shit. The handguard shifts and lasers will not hold zero. It's not an occasional phenomenon, it's every single rifle. Also, SF and Delta have traditional inline gas guns in their inventory. SF's issue rifles use Geissele/DD URGI uppers. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2024 2:35:11 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: It's really hard to use Israel to make this argument though because they seemed to have gotten a large quantity of their AR-15 type rifles at little or no cost, including ones they just bought recently from Colt under a mandatory foreign aid spend. So the question then would be why do they have the Tavor series at all? I don't really know, you'd have to have been there I guess, but I'm assuming the AR-15 doesn't fully satisfy them, right? It's not really surprising that the British SAS/SBS would use an AR. They started using it in the early 1960s as it's clearly superior to the FAL they had. They used it in the Falklands too. The SA80 didn't offer any way to mount nightfighting accessories until Daniel Defense made their rail for it. Australia had the same situation, the FAL was inferior to the M16 and the AUG didn't have space for the modern accessories. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: Originally Posted By MK318: This is why this entire premise of using something other than the M4/M16 is dumb. We have been issuing the M4/M16 for so long now. There are no secrets left. The platform is so fleshed out and the supply chain so complete it is the only logical choice. You have countries like Israel, Britain, Australia, and countless others who either developed their own rifles in country or issue a design other than the M4 but when it comes to their SF units, the people who shoot a lot and see deployments at a higher rate, they are almost always issued an M4. Israel is probably the best example of this. They have developed multiple platforms over the years but their primary issued rifle is some form of M16/M4. From a logistics, maintenance and performance standpoint it just can't be beat. It is incredibly easy to teach someone how to use and maintain one. If you can teach some Iraqi Police how to use them than you can teach anyone. It's not really surprising that the British SAS/SBS would use an AR. They started using it in the early 1960s as it's clearly superior to the FAL they had. They used it in the Falklands too. The SA80 didn't offer any way to mount nightfighting accessories until Daniel Defense made their rail for it. Australia had the same situation, the FAL was inferior to the M16 and the AUG didn't have space for the modern accessories. Even if they got them for free initially, the fact that they still issue them and acquire new ones even though they have multiple in house designs they have made is a testament to the M4s performance. As for the Tavor, from speaking with friends that have trained with the Israelis the problem seemed to be a cross between durability, complexity of the design and lack of spare parts. This was 10ish years ago though, I’m not sure how that situation has improved or changed since then. The other issue was manual of arms, switching between a standard design like the M4 and a Bullpup like the Tavor is a little like learning a new language. You have to use it regularly to be fluent and it is a parsable skill if you don’t. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2024 11:25:03 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MK318: Even if they got them for free initially, the fact that they still issue them and acquire new ones even though they have multiple in house designs they have made is a testament to the M4s performance. As for the Tavor, from speaking with friends that have trained with the Israelis the problem seemed to be a cross between durability, complexity of the design and lack of spare parts. This was 10ish years ago though, I'm not sure how that situation has improved or changed since then. The other issue was manual of arms, switching between a standard design like the M4 and a Bullpup like the Tavor is a little like learning a new language. You have to use it regularly to be fluent and it is a parsable skill if you don't. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2024 5:13:29 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: In reality, the M14 wasn't a giant POS, that is just complete hyperbole. It was just a highly-improved Garand (same great trigger, but had a flash hider, flip-up buttplate (made out of aluminum), chrome-lined barrel, detachable mag, gas cut-off, was lighter, had a synthetic stock later, synthetic handguard, shorter action, plus various other improvements. The issue is that it gets judged a little unfairly for a couple reasons. A lot of people seem to have an unreasonably biased view against it, I'm not sure if it's jealousy or if they just don't want the same gun their dad enjoyed or what the logic actually is. People bring up that the bedding shifts in National Match competitions when we're really talking about how the gun is as a battle rifle. Or people say the gun is really heavy and then you find out it's because they had one with the asinine SAGE stock issued to them and don't realize that with a regular stock it's lighter than a FAL or G3. Or they say that it was never designed to accept a scope which is an indication that they have no clue of what they're talking about (it's not great for a scope but to say they never designed it to accept one is incorrect, there's a threaded hole there). Vietnam was probably the toughest environment imaginable for that gun. The issues it had in Vietnam seemed to be mostly related to the insanely wet environment and the weight of the ammo. The synthetic stocks showed up ten years late. If the fight were against the Russians in wide open country in the 60s maybe they'd have just kept it. Being able to carry 2.5x the ammo for the same weight was the main reason for the M16. The SEALs never used them in Vietnam but would carry them in the 80s and 90s. Delta had them too of course. Man... no the m14 was not an "highly improved" m1 garand. Early reports from Vietnam had troops rating the m14 BELOW the garand. The garand doesn't need a flash hider, unless you really want rifle grenade capacity on the rifle at all times. Same for a gas cut off, which the garands implementation is world class The flip up buttplate is useless and was a vestigial tail from the XM15 boondoggle Chrome lining is better than non chrome lined, but you can easily fix that. There's nothing on the garand that prevents the use of a chrome lined barrel, same goes for a composite stock The m1 and m14 are extremely close weight wise. I don't know where you're getting this from The m1 action is already extremely compact. The difference in size between an m1 revlceiver and the m14's is miniscule Now the magazine... of all the rock and lock mags out there, the m14's is amongst the worst. Reloads are extremely easy to flub, and carrying a combat load of .308 sucks. But shockingly, you put that ammo on enblocs? It's a lot better, you can better distribute weight, you can easily stach a few extra clips on your shirt, your pockets, boots, etc. Bandoliers are smaller and easier to use, etc. The m14 fixed nothing. It took the Italians 4 years to improve the m1. It took us over 20 and the gun was a dumspter fire. They even had to halt production during Vietnam because SA had no idea what they were doing, and had sabotaged other contractors, so no one could build two acceptable guns in a row. https://looserounds.com/the-m14-not-much-for-fighting-a-case-against-the-m14-legend/ The m14 is the worst service rifle fielded by our nation. Not just because it was a bad gun, but because we already had a better rifle. As did the Italians. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2024 7:15:47 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jm11513: Man... no the m14 was not an "highly improved" m1 garand. Early reports from Vietnam had troops rating the m14 BELOW the garand. The garand doesn't need a flash hider, unless you really want rifle grenade capacity on the rifle at all times. Same for a gas cut off, which the garands implementation is world class The flip up buttplate is useless and was a vestigial tail from the XM15 boondoggle Chrome lining is better than non chrome lined, but you can easily fix that. There's nothing on the garand that prevents the use of a chrome lined barrel, same goes for a composite stock The m1 and m14 are extremely close weight wise. I don't know where you're getting this from The m1 action is already extremely compact. The difference in size between an m1 revlceiver and the m14's is miniscule Now the magazine... of all the rock and lock mags out there, the m14's is amongst the worst. Reloads are extremely easy to flub, and carrying a combat load of .308 sucks. But shockingly, you put that ammo on enblocs? It's a lot better, you can better distribute weight, you can easily stach a few extra clips on your shirt, your pockets, boots, etc. Bandoliers are smaller and easier to use, etc. The m14 fixed nothing. It took the Italians 4 years to improve the m1. It took us over 20 and the gun was a dumspter fire. They even had to halt production during Vietnam because SA had no idea what they were doing, and had sabotaged other contractors, so no one could build two acceptable guns in a row. https://looserounds.com/the-m14-not-much-for-fighting-a-case-against-the-m14-legend/ The m14 is the worst service rifle fielded by our nation. Not just because it was a bad gun, but because we already had a better rifle. As did the Italians. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jm11513: Originally Posted By Andrewsky: In reality, the M14 wasn't a giant POS, that is just complete hyperbole. It was just a highly-improved Garand (same great trigger, but had a flash hider, flip-up buttplate (made out of aluminum), chrome-lined barrel, detachable mag, gas cut-off, was lighter, had a synthetic stock later, synthetic handguard, shorter action, plus various other improvements. The issue is that it gets judged a little unfairly for a couple reasons. A lot of people seem to have an unreasonably biased view against it, I'm not sure if it's jealousy or if they just don't want the same gun their dad enjoyed or what the logic actually is. People bring up that the bedding shifts in National Match competitions when we're really talking about how the gun is as a battle rifle. Or people say the gun is really heavy and then you find out it's because they had one with the asinine SAGE stock issued to them and don't realize that with a regular stock it's lighter than a FAL or G3. Or they say that it was never designed to accept a scope which is an indication that they have no clue of what they're talking about (it's not great for a scope but to say they never designed it to accept one is incorrect, there's a threaded hole there). Vietnam was probably the toughest environment imaginable for that gun. The issues it had in Vietnam seemed to be mostly related to the insanely wet environment and the weight of the ammo. The synthetic stocks showed up ten years late. If the fight were against the Russians in wide open country in the 60s maybe they'd have just kept it. Being able to carry 2.5x the ammo for the same weight was the main reason for the M16. The SEALs never used them in Vietnam but would carry them in the 80s and 90s. Delta had them too of course. Man... no the m14 was not an "highly improved" m1 garand. Early reports from Vietnam had troops rating the m14 BELOW the garand. The garand doesn't need a flash hider, unless you really want rifle grenade capacity on the rifle at all times. Same for a gas cut off, which the garands implementation is world class The flip up buttplate is useless and was a vestigial tail from the XM15 boondoggle Chrome lining is better than non chrome lined, but you can easily fix that. There's nothing on the garand that prevents the use of a chrome lined barrel, same goes for a composite stock The m1 and m14 are extremely close weight wise. I don't know where you're getting this from The m1 action is already extremely compact. The difference in size between an m1 revlceiver and the m14's is miniscule Now the magazine... of all the rock and lock mags out there, the m14's is amongst the worst. Reloads are extremely easy to flub, and carrying a combat load of .308 sucks. But shockingly, you put that ammo on enblocs? It's a lot better, you can better distribute weight, you can easily stach a few extra clips on your shirt, your pockets, boots, etc. Bandoliers are smaller and easier to use, etc. The m14 fixed nothing. It took the Italians 4 years to improve the m1. It took us over 20 and the gun was a dumspter fire. They even had to halt production during Vietnam because SA had no idea what they were doing, and had sabotaged other contractors, so no one could build two acceptable guns in a row. https://looserounds.com/the-m14-not-much-for-fighting-a-case-against-the-m14-legend/ The m14 is the worst service rifle fielded by our nation. Not just because it was a bad gun, but because we already had a better rifle. As did the Italians. The M14 gets a lot of play in movies and video games so people don’t really know how bad it is. Couple that with the Army and Marines force fitting the platform into the DMR role in the early days of OEF/OIF and it has a cult following that is entirely built on make believe. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2024 8:10:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: KitBuilder]
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MK318: The M14 gets a lot of play in movies and video games so people don't really know how bad it is. Couple that with the Army and Marines force fitting the platform into the DMR role in the early days of OEF/OIF and it has a cult following that is entirely built on make believe.  The only thing in @Jm11513's rant that shows the M1 being preferable to an M14 is the en-bloc clip instead of a 20-round magazine. I can see some users finding that more favorable, but the obvious advantage is you've got 20 rounds instead of 8 immediately available. There's really nothing else you can legitimately say about a Garand being better than the M14. There are variations in weight (due to the stocks) but an M14 always weighs less than an M1 Garand. It really does have an improved gas system. Flash suppressors are a nice feature to have. @Andrewsky Thanks.The "shoulder thing that goes up" was also made of steel. Yes, Vietnam was a bad environment for steel, wood, and other things. Chrome lining the barrel was a great idea. We should've done it sooner. The Japanese had chrome lined barrels in WWII. I think a big reason the M14 gets a bad rap is because of Army Ordnance's insistence that it would replace a bunch of small arms in US inventory at the time. They said it'd be a replacement for the M1 Rifle, M1 and M2 Carbines, M1 and M3 SMGs, and the M1918A2 BAR. Quite ambitious, and obviously it fell short of that. Really it could only replace the M1 Rifle. When they saw just how horribly it was performing in the squad Automatic Rifle role, they asked the US Army Marksmanship Unit to try to come up with something, and this resulted in the M14E2 (later designated the M14A1) but putting the M60 MG in squads was the "real" fix. The AR-15 was a much better small arm for Vietnam, and SEAL teams figured this out early on, which is why they were using discretionary funds to purchase Colt model 02 (or 602) rifles and deploying with those instead of the M14. There's an argument for battle rifles not being needed at all, but I think they should still exist as a specialist's weapon, and we've seen that play out with the SCAR-H and various AR-10 derivatives. (I certainly would not argue for anything that heavy as a general-issue CD weapon.) I think it's fair to say, when comparing an M14 rifle to its contemporaries in 7.62mm NATO (the classic AR-10, G3, and FAL) that it doesn't suck, but I would definitely hold up the classic AR-10 as being superior. Obviously AR-10 type weapons today are even better, but for general issue I'd definitely stick with the M4A1. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2024 8:13:38 PM EDT
[#26]
The M14 is no better or no worse than its Cold War contemporaries- FAL, G3, BM-59, etc... barring the AR-10. The real controversy was Springfield Armory's handling of the rifle's rollout and the numerous delays, which rightly got that place shut down. The fiberglass stock came out way too late, and almost all of those went immediately into storage.
Anyone arguing against an M4-type rifle for a civil defense/general issue weapon needs to take a big step back and do whole lot of learnin'. There's nothing out there even close. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2024 8:53:23 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KitBuilder: @Andrewsky There is no aluminum on a USGI M14. The "shoulder thing that goes up" was also made of steel. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2024 9:02:12 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KitBuilder: The Navy did it first! The only thing in @Jm11513's rant that shows the M1 being preferable to an M14 is the en-bloc clip instead of a 20-round magazine. I can see some users finding that more favorable, but the obvious advantage is you've got 20 rounds instead of 8 immediately available. There's really nothing else you can legitimately say about a Garand being better than the M14. There are variations in weight (due to the stocks) but an M14 always weighs less than an M1 Garand. It really does have an improved gas system. Flash suppressors are a nice feature to have. @Andrewsky There is no aluminum on a USGI M14. The "shoulder thing that goes up" was also made of steel. Yes, Vietnam was a bad environment for steel, wood, and other things. Chrome lining the barrel was a great idea. We should've done it sooner. The Japanese had chrome lined barrels in WWII. I think a big reason the M14 gets a bad rap is because of Army Ordnance's insistence that it would replace a bunch of small arms in US inventory at the time. They said it'd be a replacement for the M1 Rifle, M1 and M2 Carbines, M1 and M3 SMGs, and the M1918A2 BAR. Quite ambitious, and obviously it fell short of that. Really it could only replace the M1 Rifle. When they saw just how horribly it was performing in the squad Automatic Rifle role, they asked the US Army Marksmanship Unit to try to come up with something, and this resulted in the M14E2 (later designated the M14A1) but putting the M60 MG in squads was the "real" fix. The AR-15 was a much better small arm for Vietnam, and SEAL teams figured this out early on, which is why they were using discretionary funds to purchase Colt model 02 (or 602) rifles and deploying with those instead of the M14. There's an argument for battle rifles not being needed at all, but I think they should still exist as a specialist's weapon, and we've seen that play out with the SCAR-H and various AR-10 derivatives. (I certainly would not argue for anything that heavy as a general-issue CD weapon.) I think it's fair to say, when comparing an M14 rifle to its contemporaries in 7.62mm NATO (the classic AR-10, G3, and FAL) that it doesn't suck, but I would definitely hold up the classic AR-10 as being superior. Obviously AR-10 type weapons today are even better, but for general issue I'd definitely stick with the M4A1. The garand has a simpler gas system, was easier to carry and go prone with, has anti pre engagement cuts on the op-rod, and the garand did not have the major QC issues the m14 did. No, the gas system on the M14 is not improved. Bending op rods is not a thing when you are shooting mil spec ammo, and if you are not shooting milspec ammo, it's still possible to bend the op rod on an M14 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2024 9:02:15 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jm11513: Man... no the m14 was not an "highly improved" m1 garand. Early reports from Vietnam had troops rating the m14 BELOW the garand. The garand doesn't need a flash hider, unless you really want rifle grenade capacity on the rifle at all times. Same for a gas cut off, which the garands implementation is world class The flip up buttplate is useless and was a vestigial tail from the XM15 boondoggle Chrome lining is better than non chrome lined, but you can easily fix that. There's nothing on the garand that prevents the use of a chrome lined barrel, same goes for a composite stock The m1 and m14 are extremely close weight wise. I don't know where you're getting this from The m1 action is already extremely compact. The difference in size between an m1 revlceiver and the m14's is miniscule Now the magazine... of all the rock and lock mags out there, the m14's is amongst the worst. Reloads are extremely easy to flub, and carrying a combat load of .308 sucks. But shockingly, you put that ammo on enblocs? It's a lot better, you can better distribute weight, you can easily stach a few extra clips on your shirt, your pockets, boots, etc. Bandoliers are smaller and easier to use, etc. The m14 fixed nothing. It took the Italians 4 years to improve the m1. It took us over 20 and the gun was a dumspter fire. They even had to halt production during Vietnam because SA had no idea what they were doing, and had sabotaged other contractors, so no one could build two acceptable guns in a row. https://looserounds.com/the-m14-not-much-for-fighting-a-case-against-the-m14-legend/ The m14 is the worst service rifle fielded by our nation. Not just because it was a bad gun, but because we already had a better rifle. As did the Italians. The Garand is heavier. I can put them both on a scale and show you if you want. I don't think the flip-up buttplate is useless. I enjoy it in prone. Of course a guy can go down the list of a 10-20 improvements and say "oh, that's not a big deal." But you sum them all up and you have a much better rifle. I get your point about the En blocs being easier to carry, and Garand's are quick to reload. I enjoy taking one to the range and seeing how fast I can fire off shots. But obviously the Garand had its limitations, a bit awkward to top off obviously. What is the advantage of the BM59? I shot one one time, it seemed ok. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2024 9:12:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Jm11513]
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: I'm not sure what early reports you're referring to. I read one book where a group of Marines had M14s and a new guy showed up with an M1D. They made fun of him relentlessly until he switched to an M14. The 20 round mag was a real improvement. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: I'm not sure what early reports you're referring to. I read one book where a group of Marines had M14s and a new guy showed up with an M1D. They made fun of him relentlessly until he switched to an M14. The 20 round mag was a real improvement. Please don't make me dig it up. It ranked the ak the highest, the m1 was much lower, and the m14 was a step below the m1. Eta, i already linked it, here it is again https://looserounds.com/the-m14-not-much-for-fighting-a-case-against-the-m14-legend/ The Garand is heavier. I can put them both on a scale and show you if you want. different stock materials will give different weights, especially if the stocks are commercial vs military. Weigh both rifles loaded with a sling. Go on. I don't think the flip-up buttplate is useless. I enjoy it in prone. I enjoy using a 1907 leather sling on the range. In the field it's still useless. Of course a guy can go down the list of a 10-20 improvements and say "oh, that's not a big deal." But you sum them all up and you have a much better rifle. Except they are not improvements. Sa fucked up a garand so bad they had to bring Garand out of retirement again, but even he couldn't stop the ship from sinking. I get your point about the En blocs being easier to carry, and Garand's are quick to reload. I enjoy taking one to the range and seeing how fast I can fire off shots. But obviously the Garand had its limitations, a bit awkward to top off obviously. What is the advantage of the BM59? I shot one one time, it seemed ok. The garand is not hard to top off. Once you get used to it, it takes no more time to top off than a 1903 or a mauser What is the advantage of the BM59? Aside from the fact it was cheaper? Used much more Garand tooling than the M14? And existed 16 years before the m14 did? And the italians could build 2 guns in a row without one failing inspection? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2024 9:36:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Andrewsky]
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jm11513: Please don't make me dig it up. It ranked the ak the highest, the m1 was much lower, and the m14 was a step below the m1. Eta, i already linked it, here it is again https://looserounds.com/the-m14-not-much-for-fighting-a-case-against-the-m14-legend/ different stock materials will give different weights, especially if the stocks are commercial vs military. Weigh both rifles loaded with a sling. Go on. I enjoy using a 1907 leather sling on the range. In the field it's still useless. Except they are not improvements. Sa fucked up a garand so bad they had to bring Garand out of retirement again, but even he couldn't stop the ship from sinking. The garand is not hard to top off. Once you get used to it, it takes no more time to top off than a 1903 or a mauser What is the advantage of the BM59? Aside from the fact it was cheaper? Used much more Garand tooling than the M14? And existed 16 years before the m14 did? And the italians could build 2 guns in a row without one failing inspection? I mean if they had awful manufacturing problems, that's too bad, but that doesn't really reflect on the weapon itself. A lot of rifle had teething issues early-on. It's a complicated gun to make for sure but that's just factory stuff. The 1907 sling was used in WW2 to effect in certain circumstances, sadly it's a lost art and I'd agree not really a prime feature anymore. Do you really think a Garand is easy to top off but an M14 mag change is hard? I mean I can see the M14 mag change having some stuttering because the required angle is a bit ambiguous, but topping off a Garand in an actual fight would be impressive. I consider myself pretty competent with an M1. I've shot a few matches with them. I just think the M14's a better gun to be honest. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2024 9:54:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Jm11513]
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: I don't know what study you're referring to, there was a lot of clutter in that link. I mean if they had awful manufacturing problems, that's too bad, but that doesn't really reflect on the weapon itself. A lot of rifle had teething issues early-on. It's a complicated gun to make for sure but that's just factory stuff. The 1907 sling was used in WW2 to effect in certain circumstances, sadly it's a lost art and I'd agree not really a prime feature anymore. Do you really think a Garand is easy to top off but an M14 mag change is hard? I mean I can see the M14 mag change having some stuttering because the required angle is a bit ambiguous, but topping off a Garand in an actual fight would be impressive. I consider myself pretty competent with an M1. I've shot a few matches with them. I just think the M14's a better gun to be honest. There's not that much clutter in that link. I really cant help you if you choose to ignore what i link. Yes, manufacturing problems do reflect on the weapon. Thats how it works. If SA, h&r and winchester can't build a rifle that passes headspace checks 50% of the time, there's something wrong with the design itself. "Teething issues early on". Yes the rifle heavily based off of an existing design, that had a 20 year development cycle had teething issues. Lol. Why did the italians not have teething issues after only 4 years? As for the 1907 sling, i refer you to helmet for my pillow. He saw one guy use it, no one else did because getting locked into your gun isn't worth being able to duck into cover or concealment quickly so you don't die. The 1907 is a hold over from competition shooters that think combat is a calm, clean KD range. Yes, actually. The m14 has a terrible magazine design. Instead of having the front protrusion on the mag body, they have a small peg that you cant see or feel when inserting a mag. It's extremely easy to screw up and miss that peg. To top off an m1, just hold the bolt back, insert new rounds. In combat? Pull back bolt, hit the latch, insert fresh enbloc. Easy. If we were talking about a good magazine designs (fal, g3, ak) i wouldn't be making this argument. But we're talking about the m14. The rifle with the most disproportionate development time to service life of any small arm in American history. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/10/2024 11:16:01 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: Please double check. I am pretty sure at least part of the buttplate assembly is aluminum. You're correct. The buttplate itself is aluminum alloy and the trap door is 7075 aluminum alloy. They were hard coat anodized. The flapper that folds is steel and was Parkerized. https://www.gunhub.com/threads/m14-buttplate-types.40622/ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 2:38:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Andrewsky]
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Jm11513: There's not that much clutter in that link. I really cant help you if you choose to ignore what i link. Yes, manufacturing problems do reflect on the weapon. Thats how it works. If SA, h&r and winchester can't build a rifle that passes headspace checks 50% of the time, there's something wrong with the design itself. "Teething issues early on". Yes the rifle heavily based off of an existing design, that had a 20 year development cycle had teething issues. Lol. Why did the italians not have teething issues after only 4 years? As for the 1907 sling, i refer you to helmet for my pillow. He saw one guy use it, no one else did because getting locked into your gun isn't worth being able to duck into cover or concealment quickly so you don't die. The 1907 is a hold over from competition shooters that think combat is a calm, clean KD range. Yes, actually. The m14 has a terrible magazine design. Instead of having the front protrusion on the mag body, they have a small peg that you cant see or feel when inserting a mag. It's extremely easy to screw up and miss that peg. To top off an m1, just hold the bolt back, insert new rounds. In combat? Pull back bolt, hit the latch, insert fresh enbloc. Easy. If we were talking about a good magazine designs (fal, g3, ak) i wouldn't be making this argument. But we're talking about the m14. The rifle with the most disproportionate development time to service life of any small arm in American history. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 2:39:06 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By KitBuilder: @Andrewsky You're correct. The buttplate itself is aluminum alloy and the trap door is 7075 aluminum alloy. They were hard coat anodized. The flapper that folds is steel and was Parkerized. https://www.gunhub.com/threads/m14-buttplate-types.40622/ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 2:54:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Combat_Diver]
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: I don't know what study you're referring to, there was a lot of clutter in that link. I mean if they had awful manufacturing problems, that's too bad, but that doesn't really reflect on the weapon itself. A lot of rifle had teething issues early-on. It's a complicated gun to make for sure but that's just factory stuff. The 1907 sling was used in WW2 to effect in certain circumstances, sadly it's a lost art and I'd agree not really a prime feature anymore. Do you really think a Garand is easy to top off but an M14 mag change is hard? I mean I can see the M14 mag change having some stuttering because the required angle is a bit ambiguous, but topping off a Garand in an actual fight would be impressive. I consider myself pretty competent with an M1. I've shot a few matches with them. I just think the M14's a better gun to be honest. Topping off a M14 is even easier. Lock bolt to rear on partially filled mag, insert 5 round stripper clip into charger guide above bolt and strip rounds into mag topping it off. M14 stripper guide still issued with bandolier. (SG won't work on Mk17 or M110 mags and M80 Ball replaced with M118LR)  Attached FileNever had any issues with the M14 or XM21/M21s. Been using them off and on since 85' but M4A1 still for Civil Defense. Oldest son and myself in Baghdad 20 yrs ago. (TRW M14NM, carried that gun in Africa and Iraq, also shot it to 1000yds at All Army with irons)  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 4:42:01 PM EDT
[#37]
Am I really reading someone claiming that the Garand is a better all-around rifle than the M14?
  PM me for my address so you can send your obviously inferior M14s. @Combat_Diver: Your posts are always a gold mine of real world experience. Thanks a lot for what you do and sharing what you can. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/11/2024 7:30:29 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lew: Am I really reading someone claiming that the Garand is a better all-around rifle than the M14? PM me for my address so you can send your obviously inferior M14s. @Combat_Diver: Your posts are always a gold mine of real world experience. Thanks a lot for what you do and sharing what you can. Yes. I am making that claim, so did the military. The only thing the m14 has over the garand is a DBM. Everything else in the garand is better Its not hard to be better than the m14. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 10:06:18 AM EDT
[#39]
 M14: America’s Worst Service Rifle - What Went Wrong? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 3:17:12 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryGood summation. The problem with the M-14, BM-59, and the FAL is that they were outdated as soon as they were introduced. The G3 had a little more life left in the design. Springfield Armory took an overall good design and fucked it up every step of the way with bureaucratic bungling. Eventually, the final product was a good Cold War battle rifle, but technology had left that concept behind, at least as a generally-issued rifle. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 10:06:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Frank762]
[#41]
My thoughts on the M-14?
The Garand had been adopted in 1936, the M-14 in 1957. A lot of firearms innovation had occurred in that time only to end up with a Garand with detachable box magazine that had already been kicking around since 1944-45. As usual, the ordnance department couldn't see the future even if it walked up and hit them between the eyes. After all, how many years did we use a single shot trap door rifle just after fighting the civil war with repeating arms using tubular magazines? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 1:25:20 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Frank762: My thoughts on the M-14? The Garand had been adopted in 1936, the M-14 in 1957. A lot of firearms innovation had occurred in that time only to end up with a Garand with detachable box magazine that had already been kicking around since 1944-45. As usual, the ordnance department couldn't see the future even if it walked up and hit them between the eyes. After all, how many years did we use a single shot trap door rifle just after fighting the civil war with repeating arms using tubular magazines? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 1:42:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Frank762]
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: At the time everyone was absolutely ecstatic about the Garand's performance in the previous wars. If they had just abandoned it, and then the new gun had issues, it would look really really bad. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: Originally Posted By Frank762: My thoughts on the M-14? The Garand had been adopted in 1936, the M-14 in 1957. A lot of firearms innovation had occurred in that time only to end up with a Garand with detachable box magazine that had already been kicking around since 1944-45. As usual, the ordnance department couldn't see the future even if it walked up and hit them between the eyes. After all, how many years did we use a single shot trap door rifle just after fighting the civil war with repeating arms using tubular magazines? The "new" old gun did have issues, and it did look really really bad. I am sure you could have found a few Marine Generals that would have suggested we go back to the Springfield 03 because of "ammo discipline" after WW2. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 1:48:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Andrewsky]
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Frank762: The "new" old gun did have issues, and it did look really really bad. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 2:12:52 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: No it didn't. This is just the recent historical revision. The general consensus about the M14 up until the 2010s was that it was a great rifle but the ammo was a little heavy for Vietnam. A lot of guys didn't want to trade theirs for the M16. Nobody yammered on about early issues with the assembly line like it's been fashionable to lately. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: Originally Posted By Frank762: The "new" old gun did have issues, and it did look really really bad. Yes it did have issues. It was too old of a design to replace a nation's service rifle at that time to justify a retooling to make basically the same rifle when better designs were out there. |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 4:06:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: spydercomonkey]
[#46]
Originally Posted By Oldhogleg: -A standardized Civil Defense weapons system in a similar vain as the Swiss. -an entire small arms weapons system -universal receiver design for a family of weapons from PDWs to LMGs It's literally the Steyr AUG.  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 11:47:51 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By spydercomonkey: It's literally the Steyr AUG. https://images.guns.com/wordpress/2014/01/the_AUG_family_used_a_number_of_different_barrel_lengths_for_different_mission_profiles.jpg https://i.ibb.co/H4pfzZn/Screen-Shot-2024-04-16-at-1-14-00-AM.png Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By spydercomonkey: Originally Posted By Oldhogleg: -A standardized Civil Defense weapons system in a similar vain as the Swiss. -an entire small arms weapons system -universal receiver design for a family of weapons from PDWs to LMGs It's literally the Steyr AUG. https://images.guns.com/wordpress/2014/01/the_AUG_family_used_a_number_of_different_barrel_lengths_for_different_mission_profiles.jpg https://i.ibb.co/H4pfzZn/Screen-Shot-2024-04-16-at-1-14-00-AM.png I’ve never understood the attraction to mag fed LMGs or automatic riflemen like the Aug LMG or L85 LMG or the Marines new M27. While lighter than a SAW you’ve lost the ability to provide sustained support by fire. Even with a drum mag or beta mag they are clumsy choices. Id also like to point out that the M4 is modular in the same way, you just swap out the uppers. A lot of the high speed guys will have two or three different uppers set up for their M4s. A single lower, a couple of different buffers and uppers is all you need to go from 10.3” to 14.5” to 18” or even 20”. Personally I think the M4s modularity is better than the quick change barrel concept since everything retains zero with the various uppers and you aren’t locked into a single use optic or having to change optics and re-zero after a barrel length change. With the M4 you can go from an Eotech equipped MK18 upper to an LPVO 18” DMR upper and be ready to go in seconds. No zeroing needed. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 12:40:59 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MK318: I've never understood the attraction to mag fed LMGs or automatic riflemen like the Aug LMG or L85 LMG or the Marines new M27. While lighter than a SAW you've lost the ability to provide sustained support by fire. Even with a drum mag or beta mag they are clumsy choices. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MK318: I've never understood the attraction to mag fed LMGs or automatic riflemen like the Aug LMG or L85 LMG or the Marines new M27. While lighter than a SAW you've lost the ability to provide sustained support by fire. Even with a drum mag or beta mag they are clumsy choices. The trade-off when having an automatic rifleman armed with a HBAR/LMG instead of a SAW is that he gains maneuverability, comparable to the rest of the squad, but you're correct that it sacrifices the max sustained fire that something like an M249 can render. I think some people forgot how important that capability is for counter-ambush, final protective fire, or just really long engagements in high ambient temps. (Or maybe not, if it's truly at the CO's discretion to deploy the M249 instead of an M27. I've not heard a clear/recent answer regarding that. Anyone know?) Id also like to point out that the M4 is modular in the same way, you just swap out the uppers. A lot of the high speed guys will have two or three different uppers set up for their M4s. A single lower, a couple of different buffers and uppers is all you need to go from 10.3" to 14.5" to 18" or even 20". Personally I think the M4s modularity is better than the quick change barrel concept since everything retains zero with the various uppers and you aren't locked into a single use optic or having to change optics and re-zero after a barrel length change. With the M4 you can go from an Eotech equipped MK18 upper to an LPVO 18" DMR upper and be ready to go in seconds. No zeroing needed. The AR is unmatched in this regard, and parts are everywhere, for pretty much any configuration you could want. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 2:39:07 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Andrewsky: No it didn't. This is just the recent historical revision. The general consensus about the M14 up until the 2010s was that it was a great rifle but the ammo was a little heavy for Vietnam. A lot of guys didn't want to trade theirs for the M16. Nobody yammered on about early issues with the assembly line like it's been fashionable to lately. Incorrect. They stopped production of the thing during the Vietnam war because the guns were getting rejected left and right. They absolutely did yammer on about early issues because *they stopped production in the middle of a war* Loys of guys were more than happy to trade their m14's for m16s or CARs as well. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2024 2:40:27 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Frank762: Yes it did have issues. It was too old of a design to replace a nation's service rifle at that time to justify a retooling to make basically the same rifle when better designs were out there. Not only their service rifle, but their automatic rifles, their submachine guns, their carbines, and GPMG's. What a great idea |
|
|
|
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.
Attached File
