User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:37:24 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:39:40 PM EDT
[#1]
I’m enjoying mine, but I’m not slaying waves of Chinamen either
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:40:24 PM EDT
[#2]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:40:42 PM EDT
[#3]
Then why is it so fuckin' fun to shoot?
huh? HUH?!?!? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:41:08 PM EDT
[#4]
I'd rather have that than a Garand, but the FAL is 1000x better.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:42:06 PM EDT
[#5]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:43:04 PM EDT
[#6]
lol
So why does the M1 get a pass? It's all 1930's tech. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:43:05 PM EDT
[#7]
Rated troll
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:44:08 PM EDT
[#8]
Certain relatives that served in Vietnam would say no.
They learned real quick how to handle and shoot it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:44:33 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: lol So why does the M1 get a pass? It's all 1930's tech. The M1 was brilliant for it's time. The M14 was terrible for it's time; in many ways worse than the M1 it replaced. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:45:01 PM EDT
[#10]
If I was defending an area and had to pick something in .308, I'd take an M1A and not worry about it. FAL would be my second choice.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:45:09 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The M1 was brilliant for it's time. The M14 was terrible for it's time; in many ways worse than the M1 it replaced. lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:45:33 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: lol So why does the M1 get a pass? It's all 1930's tech. I was thinking how could the M1 be all that and a bag of chips but the M14 be shit. Other than the full auto issue.  Seems to me the M14 is the M1 perfected. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:47:24 PM EDT
[#13]
Proof that Fudd-ism has always been a thing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:48:42 PM EDT
[#14]
I LOVE the M14 . . . . . . ….but the STG.44 and AKM took things to the next level |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:50:08 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I was thinking how could the M1 be all that and a bag of chips but the M14 be shit. Other than the full auto issue. Seems to me the M14 is the M1 perfected. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: lol So why does the M1 get a pass? It's all 1930's tech. I was thinking how could the M1 be all that and a bag of chips but the M14 be shit. Other than the full auto issue. Seems to me the M14 is the M1 perfected. I haven't watched the video yet, but I agree with you. I think the gas system is superior on the M14. The box magazine a no-brainer. I do think that the basic design was already kind of dated by the time it was adopted. The M16 is a much better weapon. I don't think the FAL is that great. It was in the right place at the right time, ready to be marketed and sold in the post WWII era, same as the G3. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:51:21 PM EDT
[#16]
The Krag didn't have a long service life, either.
The M14 program was a forerunner of modern military procurement. It started off being a magazine fed M1 for 7.62 NATO ammunition. And then it became the replacement for the M1, BAR, M1 Carbine, the submachine gun ..... trying to do everything meant doing almost nothing well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:51:56 PM EDT
[#17]
I'm a big time M14 fan. I prefer it over the FAL and G3.
But there's no discussion that it was a terrible service weapon and the M16 platform was light years ahead in every way including reliability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:52:12 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I was thinking how could the M1 be all that and a bag of chips but the M14 be shit. Other than the full auto issue. Seems to me the M14 is the M1 perfected. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:52:25 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: lol So why does the M1 get a pass? It's all 1930's tech. Because it was great when adopted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:53:00 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Rated troll Why? It's a legitimate topic to discuss. It wasn't a particularly sound decision to choose a modified Garand for the new service rifle, and making it full auto was even dumber. I've never found Ian/Forgotten Weapons to be biased and if you watch the video I'm sure you'll see the reasons he gives for the title. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:53:20 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I’m enjoying mine, but I’m not slaying waves of Chinamen either Neither did the M14, but in the hands of Ukrainians, the M14 has slain more than a few Russians. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:54:38 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I was thinking how could the M1 be all that and a bag of chips but the M14 be shit. Other than the full auto issue. Seems to me the M14 is the M1 perfected. That's the problem. You couldn't perfect the M1. The Italians with the BM59 did it right. They developed an improved M1 in one or two years. The US spent a decade developing the M14 and it wasn't any better than the BM59. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:54:49 PM EDT
[#23]
Maybe not the best, definitely not The Worst...
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:55:25 PM EDT
[#24]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:55:37 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: lol So why does the M1 get a pass? It's all 1930's tech. Because the M14 was basically an m1 anyway? Because there was 20-30 years of intense firearms use and development between the two? Because the m1 didn't replace every weapon in an infantry platoon? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:56:56 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Seems to me the M14 is the M1 perfected. Maybe in theory but a Harvester M1 will go bang more reliably than any M14 will. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:57:15 PM EDT
[#27]
I have a NM M1a even with the folding thing that goes up. I love it, but if I have to grab a rifle and run, it's not my first choice.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:57:25 PM EDT
[#28]
It's true.
Neat gun, but it's a crappy issued weapon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:58:28 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I was thinking how could the M1 be all that and a bag of chips but the M14 be shit. Other than the full auto issue. Seems to me the M14 is the M1 perfected. The BM59 is arguably better. And the first ones of those were literally modded WW2 Garands |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:59:13 PM EDT
[#30]
My safe has some .308 goodness via an M1, M14 & G3 in it. Each brings people over to watch when I'm shooting them. The M1 gets the most oooh's & aahhh's.
The under 20 and over 60 crowd seems to like the M14 the best. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:59:14 PM EDT
[#31]
Thread title is a bit click bait.
But video is solid as usual for ForgottenWeapons. TLDW. M14 is a good rifle. It was Springfield's second choice and was chosen over the FAL because we make it here. The contract to make the rifles went poorly as the rifles shipped didn't meet the expectations of the military. Things broke, many rifles had sub par accuracy. Honestly sounds like a lot of the same stuff that tanked the AR's reputation for reliability in Vietnam. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 12:59:21 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I was thinking how could the M1 be all that and a bag of chips but the M14 be shit. Other than the full auto issue. Seems to me the M14 is the M1 perfected. Perfection for the 30's doesn't mean perfection for the 60's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:00:03 PM EDT
[#33]
Wow. Another "Stop liking what I don't like!" thread in GD.
Fuckin' 09ers. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:00:48 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's the problem. You couldn't perfect the M1. The Italians with the BM59 did it right. They developed an improved M1 in one or two years. The US spent a decade developing the M14 and it wasn't any better than the BM59. Going to agree with this. Straightened out the op rod so it was less prone to being bent too. Real engineers at work and not just the "M-1 Tanker" chop shop specials that will eventually fail. Viva Italia! |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:01:12 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why? It's a legitimate topic to discuss. It wasn't a particularly sound decision to choose a modified Garand for the new service rifle, and making it full auto was even dumber. I've never found Ian/Forgotten Weapons to be biased and if you watch the video I'm sure you'll see the reasons he gives for the title. Actually what the Italians did with the BM59 was the right way to do it. BM59 was literally just an improved M1, and with the BM59 you could use M1 tooling and M1 parts. The problem with the US approach was we attempted perfection which you can't achieve if you are trying to improve the M1 design. A stop gap improvement like the BM59 made lots of sense if you accept it for what it is. But that doesn't make sense if you do it the way the US did in developing the M14 for over a decade. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:04:21 PM EDT
[#36]
Man who is a Killer/Soldier gun. Not for candy ass Mike Pence Race Bannon wannabees.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:06:08 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Going to agree with this. Straightened out the op rod so it was less prone to being bent too. Real engineers at work and not just the "M-1 Tanker" chop shop specials that will eventually fail. Viva Italia! The Italians also marketed their ability to modify Garands into BM59Es. They did this for the Argentine navy, which wanted FALs but the army wouldn't allow them to acquire them. So they had their M1s upgraded to BM59E status cheap. It's not the full BM59 conversion, it uses a shortened M1 op rod. Doesn't have the bipod of the BM59, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:06:13 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Certain relatives that served in Vietnam would say no. They learned real quick how to handle and shoot it. My old man humped one back in the day. He swears by it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:08:12 PM EDT
[#39]
The M1 and M14 have similar rates of sustained fire because the clips change so much faster than magazines.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:10:16 PM EDT
[#40]
It made sense at the time but having had an FAL and seeing the masterful engineering that went into it - Saive really designed the FAL to be the rifle that traversed the post WWIII radioactive wastelands - that probably should have won the rifle trials.
That said, I have an M1a; I no longer have an FAL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:14:02 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The BM59 is arguably better. And the first ones of those were literally modded WW2 Garands Yes, and the development cycle was much quicker and there was a lot of commonality between the M1 and BM59 in terms of parts, tooling, etc. M14 was ok as a stopgap until we got something like the AR15, but we invested a hell of a lot of money and effort into developing something that was limited by the fundamental design constraint of using a 1930s rifle as it's basis. If we approached it like the Italians did we would have had a rifle that might be slightly better than the M14, but done so by around 1948 which could be made on existing tooling. Existing M1s could have been brought up to that standard, and we could have had it in place for Korea, potentially. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:15:21 PM EDT
[#42]
I kind of want one. Don’t have much interest in them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:16:23 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It made sense at the time but having had an FAL and seeing the masterful engineering that went into it - Saive really designed the FAL to be the rifle that traversed the post WWIII radioactive wastelands - that probably should have won the rifle trials. That said, I have an M1a; I no longer have an FAL. FAL is similar in fundamental design to SVT38 and 40. The tilting bolt system is less than ideal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:17:16 PM EDT
[#44]
Well, just in response to the thread title -
Nobody would pick, say, a trapdoor Springfield or a P17 or anything that predates them over an M14 if offered both and told to pick one to go into combat with, I think most would even pick an M14 over an M1 Garand because it is an incremental improvement so definitely not the worst ever even if it had its problems at the time it was adopted. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:18:35 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Certain relatives that served in Vietnam would say no. They learned real quick how to handle and shoot it. Same. Most Vietnam vets liked the M-14. Yes there are some who didn’t but the majority I have talked to and read books about it liked it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:18:51 PM EDT
[#46]
i think they are cool but as a general issue weapon for the masses ? no dice M-16 after the bugs were solved (and later M4s...) FTW light. reliable. accurate. low recoil. modular. decently powered. 30 rd mags. etc. it's pretty much the apex even after all these years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:24:52 PM EDT
[#47]
Another bulls**t, click bait hit piece from the internet. How creative.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:27:42 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: lol So why does the M1 get a pass? It's all 1930's tech. Because the M14 was an awesome 1930’s rifle introduced in the 1950’s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:28:20 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I was thinking how could the M1 be all that and a bag of chips but the M14 be shit. Other than the full auto issue. Seems to me the M14 is the M1 perfected. 20 years too late. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/15/2024 1:30:45 PM EDT
[#50]
Worst- debatable
Useless in FA- yes An absolute must own for any collection- yes 
|
|
|
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.
