User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/30/2018 11:17:30 PM EDT
[#1]
If we had used German mass production methods from Oberndorf, the ArmaLite Stoner gas rifle design, in something like the Brit's intermediate cartridge design, we would have had a truly awesome Assault/DM rifle family of weapons.
Think of something roughly AR15-sized, chambered in an intermediate cartridge with high SD, low recoil, with Hk electrostatic coatings, Hk metallurgy, hammer-forged barrels, West German polymer/glass nylon, with quality aluminum mags.... An Über-ArmaLite if you will. One problem to that is that the West Germans were rebuilding after the war, and were initially getting the FAL. Belgium wouldn't allow license manufacture of it, so they used the CETME as a base for their new G3 in 1959, which was right around the time Colt started tooling for the AR15, after initially tooling up to make the AR10A. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/30/2018 11:45:31 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If we had used German mass production methods from Oberndorf, the ArmaLite Stoner gas rifle design, in something like the Brit's intermediate cartridge design, we would have had a truly awesome Assault/DM rifle family of weapons. Imagine a hammer forged barrel, alloy receiver, rotating bolt, select fire rifle launching a 120 grain .27 or .28 bullet at 2500FPS! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 12:10:10 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yea I'm going to take his word at it because he's not making up shit out of context. I have NO CLUE how you're perverting what he said in your mind, he never said secret, he said mountains. He never said they were better Back then than now, he said ANYTHING we made back them would have been easy to mass produce because we're not retarded. At least we've narrowed things down to your interpretation. Maybe read what he wrote again. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yea I'm going to take his word at it because he's not making up shit out of context. I have NO CLUE how you're perverting what he said in your mind, he never said secret, he said mountains. He never said they were better Back then than now, he said ANYTHING we made back them would have been easy to mass produce because we're not retarded. At least we've narrowed things down to your interpretation. Maybe read what he wrote again. Quoted:
Few people have access to the mountains of engineering data, the cost-benefit analysis of scalability of manufacture, cost analysis of alternatives, etc. Even comparing the M1 to the G43 or SVT, you can see the American engineering prowless leaking through it, rendering a remarkable uniform weapon and effective weapon. He also ignores the fact that those "Euros" made advancements that GREATLY reduced manufacturing time and cost. For example - hammer forged barrels and welded stamped steel receivers. Do you really think it was cheaper to produce an M14 than a G3 or FAL? Especially in the case of the G3 I seriously doubt it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 9:35:46 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FAL vs M14 Manufacturing Considerations: From a manufacturing perspective, the FAL looks easier to produce and maintain than the M14 in my eyes. The FAL uses sheet steel for the lower with an ergonomic interface for the selector, sheet steel for the receiver cover, adjustable gas that is fairly simple, and an easy barrel profile to manufacture. The M14 uses one of the most complicated service rifle receivers ever devised (aside from the Garand) forged, then finish-machined. The M14 has one of the most difficult and tedious barrel profiles to manufacture of any military service rifle ever produced, with the Garand's barrel right behind it. The M14 receiver manufacturing process was supposed to be streamlined and made more efficient than the Garand by use of forgings instead of billet. It failed in about every way to cut production time, and caused multiple first-line units in Europe and Korea to be without new rifles while the Soviets and Chinese cranked out AKMs and Type 56s in WWII-like volumes. The FAL parts count does exceed the M14's substantially. I think the M14 is a little over 60, whereas the FAL has 163 give or take, so that is one major strike against the FAL. Variance? Have you ever tried to source optics mounts for multiple M14s in a unit? The variance in critical receiver dimensions from threads to the optic mount hole on the side of the receiver is such that there never was a universal, solid mount for the M14. The Euros never caught up to our manufacturing prowess? Have you ever seen the production process for the G3, Hk33, or MP5 at Oberndorf or the level of quality in the Dutch AR10? The highest quality battle rifles ever made for mass issue to line troops is clearly seen if you ever do a detail strip of a Dutch AR10, or a Swiss Stg-510, a G3, or Hk33. The US still hasn't produced a rifle with the barrel or finish quality of a 1960s-era Hk or a SIG 550 series rifle. The fit, feel, finish, inspection and proof marks for consistency of the Hk weapons has never been even reached for in the US, let attained. We have millions of soldiers, Marines, and Airmen to issue rifles to, so the volumetric challenge doesn't bode well for demanding Hk-level quality, but we could scale their techniques if we really wanted that level, and it would be more streamlined when looking at barrel manufacturing, as well as getting superior coatings. AR10 castings? ArmaLite did not use aluminum castings for the AR10. The receivers have always been machined, initially from billet on the prototypes, then mass produced with forgings on forge plates, which are then finish-machined. We do have a superior design in the AR15 because of a series of flukes and stars in alignment with Stoner, ArmaLite, Fairchild, the USAF, and a new President with a statistician for SECDEF, right at a time when the USAF was looking for a replacement for the M1 and M2 carbines. The direction the Army Ordnance Corps went with the M14 was a colossal series of mistakes and failures, the most obvious one being the lessons-learned from The Great War and World War II. The fact that they chose to go with a single cartridge system to replace 4 different small arms cartridges is yet another example of failure that fell flat on its face in combat and was quickly tossed to the side. The fact that they basically made a box mag fed Garand instead of pushing the technology further was another huge failure. Watch this to get an idea of what the Germans were doing already in 1970.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEFALN8D8t0 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 10:50:26 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pretty sure there are zero European barrel manufacturers represented in benchrest circles. The most accurate barrels in the world are clearly made in the US, both cut and button. The rest is very subjective but the US clearly is dominant in producing straight barrels. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 11:27:49 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryActually, that review by Bartocci is misleading. He conflates the performance of the M14 and it's cartridge with the AR-15 and it's very differnet cartridge. He fails to separate the cartridge-based factors from the rifle-based factors. In other words, he fails to separate the rifle and it's characteristics from the cartridge and IT's characteristics.
If you listen to Bartocci's whole thesis, he hates the M-14 mostly because it fired the 7.62 cartridge. A more fair comparison would have been the AR-15 against the AR-10, if one wants to compare cartridge-based factors. Likewise, it would be more appropriate to compare the T-48 (FAL) against the M-14, both shooting the 7.62x51 cartridge, if one wants to compare rifle based factors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 11:30:01 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Cleaning: you're doing it wrong. M1A cleaning is swab the barrel several times with a brush covered in cleaning solvent, brush the chamber with a ratcheting chamber brush, clean the chamber with patches on an old chamber bruch, punch out the barrel with patches, scrub the bolt face with a toothbrush and solvent, wipe the bolt down. Then grease the bolt roller tracks. That's it. Clean out the gas cylinder, gas piston, and gas plug every few hundred rounds. Get a USGI fiberglass stock to replace that wood stock. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 11:50:13 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually, that review by Bartocci is misleading. He conflates the performance of the M14 and it's cartridge with the AR-15 and it's very differnet cartridge. He fails to separate the cartridge-based factors from the rifle-based factors. In other words, he fails to separate the rifle and it's characteristics from the cartridge and IT's characteristics. If you listen to Bartocci's whole thesis, he hates the M-14 mostly because it fired the 7.62 cartridge. A more fair comparison would have been the AR-15 against the AR-10, if one wants to compare cartridge-based factors. Likewise, it would be more appropriate to compare the T-48 (FAL) against the M-14, both shooting the 7.62x51 cartridge, if one wants to compare rifle based factors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 11:52:44 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One problem to that is that the West Germans were rebuilding after the war, and were initially getting the FAL. Belgium wouldn't allow license manufacture of it, so they used the CETME as a base for their new G3 in 1959, which was right around the time Colt started tooling for the AR15, after initially tooling up to make the AR10A. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 12:13:57 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pretty sure there are zero European barrel manufacturers represented in benchrest circles. The most accurate barrels in the world are clearly made in the US, both cut and button. The rest is very subjective but the US clearly is dominant in producing straight barrels. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
FAL vs M14 Manufacturing Considerations: From a manufacturing perspective, the FAL looks easier to produce and maintain than the M14 in my eyes. The FAL uses sheet steel for the lower with an ergonomic interface for the selector, sheet steel for the receiver cover, adjustable gas that is fairly simple, and an easy barrel profile to manufacture. The M14 uses one of the most complicated service rifle receivers ever devised (aside from the Garand) forged, then finish-machined. The M14 has one of the most difficult and tedious barrel profiles to manufacture of any military service rifle ever produced, with the Garand's barrel right behind it. The M14 receiver manufacturing process was supposed to be streamlined and made more efficient than the Garand by use of forgings instead of billet. It failed in about every way to cut production time, and caused multiple first-line units in Europe and Korea to be without new rifles while the Soviets and Chinese cranked out AKMs and Type 56s in WWII-like volumes. The FAL parts count does exceed the M14's substantially. I think the M14 is a little over 60, whereas the FAL has 163 give or take, so that is one major strike against the FAL. Variance? Have you ever tried to source optics mounts for multiple M14s in a unit? The variance in critical receiver dimensions from threads to the optic mount hole on the side of the receiver is such that there never was a universal, solid mount for the M14. The Euros never caught up to our manufacturing prowess? Have you ever seen the production process for the G3, Hk33, or MP5 at Oberndorf or the level of quality in the Dutch AR10? The highest quality battle rifles ever made for mass issue to line troops is clearly seen if you ever do a detail strip of a Dutch AR10, or a Swiss Stg-510, a G3, or Hk33. The US still hasn't produced a rifle with the barrel or finish quality of a 1960s-era Hk or a SIG 550 series rifle. The fit, feel, finish, inspection and proof marks for consistency of the Hk weapons has never been even reached for in the US, let attained. We have millions of soldiers, Marines, and Airmen to issue rifles to, so the volumetric challenge doesn't bode well for demanding Hk-level quality, but we could scale their techniques if we really wanted that level, and it would be more streamlined when looking at barrel manufacturing, as well as getting superior coatings. AR10 castings? ArmaLite did not use aluminum castings for the AR10. The receivers have always been machined, initially from billet on the prototypes, then mass produced with forgings on forge plates, which are then finish-machined. We do have a superior design in the AR15 because of a series of flukes and stars in alignment with Stoner, ArmaLite, Fairchild, the USAF, and a new President with a statistician for SECDEF, right at a time when the USAF was looking for a replacement for the M1 and M2 carbines. The direction the Army Ordnance Corps went with the M14 was a colossal series of mistakes and failures, the most obvious one being the lessons-learned from The Great War and World War II. The fact that they chose to go with a single cartridge system to replace 4 different small arms cartridges is yet another example of failure that fell flat on its face in combat and was quickly tossed to the side. The fact that they basically made a box mag fed Garand instead of pushing the technology further was another huge failure. Watch this to get an idea of what the Germans were doing already in 1970. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEFALN8D8t0That said, the LW pipes for European use are a different level of accuracy than the rejects they send to the US. The British accurate barrels were world-renowned, and the Swedes make world-class barrels as well. Finland has been producing some of the most accurate out-of-the-box rifles over the last 90 years. The Swiss have pioneered an electro-etched rifling process, so we're in an era where new levels of accuracy will be attainable for mass-produced rifles, thanks to high European engineering, tooling, and processes. If you're limited to a US view of the barrel world, I see how one could come to conclusions about accurate barrels only in the US, but that is an extremely limited perspective of what is available with barrels. As far as military service and assault rifle barrels go, we have good chrome-lining and alloys, but our coatings suck when it comes to the choice of Manganese phosphate on steel. Having used a ton of different military service rifles from all over the world, I have found the Swiss and German coatings to be superior to pretty much everyone else's. If you ever get a chance to look closely at real SIG 550 series rifles, as well as real Hk coatings in high humidity environments, you'll see what I mean. 
What I'm imagining as reaching our potential in the late 1950s, early 1960s, is a hybrid of: * AR10/AR15 design and layout * British intermediate cartridge design * Dutch, German, and Swiss barrel quality, build quality, attention to detail (look at a Dutch AR10 BCG of you ever get a chance) * SIG or Hk coatings (2-part enamel and aerosolized pigment run through electrostatic coating chamber with the metal grounded out) * German polymer/glass nylon furniture * Maybe Hk-style sights since I've seen so many M16/M4 front sight posts bent over that you can't zero. The open front sight approach is better for accuracy like on a target rifle, but sucks in the field because the post is exposed to damage. The Hk hood is much better for protecting the post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 3:56:42 PM EDT
[#11]
LRRP, as ever, your points are very much appreciated.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 5:10:15 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So we should just take your word for it because we don't have access to secret engineering data? How about No? Prove your silly ass statements. This is quite possibly the most pompous post I have ever seen.  Point being, the military RARELY buys the best widget in a field of widgets. It buys the optimum widget in cost/production/training/political window among a thousand other competing programs. Sorry that hurts your feelings. The M14 was probably that weapon, because the FAL wasn't and the AR10 was markedly better as a rifle, but was a frankly evolutionary jump in an Pentomic Army, i.e. an Army with a thousand other procurement choices, include fielding turbine helicopters, new radios, the first computers for land battlefield use, a new tank, nuclear missiles, SAMs etc. that then had to field a low intensity SOF force for combat, and a high intensity force, at the same, as the third funding priority of the DOD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 5:28:07 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Army with a thousand other procurement choices, include fielding turbine helicopters, new radios, the first computers for land battlefield use, a new tank, nuclear missiles, SAMs etc. that then had to field a low intensity SOF force for combat, and a high intensity force, at the same, as the third funding priority of the DOD. When M-16 is ready, make the switch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 5:28:24 PM EDT
[#14]
This whole subject is something I've read and studied since childhood, then got to see decades of end-user experience with from the perspective of a dismounted Infantryman and Reconnaissance soldier, as well as years of work with mostly NATO coalition partners.
I've gained a lot more insight into the technical nature of small arms, as well as different perspectives on their employment by picking the brains of career soldiers and engineers, especially those from Canada, the UK, Germany, and Scandinavia. Each regional community has their own unique perspective primarily based on geography, climate, and geopolitics, which form the engineering and employment ideas on how their weapons are made and used. It has me thinking about a "What if" line of service rifles, where we go back in time knowing what we know now and re-design the following rifles: FAL AR10 G3 The primary variable that would change them all would be the assumption that 7.62x51 NATO was an obvious mistake, and what cartridge would we build these designs around instead? By going with a high efficiency intermediate cartridge, we could scale the receivers and magazines down, making rifles that are actually usable in the field when looking at soldier's load, while increasing the hit probability and carrying capacity for a basic load. We also open up controlled bursts if the recoil system is balanced out. What would happen if we made an Hk, FAL, or AR10 with the Sturmgewehr's constant recoil principle and fire control group? 
 The main problem with post-WWII service rifle development was that US pride and narrow-mindedness within Army Ordnance stagnated small arms development with the T44, but then from the star alignment of ArmaLite/Stoner, USAF, and MacNamara's "Whiz Kids", the Army, USAF, and Marines ended up with an out-of-left field futuristic aerospace-grade weapon that nobody saw coming. That is the main redeeming quality of US small arms development over the last 53 years. If we had gotten together with the Brits and Canadians, then pulled in Dutch and German engineers with machine and tooling industry managers with seats at the table, along with Stoner, we could have realized then what has taken many of us to figure out the hard way from 1955-present. Instead, we got the parkerized M14 chambered in 7.62 NATO in a walnut stock, tipping the scales at over 9 lbs, with a planned basic load of 5 mags.... The Brits, Canadians, Belgians, and Australians went with variations of the FAL, which was originally to be chambered in an intermediate cartridge, but because the European and Commonwealth nations were trying to rebuild their devastated economies after the war, they had to go along with what the US had decided for our next rifle cartridge, a full power .30 caliber late 1800s/early 1900s battle rifle cartridge meant for shooting horses at 800m. More pride and fear on the Belgian's side (understandable), they chose to not let the new West Germany make their FAL G1 under license, so Germany found her own solution with one of her previous designs that had migrated to Spain, using operating principles from the Stg45 roller locking mechanism in the CETME rifle. Imagine if all these allies were sitting at the same table with good leadership steering them towards the next rifle concept. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 5:33:54 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys need to stop listening to these jokers on Youtube and read real books. As the years go by I am more and more skeptical of these major Youtube gun review channels. 1) Some of them refuse to make any critical comments on anything they review. 2) They don't mention in a lot of cases that they are taking cash or free stuff for reviews. Oh boy this sure is a great flashlight *pockets $1k cash*. 3) I suspect some of them feel like they were disrespected by the manufacturer of an item and are putting the gear through an unfair torture test. You know like chucking a pistol at a hardened steel target. 4) With respect to the personality themselves, there is a lot of drama. Either they're literally worshipping the Devil, their business partner died mysteriously in an unsolved murder, they're bashing other gun owners, making Fudd anti-gun comments, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 5:50:46 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thank you! I'm compiling information for my next video and this kind of first hand knowledge is priceless. HRF Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: That would be correct. But most of those issues come from a central theme. The m14 was re-issued as a feel good measure. The things were unnecessary and got treated that way. HRF Saw this back on page one and had to come back. Full disclosure I was not tier 1, Delta, seal, or anything high speed like that. I was about as basic Joe as it gets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 5:55:10 PM EDT
[#17]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 6:00:23 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've helped buy all sorts of things for the military. How about you? Driving by the gun show doesn't count. There is plenty out there on the M-14 development that isn't wiki deep, and plenty leaking out on the NATO rifle trials of the 1970s, for example, where the Brits trotted out the EM2 only to have it lose to the M16. Build about 20 FALs from a bunch of makers and get back to me on the engineering thinking that went into it. A brilliant design, a fun rifle to shoot and collect, a reasonable battle rifle with neat features, a serviceable weapon by modern standards, yes. Point being, the military RARELY buys the best widget in a field of widgets. It buys the optimum widget in cost/production/training/political window among a thousand other competing programs. Sorry that hurts your feelings. The M14 was probably that weapon, because the FAL wasn't and the AR10 was markedly better as a rifle, but was a frankly evolutionary jump in an Pentomic Army, i.e. an Army with a thousand other procurement choices, include fielding turbine helicopters, new radios, the first computers for land battlefield use, a new tank, nuclear missiles, SAMs etc. that then had to field a low intensity SOF force for combat, and a high intensity force, at the same, as the third funding priority of the DOD. Quote HistoryQuoted: I've helped buy all sorts of things for the military. How about you? Driving by the gun show doesn't count. There is plenty out there on the M-14 development that isn't wiki deep, and plenty leaking out on the NATO rifle trials of the 1970s, for example, where the Brits trotted out the EM2 only to have it lose to the M16. Build about 20 FALs from a bunch of makers and get back to me on the engineering thinking that went into it. A brilliant design, a fun rifle to shoot and collect, a reasonable battle rifle with neat features, a serviceable weapon by modern standards, yes. Point being, the military RARELY buys the best widget in a field of widgets. It buys the optimum widget in cost/production/training/political window among a thousand other competing programs. Sorry that hurts your feelings. The M14 was probably that weapon, because the FAL wasn't and the AR10 was markedly better as a rifle, but was a frankly evolutionary jump in an Pentomic Army, i.e. an Army with a thousand other procurement choices, include fielding turbine helicopters, new radios, the first computers for land battlefield use, a new tank, nuclear missiles, SAMs etc. that then had to field a low intensity SOF force for combat, and a high intensity force, at the same, as the third funding priority of the DOD. I don't care what secret squirrel info you claim to have - I want you to try and prove the claims that YOU made: Quoted:
Few people have access to the mountains of engineering data, the cost-benefit analysis of scalability of manufacture, cost analysis of alternatives, etc. Even comparing the M1 to the G43 or SVT, you can see the American engineering prowless leaking through it, rendering a remarkable uniform weapon and effective weapon. Perhaps the Mp44 comes close, but that's still a 9 pound 300 meter rifle. Perhaps only the Fg42 comes close. The M14 is a far better weapon to mass produce than FAL on a number of levels, because we had figured out better mass production than the Euros (and frankly, they've never caught up But your claim about the M14 being better engineered for manufacture is completely unproven, as is the idea that the Euros lagged behind the US. Please enlighten us oh wise one! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 8:45:03 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You know exactly why I said it that way. When he says: He is essentially saying "I have access to this top secret data but I am not going to present it - you just need to take my word for it." That is a BS argument, and he offers no evidence otherwise. You can choose to take his word for it, but I do not. Do you have any additional evidence? He also ignores the fact that those "Euros" made advancements that GREATLY reduced manufacturing time and cost. For example - hammer forged barrels and welded stamped steel receivers. Do you really think it was cheaper to produce an M14 than a G3 or FAL? Especially in the case of the G3 I seriously doubt it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yea I'm going to take his word at it because he's not making up shit out of context. I have NO CLUE how you're perverting what he said in your mind, he never said secret, he said mountains. He never said they were better Back then than now, he said ANYTHING we made back them would have been easy to mass produce because we're not retarded. At least we've narrowed things down to your interpretation. Maybe read what he wrote again. Quoted:
Few people have access to the mountains of engineering data, the cost-benefit analysis of scalability of manufacture, cost analysis of alternatives, etc. Even comparing the M1 to the G43 or SVT, you can see the American engineering prowless leaking through it, rendering a remarkable uniform weapon and effective weapon. He also ignores the fact that those "Euros" made advancements that GREATLY reduced manufacturing time and cost. For example - hammer forged barrels and welded stamped steel receivers. Do you really think it was cheaper to produce an M14 than a G3 or FAL? Especially in the case of the G3 I seriously doubt it. I know you don't know what program management is if you can't understand the difference between "secret documents" and the literal fuck ton of un-digitized content that's either been destroyed or archived over time. Hammer forged barrels and stamped receivers in European countries might end up a little cheaper, but scale that up to American sized military numbers. Then have all those parts have to be as close to 100% interchangeable as possible from different contractors over multiple years and sources. Then there's things like lifecycle cost for support. I feel like the problem is he's talking about things on a WHOLE different level than you are. Also, appears that the unit cost per rifle started at around $70 a rifle for the M-14, and were getting cheaper per unit as time went on. That's $617 in today's dollars. So M-14's, which were"expensive to build" cost LESS than a shitty anderson AR-15 does now. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/677383.pdf What was the unit cost for the G3 and FAL? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 8:49:03 PM EDT
[#20]
To reiterate. The M-14, with the most geometrically complex receiver ever made, still cost less than a shitty AR does now.
If that's not a clue as to how much better Americans are at mass producing things, that we can make the most complex stuff as easily as we can the most simple, then I don't know what in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 8:55:41 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the literal fuck ton of un-digitized content that's either been destroyed or archived over time. Hey I am selling a bridge - trust me it's great - you want to buy it? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 8:59:53 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cool that all that proof is either destroyed or archived huh? I guess that gets you out of having to provide it. That sure is handy. Hey I am selling a bridge - trust me it's great - you want to buy it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
the literal fuck ton of un-digitized content that's either been destroyed or archived over time. Hey I am selling a bridge - trust me it's great - you want to buy it? so wait, you're getting all shirty and butthurt, because no one can just give you instant satisfaction of info from a program that was 60 odd years ago?Get your fucking nickers untwisted there sally. Why don't you post up your unit prices on G3's and FAL's since YOU seem to think that info is just free ranging? or is that super d duper secret info? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 9:06:54 PM EDT
[#23]
Slow night at the FUD club Madcap?
I didn't make the claims - your buddy did. Cool trying to shift the burden of proof to me though. Very slick. And I am not angry at all. Are you? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 9:11:26 PM EDT
[#24]
The M14 was crap compared to the M16. The M16 is fine when kept clean.
They did have a bad run of ammo for a short period which caused some serious issues, but it was sorted out. The gun allowed for a decent rate of fire and more ammo carrried. Definitely a decent weapon for the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 9:19:44 PM EDT
[#25]
FAL receiver had to go through 2 revisions.
G3>FAL>M14 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 9:31:31 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Slow night at the FUD club Madcap? I didn't make the claims - your buddy did. Cool trying to shift the burden of proof to me though. Very slick. And I am not angry at all. Are you? I am in fact angry, as I was trying to help with what I thought was a communication error, but turned out to be you just being a dick. "I didn't make the claims" Don't forget you made claims there too sport. I already supplied a link to one of the "secret documents" you blew your load about showing program costs and unit prices. So put up or shut up. Where is your cost evidence? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 9:39:41 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cool that all that proof is either destroyed or archived huh? I guess that gets you out of having to provide it. That sure is handy. Hey I am selling a bridge - trust me it's great - you want to buy it? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
the literal fuck ton of un-digitized content that's either been destroyed or archived over time. Hey I am selling a bridge - trust me it's great - you want to buy it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 10:15:36 PM EDT
[#28]
The M-14/M1A enjoys the virtues of fewer numbers of robust parts and some simplicity of construction over its' contemporaries. OEM iron sights are peerless, as is the trigger group, and now that we have a modern, effective way to scope the M1A via forward-mounted optics, the platform is worth a re-examination, and fair-minded re-evaluation based on modern improvements.
Owning a highly-modified FAL (and liking it) as well as a SM M1A, I prefer the M1A for simplicity and accuracy. I never enjoyed the H+K battle rifles for a number of reasons; some purely personal, many objective. Nowadays, a well thought-out AR version is probably best for most folks who are entering this realm of rifles. Owning both a very nice SM M1A, and a very nice, modified StG58A-based DSA FAL, I have not made it a priority to build/buy an AR-based Battle Rifle. If I did not own the aforementioned rifles, I would probably long ago have bought/built a .308-based AR. YMMV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 11:23:23 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's $617 in today's dollars. So M-14's, which were"expensive to build" cost LESS than a shitty anderson AR-15 does now.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/677383.pdf https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/2047298_-300-AR-thread-for-Fall-.html The G3 is mostly sheet metal and spot welds - it's got to be cheaper to produce than milling out an M-14 forging. I expect the FAL was cheaper to make in quantity, just b/c the two separate receivers were easier to make. All 3 rifles are still in production. G3s are sometimes made in garages from an 80% receiver flat, they're so simple @Chase45 can make one. FALs have been assembled by home-builders from stripped receivers. I'm not aware of anyone doing home assembly of M-1As/M-14s, and US production of the M-1A is on a cast receiver. What's the Chinese copy of the M-14 selling for in Canada right now? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 11:51:28 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Er, keep up. That's twice the price of what you can build an AR for today: https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/2047298_-300-AR-thread-for-Fall-.html The G3 is mostly sheet metal and spot welds - it's got to be cheaper to produce than milling out an M-14 forging. I expect the FAL was cheaper to make in quantity, just b/c the two separate receivers were easier to make. All 3 rifles are still in production. G3s are sometimes made in garages from an 80% receiver flat, they're so simple @Chase45 can make one. FALs have been assembled by home-builders from stripped receivers. I'm not aware of anyone doing home assembly of M-1As/M-14s, and US production of the M-1A is on a cast receiver. What's the Chinese copy of the M-14 selling for in Canada right now? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: That's $617 in today's dollars. So M-14's, which were"expensive to build" cost LESS than a shitty anderson AR-15 does now.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/677383.pdf https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/2047298_-300-AR-thread-for-Fall-.html The G3 is mostly sheet metal and spot welds - it's got to be cheaper to produce than milling out an M-14 forging. I expect the FAL was cheaper to make in quantity, just b/c the two separate receivers were easier to make. All 3 rifles are still in production. G3s are sometimes made in garages from an 80% receiver flat, they're so simple @Chase45 can make one. FALs have been assembled by home-builders from stripped receivers. I'm not aware of anyone doing home assembly of M-1As/M-14s, and US production of the M-1A is on a cast receiver. What's the Chinese copy of the M-14 selling for in Canada right now? I'm talking strictly about ready to fire rifles. I don't care if you don't value your time and as such can claim a home brew junk rifle can be "half th price" nor do I care that a guy can bend a sheet of steel once. Does he have a punch and die to do it a few thousand times, a day? I'm pointing out a very specific thing, that the unit cost for the M-14 was cheap as shit, even compared to today with inflation. chinese M-14's in canada has shit all to do with that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2018 11:54:51 PM EDT
[#31]
One of these kids is not like the others...
US Service Rifle Development, 1930s-1950s 
 German Service Rifle Development: 
 British Service Rifle Development: 
Russian Service Rifle Development: 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 12:16:58 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oh for fucks sake, you expect troops to put their rifles together in the fucking basement? I'm talking strictly about ready to fire rifles. I don't care if you don't value your time and as such can claim a home brew junk rifle can be "half th price" nor do I care that a guy can bend a sheet of steel once. Does he have a punch and die to do it a few thousand times, a day? I'm pointing out a very specific thing, that the unit cost for the M-14 was cheap as shit, even compared to today with inflation. chinese M-14's in canada has shit all to do with that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 12:37:21 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What is being repeatedly pointed out to you is the machining for the M-14 forged receiver is complicated as shit, which is expensive; its contemporaries were easier to manufacture, to the extent that today they can be built in basements, while the M-14 is not being built in the original manner b/c it's too much of a pain in the ass. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Oh for fucks sake, you expect troops to put their rifles together in the fucking basement? I'm talking strictly about ready to fire rifles. I don't care if you don't value your time and as such can claim a home brew junk rifle can be "half th price" nor do I care that a guy can bend a sheet of steel once. Does he have a punch and die to do it a few thousand times, a day? I'm pointing out a very specific thing, that the unit cost for the M-14 was cheap as shit, even compared to today with inflation. chinese M-14's in canada has shit all to do with that. "its contemporaries were easier to manufacture" Easier for countries that were not America. Punch and die PRODUCTION lines are still complicated and die sets wear out. New dies have to be made and so on and so on. Who gives two shits about "easier" when you have a post WW2 machining Juggernaut? "while the M-14 is not being built in the original manner b/c it's too much of a pain in the ass." Which means nothing to me, because that has nothing to do with comparing or contrasting PRODUCTION guns. Building some gun from a flat in the basement isn't building one in the original manner either. Did Chase45 roll his own steel, stamp his own flat, then run a huge punch and die set and bending jig popping out a few hundred receivers to a thousand or more a day? If not, once again, spurious argument. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 1:04:27 AM EDT
[#35]
Don't worry guys I am going to start making M14 receiver flats any day now.
Replacement of the M14 had absolutely nothing to do with ease of manufacturing. 1.3 million had been produced by four different makers by 1963. At that point production ended, and that was two years before we sent conventional units to Vietnam. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 1:21:56 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't worry guys I am going to start making M14 receiver flats any day now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 4:26:25 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FAL receiver had to go through 2 revisions. G3>FAL>M14 Between the M14 and FAL receiver, I don't see how one is any more complicated or difficult to manufacture than the other. As far as whole rifles go, the FAL has more parts. There are many variables which affect unit cost, and economy of scale is one of them. The G3 should have the lowest unit cost. Stamping dies are expensive, and so are robo welders, but once the line is running it's fast and uses less materials. As far as using them, I prefer M14>G3>FAL mainly because of the M14 iron sights, trigger, and how it handles/carries. The FAL is the best in full auto (I'm comparing standard infantry models here) but that's only because it's the heaviest. Let's face it, they all suck in full auto. The M14A1 and the L2A1 were special variants accessorized specifically to handle auto. The Germans never even bothered. I rate the FAL last because of the weight, horrible loose rear sights, trigger, and the vertical stringing most examples exhibit. I own all 3. The AR-10 was the best 7.62 NATO combat rifle available in the early 1960's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 6:40:13 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The G3 is mostly sheet metal and spot welds - it's got to be cheaper to produce than milling out an M-14 forging. I expect the FAL was cheaper to make in quantity, just b/c the two separate receivers were easier to make. All 3 rifles are still in production. G3s are sometimes made in garages from an 80% receiver flat, they're so simple @Chase45 can make one. FALs have been assembled by home-builders from stripped receivers. I'm not aware of anyone doing home assembly of M-1As/M-14s, and US production of the M-1A is on a cast receiver. What's the Chinese copy of the M-14 selling for in Canada right now? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 7:21:15 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No one is making forged M1A receivers here in America? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The G3 is mostly sheet metal and spot welds - it's got to be cheaper to produce than milling out an M-14 forging. I expect the FAL was cheaper to make in quantity, just b/c the two separate receivers were easier to make. All 3 rifles are still in production. G3s are sometimes made in garages from an 80% receiver flat, they're so simple @Chase45 can make one. FALs have been assembled by home-builders from stripped receivers. I'm not aware of anyone doing home assembly of M-1As/M-14s, and US production of the M-1A is on a cast receiver. What's the Chinese copy of the M-14 selling for in Canada right now? And plenty of people assemble M1As onto barreled receivers. Yes, it is a PITA to install the barrel and headspace it, and most farm that out to an experienced M14 smith, but after that it's fairly easy to assemble and accurize it yourself at home. All those internet myths of "it requires constant maintenance to keep accurate, you have to re-bed it in the stock every 500 rounds" are complete bullshit repeated by haters. It can easily be made and kept at 1MOA with surplus ammo. Which is amusing, considering that GDers rant about "M14s are inaccurate pieces of shit" yet accept 3MOA with surplus ammo from their M4gery... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 7:32:16 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No one is making forged M1A receivers here in America? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The G3 is mostly sheet metal and spot welds - it's got to be cheaper to produce than milling out an M-14 forging. I expect the FAL was cheaper to make in quantity, just b/c the two separate receivers were easier to make. All 3 rifles are still in production. G3s are sometimes made in garages from an 80% receiver flat, they're so simple @Chase45 can make one. FALs have been assembled by home-builders from stripped receivers. I'm not aware of anyone doing home assembly of M-1As/M-14s, and US production of the M-1A is on a cast receiver. What's the Chinese copy of the M-14 selling for in Canada right now? I had owned a Springfield Armory M1A and it just didn't do anything for me, so I sold it. Later on when I found out about the CMP kits on the M14 forum I decided to give it a go since I get a lot more enjoyment out of shooting something I put together. I found putting the M14 together was no harder than putting an FAL together. Actually it was easier. A lot of the time I had to fit the charging handle, chase some threads for the barrel, occasionally modify a mag release to fit better, and fit the scope mount to the FAL. Didn't matter if it was a Century, DSA, Coonan, or Entreprise. I've built G1, Imbel, and L1A1 kits. They all needed fitting. My Fulton went together no problem. No fitting, no filing. Everything timed out perfectly, headspace was good, no chasing threads, fitting mag releases. Sadlak scope mount went right on just fine. ETA: I didn't find barreling and headspacing an M1A/M14 to be any harder than a Garand, and I've done 4 or 5 of those up for giggles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 8:13:23 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It didn't "have to" go through 2 revisions. The Type II was because they were getting some eventual cracks in the rear receiver lug, but that may have been metallurgical. The Type III was just to save time/money on machining (which of course made it heavier). Between the M14 and FAL receiver, I don't see how one is any more complicated or difficult to manufacture than the other. As far as whole rifles go, the FAL has more parts. There are many variables which affect unit cost, and economy of scale is one of them. The G3 should have the lowest unit cost. Stamping dies are expensive, and so are robo welders, but once the line is running it's fast and uses less materials. As far as using them, I prefer M14>G3>FAL mainly because of the M14 iron sights, trigger, and how it handles/carries. The FAL is the best in full auto (I'm comparing standard infantry models here) but that's only because it's the heaviest. Let's face it, they all suck in full auto. The M14A1 and the L2A1 were special variants accessorized specifically to handle auto. The Germans never even bothered. I rate the FAL last because of the weight, horrible loose rear sights, trigger, and the vertical stringing most examples exhibit. I own all 3. The AR-10 was the best 7.62 NATO combat rifle available in the early 1960's. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
FAL receiver had to go through 2 revisions. G3>FAL>M14 Between the M14 and FAL receiver, I don't see how one is any more complicated or difficult to manufacture than the other. As far as whole rifles go, the FAL has more parts. There are many variables which affect unit cost, and economy of scale is one of them. The G3 should have the lowest unit cost. Stamping dies are expensive, and so are robo welders, but once the line is running it's fast and uses less materials. As far as using them, I prefer M14>G3>FAL mainly because of the M14 iron sights, trigger, and how it handles/carries. The FAL is the best in full auto (I'm comparing standard infantry models here) but that's only because it's the heaviest. Let's face it, they all suck in full auto. The M14A1 and the L2A1 were special variants accessorized specifically to handle auto. The Germans never even bothered. I rate the FAL last because of the weight, horrible loose rear sights, trigger, and the vertical stringing most examples exhibit. I own all 3. The AR-10 was the best 7.62 NATO combat rifle available in the early 1960's.  I've been a fan of the FAL since reading Soldier of Fortune in the 70's. I would say there were 2 revisions. One-type 2 goodness- for the cracking...what ever the reason and Type 3 for cost. It was just too expensive. The sights on the M14 are better but that is about it. Everything else about it is behind the curve. EDIT> except ease of handling. You are right, it carries well. G3. Shorter, lighter, modular before that was even a thing. Also, aluminum mags. In fact, nothing to this day is as fast to reconfigure as the G3. I can change stocks, forends and trigger groups in less than a minute. I think ease of manufacture goes to the G3. Did you watch the video? The Germans had this down. I own all 3 but have never shot one in full auto. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 8:20:32 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Which, I showed that it's not at all. It cost 70 bucks to build one. So the "it's expensive" argument is off the table. It's complicated as shit, SO WHAT? It didn't stop a FUCK TON of them being built, nor the Grand as well. Shitty argument when investigated. "its contemporaries were easier to manufacture" Easier for countries that were not America. Punch and die PRODUCTION lines are still complicated and die sets wear out. New dies have to be made and so on and so on. Who gives two shits about "easier" when you have a post WW2 machining Juggernaut? "while the M-14 is not being built in the original manner b/c it's too much of a pain in the ass." Which means nothing to me, because that has nothing to do with comparing or contrasting PRODUCTION guns. Building some gun from a flat in the basement isn't building one in the original manner either. Did Chase45 roll his own steel, stamp his own flat, then run a huge punch and die set and bending jig popping out a few hundred receivers to a thousand or more a day? If not, once again, spurious argument. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Oh for fucks sake, you expect troops to put their rifles together in the fucking basement? I'm talking strictly about ready to fire rifles. I don't care if you don't value your time and as such can claim a home brew junk rifle can be "half th price" nor do I care that a guy can bend a sheet of steel once. Does he have a punch and die to do it a few thousand times, a day? I'm pointing out a very specific thing, that the unit cost for the M-14 was cheap as shit, even compared to today with inflation. chinese M-14's in canada has shit all to do with that. "its contemporaries were easier to manufacture" Easier for countries that were not America. Punch and die PRODUCTION lines are still complicated and die sets wear out. New dies have to be made and so on and so on. Who gives two shits about "easier" when you have a post WW2 machining Juggernaut? "while the M-14 is not being built in the original manner b/c it's too much of a pain in the ass." Which means nothing to me, because that has nothing to do with comparing or contrasting PRODUCTION guns. Building some gun from a flat in the basement isn't building one in the original manner either. Did Chase45 roll his own steel, stamp his own flat, then run a huge punch and die set and bending jig popping out a few hundred receivers to a thousand or more a day? If not, once again, spurious argument. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 8:22:15 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I own all 3 but have never shot one in full auto. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 8:37:40 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Cool that all that proof is either destroyed or archived huh? I guess that gets you out of having to provide it. That sure is handy. Hey I am selling a bridge - trust me it's great - you want to buy it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 8:52:02 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What is being repeatedly pointed out to you is the machining for the M-14 forged receiver is complicated as shit, which is expensive; its contemporaries were easier to manufacture, to the extent that today they can be built in basements, while the M-14 is not being built in the original manner b/c it's too much of a pain in the ass. The engineering risk was nearly zero. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 8:56:32 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The AR-10 was the best 7.62 NATO combat rifle available in the early 1960's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 9:01:11 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is the ultimate answer. By the time the most limited analysis was available, it was obvious the Stoner design was the winner. AR-10s were being privately carried in RVN in 1961/1962, and Colt salesmen were making the rounds at the same time. I don't think that anyone who saw the AR-10 in 1957 didn't know that was the ultimate future. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The AR-10 was the best 7.62 NATO combat rifle available in the early 1960's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 9:04:35 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But didn't the M14 beat it out for top dog and other countries refused to buy it except for Norway or Sweden (can't remember which country)? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2018 10:49:00 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am not sure the US government put the M14 out there for sale like FN did with the FAL. Maybe somebody who knows can chime in. FN, and later the Germans, were trying to sell their models like crazy. They both attained widespread adoption/distribution. The US gave away M14 rifles first to Australia (XM21 in limited numbers) and Israel, then later many other countries through FMA/FMS. List here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle#Users Many were abandoned in Vietnam. After US production ended, the government gave Taiwan all of H&R's production tooling, and they made their own (as the Type 57). (There was speculation the TDP was leaked to China, but all the evidence points to their copies being reverse-engineered from examples captured in Vietnam.) |
|
|
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.
