Probably some muzzleloader from the 1700s.

Lackluster in what way? ANY bayonet was utterly pointless already,regardless of the stupidity of requiring them for decades to come.

M-14

Shortest lived general issue rifle in US inventory. You don't do that, if it's a good weapon.

Italian M-1938 Carcano in 7.35mm. Most were sent to Finland where the Finns that were stuck with them would throw them away when they chanced upon a Mosin.

Truth be told as far as Carcanos went they were OK but they did very poorly in Arctic conditions and the ammo sent with them was unreliable....The Finns even despised the folding bayonet they sent with them.





The Finns surplused off thousands of them in 1966 and many were brand new because they were never issued after reports from the field on how dismally they were received.

I disagree.

I trained with the M-14 and was issued one when I first got to Vietnam.  It was later replaced by an M-16A1.

It is a very good rifle.  Accurate, reliable and hard hitting.

It was just not suited for the war in Vietnam.  The transition to the M-16 had nothing to do with the M-14 being a bad weapon.  It had to do with the nature of the warfare in Vietnam that was better suited for a lighter weapon that could be controlled in F-A.

That would be like saying that the WWII prop fighters were "not good" when they were replaced by jet fighters.

The M-14 was short lived because it was an extension of the Garand, whose time had come to an end by the mid 1960s.

M14-Traditional stock made of walnut.  POI can shift due to humidity changes because woods swells.  Needs constant bedding to deliver meh accuracy.
G3/FAL-Pistol grip stocks, not dependent on the weather to maintain zero.  PG makes them easier to control versus a traditional stock.

M14-Slow to field strip, must be cleaned from the muzzle.
G3/FAL-Much easier to disassemble, can be cleaned from the breach.

M14-Wood and steel construction.  Steel rusts, wood swells.
G3/FAL-Steel, aluminum and plastic construction.  Not as much steel to rust.

M14-Great trigger and sights.
G3/FAL-more ergonomic safety, mag release.

When you have a bunch of engineers with zero gun experience build a gun. You get the crap fest that is the SA-80.

Arisaka

The round was pretty anemic and meant for the smaller stature Japanese to fire.

I would disagree with the bullpup hate as well.  The P90 and the Tavor are both reliable examples of accurate, rugged and dependable firearms.  I would certainly agree that the stock tavor trigger on the SAR is terrible, as is the stock trigger on the P90, but on the P-90 its more of a switch anyway.  The P90 is simplicity itself with regard to fieldstripping.  We can argure the effectiveness of the round it fires, just as we argue the effectiveness of 5.56 in general, but for it's intended purpose as a PDW, I think it fills the bill better than about anything else.

I do think the Tavor, like many bullpups, is somewhat heavy for what it is, but shooting ARs, AKs, and occasionally a PS90 in three gun I have to say that shooting unsupported, especially moving, the Tavor is easier to be accurate with.

I agree with you that the AUG is a turd though

AUGs are fantastic rifles. The only people who dislike them,like most modern firearms,are those with bizarre emotional investments or who have never actually shot one. Most complaints about bullpups are rather ridiculous but if you are an elite operator engaging tangos at Walmart every day then perhaps you're best served with artillery and air rather than a rifle anyway.

There are very,very,very few legitimately bad modern firearms. Even the INSAS would probably be perfectly serviceable if built in an American or European factory with some semblance of quality control. The whole gun is a fiasco from top to bottom but it's a microcosm of India's worst traits,down to the public defecation brown coloration of the furniture.

I would probably go with the INSAS.

So popping the triggerguard is hard?
The fal and g3 arent heavier and dont have Woodstock versions?
The mags all insert the same.
Which is the most accurate?

One integral part of the M14 concept was a synthetic stock.  There were some delays, but the government ordered something like 500,000 of them in the late 1960s.  So later ones used in Vietnam did have GI synthetic stocks.

Also

lol

Maybe if you have a cheap knock off. My, old fed Ord national match out shoots my fn or hk91 any day of the week

Yep, I have 3 or 4 of them as NOS stashed away. I do absolutely agree staying with wood stocks was kind of dumb when the M14 was in the design stages but that is probably what they got due to ''traditions.''

It wasn't  that good of a rifle for jungle warfare though, but until 5.56 ammo design advanced, it was a better long range, harder hitting system then the M-16 was outside of jungle combat. [not to say it was more accurate, just that the original 55 grain ammo did pretty damn good close up but was dependent of velocity to work well against personal and cover.]

Even middle east based Soldiers had complaints about open terrain and the caliber of the M-4 in that particular scenario.

It was never a ''bad'' battle rifle but it is a bad assault rifle.

The FAL was a very good system also, however, the sights suck, suck, suck, against someone who knew how to use the M-14 sights properly, every time I switch between the two systems, I am reminded how much slower and harder to accurately aim the Fal is. The ergonomics are pretty decent with the M-14 also using iron sights.

Telescopic sights didn't get much attention until the past 25 years for the typical Mil gun toter, I never saw on on a 16 in the Mil in the field the entire time I was in and I got out in 1985. I knew they existed but they were like unicorn tears for just plain GI Joes.

The M14 jam-o-matic

british snyder rifle by far the worst.

brass coil cartridges, no ejector, brech often would not shut.

While wood was initially fielded and DOES have the issues you noted, they also later fielded fiberglass for the M14.  M14's as issued to troops were not bedded, of course, and were comparably accurate to their competitors WITHOUT bedding.  Bedding is only needed when attempting to raise the accuracy levels above combat requirements.

And pistol grips are only useful to enhance control when using more modern shooting styles and/or full auto.  In the 1950's, shoulder fire did not benefit from pistol grips due to training regimens of the time.

While the FAL and G3 are simple to strip, in the grand scheme of things, this is not the issue you portray.  Millions of M1's were issued to troops, and it was not noted to be a field issue to disassemble the arm.

This is a silly argument.  There is PLENTY of steel in the G3 and FAL, and in fact, as originally issued, all major components for both rifles contained very little, if any aluminum.  We discussed the plastic furniture above, so there is not much to say further.

The COATINGS on the metal of the FAL and G3 were traditionally a paint over a phosphatizing, which does enhance the EXTERNAL corrosion resistance, but that is not to say that those two rifles are significantly more "corrosion resistant" overall, since all the internal parts are still phosphatized just like the M14.

While I will agree that the basic design of the thumb-operated safety is superior, it's implementation on the G3 makes it practically worthless.  Unless one has inordinately long thumbs, the G3 safety CANNOT be reached while the strong hand remainins in position on the pistol grip.  In fact, this is one on the most annoying features of the G3--they design a thumb-operated safety, and then make it so it cannot be used while in the normal shooting position. (The FAL does not have this issue and it's safety size/location is actually pretty good.)

I don't see your point on the magazine releases.  All three rifles use a similar magazine release, as issued in their military configuration.  They all employ a paddle behind the mag. well that is pushed forward to release the magazine.  Insertion is done by a rocking motion on the FAL and M14, and is a straight insertion on the G3.   It is noteworthy that the G3 has a second mag. release in the form of a button, but it is like the safety on the rifle in that it CANNOT be reached with the operator's hand until he removes his hand from the pistol grip.

A few final words of consideration here:
--The sights on the M14 stand out a superior in both durability in actual service while allowing full adjustability.  There has never been a sight issued on a military rifle that is better.  Both of the other rifles require special tools to fully adjust the sights properly.

--Even though the charging handle on the G3 can be run with the weak hand, it is in an abysmal location for rapid action.  The FAL has a much better setup for weak hand operation.   The M14 requires the primary hand to be removed from the normal position for initial charging, but has a release that can be run by the weak hand thereafter.

--The lack of bolt hold-open on the G3 is annoying compared to it's peers.  Coupled with the charging handle location, it slows rapid reloads badly.

Please, tell us more.  Millions of miltary users want to hear about this HORRIBLE reliability issue on the M14 you have announced.

Yes, they need regular bedding jobs even with laminate or synthetic stocks.  When people still shot them competitively it was common to need at least a skim bed most seasons.  Thankfully the M16A2 and heavy bullets knocked into obsolescence for service rifle shooting.  For a general issue rifle, how much accuracy is needed?  Were we intending to engage communist troops beyond 500 yards with conscript troops and no optics back in the day?

And the most beat to shit M16A2 will out shoot any tuned up M1A and day of the week.

The MAS 1936 is awesome, what the hell are you on about?

Do you even fiberglass bro

I'm gonna call bullshit

Um. The fuckin' FAL? The M14 competed against the T48.

Though I'm glad that the M14 won, because if it hadn't, we might not have the M16.

And the MAS 49/56 is a MUCH better rifle than an M14. The only disadvantage is mag capacity. Other than that, it sheds the M14 at everything.

Also, have you ever field stripped an M14 compared to a FAL, HK91 pattern, or MAS 49/56? It's legitimately a fucking abomination, dude. The M1 Garand was fine because it was the 30s. The M14? Not acceptable.

It was the Chauchaut that was chambered in .30-06 that was a giant pos. The ACTUAL French one, was dependable.

The was a piece on the history channel where a actual living WW1 Vet said the Chauchaut "worked" as he put it. I assume that's a vote that the French gun didn't suck.

That barrel diameter after the gas block!

I wish the FAL would have won so I could have a 5.56mm FAL

You missed this:

National matches are held every year.  What have people been shooting for the last 20+ years, pretty much exclusively?

Yes, even after dropping $500 on a McMillan, it still needs bedding.  And more bedding touched up every few thousand rounds.  Or drop a few hundred bucks for an extra recoil lug to get a little more life out of the bedding.  And a grizzled old gunsmith who knows how to work on them.

This isn't "which is better, the ar or m14" this is THE WORST service rifle, and if it was the worst why was it even in competition environments hmmmm

It sure as hell gets my vote.

Sounds like you spent to much on a junky rifle then.

Every military rifle issued by the American army between 1865 and 1903. Why the military dumped repeating rifles for single shots is a crime.

My votes are either

Trapdoor springfield-could have got a rolling block
Sa80- cause who doesn't want a rifle that spontaneously disassembled itself
The Volksgeweher - a end war mauser wire tied to a plank...

Another vote for that Canadian rifle from WW1.

They went full fudd, "i only need one shot!"

The M14 was a fine rifle.  If you think that it was too heavy you are either a Nancy Boy or need more PT, especially rifle PT

Excellent take on the m14.

"Carcanos get the job done."
- John F. Kennedy

Funniest thing I've seen in awhile

My father in law carried an 03 Springfield on Guadalcanal.  He thought it was a fine weapon.  He also liked the Garand.

I never understood why we received rack grade M14s for DMR rifles when the M21 was the official sniper rifle of the Army until the M24 came out in the late 80s.  Where did all the M21 rifles go after the switch?

the relatively peaceful era of the cold war

" the relatively peaceful era of the cold war"   Gee, I remember a very different Cold Was than you do ....

These threads always devolve into ignorant M14 hatery.

I do not know why we bother having them.