User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 9:26:05 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AbleArcher: I little bit better angle to get a positive ID https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/188236/1000014189_jpg-3205089.JPG Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AbleArcher: Originally Posted By Gunnie357: Originally Posted By AbleArcher: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/188236/1000014167_jpg-3204582.JPG I'm back in on the M14 train. ETA: not mine. Garand Thumbs. ETA 2: anyone know what rail that is? Looks like a M14.CA SHG I little bit better angle to get a positive ID https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/188236/1000014189_jpg-3205089.JPG Scratch my last it appears to be a Vltor Casv Scout rail |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 9:30:33 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunnie357: Originally Posted By AbleArcher: Originally Posted By Gunnie357: Originally Posted By AbleArcher: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/188236/1000014167_jpg-3204582.JPG I'm back in on the M14 train. ETA: not mine. Garand Thumbs. ETA 2: anyone know what rail that is? Looks like a M14.CA SHG I little bit better angle to get a positive ID https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/188236/1000014189_jpg-3205089.JPG Scratch my last it appears to be a Vltor Casv Scout rail Thanks! I suppose due to his popularity that's going to be a hard to find piece. |
|
|
|
ID, USA
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 9:35:52 AM EDT
[#3]
LRB Arms has perfected the M14 pattern rifle with a built in picatinny rail fixing the side mounted rail issue.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 9:36:07 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AbleArcher: Thanks! I suppose due to his popularity that's going to be a hard to find piece. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AbleArcher: Originally Posted By Gunnie357: Originally Posted By AbleArcher: Originally Posted By Gunnie357: Originally Posted By AbleArcher: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/188236/1000014167_jpg-3204582.JPG I'm back in on the M14 train. ETA: not mine. Garand Thumbs. ETA 2: anyone know what rail that is? Looks like a M14.CA SHG I little bit better angle to get a positive ID https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/188236/1000014189_jpg-3205089.JPG Scratch my last it appears to be a Vltor Casv Scout rail Thanks! I suppose due to his popularity that's going to be a hard to find piece. If a basic search doesn’t net one in stock somewhere I would ask on the m14 Forum if anyone has a source for one might either find one a builder has or someone bought and switched for whatever reason. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 9:36:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: fxntime]
[#5]
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 9:36:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: SteelonSteel]
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunnie357: The hardest thing about scoping an M1A/M14 is the price. They’re very easy to scope is it as easy as a modern rifle with a pic rail no. It’s also easier than about anything before it. Getting a scope on it is easy. It’s jacked up until you get a usable cheekweld.  As much as I say adding a scope to an M14 is a fool’s errand for a host of reasons, I have done so. -cheekweld issues to be addressed as mentioned -it’s a battle rifle with decent but less than sniper grade accuracy so kind of gilding the lily -now that you scoped it you have a less ergonomic but heavy pig. That said, now that I am a fat old man with a bit of a cataract in my shooting eye that has me struggling to keep a clear focus on the front sight I am happy to still have my scoped and glass bedded rifle with a nice saddle cheek piece. The new McM doesn’t make the M2a or M3a scope friendly stocks anymore. I’ve been offered 1000 for my stock.  .My SAInc version 1 scope mount did shoot lose and was less than impressive. My Smith Enterprises mount is rock solid. If one installs a quality mount and loctites it, then no worries. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 9:37:34 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunnie357: If a basic search doesn’t net one in stock somewhere I would ask on the m14 Forum if anyone has a source for one might either find one a builder has or someone bought and switched for whatever reason. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunnie357: Originally Posted By AbleArcher: Originally Posted By Gunnie357: Originally Posted By AbleArcher: Originally Posted By Gunnie357: Originally Posted By AbleArcher: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/188236/1000014167_jpg-3204582.JPG I'm back in on the M14 train. ETA: not mine. Garand Thumbs. ETA 2: anyone know what rail that is? Looks like a M14.CA SHG I little bit better angle to get a positive ID https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/188236/1000014189_jpg-3205089.JPG Scratch my last it appears to be a Vltor Casv Scout rail Thanks! I suppose due to his popularity that's going to be a hard to find piece. If a basic search doesn’t net one in stock somewhere I would ask on the m14 Forum if anyone has a source for one might either find one a builder has or someone bought and switched for whatever reason. Will do, thanks! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 9:37:51 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 03RN: If you look at the evolution then the m14 makes sense. If you're biased by modern tactics/guns then it's harder to understand why they went with it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By fxntime: Always wonder how many people replying to this thread have ever shot or even handled a M-14 or just parrot what they think people want to hear. They have some of the absolutely best iron sites on a battle rifle no matter where it came from. Pretty much every other full power battle rifle from anywhere has shit sites compared to them. I Hate shooting my FAL after my M1A, the sites are rancid dog turds with crappy adjustments. I have 2 NM 4 digit M1A's, they are pretty damn accurate with the right ammo. The 5 digit one does fine also. [All have GI barrels, the NM's, Canadian Arsenals] Their downfall is that they are a PITA to scope compared to so many other rifles. Never had any reliability issues with mine. Honestly, I'd bet most younger shooters couldn't use iron sights if their life depended on it. I have no problem with the claim that it was the wrong rifle for the time frame. If it had come out at the beginning of WW2 there wouldn't be all the love for the Garand there is today. I do laugh my ass off though every time some new caliber larger then 5.56 comes out that will replace the 5.56 because it's not ''effective'' enough because it's too small or not powerful enough. 99% of the rifle shooting public would be served perfectly fine [other then the paper punchers looking for that .30 MOA rifle] with a 5.56, .308, and a 30/06 rifle and that is it. These two statements can be true at the same time: 1) The M14 is a pretty nice rifle. 2) The M14 was a bad service rifle, and it was the result of a terrible acquisition process only now being surpassed by the XM7/NGSW program. Sitting behind a rifle at a square range is one thing. Running, jumping, shooting, and clearing positions with a rifle is something else. American service rifles have always excelled at the former, but they haven't always been good at the latter. If you look at the evolution then the m14 makes sense. If you're biased by modern tactics/guns then it's harder to understand why they went with it. Not really. In WWII, the world's soldiers were faced with a tough compromise between huge, low capacity rifles or SMGs with anemic pistol cartridges and generally poor accuracy. It was generally understood by most people (except the US Ordnance tards) that something in between was needed. That something should have more capacity and better handling than the service rifles, but better range, accuracy, and power than the SMGs. The Nahtzees fielded an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Soviets developed an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Spanish designed the CETME for an intermediate cartridge. The Brits wanted to field an intermediate cartridge. Then the US Ordnance guys came along, and decided to replace .30-06 with a cartridge that is basically just .30-06, only slightly shorter. The differences between the two are pretty negligible, but all the costs of a logistical changeover were still incurred. The US adopted the M14 12 years after WWII, and then we coerced the rest of NATO to adopt this questionable new cartridge. Zero hindsight is needed to see this whole process was crap and set the Free World back decades. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 9:46:13 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Not really. In WWII, the world's soldiers were faced with a tough compromise between huge, low capacity rifles or SMGs with anemic pistol cartridges and generally poor accuracy. It was generally understood by most people (except the US Ordnance tards) that something in between was needed. That something should have more capacity and better handling than the service rifles, but better range, accuracy, and power than the SMGs. The Nahtzees fielded an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Soviets developed an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Spanish designed the CETME for an intermediate cartridge. The Brits wanted to field an intermediate cartridge. Then the US Ordnance guys came along, and decided to replace .30-06 with a cartridge that is basically just .30-06, only slightly shorter. The differences between the two are pretty negligible, but all the costs of a logistical changeover were still incurred. The US adopted the M14 12 years after WWII, and then we coerced the rest of NATO to adopt this questionable new cartridge. Zero hindsight is needed to see this whole process was crap and set the Free World back decades. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By fxntime: Always wonder how many people replying to this thread have ever shot or even handled a M-14 or just parrot what they think people want to hear. They have some of the absolutely best iron sites on a battle rifle no matter where it came from. Pretty much every other full power battle rifle from anywhere has shit sites compared to them. I Hate shooting my FAL after my M1A, the sites are rancid dog turds with crappy adjustments. I have 2 NM 4 digit M1A's, they are pretty damn accurate with the right ammo. The 5 digit one does fine also. [All have GI barrels, the NM's, Canadian Arsenals] Their downfall is that they are a PITA to scope compared to so many other rifles. Never had any reliability issues with mine. Honestly, I'd bet most younger shooters couldn't use iron sights if their life depended on it. I have no problem with the claim that it was the wrong rifle for the time frame. If it had come out at the beginning of WW2 there wouldn't be all the love for the Garand there is today. I do laugh my ass off though every time some new caliber larger then 5.56 comes out that will replace the 5.56 because it's not ''effective'' enough because it's too small or not powerful enough. 99% of the rifle shooting public would be served perfectly fine [other then the paper punchers looking for that .30 MOA rifle] with a 5.56, .308, and a 30/06 rifle and that is it. These two statements can be true at the same time: 1) The M14 is a pretty nice rifle. 2) The M14 was a bad service rifle, and it was the result of a terrible acquisition process only now being surpassed by the XM7/NGSW program. Sitting behind a rifle at a square range is one thing. Running, jumping, shooting, and clearing positions with a rifle is something else. American service rifles have always excelled at the former, but they haven't always been good at the latter. If you look at the evolution then the m14 makes sense. If you're biased by modern tactics/guns then it's harder to understand why they went with it. Not really. In WWII, the world's soldiers were faced with a tough compromise between huge, low capacity rifles or SMGs with anemic pistol cartridges and generally poor accuracy. It was generally understood by most people (except the US Ordnance tards) that something in between was needed. That something should have more capacity and better handling than the service rifles, but better range, accuracy, and power than the SMGs. The Nahtzees fielded an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Soviets developed an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Spanish designed the CETME for an intermediate cartridge. The Brits wanted to field an intermediate cartridge. Then the US Ordnance guys came along, and decided to replace .30-06 with a cartridge that is basically just .30-06, only slightly shorter. The differences between the two are pretty negligible, but all the costs of a logistical changeover were still incurred. The US adopted the M14 12 years after WWII, and then we coerced the rest of NATO to adopt this questionable new cartridge. Zero hindsight is needed to see this whole process was crap and set the Free World back decades. The flipside of the cartridge choice was that the 7.62x51 went on to be a VERY popular MG cartridge and civi use one also. So the choice, since it wasn't ''just'' for a battle rifle cartridge but for MG use also and add in as a reasonably good sniper rifle cartridge [with different bullets] to boot. There are more accurate calibers out there, no question about it, but overall it was a decent choice when you added everything into the mix including logistics. And it was more accurate then the 30/06, hell the Mil match teams were banned from Garand conversions to 7.62x51 because they were outshooting 30/06 Match Garands and the 06 shooting teams cried like little babies. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 9:49:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: SteelonSteel]
[#10]
We should have divorced the same cartridge as GPMG concept much earlier.
A 300m service rifle is practical. Most joes cannot hit shit anyway until they close the range. I am in the camp of something bigger than 5.56 and smaller than 7.62 for the general issue rifle. I think the new steel based case 6.5 is an absurd concoction. Obviosly they don’t care about service life and I have to wonder about general shootability. Will the average infantryman make hits if the blast is making them deaf and flinchy? Speculating. I used to get excited about new things and concepts like bull pup configurations but that one mostly sucked in practice. It is easy to second guess with hindsight. I am thinking that some experiences from WW2 showed where the big cartridges were better than an intermediate range cartridge ie the African desert campaign. You could see farther obviously. But that is just one theater. I can see the benefit there. We’re we in a rush? I don’t think so, we had 5 million garands (later to be 6 million) and 6 million m1 carbines, plus BARs and Thompson’s and M3 grease guns. Frankly the M1 carbine was pretty awesome for close range stuff. I own two in good shape and a 150 yard target is easily hit. It’s no 5.56 of course but I have fun with it. I was in the same MOS back in those times I’d likely have a carbine or the MG with a 1911. If I was an O or senior NCO I would grab the carbine before a garand as long as plenty of garands were with me. Was the whole U.S. ordnance system based in Springfield flawed? ,....yea I think so. They played fuck fuck games with IHC and H&R when Congress and the DoD wanted to diversify production centers due to perceived nuke risks to or northeast manufacturing base. They were protectionists. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 9:51:58 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SteelonSteel: Getting a scope on it is easy. It’s jacked up until you get a usable cheekweld. As much as I say adding a scope to an M14 is a fool’s errand for a host of reasons, I have done so. -cheekweld issues to be addressed as mentioned -it’s a battle rifle with decent but less than sniper grade accuracy so kind of gilding the lily -now that you scoped it you have a less ergonomic but heavy pig. That said, now that I am a fat old man with a bit of a cataract in my shooting eye that has me struggling to keep a clear focus on the front sight I am happy to still have my scoped and glass bedded rifle with a nice saddle cheek piece. The new McM doesn’t make the M2a or M3a scope friendly stocks anymore. I’ve been offered 1000 for my stock. .My SAInc version 1 scope mount did shoot lose and was less than impressive. My Smith Enterprises mount is rock solid. If one installs a quality mount and loctites it, then no worries. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SteelonSteel: Originally Posted By Gunnie357: The hardest thing about scoping an M1A/M14 is the price. They’re very easy to scope is it as easy as a modern rifle with a pic rail no. It’s also easier than about anything before it. Getting a scope on it is easy. It’s jacked up until you get a usable cheekweld. As much as I say adding a scope to an M14 is a fool’s errand for a host of reasons, I have done so. -cheekweld issues to be addressed as mentioned -it’s a battle rifle with decent but less than sniper grade accuracy so kind of gilding the lily -now that you scoped it you have a less ergonomic but heavy pig. That said, now that I am a fat old man with a bit of a cataract in my shooting eye that has me struggling to keep a clear focus on the front sight I am happy to still have my scoped and glass bedded rifle with a nice saddle cheek piece. The new McM doesn’t make the M2a or M3a scope friendly stocks anymore. I’ve been offered 1000 for my stock. .My SAInc version 1 scope mount did shoot lose and was less than impressive. My Smith Enterprises mount is rock solid. If one installs a quality mount and loctites it, then no worries. Check welds a pain but now there’s strap on check pieces that make it fairly straight forward I used a screw on one at one point and that’s one way to make a stock useless after for non optics. Here’s my NM with the Velcro cheek piece  Attached FileMcMillan is dropping new stocks now though I’m not sure which ones. One of these days I may try to grab one until then I’ll stick with wood. Some of the accessories can get rather crazy depending on desire and need or what the persons cloning. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 9:55:54 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SteelonSteel: We should have divorced the same cartridge as GPMG concept much earlier. A 300m service rifle is practical. Most joes cannot hit shit anyway until they close the range. I am in the camp of something bigger than 5.56 and smaller than 7.62 for the general issue rifle. I think the new steel based case 6.5 is an absurd concoction. Obviosly they don’t care about service life and I have to wonder about general shootability. Will the average infantryman make hits if the blast is making them deaf and flinchy? Speculating. I used to get excited about new things and concepts like bull pup configurations but that one mostly sucked in practice. In a large scale theater wide shooting war [like WW2], it makes a lot of sense to have as few cartridge calibers as possible to make logistics easier. In a more modern smaller scale shooting war, not as much. But resupplying front lines today may becoming far more dangerous due to drones and such so the ''fewer calibers'' concept may again start making far more sense then many different ''specialized'' calibers. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 10:13:25 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Not really. In WWII, the world's soldiers were faced with a tough compromise between huge, low capacity rifles or SMGs with anemic pistol cartridges and generally poor accuracy. It was generally understood by most people (except the US Ordnance tards) that something in between was needed. That something should have more capacity and better handling than the service rifles, but better range, accuracy, and power than the SMGs. The Nahtzees fielded an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Soviets developed an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Spanish designed the CETME for an intermediate cartridge. The Brits wanted to field an intermediate cartridge. Then the US Ordnance guys came along, and decided to replace .30-06 with a cartridge that is basically just .30-06, only slightly shorter. The differences between the two are pretty negligible, but all the costs of a logistical changeover were still incurred. The US adopted the M14 12 years after WWII, and then we coerced the rest of NATO to adopt this questionable new cartridge. Zero hindsight is needed to see this whole process was crap and set the Free World back decades. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By fxntime: Always wonder how many people replying to this thread have ever shot or even handled a M-14 or just parrot what they think people want to hear. They have some of the absolutely best iron sites on a battle rifle no matter where it came from. Pretty much every other full power battle rifle from anywhere has shit sites compared to them. I Hate shooting my FAL after my M1A, the sites are rancid dog turds with crappy adjustments. I have 2 NM 4 digit M1A's, they are pretty damn accurate with the right ammo. The 5 digit one does fine also. [All have GI barrels, the NM's, Canadian Arsenals] Their downfall is that they are a PITA to scope compared to so many other rifles. Never had any reliability issues with mine. Honestly, I'd bet most younger shooters couldn't use iron sights if their life depended on it. I have no problem with the claim that it was the wrong rifle for the time frame. If it had come out at the beginning of WW2 there wouldn't be all the love for the Garand there is today. I do laugh my ass off though every time some new caliber larger then 5.56 comes out that will replace the 5.56 because it's not ''effective'' enough because it's too small or not powerful enough. 99% of the rifle shooting public would be served perfectly fine [other then the paper punchers looking for that .30 MOA rifle] with a 5.56, .308, and a 30/06 rifle and that is it. These two statements can be true at the same time: 1) The M14 is a pretty nice rifle. 2) The M14 was a bad service rifle, and it was the result of a terrible acquisition process only now being surpassed by the XM7/NGSW program. Sitting behind a rifle at a square range is one thing. Running, jumping, shooting, and clearing positions with a rifle is something else. American service rifles have always excelled at the former, but they haven't always been good at the latter. If you look at the evolution then the m14 makes sense. If you're biased by modern tactics/guns then it's harder to understand why they went with it. Not really. In WWII, the world's soldiers were faced with a tough compromise between huge, low capacity rifles or SMGs with anemic pistol cartridges and generally poor accuracy. It was generally understood by most people (except the US Ordnance tards) that something in between was needed. That something should have more capacity and better handling than the service rifles, but better range, accuracy, and power than the SMGs. The Nahtzees fielded an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Soviets developed an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Spanish designed the CETME for an intermediate cartridge. The Brits wanted to field an intermediate cartridge. Then the US Ordnance guys came along, and decided to replace .30-06 with a cartridge that is basically just .30-06, only slightly shorter. The differences between the two are pretty negligible, but all the costs of a logistical changeover were still incurred. The US adopted the M14 12 years after WWII, and then we coerced the rest of NATO to adopt this questionable new cartridge. Zero hindsight is needed to see this whole process was crap and set the Free World back decades. How bout that M1 Carbine? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 10:17:56 AM EDT
[Last Edit: fxntime]
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dan1918A2: How bout that M1 Carbine? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dan1918A2: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By fxntime: Always wonder how many people replying to this thread have ever shot or even handled a M-14 or just parrot what they think people want to hear. They have some of the absolutely best iron sites on a battle rifle no matter where it came from. Pretty much every other full power battle rifle from anywhere has shit sites compared to them. I Hate shooting my FAL after my M1A, the sites are rancid dog turds with crappy adjustments. I have 2 NM 4 digit M1A's, they are pretty damn accurate with the right ammo. The 5 digit one does fine also. [All have GI barrels, the NM's, Canadian Arsenals] Their downfall is that they are a PITA to scope compared to so many other rifles. Never had any reliability issues with mine. Honestly, I'd bet most younger shooters couldn't use iron sights if their life depended on it. I have no problem with the claim that it was the wrong rifle for the time frame. If it had come out at the beginning of WW2 there wouldn't be all the love for the Garand there is today. I do laugh my ass off though every time some new caliber larger then 5.56 comes out that will replace the 5.56 because it's not ''effective'' enough because it's too small or not powerful enough. 99% of the rifle shooting public would be served perfectly fine [other then the paper punchers looking for that .30 MOA rifle] with a 5.56, .308, and a 30/06 rifle and that is it. These two statements can be true at the same time: 1) The M14 is a pretty nice rifle. 2) The M14 was a bad service rifle, and it was the result of a terrible acquisition process only now being surpassed by the XM7/NGSW program. Sitting behind a rifle at a square range is one thing. Running, jumping, shooting, and clearing positions with a rifle is something else. American service rifles have always excelled at the former, but they haven't always been good at the latter. If you look at the evolution then the m14 makes sense. If you're biased by modern tactics/guns then it's harder to understand why they went with it. Not really. In WWII, the world's soldiers were faced with a tough compromise between huge, low capacity rifles or SMGs with anemic pistol cartridges and generally poor accuracy. It was generally understood by most people (except the US Ordnance tards) that something in between was needed. That something should have more capacity and better handling than the service rifles, but better range, accuracy, and power than the SMGs. The Nahtzees fielded an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Soviets developed an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Spanish designed the CETME for an intermediate cartridge. The Brits wanted to field an intermediate cartridge. Then the US Ordnance guys came along, and decided to replace .30-06 with a cartridge that is basically just .30-06, only slightly shorter. The differences between the two are pretty negligible, but all the costs of a logistical changeover were still incurred. The US adopted the M14 12 years after WWII, and then we coerced the rest of NATO to adopt this questionable new cartridge. Zero hindsight is needed to see this whole process was crap and set the Free World back decades. How bout that M1 Carbine? Mediocre range ballistics due to the pistol bullet design. But, a 110 grain bullet at 1900+FPS isn't something you'll shrug away like all the complaints about it like ''it couldn't penetrate chinese quilted jackets'' tried to claim. It took a LOT of deer in a 110 grain HP bullet design back when they were initially surplussed off. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 10:19:30 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fxntime: In a large scale theater wide shooting war [like WW2], it makes a lot of sense to have as few cartridge calibers as possible to make logistics easier. In a more modern smaller scale shooting war, not as much. But resupplying front lines today may becoming far more dangerous due to drones and such so the ''fewer calibers'' concept may again start making far more sense then many different ''specialized'' calibers. You may be right on the effect of drones. More than once the ammo delivered to troops was jacked up. Guys with Springfields getting garand clipped ammo and vice versa. Once you draw down your own supplies and start getting resupply from higher eschelons or cross service supplies then things get sketchy. When I read the array of similar but different cartridges the Japanese fielded I was in awe of the nuttiness of it. Multiple case rim styles of the same/ cartridge nomenclature even the machine gun models taking different case styles due to the weapon design. The mix of 6.5 and 7.7 issued service rifles.......iirc the preponderance of 7.7 service rifles was with the Chinese deployed Army units. The Japanese naval infantry stayed with the 6.5 rifles....as the army wasn’t going to give them any of the 7.7 as they hadn’t got them to all the army divisions yet. At least the Italians made the bold and deliberate move to switch back to their 6.5 as they saw that they would never switch to 7.35 on time. Hitler as they viewed it, jumped the gun as far as their preparedness was. They got caught off guard as Hitler wasn’t sharing his war plan timelines. They may have been smarter to tell him to F off for doing that and stay out of any war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 10:21:25 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fxntime: Mediocre range ballistics due to the pistol bullet design. But, a 110 grain bullet at 1900+FPS isn't something you'll shrug away like all the complaints about it like ''it couldn't penetrate chinese quilted jackets'' tried to claim. It took a LOT of deer in a 110 grain HP bullet design back when they were initially surplussed off. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fxntime: Originally Posted By Dan1918A2: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By fxntime: Always wonder how many people replying to this thread have ever shot or even handled a M-14 or just parrot what they think people want to hear. They have some of the absolutely best iron sites on a battle rifle no matter where it came from. Pretty much every other full power battle rifle from anywhere has shit sites compared to them. I Hate shooting my FAL after my M1A, the sites are rancid dog turds with crappy adjustments. I have 2 NM 4 digit M1A's, they are pretty damn accurate with the right ammo. The 5 digit one does fine also. [All have GI barrels, the NM's, Canadian Arsenals] Their downfall is that they are a PITA to scope compared to so many other rifles. Never had any reliability issues with mine. Honestly, I'd bet most younger shooters couldn't use iron sights if their life depended on it. I have no problem with the claim that it was the wrong rifle for the time frame. If it had come out at the beginning of WW2 there wouldn't be all the love for the Garand there is today. I do laugh my ass off though every time some new caliber larger then 5.56 comes out that will replace the 5.56 because it's not ''effective'' enough because it's too small or not powerful enough. 99% of the rifle shooting public would be served perfectly fine [other then the paper punchers looking for that .30 MOA rifle] with a 5.56, .308, and a 30/06 rifle and that is it. These two statements can be true at the same time: 1) The M14 is a pretty nice rifle. 2) The M14 was a bad service rifle, and it was the result of a terrible acquisition process only now being surpassed by the XM7/NGSW program. Sitting behind a rifle at a square range is one thing. Running, jumping, shooting, and clearing positions with a rifle is something else. American service rifles have always excelled at the former, but they haven't always been good at the latter. If you look at the evolution then the m14 makes sense. If you're biased by modern tactics/guns then it's harder to understand why they went with it. Not really. In WWII, the world's soldiers were faced with a tough compromise between huge, low capacity rifles or SMGs with anemic pistol cartridges and generally poor accuracy. It was generally understood by most people (except the US Ordnance tards) that something in between was needed. That something should have more capacity and better handling than the service rifles, but better range, accuracy, and power than the SMGs. The Nahtzees fielded an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Soviets developed an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Spanish designed the CETME for an intermediate cartridge. The Brits wanted to field an intermediate cartridge. Then the US Ordnance guys came along, and decided to replace .30-06 with a cartridge that is basically just .30-06, only slightly shorter. The differences between the two are pretty negligible, but all the costs of a logistical changeover were still incurred. The US adopted the M14 12 years after WWII, and then we coerced the rest of NATO to adopt this questionable new cartridge. Zero hindsight is needed to see this whole process was crap and set the Free World back decades. How bout that M1 Carbine? Mediocre range ballistics due to the pistol bullet design. But, a 110 grain bullet at 1900+FPS isn't something you'll shrug away like all the complaints about it like ''it couldn't penetrate chinese quilted jackets'' tried to claim. It took a LOT of deer in a 110 grain HP bullet design back when they were initially surplussed off. Correct. I was mostly challenging the claim that the US Ordnance department ignored the need for something in between a rifle and SMG/pistol. The carbine was quite present in all theaters pretty early on. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 10:27:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: fxntime]
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dan1918A2: Correct. I was mostly challenging the claim that the US Ordnance department ignored the need for something in between a rifle and SMG/pistol. The carbine was quite present in all theaters pretty early on. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dan1918A2: Originally Posted By fxntime: Originally Posted By Dan1918A2: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By fxntime: Always wonder how many people replying to this thread have ever shot or even handled a M-14 or just parrot what they think people want to hear. They have some of the absolutely best iron sites on a battle rifle no matter where it came from. Pretty much every other full power battle rifle from anywhere has shit sites compared to them. I Hate shooting my FAL after my M1A, the sites are rancid dog turds with crappy adjustments. I have 2 NM 4 digit M1A's, they are pretty damn accurate with the right ammo. The 5 digit one does fine also. [All have GI barrels, the NM's, Canadian Arsenals] Their downfall is that they are a PITA to scope compared to so many other rifles. Never had any reliability issues with mine. Honestly, I'd bet most younger shooters couldn't use iron sights if their life depended on it. I have no problem with the claim that it was the wrong rifle for the time frame. If it had come out at the beginning of WW2 there wouldn't be all the love for the Garand there is today. I do laugh my ass off though every time some new caliber larger then 5.56 comes out that will replace the 5.56 because it's not ''effective'' enough because it's too small or not powerful enough. 99% of the rifle shooting public would be served perfectly fine [other then the paper punchers looking for that .30 MOA rifle] with a 5.56, .308, and a 30/06 rifle and that is it. These two statements can be true at the same time: 1) The M14 is a pretty nice rifle. 2) The M14 was a bad service rifle, and it was the result of a terrible acquisition process only now being surpassed by the XM7/NGSW program. Sitting behind a rifle at a square range is one thing. Running, jumping, shooting, and clearing positions with a rifle is something else. American service rifles have always excelled at the former, but they haven't always been good at the latter. If you look at the evolution then the m14 makes sense. If you're biased by modern tactics/guns then it's harder to understand why they went with it. Not really. In WWII, the world's soldiers were faced with a tough compromise between huge, low capacity rifles or SMGs with anemic pistol cartridges and generally poor accuracy. It was generally understood by most people (except the US Ordnance tards) that something in between was needed. That something should have more capacity and better handling than the service rifles, but better range, accuracy, and power than the SMGs. The Nahtzees fielded an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Soviets developed an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Spanish designed the CETME for an intermediate cartridge. The Brits wanted to field an intermediate cartridge. Then the US Ordnance guys came along, and decided to replace .30-06 with a cartridge that is basically just .30-06, only slightly shorter. The differences between the two are pretty negligible, but all the costs of a logistical changeover were still incurred. The US adopted the M14 12 years after WWII, and then we coerced the rest of NATO to adopt this questionable new cartridge. Zero hindsight is needed to see this whole process was crap and set the Free World back decades. How bout that M1 Carbine? Mediocre range ballistics due to the pistol bullet design. But, a 110 grain bullet at 1900+FPS isn't something you'll shrug away like all the complaints about it like ''it couldn't penetrate chinese quilted jackets'' tried to claim. It took a LOT of deer in a 110 grain HP bullet design back when they were initially surplussed off. Correct. I was mostly challenging the claim that the US Ordnance department ignored the need for something in between a rifle and SMG/pistol. The carbine was quite present in all theaters pretty early on. It was funny that it was fielded as a lighter and more handy rear echelon weapon due to the weight of the Garand and the less effective at range M1911A1 if an attack happened. [any pistol is a poor match against a rifle at distance] But the front line troops really took to it far more then the Mil had anticipated and once the M2 came out [and the jamming due to 30 round mag issues until a latch replacement was sourced] well, sometimes a happy switch is quite useful. And there is no doubt that the round hit harder then the 9mm did in a subgun simply due to velocity differences between the two rounds. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 11:20:57 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fxntime: It was funny that it was fielded as a lighter and more handy rear echelon weapon due to the weight of the Garand and the less effective at range M1911A1 if an attack happened. [any pistol is a poor match against a rifle at distance] But the front line troops really took to it far more then the Mil had anticipated and once the M2 came out [and the jamming due to 30 round mag issues until a latch replacement was sourced] well, sometimes a happy switch is quite useful. And there is no doubt that the round hit harder then the 9mm did in a subgun simply due to velocity differences between the two rounds. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fxntime: Originally Posted By Dan1918A2: Originally Posted By fxntime: Originally Posted By Dan1918A2: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By fxntime: Always wonder how many people replying to this thread have ever shot or even handled a M-14 or just parrot what they think people want to hear. They have some of the absolutely best iron sites on a battle rifle no matter where it came from. Pretty much every other full power battle rifle from anywhere has shit sites compared to them. I Hate shooting my FAL after my M1A, the sites are rancid dog turds with crappy adjustments. I have 2 NM 4 digit M1A's, they are pretty damn accurate with the right ammo. The 5 digit one does fine also. [All have GI barrels, the NM's, Canadian Arsenals] Their downfall is that they are a PITA to scope compared to so many other rifles. Never had any reliability issues with mine. Honestly, I'd bet most younger shooters couldn't use iron sights if their life depended on it. I have no problem with the claim that it was the wrong rifle for the time frame. If it had come out at the beginning of WW2 there wouldn't be all the love for the Garand there is today. I do laugh my ass off though every time some new caliber larger then 5.56 comes out that will replace the 5.56 because it's not ''effective'' enough because it's too small or not powerful enough. 99% of the rifle shooting public would be served perfectly fine [other then the paper punchers looking for that .30 MOA rifle] with a 5.56, .308, and a 30/06 rifle and that is it. These two statements can be true at the same time: 1) The M14 is a pretty nice rifle. 2) The M14 was a bad service rifle, and it was the result of a terrible acquisition process only now being surpassed by the XM7/NGSW program. Sitting behind a rifle at a square range is one thing. Running, jumping, shooting, and clearing positions with a rifle is something else. American service rifles have always excelled at the former, but they haven't always been good at the latter. If you look at the evolution then the m14 makes sense. If you're biased by modern tactics/guns then it's harder to understand why they went with it. Not really. In WWII, the world's soldiers were faced with a tough compromise between huge, low capacity rifles or SMGs with anemic pistol cartridges and generally poor accuracy. It was generally understood by most people (except the US Ordnance tards) that something in between was needed. That something should have more capacity and better handling than the service rifles, but better range, accuracy, and power than the SMGs. The Nahtzees fielded an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Soviets developed an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Spanish designed the CETME for an intermediate cartridge. The Brits wanted to field an intermediate cartridge. Then the US Ordnance guys came along, and decided to replace .30-06 with a cartridge that is basically just .30-06, only slightly shorter. The differences between the two are pretty negligible, but all the costs of a logistical changeover were still incurred. The US adopted the M14 12 years after WWII, and then we coerced the rest of NATO to adopt this questionable new cartridge. Zero hindsight is needed to see this whole process was crap and set the Free World back decades. How bout that M1 Carbine? Mediocre range ballistics due to the pistol bullet design. But, a 110 grain bullet at 1900+FPS isn't something you'll shrug away like all the complaints about it like ''it couldn't penetrate chinese quilted jackets'' tried to claim. It took a LOT of deer in a 110 grain HP bullet design back when they were initially surplussed off. Correct. I was mostly challenging the claim that the US Ordnance department ignored the need for something in between a rifle and SMG/pistol. The carbine was quite present in all theaters pretty early on. It was funny that it was fielded as a lighter and more handy rear echelon weapon due to the weight of the Garand and the less effective at range M1911A1 if an attack happened. [any pistol is a poor match against a rifle at distance] But the front line troops really took to it far more then the Mil had anticipated and once the M2 came out [and the jamming due to 30 round mag issues until a latch replacement was sourced] well, sometimes a happy switch is quite useful. And there is no doubt that the round hit harder then the 9mm did in a subgun simply due to velocity differences between the two rounds. I believe it hit harder than the .357 at the time. I do know the Germans loved the carbine. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 11:30:38 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By M1Zeppelin: I believe it hit harder than the .357 at the time. I do know the Germans loved the carbine. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By M1Zeppelin: Originally Posted By fxntime: Originally Posted By Dan1918A2: Originally Posted By fxntime: Originally Posted By Dan1918A2: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By fxntime: Always wonder how many people replying to this thread have ever shot or even handled a M-14 or just parrot what they think people want to hear. They have some of the absolutely best iron sites on a battle rifle no matter where it came from. Pretty much every other full power battle rifle from anywhere has shit sites compared to them. I Hate shooting my FAL after my M1A, the sites are rancid dog turds with crappy adjustments. I have 2 NM 4 digit M1A's, they are pretty damn accurate with the right ammo. The 5 digit one does fine also. [All have GI barrels, the NM's, Canadian Arsenals] Their downfall is that they are a PITA to scope compared to so many other rifles. Never had any reliability issues with mine. Honestly, I'd bet most younger shooters couldn't use iron sights if their life depended on it. I have no problem with the claim that it was the wrong rifle for the time frame. If it had come out at the beginning of WW2 there wouldn't be all the love for the Garand there is today. I do laugh my ass off though every time some new caliber larger then 5.56 comes out that will replace the 5.56 because it's not ''effective'' enough because it's too small or not powerful enough. 99% of the rifle shooting public would be served perfectly fine [other then the paper punchers looking for that .30 MOA rifle] with a 5.56, .308, and a 30/06 rifle and that is it. These two statements can be true at the same time: 1) The M14 is a pretty nice rifle. 2) The M14 was a bad service rifle, and it was the result of a terrible acquisition process only now being surpassed by the XM7/NGSW program. Sitting behind a rifle at a square range is one thing. Running, jumping, shooting, and clearing positions with a rifle is something else. American service rifles have always excelled at the former, but they haven't always been good at the latter. If you look at the evolution then the m14 makes sense. If you're biased by modern tactics/guns then it's harder to understand why they went with it. Not really. In WWII, the world's soldiers were faced with a tough compromise between huge, low capacity rifles or SMGs with anemic pistol cartridges and generally poor accuracy. It was generally understood by most people (except the US Ordnance tards) that something in between was needed. That something should have more capacity and better handling than the service rifles, but better range, accuracy, and power than the SMGs. The Nahtzees fielded an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Soviets developed an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Spanish designed the CETME for an intermediate cartridge. The Brits wanted to field an intermediate cartridge. Then the US Ordnance guys came along, and decided to replace .30-06 with a cartridge that is basically just .30-06, only slightly shorter. The differences between the two are pretty negligible, but all the costs of a logistical changeover were still incurred. The US adopted the M14 12 years after WWII, and then we coerced the rest of NATO to adopt this questionable new cartridge. Zero hindsight is needed to see this whole process was crap and set the Free World back decades. How bout that M1 Carbine? Mediocre range ballistics due to the pistol bullet design. But, a 110 grain bullet at 1900+FPS isn't something you'll shrug away like all the complaints about it like ''it couldn't penetrate chinese quilted jackets'' tried to claim. It took a LOT of deer in a 110 grain HP bullet design back when they were initially surplussed off. Correct. I was mostly challenging the claim that the US Ordnance department ignored the need for something in between a rifle and SMG/pistol. The carbine was quite present in all theaters pretty early on. It was funny that it was fielded as a lighter and more handy rear echelon weapon due to the weight of the Garand and the less effective at range M1911A1 if an attack happened. [any pistol is a poor match against a rifle at distance] But the front line troops really took to it far more then the Mil had anticipated and once the M2 came out [and the jamming due to 30 round mag issues until a latch replacement was sourced] well, sometimes a happy switch is quite useful. And there is no doubt that the round hit harder then the 9mm did in a subgun simply due to velocity differences between the two rounds. I believe it hit harder than the .357 at the time. I do know the Germans loved the carbine. If I recall the overlap is something like the same muzzle energy at 150yds as a 4” 357 at the muzzle. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 11:39:43 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SteelonSteel: I was reading a wiki (I know, I know but it is handy on case dimensions) that the .280 British, a concept I really like, was even deemed by the British as having deficiencies, initially accuracy, too little speed which gave an unwanted higher arc trajectory but most damning to them was 800m ability to penetrate steel helmets and body armor of the day. I never read those negatives before. Hitting an eight inch target at 800m is probably fairly low on the priority scale for a service rifle in the hands of a soldier. Penetrating steel at that distance would be even lower. YMMV |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 11:45:05 AM EDT
[#21]
I love my M1A. It's a tack driver and fun to shoot. Is it the first thing I'd grab of all my guns for a fight? No, but it would get the job done if needed.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 11:52:21 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dan1918A2: Correct. I was mostly challenging the claim that the US Ordnance department ignored the need for something in between a rifle and SMG/pistol. The carbine was quite present in all theaters pretty early on. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dan1918A2: Originally Posted By fxntime: Originally Posted By Dan1918A2: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By fxntime: Always wonder how many people replying to this thread have ever shot or even handled a M-14 or just parrot what they think people want to hear. They have some of the absolutely best iron sites on a battle rifle no matter where it came from. Pretty much every other full power battle rifle from anywhere has shit sites compared to them. I Hate shooting my FAL after my M1A, the sites are rancid dog turds with crappy adjustments. I have 2 NM 4 digit M1A's, they are pretty damn accurate with the right ammo. The 5 digit one does fine also. [All have GI barrels, the NM's, Canadian Arsenals] Their downfall is that they are a PITA to scope compared to so many other rifles. Never had any reliability issues with mine. Honestly, I'd bet most younger shooters couldn't use iron sights if their life depended on it. I have no problem with the claim that it was the wrong rifle for the time frame. If it had come out at the beginning of WW2 there wouldn't be all the love for the Garand there is today. I do laugh my ass off though every time some new caliber larger then 5.56 comes out that will replace the 5.56 because it's not ''effective'' enough because it's too small or not powerful enough. 99% of the rifle shooting public would be served perfectly fine [other then the paper punchers looking for that .30 MOA rifle] with a 5.56, .308, and a 30/06 rifle and that is it. These two statements can be true at the same time: 1) The M14 is a pretty nice rifle. 2) The M14 was a bad service rifle, and it was the result of a terrible acquisition process only now being surpassed by the XM7/NGSW program. Sitting behind a rifle at a square range is one thing. Running, jumping, shooting, and clearing positions with a rifle is something else. American service rifles have always excelled at the former, but they haven't always been good at the latter. If you look at the evolution then the m14 makes sense. If you're biased by modern tactics/guns then it's harder to understand why they went with it. Not really. In WWII, the world's soldiers were faced with a tough compromise between huge, low capacity rifles or SMGs with anemic pistol cartridges and generally poor accuracy. It was generally understood by most people (except the US Ordnance tards) that something in between was needed. That something should have more capacity and better handling than the service rifles, but better range, accuracy, and power than the SMGs. The Nahtzees fielded an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Soviets developed an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Spanish designed the CETME for an intermediate cartridge. The Brits wanted to field an intermediate cartridge. Then the US Ordnance guys came along, and decided to replace .30-06 with a cartridge that is basically just .30-06, only slightly shorter. The differences between the two are pretty negligible, but all the costs of a logistical changeover were still incurred. The US adopted the M14 12 years after WWII, and then we coerced the rest of NATO to adopt this questionable new cartridge. Zero hindsight is needed to see this whole process was crap and set the Free World back decades. How bout that M1 Carbine? Mediocre range ballistics due to the pistol bullet design. But, a 110 grain bullet at 1900+FPS isn't something you'll shrug away like all the complaints about it like ''it couldn't penetrate chinese quilted jackets'' tried to claim. It took a LOT of deer in a 110 grain HP bullet design back when they were initially surplussed off. Correct. I was mostly challenging the claim that the US Ordnance department ignored the need for something in between a rifle and SMG/pistol. The carbine was quite present in all theaters pretty early on. The M1/M2 carbines are PCCs/SMGs chambered in almost .357. It improves upon 9mm and .45 SMGs by a small margin, but it hardly compares to a proper intermediate rifle cartridge. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 12:01:01 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fxntime: The flipside of the cartridge choice was that the 7.62x51 went on to be a VERY popular MG cartridge and civi use one also. So the choice, since it wasn't ''just'' for a battle rifle cartridge but for MG use also and add in as a reasonably good sniper rifle cartridge [with different bullets] to boot. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fxntime: The flipside of the cartridge choice was that the 7.62x51 went on to be a VERY popular MG cartridge and civi use one also. So the choice, since it wasn't ''just'' for a battle rifle cartridge but for MG use also and add in as a reasonably good sniper rifle cartridge [with different bullets] to boot. The reasoning behind 7.622x51 was that it used less brass and allowed a higher cyclic rate for MGs because it is shorter. So it was designed for MGs. Using it in rifles was a poor choice, though. Originally Posted By fxntime: In a large scale theater wide shooting war [like WW2], it makes a lot of sense to have as few cartridge calibers as possible to make logistics easier. In a more modern smaller scale shooting war, not as much. But resupplying front lines today may becoming far more dangerous due to drones and such so the ''fewer calibers'' concept may again start making far more sense then many different ''specialized'' calibers. When you make a call for more ammunition, you don't order it by caliber, you order it by DODIC, which is a 4 digit code unique to each type of ammunition. By that standard linked ammunition and boxed ammunition are completely different. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 12:48:53 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HIMARS13A: The reasoning behind 7.622x51 was that it used less brass and allowed a higher cyclic rate for MGs because it is shorter. So it was designed for MGs. Using it in rifles was a poor choice, though. When you make a call for more ammunition, you don't order it by caliber, you order it by DODIC, which is a 4 digit code unique to each type of ammunition. By that standard linked ammunition and boxed ammunition are completely different. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HIMARS13A: Originally Posted By fxntime: The flipside of the cartridge choice was that the 7.62x51 went on to be a VERY popular MG cartridge and civi use one also. So the choice, since it wasn't ''just'' for a battle rifle cartridge but for MG use also and add in as a reasonably good sniper rifle cartridge [with different bullets] to boot. The reasoning behind 7.622x51 was that it used less brass and allowed a higher cyclic rate for MGs because it is shorter. So it was designed for MGs. Using it in rifles was a poor choice, though. Originally Posted By fxntime: In a large scale theater wide shooting war [like WW2], it makes a lot of sense to have as few cartridge calibers as possible to make logistics easier. In a more modern smaller scale shooting war, not as much. But resupplying front lines today may becoming far more dangerous due to drones and such so the ''fewer calibers'' concept may again start making far more sense then many different ''specialized'' calibers. When you make a call for more ammunition, you don't order it by caliber, you order it by DODIC, which is a 4 digit code unique to each type of ammunition. By that standard linked ammunition and boxed ammunition are completely different. But one could strip belts if needed, I would expect it would be a PITA to load links. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 12:55:50 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: The M1/M2 carbines are PCCs/SMGs chambered in almost .357. It improves upon 9mm and .45 SMGs by a small margin, but it hardly compares to a proper intermediate rifle cartridge. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By Dan1918A2: Originally Posted By fxntime: Originally Posted By Dan1918A2: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By fxntime: Always wonder how many people replying to this thread have ever shot or even handled a M-14 or just parrot what they think people want to hear. They have some of the absolutely best iron sites on a battle rifle no matter where it came from. Pretty much every other full power battle rifle from anywhere has shit sites compared to them. I Hate shooting my FAL after my M1A, the sites are rancid dog turds with crappy adjustments. I have 2 NM 4 digit M1A's, they are pretty damn accurate with the right ammo. The 5 digit one does fine also. [All have GI barrels, the NM's, Canadian Arsenals] Their downfall is that they are a PITA to scope compared to so many other rifles. Never had any reliability issues with mine. Honestly, I'd bet most younger shooters couldn't use iron sights if their life depended on it. I have no problem with the claim that it was the wrong rifle for the time frame. If it had come out at the beginning of WW2 there wouldn't be all the love for the Garand there is today. I do laugh my ass off though every time some new caliber larger then 5.56 comes out that will replace the 5.56 because it's not ''effective'' enough because it's too small or not powerful enough. 99% of the rifle shooting public would be served perfectly fine [other then the paper punchers looking for that .30 MOA rifle] with a 5.56, .308, and a 30/06 rifle and that is it. These two statements can be true at the same time: 1) The M14 is a pretty nice rifle. 2) The M14 was a bad service rifle, and it was the result of a terrible acquisition process only now being surpassed by the XM7/NGSW program. Sitting behind a rifle at a square range is one thing. Running, jumping, shooting, and clearing positions with a rifle is something else. American service rifles have always excelled at the former, but they haven't always been good at the latter. If you look at the evolution then the m14 makes sense. If you're biased by modern tactics/guns then it's harder to understand why they went with it. Not really. In WWII, the world's soldiers were faced with a tough compromise between huge, low capacity rifles or SMGs with anemic pistol cartridges and generally poor accuracy. It was generally understood by most people (except the US Ordnance tards) that something in between was needed. That something should have more capacity and better handling than the service rifles, but better range, accuracy, and power than the SMGs. The Nahtzees fielded an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Soviets developed an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Spanish designed the CETME for an intermediate cartridge. The Brits wanted to field an intermediate cartridge. Then the US Ordnance guys came along, and decided to replace .30-06 with a cartridge that is basically just .30-06, only slightly shorter. The differences between the two are pretty negligible, but all the costs of a logistical changeover were still incurred. The US adopted the M14 12 years after WWII, and then we coerced the rest of NATO to adopt this questionable new cartridge. Zero hindsight is needed to see this whole process was crap and set the Free World back decades. How bout that M1 Carbine? Mediocre range ballistics due to the pistol bullet design. But, a 110 grain bullet at 1900+FPS isn't something you'll shrug away like all the complaints about it like ''it couldn't penetrate chinese quilted jackets'' tried to claim. It took a LOT of deer in a 110 grain HP bullet design back when they were initially surplussed off. Correct. I was mostly challenging the claim that the US Ordnance department ignored the need for something in between a rifle and SMG/pistol. The carbine was quite present in all theaters pretty early on. The M1/M2 carbines are PCCs/SMGs chambered in almost .357. It improves upon 9mm and .45 SMGs by a small margin, but it hardly compares to a proper intermediate rifle cartridge. The .30 carbine is a good deal more powerful than the .357 mag. True, it’s not a proper intermediate rifle round, but it’s still in between. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 1:04:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: fxntime]
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dan1918A2: The .30 carbine is a good deal more powerful than the .357 mag. True, it’s not a proper intermediate rifle round, but it’s still in between. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dan1918A2: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By Dan1918A2: Originally Posted By fxntime: Originally Posted By Dan1918A2: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By fxntime: Always wonder how many people replying to this thread have ever shot or even handled a M-14 or just parrot what they think people want to hear. They have some of the absolutely best iron sites on a battle rifle no matter where it came from. Pretty much every other full power battle rifle from anywhere has shit sites compared to them. I Hate shooting my FAL after my M1A, the sites are rancid dog turds with crappy adjustments. I have 2 NM 4 digit M1A's, they are pretty damn accurate with the right ammo. The 5 digit one does fine also. [All have GI barrels, the NM's, Canadian Arsenals] Their downfall is that they are a PITA to scope compared to so many other rifles. Never had any reliability issues with mine. Honestly, I'd bet most younger shooters couldn't use iron sights if their life depended on it. I have no problem with the claim that it was the wrong rifle for the time frame. If it had come out at the beginning of WW2 there wouldn't be all the love for the Garand there is today. I do laugh my ass off though every time some new caliber larger then 5.56 comes out that will replace the 5.56 because it's not ''effective'' enough because it's too small or not powerful enough. 99% of the rifle shooting public would be served perfectly fine [other then the paper punchers looking for that .30 MOA rifle] with a 5.56, .308, and a 30/06 rifle and that is it. These two statements can be true at the same time: 1) The M14 is a pretty nice rifle. 2) The M14 was a bad service rifle, and it was the result of a terrible acquisition process only now being surpassed by the XM7/NGSW program. Sitting behind a rifle at a square range is one thing. Running, jumping, shooting, and clearing positions with a rifle is something else. American service rifles have always excelled at the former, but they haven't always been good at the latter. If you look at the evolution then the m14 makes sense. If you're biased by modern tactics/guns then it's harder to understand why they went with it. Not really. In WWII, the world's soldiers were faced with a tough compromise between huge, low capacity rifles or SMGs with anemic pistol cartridges and generally poor accuracy. It was generally understood by most people (except the US Ordnance tards) that something in between was needed. That something should have more capacity and better handling than the service rifles, but better range, accuracy, and power than the SMGs. The Nahtzees fielded an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Soviets developed an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Spanish designed the CETME for an intermediate cartridge. The Brits wanted to field an intermediate cartridge. Then the US Ordnance guys came along, and decided to replace .30-06 with a cartridge that is basically just .30-06, only slightly shorter. The differences between the two are pretty negligible, but all the costs of a logistical changeover were still incurred. The US adopted the M14 12 years after WWII, and then we coerced the rest of NATO to adopt this questionable new cartridge. Zero hindsight is needed to see this whole process was crap and set the Free World back decades. How bout that M1 Carbine? Mediocre range ballistics due to the pistol bullet design. But, a 110 grain bullet at 1900+FPS isn't something you'll shrug away like all the complaints about it like ''it couldn't penetrate chinese quilted jackets'' tried to claim. It took a LOT of deer in a 110 grain HP bullet design back when they were initially surplussed off. Correct. I was mostly challenging the claim that the US Ordnance department ignored the need for something in between a rifle and SMG/pistol. The carbine was quite present in all theaters pretty early on. The M1/M2 carbines are PCCs/SMGs chambered in almost .357. It improves upon 9mm and .45 SMGs by a small margin, but it hardly compares to a proper intermediate rifle cartridge. The .30 carbine is a good deal more powerful than the .357 mag. True, it’s not a proper intermediate rifle round, but it’s still in between. Almost 1000 FPE at the muzzle [at 1990 FPS] is nothing to sneeze at and kicks ass over a .357 for sure. A good modern jacketed HP bullet would kick ass and do some serious damage to a home invader. Problem always was that 110 grain soft points were pretty much all you could ever get other then FMJ because no one seems to want to spend development money on a .30 cal .30 carbine bullet. And lest we forget, recoil is basically negligible for pretty much every adult no matter their size, a spicy .357, not so much. Weight, well, five and a half pounds or so is less then all but the lightest stripped AR's and they balance well to boot. Pulling the bolt back, simple and easy to do also. I wouldn't feel underarmed with a carbine and good 30 round mags in a HD defense situation myself. And they reload pretty damn quick. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 1:17:49 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fxntime: But one could strip belts if needed, I would expect it would be a PITA to load links. While it happens from time to time its not the kind of thing you plan around. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 1:24:11 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fxntime: Almost 1000 FPE at the muzzle [at 1990 FPS] is nothing to sneeze at and kicks ass over a .357 for sure. A good modern jacketed HP bullet would kick ass and do some serious damage to a home invader. Problem always was that 110 grain soft points were pretty much all you could ever get other then FMJ because no one seems to want to spend development money on a .30 cal .30 carbine bullet. And lest we forget, recoil is basically negligible for pretty much every adult no matter their size, a spicy .357, not so much. Weight, well, five and a half pounds or so is less then all but the lightest stripped AR's and they balance well to boot. Pulling the bolt back, simple and easy to do also. I wouldn't feel underarmed with a carbine and good 30 round mags in a HD defense situation myself. And they reload pretty damn quick. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fxntime: Originally Posted By Dan1918A2: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By Dan1918A2: Originally Posted By fxntime: Originally Posted By Dan1918A2: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By fxntime: Always wonder how many people replying to this thread have ever shot or even handled a M-14 or just parrot what they think people want to hear. They have some of the absolutely best iron sites on a battle rifle no matter where it came from. Pretty much every other full power battle rifle from anywhere has shit sites compared to them. I Hate shooting my FAL after my M1A, the sites are rancid dog turds with crappy adjustments. I have 2 NM 4 digit M1A's, they are pretty damn accurate with the right ammo. The 5 digit one does fine also. [All have GI barrels, the NM's, Canadian Arsenals] Their downfall is that they are a PITA to scope compared to so many other rifles. Never had any reliability issues with mine. Honestly, I'd bet most younger shooters couldn't use iron sights if their life depended on it. I have no problem with the claim that it was the wrong rifle for the time frame. If it had come out at the beginning of WW2 there wouldn't be all the love for the Garand there is today. I do laugh my ass off though every time some new caliber larger then 5.56 comes out that will replace the 5.56 because it's not ''effective'' enough because it's too small or not powerful enough. 99% of the rifle shooting public would be served perfectly fine [other then the paper punchers looking for that .30 MOA rifle] with a 5.56, .308, and a 30/06 rifle and that is it. These two statements can be true at the same time: 1) The M14 is a pretty nice rifle. 2) The M14 was a bad service rifle, and it was the result of a terrible acquisition process only now being surpassed by the XM7/NGSW program. Sitting behind a rifle at a square range is one thing. Running, jumping, shooting, and clearing positions with a rifle is something else. American service rifles have always excelled at the former, but they haven't always been good at the latter. If you look at the evolution then the m14 makes sense. If you're biased by modern tactics/guns then it's harder to understand why they went with it. Not really. In WWII, the world's soldiers were faced with a tough compromise between huge, low capacity rifles or SMGs with anemic pistol cartridges and generally poor accuracy. It was generally understood by most people (except the US Ordnance tards) that something in between was needed. That something should have more capacity and better handling than the service rifles, but better range, accuracy, and power than the SMGs. The Nahtzees fielded an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Soviets developed an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Spanish designed the CETME for an intermediate cartridge. The Brits wanted to field an intermediate cartridge. Then the US Ordnance guys came along, and decided to replace .30-06 with a cartridge that is basically just .30-06, only slightly shorter. The differences between the two are pretty negligible, but all the costs of a logistical changeover were still incurred. The US adopted the M14 12 years after WWII, and then we coerced the rest of NATO to adopt this questionable new cartridge. Zero hindsight is needed to see this whole process was crap and set the Free World back decades. How bout that M1 Carbine? Mediocre range ballistics due to the pistol bullet design. But, a 110 grain bullet at 1900+FPS isn't something you'll shrug away like all the complaints about it like ''it couldn't penetrate chinese quilted jackets'' tried to claim. It took a LOT of deer in a 110 grain HP bullet design back when they were initially surplussed off. Correct. I was mostly challenging the claim that the US Ordnance department ignored the need for something in between a rifle and SMG/pistol. The carbine was quite present in all theaters pretty early on. The M1/M2 carbines are PCCs/SMGs chambered in almost .357. It improves upon 9mm and .45 SMGs by a small margin, but it hardly compares to a proper intermediate rifle cartridge. The .30 carbine is a good deal more powerful than the .357 mag. True, it’s not a proper intermediate rifle round, but it’s still in between. Almost 1000 FPE at the muzzle [at 1990 FPS] is nothing to sneeze at and kicks ass over a .357 for sure. A good modern jacketed HP bullet would kick ass and do some serious damage to a home invader. Problem always was that 110 grain soft points were pretty much all you could ever get other then FMJ because no one seems to want to spend development money on a .30 cal .30 carbine bullet. And lest we forget, recoil is basically negligible for pretty much every adult no matter their size, a spicy .357, not so much. Weight, well, five and a half pounds or so is less then all but the lightest stripped AR's and they balance well to boot. Pulling the bolt back, simple and easy to do also. I wouldn't feel underarmed with a carbine and good 30 round mags in a HD defense situation myself. And they reload pretty damn quick. Agreed on all points. I shoot a lot of steel targets. While not exactly a scientific test, the carbine whacks the shit out of steel harder than my zesty .357 handloads. It’s especially evident on my dueling tree, which is pretty beefy. It’s violent. Oh, and I’m a fan of the M14 rifle. My 1982 M1A is all USGI except for the receiver. Close to an M14 as I can manage. Hell of a shooter. But it was a pretty lateral move. It wasn’t short lived in service because it was a bad rifle, but because it was the wrong rifle. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 1:40:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: fxntime]
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dan1918A2: Agreed on all points. I shoot a lot of steel targets. While not exactly a scientific test, the carbine whacks the shit out of steel harder than my zesty .357 handloads. It’s especially evident on my dueling tree, which is pretty beefy. It’s violent. Oh, and I’m a fan of the M14 rifle. My 1982 M1A is all USGI except for the receiver. Close to an M14 as I can manage. Hell of a shooter. But it was a pretty lateral move. It wasn’t short lived in service because it was a bad rifle, but because it was the wrong rifle. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dan1918A2: Originally Posted By fxntime: Originally Posted By Dan1918A2: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By Dan1918A2: Originally Posted By fxntime: Originally Posted By Dan1918A2: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By fxntime: Always wonder how many people replying to this thread have ever shot or even handled a M-14 or just parrot what they think people want to hear. They have some of the absolutely best iron sites on a battle rifle no matter where it came from. Pretty much every other full power battle rifle from anywhere has shit sites compared to them. I Hate shooting my FAL after my M1A, the sites are rancid dog turds with crappy adjustments. I have 2 NM 4 digit M1A's, they are pretty damn accurate with the right ammo. The 5 digit one does fine also. [All have GI barrels, the NM's, Canadian Arsenals] Their downfall is that they are a PITA to scope compared to so many other rifles. Never had any reliability issues with mine. Honestly, I'd bet most younger shooters couldn't use iron sights if their life depended on it. I have no problem with the claim that it was the wrong rifle for the time frame. If it had come out at the beginning of WW2 there wouldn't be all the love for the Garand there is today. I do laugh my ass off though every time some new caliber larger then 5.56 comes out that will replace the 5.56 because it's not ''effective'' enough because it's too small or not powerful enough. 99% of the rifle shooting public would be served perfectly fine [other then the paper punchers looking for that .30 MOA rifle] with a 5.56, .308, and a 30/06 rifle and that is it. These two statements can be true at the same time: 1) The M14 is a pretty nice rifle. 2) The M14 was a bad service rifle, and it was the result of a terrible acquisition process only now being surpassed by the XM7/NGSW program. Sitting behind a rifle at a square range is one thing. Running, jumping, shooting, and clearing positions with a rifle is something else. American service rifles have always excelled at the former, but they haven't always been good at the latter. If you look at the evolution then the m14 makes sense. If you're biased by modern tactics/guns then it's harder to understand why they went with it. Not really. In WWII, the world's soldiers were faced with a tough compromise between huge, low capacity rifles or SMGs with anemic pistol cartridges and generally poor accuracy. It was generally understood by most people (except the US Ordnance tards) that something in between was needed. That something should have more capacity and better handling than the service rifles, but better range, accuracy, and power than the SMGs. The Nahtzees fielded an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Soviets developed an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Spanish designed the CETME for an intermediate cartridge. The Brits wanted to field an intermediate cartridge. Then the US Ordnance guys came along, and decided to replace .30-06 with a cartridge that is basically just .30-06, only slightly shorter. The differences between the two are pretty negligible, but all the costs of a logistical changeover were still incurred. The US adopted the M14 12 years after WWII, and then we coerced the rest of NATO to adopt this questionable new cartridge. Zero hindsight is needed to see this whole process was crap and set the Free World back decades. How bout that M1 Carbine? Mediocre range ballistics due to the pistol bullet design. But, a 110 grain bullet at 1900+FPS isn't something you'll shrug away like all the complaints about it like ''it couldn't penetrate chinese quilted jackets'' tried to claim. It took a LOT of deer in a 110 grain HP bullet design back when they were initially surplussed off. Correct. I was mostly challenging the claim that the US Ordnance department ignored the need for something in between a rifle and SMG/pistol. The carbine was quite present in all theaters pretty early on. The M1/M2 carbines are PCCs/SMGs chambered in almost .357. It improves upon 9mm and .45 SMGs by a small margin, but it hardly compares to a proper intermediate rifle cartridge. The .30 carbine is a good deal more powerful than the .357 mag. True, it’s not a proper intermediate rifle round, but it’s still in between. Almost 1000 FPE at the muzzle [at 1990 FPS] is nothing to sneeze at and kicks ass over a .357 for sure. A good modern jacketed HP bullet would kick ass and do some serious damage to a home invader. Problem always was that 110 grain soft points were pretty much all you could ever get other then FMJ because no one seems to want to spend development money on a .30 cal .30 carbine bullet. And lest we forget, recoil is basically negligible for pretty much every adult no matter their size, a spicy .357, not so much. Weight, well, five and a half pounds or so is less then all but the lightest stripped AR's and they balance well to boot. Pulling the bolt back, simple and easy to do also. I wouldn't feel underarmed with a carbine and good 30 round mags in a HD defense situation myself. And they reload pretty damn quick. Agreed on all points. I shoot a lot of steel targets. While not exactly a scientific test, the carbine whacks the shit out of steel harder than my zesty .357 handloads. It’s especially evident on my dueling tree, which is pretty beefy. It’s violent. Oh, and I’m a fan of the M14 rifle. My 1982 M1A is all USGI except for the receiver. Close to an M14 as I can manage. Hell of a shooter. But it was a pretty lateral move. It wasn’t short lived in service because it was a bad rifle, but because it was the wrong rifle. I'll agree with that, developments in the hand held weapon area was quite hot and heavy during that time with new methods and materials and the jungle isn't the best place for a long rifle. I will say that the 11.5 to 12 cents a round for surplussed 7.62x51 was a GREAT time to be alive in. I stacked the s--t out of it. SA, Port, Radway Green, Malaysian, DAG, MEN, Aussie and so on, it was truly fantastic. I don't think 30/06 ever came close to 7.62x51 pricing. I did snag a bunch of .30 carbine cheap then, hell, even AIM was selling new S&B for $9 a 50 round box bought in bulk. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 1:47:11 PM EDT
[#30]
There isn't enough practical difference between .30 carbine and Russian M43 or 7.92 Kurz to worry about.
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 2:03:30 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Orion10182011: 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. BM59 is M1 perfected. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 2:05:13 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wspe1: LRB Arms has perfected the M14 pattern rifle with a built in picatinny rail fixing the side mounted rail issue. Bula makes a railed receiver too. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 2:10:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: tsg68]
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By M1Zeppelin: I believe it hit harder than the .357 at the time. I do know the Germans loved the carbine. Audie Murphy loved the carbine because it punched holes in the stahlhelm and the German inside it. He preferred head shots. He was a little guy too and it was easier to handle than the Garand. He kept a carbine after the war and often gifted them to friends as a defensive arm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 2:37:25 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tsg68: Audie Murphy loved the carbine because it punched holes in the stahlhelm and the German inside it. He preferred head shots. He was a little guy too and it was easier to handle than the Garand. He kept a carbine after the war and often gifted them to friends as a defensive arm. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tsg68: Originally Posted By M1Zeppelin: I believe it hit harder than the .357 at the time. I do know the Germans loved the carbine. Audie Murphy loved the carbine because it punched holes in the stahlhelm and the German inside it. He preferred head shots. He was a little guy too and it was easier to handle than the Garand. He kept a carbine after the war and often gifted them to friends as a defensive arm. You’re right. I remember a part in his book talking about how when got his Sargent stripes he was also issued a Thompson which he quickly gave to a GI for a carbine. He loved it and grenades. |
|
|
|
ID, USA
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 2:51:42 PM EDT
[#35]
Sorry for thread drift bur my old man has an M1A that he built on what I think is a Badger Ordnance receiver. It's been years since I saw or shot it but that's what sticks out in my mind. Google only tells me that Badger makes parts for M14s but I can't find any info on their receivers. Any of you experts have any info? Thanks!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 2:55:00 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fxntime: Almost 1000 FPE at the muzzle [at 1990 FPS] is nothing to sneeze at and kicks ass over a .357 for sure. A good modern jacketed HP bullet would kick ass and do some serious damage to a home invader. Problem always was that 110 grain soft points were pretty much all you could ever get other then FMJ because no one seems to want to spend development money on a .30 cal .30 carbine bullet. And lest we forget, recoil is basically negligible for pretty much every adult no matter their size, a spicy .357, not so much. Weight, well, five and a half pounds or so is less then all but the lightest stripped AR's and they balance well to boot. Pulling the bolt back, simple and easy to do also. I wouldn't feel underarmed with a carbine and good 30 round mags in a HD defense situation myself. And they reload pretty damn quick. Lots of them used to float around in the back of squad cars too. Stake out squad loved them |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 3:56:57 PM EDT
[#37]
Just got back from a Morning shoot with a bunch of other old Boomers shooting there Garands and M1A's Mine is the only not scoped.
 First 10 rd string off the bench with Irons. Shooting 40 ye old Hirtenberger surplus.  Two clicks down in elevation and two clicks right windage  Thinking about scoping mine. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 4:00:36 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Harv24: Just got back from a Morning shoot with a bunch of other old Boomers shooting there Garands and M1A's Mine is the only not scoped. https://i.imgur.com/wx1qIPs.jpg First 10 rd string off the bench with Irons. Shooting 40 ye old Hirtenberger surplus. https://i.imgur.com/NnmqA07.jpg Two clicks down in elevation and two clicks right windage https://i.imgur.com/zLqAZdG.jpg Thinking about scoping mine. Looks to me like you that rifle and Hirt are a pretty good combination! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 4:10:42 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Harv24: Just got back from a Morning shoot with a bunch of other old Boomers shooting there Garands and M1A's Mine is the only not scoped. https://i.imgur.com/wx1qIPs.jpg First 10 rd string off the bench with Irons. Shooting 40 ye old Hirtenberger surplus. https://i.imgur.com/NnmqA07.jpg Two clicks down in elevation and two clicks right windage https://i.imgur.com/zLqAZdG.jpg Thinking about scoping mine. Don’t scope her. Your shooting is fine! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 4:40:25 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Harv24: Just got back from a Morning shoot with a bunch of other old Boomers shooting there Garands and M1A's Mine is the only not scoped. https://i.imgur.com/wx1qIPs.jpg First 10 rd string off the bench with Irons. Shooting 40 ye old Hirtenberger surplus. https://i.imgur.com/NnmqA07.jpg Two clicks down in elevation and two clicks right windage https://i.imgur.com/zLqAZdG.jpg Thinking about scoping mine. Nice rifle and good shooting 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 4:46:51 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fxntime: Almost 1000 FPE at the muzzle [at 1990 FPS] is nothing to sneeze at and kicks ass over a .357 for sure. A good modern jacketed HP bullet would kick ass and do some serious damage to a home invader. Problem always was that 110 grain soft points were pretty much all you could ever get other then FMJ because no one seems to want to spend development money on a .30 cal .30 carbine bullet. And lest we forget, recoil is basically negligible for pretty much every adult no matter their size, a spicy .357, not so much. Weight, well, five and a half pounds or so is less then all but the lightest stripped AR's and they balance well to boot. Pulling the bolt back, simple and easy to do also. I wouldn't feel underarmed with a carbine and good 30 round mags in a HD defense situation myself. And they reload pretty damn quick. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fxntime: Originally Posted By Dan1918A2: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By Dan1918A2: Originally Posted By fxntime: Originally Posted By Dan1918A2: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By 03RN: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By fxntime: Always wonder how many people replying to this thread have ever shot or even handled a M-14 or just parrot what they think people want to hear. They have some of the absolutely best iron sites on a battle rifle no matter where it came from. Pretty much every other full power battle rifle from anywhere has shit sites compared to them. I Hate shooting my FAL after my M1A, the sites are rancid dog turds with crappy adjustments. I have 2 NM 4 digit M1A's, they are pretty damn accurate with the right ammo. The 5 digit one does fine also. [All have GI barrels, the NM's, Canadian Arsenals] Their downfall is that they are a PITA to scope compared to so many other rifles. Never had any reliability issues with mine. Honestly, I'd bet most younger shooters couldn't use iron sights if their life depended on it. I have no problem with the claim that it was the wrong rifle for the time frame. If it had come out at the beginning of WW2 there wouldn't be all the love for the Garand there is today. I do laugh my ass off though every time some new caliber larger then 5.56 comes out that will replace the 5.56 because it's not ''effective'' enough because it's too small or not powerful enough. 99% of the rifle shooting public would be served perfectly fine [other then the paper punchers looking for that .30 MOA rifle] with a 5.56, .308, and a 30/06 rifle and that is it. These two statements can be true at the same time: 1) The M14 is a pretty nice rifle. 2) The M14 was a bad service rifle, and it was the result of a terrible acquisition process only now being surpassed by the XM7/NGSW program. Sitting behind a rifle at a square range is one thing. Running, jumping, shooting, and clearing positions with a rifle is something else. American service rifles have always excelled at the former, but they haven't always been good at the latter. If you look at the evolution then the m14 makes sense. If you're biased by modern tactics/guns then it's harder to understand why they went with it. Not really. In WWII, the world's soldiers were faced with a tough compromise between huge, low capacity rifles or SMGs with anemic pistol cartridges and generally poor accuracy. It was generally understood by most people (except the US Ordnance tards) that something in between was needed. That something should have more capacity and better handling than the service rifles, but better range, accuracy, and power than the SMGs. The Nahtzees fielded an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Soviets developed an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Spanish designed the CETME for an intermediate cartridge. The Brits wanted to field an intermediate cartridge. Then the US Ordnance guys came along, and decided to replace .30-06 with a cartridge that is basically just .30-06, only slightly shorter. The differences between the two are pretty negligible, but all the costs of a logistical changeover were still incurred. The US adopted the M14 12 years after WWII, and then we coerced the rest of NATO to adopt this questionable new cartridge. Zero hindsight is needed to see this whole process was crap and set the Free World back decades. How bout that M1 Carbine? Mediocre range ballistics due to the pistol bullet design. But, a 110 grain bullet at 1900+FPS isn't something you'll shrug away like all the complaints about it like ''it couldn't penetrate chinese quilted jackets'' tried to claim. It took a LOT of deer in a 110 grain HP bullet design back when they were initially surplussed off. Correct. I was mostly challenging the claim that the US Ordnance department ignored the need for something in between a rifle and SMG/pistol. The carbine was quite present in all theaters pretty early on. The M1/M2 carbines are PCCs/SMGs chambered in almost .357. It improves upon 9mm and .45 SMGs by a small margin, but it hardly compares to a proper intermediate rifle cartridge. The .30 carbine is a good deal more powerful than the .357 mag. True, it’s not a proper intermediate rifle round, but it’s still in between. Almost 1000 FPE at the muzzle [at 1990 FPS] is nothing to sneeze at and kicks ass over a .357 for sure. A good modern jacketed HP bullet would kick ass and do some serious damage to a home invader. Problem always was that 110 grain soft points were pretty much all you could ever get other then FMJ because no one seems to want to spend development money on a .30 cal .30 carbine bullet. And lest we forget, recoil is basically negligible for pretty much every adult no matter their size, a spicy .357, not so much. Weight, well, five and a half pounds or so is less then all but the lightest stripped AR's and they balance well to boot. Pulling the bolt back, simple and easy to do also. I wouldn't feel underarmed with a carbine and good 30 round mags in a HD defense situation myself. And they reload pretty damn quick. .30 Carbine makes about 1,000 ft-lb of energy from an 18" barrel. A bunch of common .357mag loads make about 1,200 ft-lb of energy from a 16" barrel. The M1 Carbine is a sweet gun, but it's still much closer to PCC than intermediate caliber rifle. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 5:01:59 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: .30 Carbine makes about 1,000 ft-lb of energy from an 18" barrel. A bunch of common .357mag loads make about 1,200 ft-lb of energy from a 16" barrel. The M1 Carbine is a sweet gun, but it's still much closer to PCC than intermediate caliber rifle. I think the point is more that people will talk about how great 357 from a pistol is but then shit on 30 carbine as being a poor man stopper. Rifles to rifles the 357 outperforms it however I know of no semi auto 357 carbine with 15-30rd quick detach mags. Similarly you’ve got scores of people now who jump up and down for a 110gr 300blk at 2000fps but sneer at a 110gr 30 carbine at 2000fps. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 5:07:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Kingdead]
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Not really. In WWII, the world's soldiers were faced with a tough compromise between huge, low capacity rifles or SMGs with anemic pistol cartridges and generally poor accuracy. It was generally understood by most people (except the US Ordnance tards) that something in between was needed. That something should have more capacity and better handling than the service rifles, but better range, accuracy, and power than the SMGs. The Nahtzees fielded an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Soviets developed an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Spanish designed the CETME for an intermediate cartridge. The Brits wanted to field an intermediate cartridge. Then the US Ordnance guys came along, and decided to replace .30-06 with a cartridge that is basically just .30-06, only slightly shorter. The differences between the two are pretty negligible, but all the costs of a logistical changeover were still incurred. The US adopted the M14 12 years after WWII, and then we coerced the rest of NATO to adopt this questionable new cartridge. Zero hindsight is needed to see this whole process was crap and set the Free World back decades. 30 Carbine from a 18" barrel = 967 ft lbs 7.92 Kurz from a 16.5" barrel = 1,408 ft lbs I don't think you can discount the M1 carbine as not being an intermediate cartridge. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 5:09:10 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Harv24: Just got back from a Morning shoot with a bunch of other old Boomers shooting there Garands and M1A's Mine is the only not scoped. https://i.imgur.com/wx1qIPs.jpg First 10 rd string off the bench with Irons. Shooting 40 ye old Hirtenberger surplus. https://i.imgur.com/NnmqA07.jpg Two clicks down in elevation and two clicks right windage https://i.imgur.com/zLqAZdG.jpg Thinking about scoping mine. If you ever run across the unlinked boxed Port, buy it, that stuff was pretty darn accurate. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 5:22:43 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunnie357: I think the point is more that people will talk about how great 357 from a pistol is but then shit on 30 carbine as being a poor man stopper. Rifles to rifles the 357 outperforms it however I know of no semi auto 357 carbine with 15-30rd quick detach mags. Similarly you’ve got scores of people now who jump up and down for a 110gr 300blk at 2000fps but sneer at a 110gr 30 carbine at 2000fps. 30 Carbine has a reputation as a solid fight stopper with soft point bullets. The 110 grain 300 BLK are TSX bullets, they're going to perform really, really well, and more importantly, they're going to hold velocity a lot better. I'm a fan of the Carbine, it's a great weapon. If I were designing something like it today I would take a 327 Federal, use an auto rim and a 115 grain JHP. That would be 90% of what the 30 Carbine is, but it would fit into an MP7 style weapon. If the mag has to be in front of the grip, I'm going for a longer, pointier bullet to retain velocity better. Why? Because 4' of drop at 300 meters is too much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 5:43:35 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunnie357: I think the point is more that people will talk about how great 357 from a pistol is but then shit on 30 carbine as being a poor man stopper. Rifles to rifles the 357 outperforms it however I know of no semi auto 357 carbine with 15-30rd quick detach mags. Similarly you’ve got scores of people now who jump up and down for a 110gr 300blk at 2000fps but sneer at a 110gr 30 carbine at 2000fps. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunnie357: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: .30 Carbine makes about 1,000 ft-lb of energy from an 18" barrel. A bunch of common .357mag loads make about 1,200 ft-lb of energy from a 16" barrel. The M1 Carbine is a sweet gun, but it's still much closer to PCC than intermediate caliber rifle. I think the point is more that people will talk about how great 357 from a pistol is but then shit on 30 carbine as being a poor man stopper. Rifles to rifles the 357 outperforms it however I know of no semi auto 357 carbine with 15-30rd quick detach mags. Similarly you’ve got scores of people now who jump up and down for a 110gr 300blk at 2000fps but sneer at a 110gr 30 carbine at 2000fps. There's a lot to unpack here. For starters, I like .30 Carbine a lot. It's a top-10 cartridge for me, mostly for recreational reasons. If I could get a more modern firearm with increased capacity, more reliable magazines, and possibly a smaller form factor (think P90 here), I'd be all over it. But the only quality guns we have for the caliber are the M1 and the Blackhawk, so that's what I have. But, as neat as .30 Carbine is, it doesn't have performance anywhere near the intermediate rifle class, especially at any kind of range. The .300blk comment seems to lack context, too. For starters, it's generally not being discussed as a general purpose service cartridge. The next issue is, there's the difference between a round nose pistol bullet vs a ballistic tip spitzer bullet with more than double the BC. And another thing, those 110gr .300blk loads are knocking on 2,200 fps from a 9" pistol/SBR barrel, whereas the .30 Carbine needs double the barrel to get there. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 6:09:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Gunnie357]
[#47]
Originally Posted By HIMARS13A: 30 Carbine has a reputation as a solid fight stopper with soft point bullets. The 110 grain 300 BLK are TSX bullets, they're going to perform really, really well, and more importantly, they're going to hold velocity a lot better. I'm a fan of the Carbine, it's a great weapon. If I were designing something like it today I would take a 327 Federal, use an auto rim and a 115 grain JHP. That would be 90% of what the 30 Carbine is, but it would fit into an MP7 style weapon. If the mag has to be in front of the grip, I'm going for a longer, pointier bullet to retain velocity better. Why? Because 4' of drop at 300 meters is too much. Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: There's a lot to unpack here. For starters, I like .30 Carbine a lot. It's a top-10 cartridge for me, mostly for recreational reasons. If I could get a more modern firearm with increased capacity, more reliable magazines, and possibly a smaller form factor (think P90 here), I'd be all over it. But the only quality guns we have for the caliber are the M1 and the Blackhawk, so that's what I have. But, as neat as .30 Carbine is, it doesn't have performance anywhere near the intermediate rifle class, especially at any kind of range. The .300blk comment seems to lack context, too. For starters, it's generally not being discussed as a general purpose service cartridge. The next issue is, there's the difference between a round nose pistol bullet vs a ballistic tip spitzer bullet with more than double the BC. And another thing, those 110gr .300blk loads are knocking on 2,200 fps from a 9" pistol/SBR barrel, whereas the .30 Carbine needs double the barrel to get there. ETA: Point being neither are intended as a this Is a front line military cartridge yet both perform well as a close range defensive weapon or a specialized short handy rifle as compared to there contemporaries. One gets lots of love the other gets lots of hate as a poor performer. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 6:10:01 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kingdead: Does the 30 carbine not exist in your analysis? A quick search on wiki says the following: 30 Carbine from a 18" barrel = 967 ft lbs 7.92 Kurz from a 16.5" barrel = 1,408 ft lbs I don't think you can discount the M1 carbine as not being an intermediate cartridge. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kingdead: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Not really. In WWII, the world's soldiers were faced with a tough compromise between huge, low capacity rifles or SMGs with anemic pistol cartridges and generally poor accuracy. It was generally understood by most people (except the US Ordnance tards) that something in between was needed. That something should have more capacity and better handling than the service rifles, but better range, accuracy, and power than the SMGs. The Nahtzees fielded an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Soviets developed an intermediate cartridge before the war ended. The Spanish designed the CETME for an intermediate cartridge. The Brits wanted to field an intermediate cartridge. Then the US Ordnance guys came along, and decided to replace .30-06 with a cartridge that is basically just .30-06, only slightly shorter. The differences between the two are pretty negligible, but all the costs of a logistical changeover were still incurred. The US adopted the M14 12 years after WWII, and then we coerced the rest of NATO to adopt this questionable new cartridge. Zero hindsight is needed to see this whole process was crap and set the Free World back decades. 30 Carbine from a 18" barrel = 967 ft lbs 7.92 Kurz from a 16.5" barrel = 1,408 ft lbs I don't think you can discount the M1 carbine as not being an intermediate cartridge. Right off the bat, you're disregarding the fact that the .30 Carbine makes ~50% less energy at the muzzle. That's not even getting into all the issues in comparing a short round nose pistol bullet to a long spitzer rifle bullet. PPU is the only major manufacturer I know of that makes both, so I'll use their numbers comparing FMJ to FMJ. For .30 Carbine: 110gr bullet .182 BC 1,990 FPS at Muzzle 1,280 FPS at 200 Yards (36% loss) 967 ft-lb at Muzzle 401 ft-lb at 200 Yards (59% loss) 12.9" of drop at 200 Yards For 7.92 Kurz: 124gr bullet .250 BC 2,250 FPS at Muzzle 1,650 FPS at 200 Yards (26% loss) 1,394 ft-lb at Muzzle 751 lb-ft at 200 Yards (45% loss) 8.6" of drop at 200 yards At 200 yards, the 7.92 Kurz has 29% more velocity and 87% (yes, really lol) more energy than .30 Carbine. .30 Carbine has 50% less energy at the muzzle, and it loses that energy faster because it uses a pistol style bullet that flies poorly. This effects everything from how hard it is to get on target to terminal performance to barrier penetration. As fun as .30 Carbine is, there's a reason nobody makes modern guns for it or any other cartridges similar to it whereas the 7.62x39 is similar to the 7.92 Kurz and it is a top-3 standard service cartridge globally. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 6:18:26 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gunnie357: I think the point is more that people will talk about how great 357 from a pistol is but then shit on 30 carbine as being a poor man stopper. Rifles to rifles the 357 outperforms it however I know of no semi auto 357 carbine with 15-30rd quick detach mags. Similarly you’ve got scores of people now who jump up and down for a 110gr 300blk at 2000fps but sneer at a 110gr 30 carbine at 2000fps. Truth ^^^ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/4/2024 6:27:25 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Right off the bat, you're disregarding the fact that the .30 Carbine makes ~50% less energy at the muzzle. That's not even getting into all the issues in comparing a short round nose pistol bullet to a long spitzer rifle bullet. PPU is the only major manufacturer I know of that makes both, so I'll use their numbers comparing FMJ to FMJ. For .30 Carbine: 110gr bullet .182 BC 1,990 FPS at Muzzle 1,280 FPS at 200 Yards (36% loss) 967 ft-lb at Muzzle 401 ft-lb at 200 Yards (59% loss) 12.9" of drop at 200 Yards For 7.92 Kurz: 124gr bullet .250 BC 2,250 FPS at Muzzle 1,650 FPS at 200 Yards (26% loss) 1,394 ft-lb at Muzzle 751 lb-ft at 200 Yards (45% loss) 8.6" of drop at 200 yards At 200 yards, the 7.92 Kurz has 29% more velocity and 87% (yes, really lol) more energy than .30 Carbine. .30 Carbine has 50% less energy at the muzzle, and it loses that energy faster because it uses a pistol style bullet that flies poorly. This effects everything from how hard it is to get on target to terminal performance to barrier penetration. As fun as .30 Carbine is, there's a reason nobody makes modern guns for it or any other cartridges similar to it whereas the 7.62x39 is similar to the 7.92 Kurz and it is a top-3 standard service cartridge globally. |
|
|
|
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
Attached File
