User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 1:40:48 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Explain why you say this. Be sure to compare the M14 to WHAT ELSE that was fielded by any other major power AT THE SAME TIME. I am curious as to hear your logic. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Anyone who prefers the M14 has their head in the sand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 1:41:45 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The Chauchat was pretty decent when it wasn't in .30-06. The -06 versions were screwed up by the factory. Still, nobody had anything in its class. The closest competitor was the Lewis, and that was a goddam 42 pound brick that had its own quirks. Recall this was a time when Germany figured they'd make a MG portable by taking their water cooled 08 and slapping a stock, pistol grip, and extra thick leather sling on it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 1:43:42 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One integral part of the M14 concept was a synthetic stock. There were some delays, but the government ordered something like 500,000 of them in the late 1960s. So later ones used in Vietnam did have GI synthetic stocks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 1:46:19 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That rifle has a lot of WTF going on with it. I've seen it a number of times when I've been in India. It looks like the designers copied a lot of random parts of a lot of rifles and made something that didn't look to do anything any better than any of the rifles they copied. https://i.ytimg.com/vi/MSBvE372A3I/maxresdefault.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
India's 5.56mm rifle is pretty damn bad, by all accounts https://i.ytimg.com/vi/MSBvE372A3I/maxresdefault.jpg 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 1:48:43 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The M9 is objectively superior to the M1911 by just about every metric that matters. It was also superior to almost every military sidearm I can think of that was in use at its time of adoption. It's dated by today's standards, and that's why it's being replaced, but it was awesome for the time. It's also wrong to blame the M9 for the military's decision to purchase shit magazines, the military's inability to perform basic maintenance like replacing recoil springs, and the military's inability to train service members how to use a handgun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 1:49:16 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wrong. Look at films and still shots from VN that show M14s. Almost all of them show wood stocks. The only synthetic stocks I saw were replacements for wood stocks that got broken by fools. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 1:58:06 PM EDT
[#7]
The Marines had two bad ones in WW2.
M1941 Johnson rifle 
M50 Reising 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 2:00:33 PM EDT
[#8]
Worst general issue rifle goes to the INSAS. Giant piece of garbage.
The Chauchat wasn't a great light automatic rifle but at the time France's choices were limited to Chauchat or bupkis. The Chauchat generally works. Bupkis never works. The MAS-36 is an excellent rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 2:01:06 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Marines had two bad ones in WW2. M1941 Johnson rifle http://www.tarawaontheweb.org/johnson_auto.jpg M50 Reising https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e7/3a/df/e73adf5cc2ade6e3aea4cd4e8a142244.jpg I would be careful about saying anything involving AR's Father.  Johnson LMG: History & Disassembly  M1944E1/M1945 Johnson Light Machine Gun |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 2:03:13 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, they need regular bedding jobs even with laminate or synthetic stocks. When people still shot them competitively it was common to need at least a skim bed most seasons. Thankfully the M16A2 and heavy bullets knocked into obsolescence for service rifle shooting. For a general issue rifle, how much accuracy is needed? Were we intending to engage communist troops beyond 500 yards with conscript troops and no optics back in the day? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Also lol None of mine (with used USGI take-off barrels manufactured by Saco Lowell) shoot worse than 1.5 MOA from the bench with ball ammunition, and they do even better with 168 gr American Eagle match ammo designed specifically for the "M1A". The only modification is a SADLAK Ind. op-rod spring guide installed in lieu of the standard USGI part. Two are in USGI synthetic stocks, two are in USGI birch stocks. No bedding. No unitized gas cylinders. No shimming. Claude from RA parts once told me that a garden variety M14-type rifle that's been properly built will generally shoot 1-1.5 MOA. Besides that, this thread isn't about "what was the worst match-conditioned rifle ever issued". Most standard issue infantry rifles shoot better than the humans using them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 2:05:27 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dat locking block doe.. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: The M9 is objectively superior to the M1911 by just about every metric that matters. It was also superior to almost every military sidearm I can think of that was in use at its time of adoption. It's dated by today's standards, and that's why it's being replaced, but it was awesome for the time. It's also wrong to blame the M9 for the military's decision to purchase shit magazines, the military's inability to perform basic maintenance like replacing recoil springs, and the military's inability to train service members how to use a handgun. It's a good design, and it works great. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 2:05:40 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
These threads always devolve into ignorant M14 hatery.  I do not know why we bother having them. The M14 certainly isn't the best rifle fielded, but it's FAR from the worse. especially when shit like the SA-80 and the G-36 is out there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 2:07:13 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was never a ''bad'' battle rifle but it is a bad assault rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 2:09:38 PM EDT
[#14]
What was wrong with the Johnson?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 2:11:06 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For the US, M14. Anywhere else in recent history, L85 or INSAS. The M14 certainly caused the most far-reaching problems down the line, even if it was a reasonably functional rifle. The .30-caliber mafia delayed the fielding of intermediate cartridges in the West by years. That wasn't really the M14's fault. That's on the shoulders of the guys who wanted to stay on .30, for whatever reason. Had we not bullied NATO to adopt .308, the M14 probably would have been chambered in whatever became the standard NATO cartridge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 2:13:14 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Claude from RA parts once told me that a garden variety M14-type rifle that's been properly built will generally shoot 1-1.5 MOA. The rifle was never spec'ed for that kind of accuracy. I know a man that from the 1960s until the early 2000s competed with the M14 at Perry. He had to have 3 M1As to seriously compete, one of which was always rotated in the shop getting rebedded to keep enough accuracy to be competitive. If stock rifles were capable of 1-1.5 MOA then he wouldn't have needed the constant work on them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 2:13:43 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What was wrong with the Johnson? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 2:14:34 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Marines had two bad ones in WW2. M1941 Johnson rifle http://www.tarawaontheweb.org/johnson_auto.jpg M50 Reising https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/e7/3a/df/e73adf5cc2ade6e3aea4cd4e8a142244.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 2:18:39 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That top pic is a Johnson light machine gun, not the Johnson rifle. The Johnson LMG was very popular with the Paramarines & the First Special Service Force. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 2:20:31 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think Claude has been drinking. The rifle was never spec'ed for that kind of accuracy. I know a man that from the 1960s until the early 2000s competed with the M14 at Perry. He had to have 3 M1As to seriously compete, one of which was always rotated in the shop getting rebedded to keep enough accuracy to be competitive. If stock rifles were capable of 1-1.5 MOA then he wouldn't have needed the constant work on them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 2:24:01 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What was wrong with the Johnson? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 2:32:01 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think Claude has been drinking. The rifle was never spec'ed for that kind of accuracy. I know a man that from the 1960s until the early 2000s competed with the M14 at Perry. He had to have 3 M1As to seriously compete, one of which was always rotated in the shop getting rebedded to keep enough accuracy to be competitive. If stock rifles were capable of 1-1.5 MOA then he wouldn't have needed the constant work on them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Claude from RA parts once told me that a garden variety M14-type rifle that's been properly built will generally shoot 1-1.5 MOA. The rifle was never spec'ed for that kind of accuracy. I know a man that from the 1960s until the early 2000s competed with the M14 at Perry. He had to have 3 M1As to seriously compete, one of which was always rotated in the shop getting rebedded to keep enough accuracy to be competitive. If stock rifles were capable of 1-1.5 MOA then he wouldn't have needed the constant work on them. Claude has more experience with the M14 than probably all of GD combined. I will take him at his word. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 2:46:35 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm fairly certain that match conditioned M14 rifles demonstrate greater accuracy potential than 1.5 MOA. Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm fairly certain that match conditioned M14 rifles demonstrate greater accuracy potential than 1.5 MOA. Claude has more experience with the M14 than probably all of GD combined. I will take him at his word. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 2:47:29 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You mean a serious competitor trying to eek every last minute amount of accuracy out of a rifle needs to cycle guns through a shop to keep them optimized? Shocking |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 2:49:07 PM EDT
[#25]
Australian T2 leader, UK SA85,
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 2:53:04 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Funny his competition AR-15 doesn't need the same kind of treatment. Just replace the barrel when it's worn. People tinker toy together an ar and act like they're proffessionals |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 2:59:47 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: "Just replace the barrel" and here we see the ignorance of noncompetition guys. You're not going to lap your bolt? Cut the breech face concentric and perpendicular? Make sure your headspacing is exact and the extension isnt cocked? Tell me more how simple it is... People tinker toy together an ar and act like they're proffessionals 
I'm sorry about the sand in your vagina, but I'm pointing out how VERY MUCH LESS the maintenance is on a competition AR vs a M1A. It's not like the guy is a senior high master that has won the Farr trophy and still takes awards while he's in his 70s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 3:01:02 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Obsolete before the first one was produced, completely useless in FA, heavy and unwieldy, exposed bolt which could lead to mud/dirt/sand infiltrating into the action. of ammo loading and excessive barrel length. Jeeze, reliable, detachable magazines were in use before WW1. Why anybody thought 8 round clips were such a great idea escapes me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 3:06:51 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm sorry about the sand in your vagina, but I'm pointing out how VERY MUCH LESS the maintenance is on a competition AR vs a M1A. It's not like the guy is a senior high master that has won the Farr trophy and still takes awards while he's in his 70s. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 3:09:46 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ha! Exactly the reasons I chose the Garand. (Except for the FA one) Add to that a ridiculous method of ammo loading and excessive barrel length. Jeeze, reliable, detachable magazines were in use before WW1. Why anybody thought 8 round clips were such a great idea escapes me. 
Also it was designed for 10 rounds but the 30 cal mafia would have none of that .260 shite |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 3:12:48 PM EDT
[#31]
It has been a fun read....so many internet experts abound it is really amazing, and so many are watching forgotten weapons and getting their partial facts from there....here is a clue guys pick up a f'in book....don't get all you know from some 10 minute youtube video.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 3:13:39 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Um. The fuckin' FAL? The M14 competed against the T48. Quote HistoryQuoted: Um. The fuckin' FAL? The M14 competed against the T48. Quoted:
And the MAS 49/56 is a MUCH better rifle than an M14. The only disadvantage is mag capacity. Other than that, it sheds the M14 at everything. Quoted:
Also, have you ever field stripped an M14 compared to a FAL, HK91 pattern, or MAS 49/56? It's legitimately a fucking abomination, dude. The M1 Garand was fine because it was the 30s. The M14? Not acceptable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 3:14:39 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anyone who prefers the M14 has their head in the sand. Because in a world where the L85 and G36 exist, I'd take a FAL over either and M14 > FAL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 3:18:44 PM EDT
[#34]
whatever happened with the G36 being a pos in the desert? are they still in service as a front line weapon or mainly security forces now? I just remember the accuracy was total shit after the gun heated up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 3:18:47 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Every military rifle issued by the American army between 1865 and 1903. Why the military dumped repeating rifles for single shots is a crime. The question is why did the Trapdoor heppen when the Rolling block existed, and the answer is basically cost per unit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 3:24:53 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How many of those other, better, semi auto, magazine fed rifles were issued en mass before ww2...
Also it was designed for 10 rounds but the 30 cal mafia would have none of that .260 shite Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Ha! Exactly the reasons I chose the Garand. (Except for the FA one) Add to that a ridiculous method of ammo loading and excessive barrel length. Jeeze, reliable, detachable magazines were in use before WW1. Why anybody thought 8 round clips were such a great idea escapes me.
Also it was designed for 10 rounds but the 30 cal mafia would have none of that .260 shite Don't bother to remind him that NOBODY ELSE had a truly reliable self-loading rifle that was produced/fielded in volume until well into the 1940's. That alone made it head and shoulders above any other arm for it's time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 3:36:06 PM EDT
[#37]
INSAS is probably the worst of the current era. I could not imagine going to war with a rifle that unreliable.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 3:37:11 PM EDT
[#38]
The attributes that make an m14 better than a fal or g3:
Sights: arguably the best iron sights ever put on a service rifle Trigger: better trigger than the fal and miles better than the g3 Gas system: self adjusting for hot or weak loads with a simple off switch for grenades or suppressor. Fal has far to many settings and needs to be constantly adjusted when varying ammo is used. Does have a cutoff though. G3 roller system, while reliable, has no cutoff and cannot cycle weak ammo. Cyclic mass: the m14 bolt and op rod system do not jar the rifle during cycling as bad as the fal nd definitely not as bad as the g3 "seesaw" as the oprod and bolt are linear and spread out. Optics mounting: while not ideal, the m14 from the get go does have optics capability, the fal does not and nor does the g3. Accuracy: on average the m14 will shoot more consistently (1.5-1.0 moa) than the fal (2.5-2.0) or g3 (2.0-1.5) (sub moa in psg models) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 3:46:33 PM EDT
[#39]
People that talk about how bad the M14 was and praise the Garand blow my mind.
The M14 was a poor choice to replace the M1 only because weapons development had changed directions. I'd wager that a great many soldiers in WWII would have loved FA capability with another 12 rounds in the magazine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 4:14:40 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
People that talk about how bad the M14 was and praise the Garand blow my mind. Quote HistoryQuoted:
People that talk about how bad the M14 was and praise the Garand blow my mind. The M14 was a poor choice to replace the M1 only because weapons development had changed directions. I'd wager that a great many soldiers in WWII would have loved FA capability with another 12 rounds in the magazine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 4:21:51 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ha! Exactly the reasons I chose the Garand. (Except for the FA one) Add to that a ridiculous method of ammo loading and excessive barrel length. Jeeze, reliable, detachable magazines were in use before WW1. Why anybody thought 8 round clips were such a great idea escapes me. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Obsolete before the first one was produced, completely useless in FA, heavy and unwieldy, exposed bolt which could lead to mud/dirt/sand infiltrating into the action. of ammo loading and excessive barrel length. Jeeze, reliable, detachable magazines were in use before WW1. Why anybody thought 8 round clips were such a great idea escapes me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 4:22:55 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For all intents and purposes, a T48 was a FAL built by H&R. Still a FAL. Which makes it an improvement. I agree that the MAS49/56 is an excellent rifle, and probably surpasses the M14 in just about every way except the sights and maybe the safety. The sights make sense to me actually. For a combat environment, I'd have a difficult time picking which is better. I have OWNED and SHOT EXTENSIVELY all of those weapons except the French one. The field stripping of an M14 is child's play, even though it is harder than those other rifles mentioned. It's not hard to field strip, but the procedure is retarded, and there's a ton of shit you have to do. Anything that involves straight up pulling the rifle out of it's stock and all the dumb steps the M14 has is just stupid and unfit for a military rifle. It's not hard, but it's involved. The MAS has like five pieces. Bolt, carrier, top cover, recoil spring, firing pin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 5:00:18 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Steve-oh here in GD was an infantry PL in Afghanistan as a Lieutenant and he had a couple of his Soldiers carrying M14s on patrol since they were lighter than M240s as I understand it. He recounted one time how the M14s with optical sights were used to successfully engage and kill enemy a couple of enemy dismounts at ranges of up to 800 meters IIRC. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 5:01:27 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
whatever happened with the G36 being a pos in the desert? are they still in service as a front line weapon or mainly security forces now? I just remember the accuracy was total shit after the gun heated up. Germany: "There is no issue. German engineering is best engineering." not much later Germany: "The G36 will be replaced." Also, Ernst Mauch, formerly of HK is a "smart" gun fag. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 5:01:59 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Kind of. Here's the new version. It's just a slimmed-down blacker piece of shit. Still not nearly as bad as the SA-80 was, especially for lefties. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/INSAS_Black.JPG Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Isn't that the flash hider from Heat???? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/INSAS_Black.JPG |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 5:03:17 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
These threads always devolve into ignorant M14 hatery. I do not know why we bother having them. 
(for myself, it's the Swiss Arms rifles) |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 5:18:09 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What the fuck? Who would switch out an MG for a DMR? http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/022/523/C1mGBSvWEAANu9k.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 5:18:57 PM EDT
[#48]
Most people outside this forum would say the M16, at least when it first came out. Many still believe all the Vietnam/M16 BS. If you frequent other forums you see it all the time. Just like many here have BS notions that are over blown about weapons they have never owned as well. People like to cherry pick BS to spew, especially the gun world.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 5:42:00 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Accurate, robust, and reliable. Quality clones are too expensive for many though, hence the criticism. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
M14 Quality clones are too expensive for many though, hence the criticism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2017 5:46:34 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So popping the triggerguard is hard? The fal and g3 arent heavier and dont have Woodstock versions? The mags all insert the same. Which is the most accurate? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
M14-Traditional stock made of walnut. POI can shift due to humidity changes because woods swells. Needs constant bedding to deliver meh accuracy. G3/FAL-Pistol grip stocks, not dependent on the weather to maintain zero. PG makes them easier to control versus a traditional stock. M14-Slow to field strip, must be cleaned from the muzzle. G3/FAL-Much easier to disassemble, can be cleaned from the breach. M14-Wood and steel construction. Steel rusts, wood swells. G3/FAL-Steel, aluminum and plastic construction. Not as much steel to rust. M14-Great trigger and sights. G3/FAL-more ergonomic safety, mag release. The fal and g3 arent heavier and dont have Woodstock versions? The mags all insert the same. Which is the most accurate? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
