I’m curious, do you not understand that it takes far less work to make an AR more accurate and keep it there as opposed to an M14?

Something something commonwealth.... something something belgian... something something 1960-1970 standard

I remember reading how much WW2 Marines liked this one.

If you keep scrolling you'll see that my point is that you can get stupid detailed with anything when it comes to competition stuff. Also to even compare the two shows the m14 can't be the worst service rifle. Furthermore of course the ar is that way, something about it being the most produced rifle in america and the largest afterkmarket for the past 50 years...

If you can't get better than 1 MOA mechanical accuracy out of a match conditioned M14 with hand loads or match grade ammo, then something seems wrong up front.  Lee Emmerson pointed out that the M14 EBRs that were built by Rock Island under a TACOM contract (from stock rifles, no less) were held to 1.5 MOA standard with the average being .89 for the first 5,000 built.  The gas cylinder was shimmed, and the flash suppressor reamed and that was it for accurizing other than the rifle was dropped into a Sage Int. 2nd generation stock and optical sights used.

As for Claude, he's knowledgeable about the rifle because he's been immersed in the type and in that realm for decades.  That he generates income as a vendor doesn't take away from that knowledge one iota.

Ole Green was just setting up a strawman to impress us with.

If the main issue one has with the M14 is it's somewhat alternative field strip methods, that is a pretty SMALL reason to declare it with "worse general issue combat rifle of all time"

I can think of MANY factors that would be more important, such as accuracy, reliability, durability, etc.  Field stripping is trivial.

On the bright side of M14 field stripping, none of the pieces are small or easily lost.  We cannot say that about the M16 series.

That POS India made

The FAL, as much as I like them, suffers from "a million small parts" problem. Sure you can field strip one easily, but no two countries, or even the same country 5 years apart, seem to use the same springs, screws, etc.

Before the FAL fanatics scream, I REALLY enjoy FALs. They, like the M14, are representative of a time and place of the industry and country of their origin. Industry and technology moves on, and the bleeding edge that the AR10 represented in 1956 was pretty established not even 7 years later.

What is amazing to me is how designers can take an AR-18 and botch it so horribly into the SA80. Or how something like the G36 can be adopted in lieu of the G41.

What was that semi auto issued to the Kaisers Zeppelin troops that needed an oil resivoir to operate?

The Mondragon, maybe?

That's my nomination.

A few machine guns fielded during World War II required oilers.........

This was...........less than ideal.......

many people today do not realize
the FN P90 uses cartridges with a dry lube on them to ease extraction...

The last high power match at my range a team of guys shooting M1As beat everyone else.

ARs are better for high power competition, absolutely not one question about that, but M14s are only marginally worse.

Thanks for the info.

The Mondragon was pretty bad, though I don't know that anyone really used it as general issue weapon. The Germans only bought a couple thousand of them, and quickly discovered that they would jam if the word "dirt" went through the soldier's mind while firing it. They tried using them on aircraft with some success, but replaced them with actual machine guns as soon as they could.

Makes me laugh seeing it in Battlefield 1 though, given that it was basically not used during the war for anything.

No he passed away a year ago last September. He was quite a man.

The pentagon forced 762NATO down NATO's throat after WWII

the M14, FAL, and G3 should have been an intermediate round, like the AK-47 or Stg.44

the age of the assault rifle had arrived,  . . . . .but the pentagon brass was thinking about the last war, instead of the next war.

none of this makes these rifles "the worst"

.

M-14, M-16.

My sample of one had a synthetic stock. It was issued to me that way.

Nope

Insas has to be in the top five

The M1888 Commision rifle was fucked up from the beginning and never got fully fixed.

Top five

Given your insightful response, I suppose that I need to reevaluate my position.  

Wrong if you are referring to the 7.7 which is basically equivalent to the British .303. Also, the Arisaka action was one of the strongest bolt actions in WWII.

The 6.5 Arisaka isn't a totally bad performer either.

Wow, that's some mental gymnastics there, even for a Marine.

Disagreeing with your pronouncement that the M14 qualifies as "the worst general issue combat rifle ever made" doesn't mean someone "prefers" (whatever that means) the M14. We're just saying it's no way the worst.

Many of the posters in this thread lack the ability to objectively compare a given rifle against its contemporaries, and insist on applying standards from vastly different time periods to declare some of their choices as a first class POS.

Only thing wrong with the GEW 88 was that it was obsolete before it was adopted.

Still it was a very capable rifle but it was what the Krag was for us.

Having shot GEW88's I wouldn't feel under armed with one, reasonably  accurate, smooth operating bolt, good sights, easy to use 5 shot mannlicher charger.

LOL Welcome to the future where precision machining allows super accurate AR's to literally be thrown together with parts from different companies with no head-spacing and not only function, but function well and be very accurate.

It's not "ignorance of non competition guys" it's post ww2 industrial design and machining capability.

It's why "competition guys" ditched M1A's for more accurate AR based rifles for a lot of things as well.

Funny how when the sacred cow of the M-14 as a general issue rifle is gored, that so many rush to white knight it based on every merit it has OTHER than as generally issued in the very short time it was a GI rifle.

But muh NM M1A, but I knew a guy who knew a guy who used a DM version in _____, but, but, but.

The M14 wasn't withdrawn because it was so bad, it was because the M16 was so good.

Mosin-Nagant is sure in the running. They don't do anything very well as a rifle other then turn into a pike. If you're facing down a calvery charge that's nice, since it'll probably jam up on you.

In more modern times, probably the sks. It runs well enough, but it just doesn't fill an actual need. It's heavy, slow to load, doesnt shoot well, not particularly accurate, and not particularly easy or cheap to make. And it looks like shit, which sucks since it's been used as a parade rifle more then anything else.

Yeah, being able to maintain your rifle isn't a big fucking deal at all.

And as for accuracy, reliability and durability... yeah it sucks at those too. It can't hold accuracy for shit, if you get debris literally anywhere on it, it shuts down. It guess it's sufficiently durable.

It is a great design but your statement is incorrect.

Ill go with L85 didn't work right until HK fixed them up. IIRC the total cost for the HK upgrade package was $3000 per rifle. Could have bought an M4 and optic for everyone with that kind of cash.

While most rifles I was gonna mention already have been several times, I'm going "classic" and saying the Trapdoor Springfield was the biggest POS, hopelessly obsolete the day it was issued/converted, unreliable (ripped rims off cartridges).

Mosin, M14, Bullpups, all are equally overrated though.

Pre-HK unfucking L85 does have an edge in modern weapons for both being an ergonomic nightmare, abusing lefties, and just plain not working.

The Worst Pistol isn't arguable, it begins and ends with Nambu type 94.

People have already given lots of good responses to the original question.  Most of these are quirky footnotes in "history of guns" books.   Though they were horrible for the folks issued them.  :(

For other ideas circling around this thread:

- anything issued in World War II was behind the times, until 1944, and NATO firearms lagged until well into the 80s.   The German Army had already figured out that a select fire, relatively short rifle with an intermediate cartridge was the ticket.  If it made basically an MP-40 with an intermediate range cartridge their personal weapon issue would have been solved.   The FAL and G3 were basically 7.62mm redesigns of experimental rifles originally designed for smaller cartridges.

- the pederson rifle (mag fed .276 competitor to the Garand) is what the M14 should have been.

- FAL ergonomically beats G3 and M14 any day for me.   I would be fine using any either them, though the M14 is total fuddery.  And, romanticism aside, even at the squad level my ass is being saved by the belt fed.   NATO ammo spec is like 2.0 MOA at best, so anyone claiming to get less than like a real 3.0 MOA (real = ten round groups reliably repeated over multiple shooting sessions with no "flyers") with any of these rifles,  with issue ammo, is full of BS.

- I looked seriously into getting into NRA highpower circa 2002.   I found that the Garand replaced the 03A3, and the M14 replaced the Garand, because they were better rifles.  (note that folks from the Marines and Army teams tend to win these competitions, and have extensive armorer support).   The problems with the NM M14 already mentioned - drifting sights, POA shifting due to the wood and the frankly ridiculous design from an accuracy standpoint, the need to bed the action (and heaven help you if you hold your handguard wrong) - all put me off from that and towards the M16.   Literally the M16 just needs you to free float a good barrel; the remainder is user preference (eta: or snake oil)  (and the M14's sight is a toy compared to the M16A2's base).   Notwithstanding the fact that the Army beat the Marines the year they switched to the M16, and everyone else started following suit.

I met a German Army troop at Cabela's once.  As pops has a 91, we got to talking about the G-3 on full auto.  He said they would take two stakes, set them up in front, left and right, and run two lines across them close together.  They took the barrel and stuck it in between the two pieces of rope or wire, twist it back on itself and fire from the prone.  Basically the lines were twisted taut and the rifle was thus more controllable on rock 'n roll.

Research isn't hard.   If you want the info.   But I'll post some later if I get time.

The Arisakas were both in the top five for their era.

They blew up at first.  They had an open system that allowed dirt in.  They had a shrouded barrel That retained moisture.

When the updated it to a stripper clip it would bind when it got hot, which they never fixed.

It was always a shitty rifle.

The M14 was ok.  It wasn't horrible, but it wasn't great.

sadly we could have had the M14 in WWII.  It would have been fantastic.

I'd rather have a Type 94 than a M1895 revolver.

The M91 wasn't especially bad or good compared to its contemporaries. Solidly middle of the pack. It's not a great rifle, but it isn't a bad one either.

The Ross Mk. III (1910) is another good candidate for "bad rifle". They're very accurate with good ammunition, but very lacking as a general service rifle, and early ones could be made unsafe.

My sample of 3 had wood, as did the majority of rifles in the companies I was in (were in???).  The synthetic stocks just looked and felt wrong even if they were better.

Actually, I said it was the worst in our hemisphere, not the worst ever.

It would be hard to find something I'd rather carry less than an M1895 Nagant revolver......

I would MUCH rather have a Ruby 7.65 any day of the week.....

Yeah I kinda look at this question from the viewpoint of "did this weapon cause deaths on our side and not the one the barrel is pointed at).  The Chauchat would be one.  In platforms I've used... the M16.  Pretty bad when initially fielded... not due to bad design ... Due to penny pinching whiz kid asswipes in the .Gov changing specs on the rifle and ammo, and the nonsense initially spouted saying no maintenance needed.  Of course the AR / M16 platforms are fine weapons now that those initial mistakes were corrected.  I don't get the hate for the M14.  Sure, you can call it outdated, whatever, but it wasn't known (in general) for getting guys killed from jamming, etc in the heat of battle.  To a man, every Vietnam-era vet loved theirs (if they were lucky enough to get one - one fella i know horse traded to get one... another a m1 carbine)... I know they get perma-grin when I let them shoot my M1A.

Forgot to echo other opinions... L85 was trash... the Brits shoulda just bought M16s after that instead of spending all that money on fixing the L85.

Since the thread is about worst ever that seemed to be your point. That said, you're still wrong.

A good Ruby really isn't a bad pistol.

You have to take into account when it was made. Not many other machine rifles / LMGs out there.

Also G36.