M1 vs. M14 Did the Military Get it Right in 1957? - Page 8

General » General Discussion

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - M1 vs. M14 Did the Military Get it Right in 1957? (Page 8 of 11)

Posted: 11/1/2018 10:52:40 AM EDT

[#1]

Quote History

Quoted:
The M-14/M1A enjoys the virtues of fewer numbers of robust parts and some simplicity of construction over its' contemporaries. OEM iron sights are peerless, as is the trigger group, and now that we have a modern, effective way to scope the M1A via forward-mounted optics, the platform is worth a re-examination, and fair-minded re-evaluation based on modern improvements.

Owning a highly-modified FAL (and liking it) as well as a SM M1A, I prefer the M1A for simplicity and accuracy. I never enjoyed the H+K battle rifles for a number of reasons; some purely personal, many objective.

Nowadays, a well thought-out AR version is probably best for most folks who are entering this realm of rifles.

Owning both a very nice SM M1A, and a very nice, modified StG58A-based DSA FAL, I have not made it a priority to build/buy an AR-based Battle Rifle.

If I did not own the aforementioned rifles, I would probably long ago have bought/built a .308-based AR.

YMMV.

View Quote

"Effective way to scope"??? Either a forward mounted scope-state of the art 1982, or receiver mounted in the stratosphere with shit taped to the cheek piece to try to get decent fit. There is still no effective way to scope it, it is just geometry. None of them are easy to scope and only the aftermarket G3 with a welded rail comes close. And even then the stock has too much drop.

Posted: 11/1/2018 10:54:58 AM EDT

[#2]

Quote History

Quoted:
Oh for fucks sake, you expect troops to put their rifles together in the fucking basement?

I'm talking strictly about ready to fire rifles. I don't care if you don't value your time and as such can claim a home brew junk rifle can be "half th price" nor do I care that a guy can bend a sheet of steel once. Does he have a punch and die to do it a few thousand times, a day?

I'm pointing out a very specific thing, that the unit cost for the M-14 was cheap as shit, even compared to today with inflation. chinese M-14's in canada has shit all to do with that.

View Quote

That unit cost was in a government owned factory, producing units for a government contract. Those unit costs are not comparable to civilian AR costs in any way.

Posted: 11/1/2018 10:56:41 AM EDT

[#3]

Quote History

Quoted:
I am not sure the US government put the M14 out there for sale like FN did with the FAL. Maybe somebody who knows can chime in.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

But didn't the M14 beat it out for top dog and other countries refused to buy it except for Norway or Sweden (can't remember which country)?

I am not sure the US government put the M14 out there for sale like FN did with the FAL. Maybe somebody who knows can chime in.

I think you are right on that...….not sure either though...…….but I was saying the M14 beat out the AR-10 here as top dog and Armalite was not able to sell any AR10's to other countries except Norway (or Sweden)…..but I am not sure?

Or was Colt making it then after investing some big bucks in tooling for making the AR 10???

Or was that tooling for the AR 15........fuck, I just can't remember...…..too long ago when I read up on that stuff.

Posted: 11/1/2018 10:56:58 AM EDT

[#4]

Quote History

Quoted:
I have fired a full-auto M14. It was a handful, to say the least. FA in a 7.62 rifle is ridiculous.

View Quote

The E2/A1 is better (but not great).

M14A1 full auto, standing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFcKMiFBJcc

Here's my friend mag dumping a G3A3 (video quality sucks, but he got "props" from German veterans for his mad skill).

HK G3 Full Auto Controllability

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6AqywPuGZE

Posted: 11/1/2018 11:00:02 AM EDT

[#5]

Quote History

Quoted:

LRB makes forged receivers.

And plenty of people assemble M1As onto barreled receivers. Yes, it is a PITA to install the barrel and headspace it, and most farm that out to an experienced M14 smith, but after that it's fairly easy to assemble and accurize it yourself at home.

All those internet myths of "it requires constant maintenance to keep accurate, you have to re-bed it in the stock every 500 rounds" are complete bullshit repeated by haters. It can easily be made and kept at 1MOA with surplus ammo. Which is amusing, considering that GDers rant about "M14s are inaccurate pieces of shit" yet accept 3MOA with surplus ammo from their M4gery...

View Quote

Bullshit. If they shot 1 MOA with surplus ammo then you would see them on the line at a high power match. They have been obsolete since the 69 grain 556 bullets hit the market. Can you make them more accurate? Yes, but it will require more maintenance. Will they shoot 1 MOA with surplus ammo? Unlikely.

Posted: 11/1/2018 11:01:14 AM EDT

[#6]

Quote History

Quoted:
Bullshit. If they shot 1 MOA with surplus ammo then you would see them on the line at a high power match. They have been obsolete since the 69 grain 556 bullets hit the market. Can you make them more accurate? Yes, but it will require more maintenance. Will they shoot 1 MOA with surplus ammo? Unlikely.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

LRB makes forged receivers.

And plenty of people assemble M1As onto barreled receivers. Yes, it is a PITA to install the barrel and headspace it, and most farm that out to an experienced M14 smith, but after that it's fairly easy to assemble and accurize it yourself at home.

All those internet myths of "it requires constant maintenance to keep accurate, you have to re-bed it in the stock every 500 rounds" are complete bullshit repeated by haters. It can easily be made and kept at 1MOA with surplus ammo. Which is amusing, considering that GDers rant about "M14s are inaccurate pieces of shit" yet accept 3MOA with surplus ammo from their M4gery...

Bullshit. If they shot 1 MOA with surplus ammo then you would see them on the line at a high power match. They have been obsolete since the 69 grain 556 bullets hit the market. Can you make them more accurate? Yes, but it will require more maintenance. Will they shoot 1 MOA with surplus ammo? Unlikely.

Wait...…...where do I get these M14 semi auto kits!!??

Is the Bula receiver any good? It is a lot cheaper than the LRB receivers.

Jesus I never knew this stuff existed for purchase...…….I see one of these in my future...………

Parts kit.

Another receiver source.

Posted: 11/1/2018 11:03:17 AM EDT

[#7]

Quote History

Quoted:
G3. Shorter, lighter, modular before that was even a thing. Also, aluminum mags. In fact, nothing to this day is as fast to reconfigure as the G3. I can change stocks, forends and trigger groups in less than a minute.

View Quote

The G36 is faster (except for the stock, but that's just a roll pin punch). The G36 can also change barrels (with a wrench) unlike the G3.
Yeah I gave ease of manufacture to the G3. Today it's probably the G36 (injection-molded plastic and limited steel castings).

The FAL had aluminum mags also (but they never became as common as G3 aluminum mags). Both were originally intended for paratroopers.

Posted: 11/1/2018 11:15:15 AM EDT

[#8]

Quote History

Quoted:
Bullshit. If they shot 1 MOA with surplus ammo then you would see them on the line at a high power match. They have been obsolete since the 69 grain 556 bullets hit the market. Can you make them more accurate? Yes, but it will require more maintenance. Will they shoot 1 MOA with surplus ammo? Unlikely.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

LRB makes forged receivers.

And plenty of people assemble M1As onto barreled receivers. Yes, it is a PITA to install the barrel and headspace it, and most farm that out to an experienced M14 smith, but after that it's fairly easy to assemble and accurize it yourself at home.

All those internet myths of "it requires constant maintenance to keep accurate, you have to re-bed it in the stock every 500 rounds" are complete bullshit repeated by haters. It can easily be made and kept at 1MOA with surplus ammo. Which is amusing, considering that GDers rant about "M14s are inaccurate pieces of shit" yet accept 3MOA with surplus ammo from their M4gery...

Bullshit. If they shot 1 MOA with surplus ammo then you would see them on the line at a high power match. They have been obsolete since the 69 grain 556 bullets hit the market. Can you make them more accurate? Yes, but it will require more maintenance. Will they shoot 1 MOA with surplus ammo? Unlikely.

just because you cannot do it doesn't mean other people cannot.

Posted: 11/1/2018 11:22:17 AM EDT

[#9]

2 MOA is a great-shooting M14.
I have one I built that does 0.75 MOA with 168gr reloads, but it'll exceed 1 MOA with surplus ammo.

If you bed with Marine-Tex epoxy it'll last several thousand rounds worth of cleanings. (Really it's removal and insertion of the action into the stock which erodes the bedding, not actually firing it.)
The Sage EBR (and other aluminum chassis stocks) make bedding completely unnecessary.

Posted: 11/1/2018 11:25:27 AM EDT

[#10]

Quote History

Quoted:
Yup, FAL was far superior. Nearly 100 other countries managed to chose correctly tho.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Should've adopted the T48.

Yup, FAL was far superior. Nearly 100 other countries managed to chose correctly tho.

NIH (Not Invented Here) Syndrome?

Posted: 11/1/2018 11:26:44 AM EDT

[#11]

Quote History

Quoted:
Parts kit.

View Quote

For $1,440 they can keep it.

Find a $900 Chinese M14S and swap out whatever parts you don't like. The only crap parts they come with are the stock and rear sight elevation pinion assembly. (Never buy one marked WCE because that's the marking China copied).

Posted: 11/1/2018 11:27:07 AM EDT

[#12]

Quote History

Quoted:
But didn't the M14 beat it out for top dog and other countries refused to buy it except for Norway or Sweden (can't remember which country)?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

The AR-10 was the best 7.62 NATO combat rifle available in the early 1960's.

This is the ultimate answer. By the time the most limited analysis was available, it was obvious the Stoner design was the winner. AR-10s were being privately carried in RVN in 1961/1962, and Colt salesmen were making the rounds at the same time. I don't think that anyone who saw the AR-10 in 1957 didn't know that was the ultimate future.

But didn't the M14 beat it out for top dog and other countries refused to buy it except for Norway or Sweden (can't remember which country)?

Before the Stoner patents were sold to Colt, ArmaLite licensed the AR10 to the Dutch, who then made the finest battle rifle samples I've ever seen for the era.

Norway and Sweden licensed the G3 from Hk and made their own versions, the Norsk AG-3 from 1967-1974, and Swedish AK 4 from 1965-1970. Many other nations licensed production of the G3, including Denmark, Luxembourg, Myanmar, Pakistan, Turkey, and Iran.

Iranian G3 Battle Rifle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVhf0uKhfds

Columbia, Greece, Israel, Lebanon, Philippines, South Vietnam, Taiwan, Turkey, and Venezuela got excess defense article program M14s.

Posted: 11/1/2018 11:51:32 AM EDT

[#13]

Quote History

Quoted:

just because you cannot do it doesn't mean other people cannot.

View Quote

I have shot plenty of high power, never seen anyone else do it either. What gunsmith is promising 1 MOA with surplus ammo? Maybe 1 MOA with FGM, on a windless day after a bedding job. Even if you were able to shoot a 1MOA group a few times, it is repeatable, consistent accuracy that people seek. Can you take that 1 MOA M1A shoot a match on the coast and shoot one the next weekend in the desert? Can a properly bedded M1A handle humidity and temperature changes or will your zero be off on your first string? There is a reason that nobody serious shoots them anymore. Yes they have a nice trigger, nice sights, great sight radius, less drop and windage than an AR, and still nobody touches them because the repeatable accuracy isn't there. But if you can shoot 1MOA with surplus ammo, you will surely leg out in no time.

Posted: 11/1/2018 11:57:35 AM EDT

[#14]

Quote History

Quoted:
just because you cannot do it doesn't mean other people cannot.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

LRB makes forged receivers.

And plenty of people assemble M1As onto barreled receivers. Yes, it is a PITA to install the barrel and headspace it, and most farm that out to an experienced M14 smith, but after that it's fairly easy to assemble and accurize it yourself at home.

All those internet myths of "it requires constant maintenance to keep accurate, you have to re-bed it in the stock every 500 rounds" are complete bullshit repeated by haters. It can easily be made and kept at 1MOA with surplus ammo. Which is amusing, considering that GDers rant about "M14s are inaccurate pieces of shit" yet accept 3MOA with surplus ammo from their M4gery...

Bullshit. If they shot 1 MOA with surplus ammo then you would see them on the line at a high power match. They have been obsolete since the 69 grain 556 bullets hit the market. Can you make them more accurate? Yes, but it will require more maintenance. Will they shoot 1 MOA with surplus ammo? Unlikely.

just because you cannot do it doesn't mean other people cannot.

You can get an M14 to shoot for a while, but keeping them shooting accurately is a fool's errand, not that this discussion has anything to do with battle rifles.

When you take incoming fire at realistic distances, it's very common to not even see the enemy.

The most important discussion for me regarding the M14 is the classified Fort Benning studies done in the early 1960s, where they took an OPFOR Platoon with AKs and pitted them against a Platoon equipped with M14s. The adoption of the AR15 and export of the M14 to several 3rd world countries (who couldn't really afford to make their own rifles) happened right after that, as M14s were purged from the US armories, with a few exceptions for the National Match rifles and ceremonial rifles for The Old Guard.

The biggest failure on the US side was refusing to learn the lessons of the Sturmgewehr.

Everyone else took note and started to develop their small arms accordingly, including our allies, who were eventually sucked into the mistake of the 7.62x51 cartridge.

Then out of left field, the private sector answered the solicitation for SCHV demonstrators, and a minority .224 nerd group from within Army Ordnance got the USAF's attention with the AR15, and the rest is history. The AR15 was so ahead of its time, that it continues to be the go-to service rifle today, and a viable replacement for nations who held onto the FAL and G3, or even AKM for half a century.

We still haven't realized the full capabilities of the Sturmgewehr though, namely constant recoil and its fire control group.

Posted: 11/1/2018 12:05:11 PM EDT

[#15]

Quote History

Quoted:

Columbia, Greece, Israel, Lebanon, Philippines, South Vietnam, Taiwan, Turkey, and Venezuela got excess defense article program M14s.

View Quote

Cool pics.

Did any other country ever actually pay money for M14s? I’m guessing no.

Posted: 11/1/2018 12:06:23 PM EDT

[#16]

Quote History

Quoted:

No one is making forged M1A receivers here in America?

View Quote

Bula Defense and LRB. Bula is the supplier for the barrel and the receiver for the JRA M14s sold on Classic.

Posted: 11/1/2018 12:22:35 PM EDT

[#17]

Quote History

Quoted:

I have shot plenty of high power, never seen anyone else do it either. What gunsmith is promising 1 MOA with surplus ammo? Maybe 1 MOA with FGM, on a windless day after a bedding job. Even if you were able to shoot a 1MOA group a few times, it is repeatable, consistent accuracy that people seek. Can you take that 1 MOA M1A shoot a match on the coast and shoot one the next weekend in the desert? Can a properly bedded M1A handle humidity and temperature changes or will your zero be off on your first string? There is a reason that nobody serious shoots them anymore. Yes they have a nice trigger, nice sights, great sight radius, less drop and windage than an AR, and still nobody touches them because the repeatable accuracy isn't there. But if you can shoot 1MOA with surplus ammo, you will surely leg out in no time.

View Quote

when I was younger, my eyes were better I shot service rifle with a NM M1a, NM hooded sight, NM trigger, bedded, unitized gas system, NM flash hider, and a pricey Douglas NM barrel. Even on a bench with bags it wasn't a 1 moa with surp ammo. Some of the better stuff from back in the day, Hirt, or was it some Radway Green stuff could get close. But other than Fed Gold Medal or my hand loaded GM brass, IMR 4064 and Match Kings, you really were not 1MOA.

And as state, humidity and the stock could play hell with POI.

NM AR with the free float tube, NM sights, and decent trigger made shooting a M1a against them a frustrating time. And the AR did it for a lot less money invested in the weapon.

Posted: 11/1/2018 12:29:48 PM EDT

[#18]

Quote History

Quoted:
just because you cannot do it doesn't mean other people cannot.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

LRB makes forged receivers.

And plenty of people assemble M1As onto barreled receivers. Yes, it is a PITA to install the barrel and headspace it, and most farm that out to an experienced M14 smith, but after that it's fairly easy to assemble and accurize it yourself at home.

All those internet myths of "it requires constant maintenance to keep accurate, you have to re-bed it in the stock every 500 rounds" are complete bullshit repeated by haters. It can easily be made and kept at 1MOA with surplus ammo. Which is amusing, considering that GDers rant about "M14s are inaccurate pieces of shit" yet accept 3MOA with surplus ammo from their M4gery...

Bullshit. If they shot 1 MOA with surplus ammo then you would see them on the line at a high power match. They have been obsolete since the 69 grain 556 bullets hit the market. Can you make them more accurate? Yes, but it will require more maintenance. Will they shoot 1 MOA with surplus ammo? Unlikely.

just because you cannot do it doesn't mean other people cannot.

Let's count all the M1As shooting MOA with surplus ammo in the MOA all day thread. Huh. Looks like none.

Posted: 11/1/2018 2:16:43 PM EDT

[#19]

Quote History

Quoted:
Cool pics.

Did any other country ever actually pay money for M14s? I’m guessing no.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Columbia, Greece, Israel, Lebanon, Philippines, South Vietnam, Taiwan, Turkey, and Venezuela got excess defense article program M14s.

Cool pics.

Did any other country ever actually pay money for M14s? I’m guessing no.

From what I've been able to gather, it doesn't appear so. Most foreign export M14s were giveaways of surplus US defense articles, even after the rifles had been newly manufactured. Another major indicator of how much of a failure the M14 was is all those nations we gave them to barely used them, and it is very difficult to find them in operational use with the original nations who were given them.

Contrast that with the G3 and FAL, which are still prevalent to this day, just barely being replaced by Norway with the Hk416, but still found in use all over the world decades after most NATO allies switched to 5.56 in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s.

I like the M14, but my personal subjective feelings for it mean nothing in the reality of what makes a good combat rifle.

Posted: 11/1/2018 2:32:41 PM EDT

[#20]

Quote History

Quoted:

just because you cannot do it doesn't mean other people cannot.

View Quote

Lol I bet.

Posted: 11/1/2018 3:09:31 PM EDT

[#21]

Quote History

Quoted:
Since you brought up cost. It is at least 50% more to buy M1a's today that it is to buy a PTR91. That is with the cheaper cast M1a receiver. A forger receiver would push that to double the cost.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted: Oh for fucks sake, you expect troops to put their rifles together in the fucking basement?

I'm talking strictly about ready to fire rifles. I don't care if you don't value your time and as such can claim a home brew junk rifle can be "half th price" nor do I care that a guy can bend a sheet of steel once. Does he have a punch and die to do it a few thousand times, a day?

I'm pointing out a very specific thing, that the unit cost for the M-14 was cheap as shit, even compared to today with inflation. chinese M-14's in canada has shit all to do with that.

What is being repeatedly pointed out to you is the machining for the M-14 forged receiver is complicated as shit, which is expensive; its contemporaries were easier to manufacture, to the extent that today they can be built in basements, while the M-14 is not being built in the original manner b/c it's too much of a pain in the ass.

Which, I showed that it's not at all. It cost 70 bucks to build one. So the "it's expensive" argument is off the table. It's complicated as shit, SO WHAT? It didn't stop a FUCK TON of them being built, nor the Grand as well. Shitty argument when investigated.

"its contemporaries were easier to manufacture"
Easier for countries that were not America. Punch and die PRODUCTION lines are still complicated and die sets wear out. New dies have to be made and so on and so on. Who gives two shits about "easier" when you have a post WW2 machining Juggernaut?

"while the M-14 is not being built in the original manner b/c it's too much of a pain in the ass."
Which means nothing to me, because that has nothing to do with comparing or contrasting PRODUCTION guns.
Building some gun from a flat in the basement isn't building one in the original manner either. Did Chase45 roll his own steel, stamp his own flat, then run a huge punch and die set and bending jig popping out a few hundred receivers to a thousand or more a day? If not, once again, spurious argument.

Since you brought up cost. It is at least 50% more to buy M1a's today that it is to buy a PTR91. That is with the cheaper cast M1a receiver. A forger receiver would push that to double the cost.

which one of those is an issued service rifle?

Posted: 11/1/2018 3:12:43 PM EDT

[#22]

Quote History

Quoted:
That unit cost was in a government owned factory, producing units for a government contract. Those unit costs are not comparable to civilian AR costs in any way.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Oh for fucks sake, you expect troops to put their rifles together in the fucking basement?

I'm talking strictly about ready to fire rifles. I don't care if you don't value your time and as such can claim a home brew junk rifle can be "half th price" nor do I care that a guy can bend a sheet of steel once. Does he have a punch and die to do it a few thousand times, a day?

I'm pointing out a very specific thing, that the unit cost for the M-14 was cheap as shit, even compared to today with inflation. chinese M-14's in canada has shit all to do with that.

That unit cost was in a government owned factory, producing units for a government contract. Those unit costs are not comparable to civilian AR costs in any way.

No shit.

That what I'm discussing with the other word posted specifically. Not civilian shit made 50 years later.

Posted: 11/1/2018 3:20:14 PM EDT

[#23]

Quote History

Quoted:

Cool pics.

Did any other country ever actually pay money for M14s? I’m guessing no.

View Quote

Taiwan produced their own under license, so they obviously paid some of the costs.

Posted: 11/1/2018 3:49:19 PM EDT

[#24]

Quote History

Quoted:

You can get an M14 to shoot for a while, but keeping them shooting accurately is a fool's errand, not that this discussion has anything to do with battle rifles.

When you take incoming fire at realistic distances, it's very common to not even see the enemy.

The most important discussion for me regarding the M14 is the classified Fort Benning studies done in the early 1960s, where they took an OPFOR Platoon with AKs and pitted them against a Platoon equipped with M14s. The adoption of the AR15 and export of the M14 to several 3rd world countries (who couldn't really afford to make their own rifles) happened right after that, as M14s were purged from the US armories, with a few exceptions for the National Match rifles and ceremonial rifles for The Old Guard.

The biggest failure on the US side was refusing to learn the lessons of the Sturmgewehr.

Everyone else took note and started to develop their small arms accordingly, including our allies, who were eventually sucked into the mistake of the 7.62x51 cartridge.

Then out of left field, the private sector answered the solicitation for SCHV demonstrators, and a minority .224 nerd group from within Army Ordnance got the USAF's attention with the AR15, and the rest is history. The AR15 was so ahead of its time, that it continues to be the go-to service rifle today, and a viable replacement for nations who held onto the FAL and G3, or even AKM for half a century.

We still haven't realized the full capabilities of the Sturmgewehr though, namely constant recoil and its fire control group.

View Quote

Small arms / rifle procurement for the US military is hamstrung by the never ending parade of incompetents in US Army Ordnance. They've been making the wrong calls for 160+ years. Examples include:
1. Colt SAA over Schofield
2. Trapdoor over any repeater
3. The Krag
4. Overwelming desire for magazine cutoffs (Krag & 1903)
5. Benet Merci LMG
6. Making John Garand go 30-06 vs. the original .276
7. Taking almost 15 years to make a detatchable Mag Garand chambered in ~300 Savage (M-14)
8. Somehow taking the best parts of several machine guns and coming out with the s$%tty M-60

Most of the successes of US Small Arms procurement are the result of commercial development/foreign designs. Browning was responsible for the 1911, M1917, M1919, M2 and the first generations of trench shotguns. Winchester designed the M-1 Carbine and multiple rifles superior to the trapdoor. Stoner/Armalite/Colt did the M-16 family. Foreign arms predominately come from FN, who most of their designs are still influenced by Browing's ghost.

Of the "battle rifles" I still prefer the M-14 over the others. I am most familiar with that rifle, though I have .civ examples of all (FAL, G3, AR10). The FAL is good, but at its heart it's the FN-49 with a pistol grip and detachable mag. The M-14 is unfairly criticized for being extremely design dependent on the Garand when the FAL is in a similar boat. The FAL also is an armorers dream. You need so many different tools to service the thing. The G-3 is a disposable gun. The Germans were forced to adapt the CETME when they couldn't buy FALs, and most of the G3s success is in the FMS market due to several nations prolectivity for buying German arms. The G3 has horrible ergonomics all centered on the cocking handle.

The idea of Constant recoil has been championed by Sullivan forever, but no one other than Singapore with the Ultimax cares about it. I believe for this concept to truly take hold, we have to go beyond brass cartridges.

Posted: 11/1/2018 3:53:14 PM EDT

[#25]

Quote History

Quoted:

From what I've been able to gather, it doesn't appear so. Most foreign export M14s were giveaways of surplus US defense articles, even after the rifles had been newly manufactured. Another major indicator of how much of a failure the M14 was is all those nations we gave them to barely used them, and it is very difficult to find them in operational use with the original nations who were given them.

Contrast that with the G3 and FAL, which are still prevalent to this day, just barely being replaced by Norway with the Hk416, but still found in use all over the world decades after most NATO allies switched to 5.56 in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s.

I like the M14, but my personal subjective feelings for it mean nothing in the reality of what makes a good combat rifle.

View Quote

I've often wondered if the M-14 being 7.62 NATO factored into the decision to provide them to the Baltic states after their independence. Most of our NATO allies still hadn't completed their changeover to 5.56 back then, so by giving them M-14s they would better be able to be logistically supported if needed.

Posted: 11/1/2018 5:11:10 PM EDT

[#26]

Quote History

Quoted:
which one of those is an issued service rifle?

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted: Oh for fucks sake, you expect troops to put their rifles together in the fucking basement?

I'm talking strictly about ready to fire rifles. I don't care if you don't value your time and as such can claim a home brew junk rifle can be "half th price" nor do I care that a guy can bend a sheet of steel once. Does he have a punch and die to do it a few thousand times, a day?

I'm pointing out a very specific thing, that the unit cost for the M-14 was cheap as shit, even compared to today with inflation. chinese M-14's in canada has shit all to do with that.

What is being repeatedly pointed out to you is the machining for the M-14 forged receiver is complicated as shit, which is expensive; its contemporaries were easier to manufacture, to the extent that today they can be built in basements, while the M-14 is not being built in the original manner b/c it's too much of a pain in the ass.

Which, I showed that it's not at all. It cost 70 bucks to build one. So the "it's expensive" argument is off the table. It's complicated as shit, SO WHAT? It didn't stop a FUCK TON of them being built, nor the Grand as well. Shitty argument when investigated.

"its contemporaries were easier to manufacture"
Easier for countries that were not America. Punch and die PRODUCTION lines are still complicated and die sets wear out. New dies have to be made and so on and so on. Who gives two shits about "easier" when you have a post WW2 machining Juggernaut?

"while the M-14 is not being built in the original manner b/c it's too much of a pain in the ass."
Which means nothing to me, because that has nothing to do with comparing or contrasting PRODUCTION guns.
Building some gun from a flat in the basement isn't building one in the original manner either. Did Chase45 roll his own steel, stamp his own flat, then run a huge punch and die set and bending jig popping out a few hundred receivers to a thousand or more a day? If not, once again, spurious argument.

Since you brought up cost. It is at least 50% more to buy M1a's today that it is to buy a PTR91. That is with the cheaper cast M1a receiver. A forger receiver would push that to double the cost.

which one of those is an issued service rifle?

You were comparing the then and now cost of a issued service rifle to a bottom of the barrel AR. I'm comparing the now cost of the semi auto versions of the battle rifle. I am willing to bet the cost to build a G3 was about half of what a M14 cost.

Posted: 11/1/2018 5:21:54 PM EDT

[#27]

Quote History

Quoted:
Small arms / rifle procurement for the US military is hamstrung by the never ending parade of incompetents in US Army Ordnance. They've been making the wrong calls for 160+ years. Examples include:
1. Colt SAA over Schofield
2. Trapdoor over any repeater
3. The Krag
4. Overwelming desire for magazine cutoffs (Krag & 1903)
5. Benet Merci LMG
6. Making John Garand go 30-06 vs. the original .276
7. Taking almost 15 years to make a detatchable Mag Garand chambered in ~300 Savage (M-14)
8. Somehow taking the best parts of several machine guns and coming out with the s$%tty M-60

Most of the successes of US Small Arms procurement are the result of commercial development/foreign designs. Browning was responsible for the 1911, M1917, M1919, M2 and the first generations of trench shotguns. Winchester designed the M-1 Carbine and multiple rifles superior to the trapdoor. Stoner/Armalite/Colt did the M-16 family. Foreign arms predominately come from FN, who most of their designs are still influenced by Browing's ghost.

Of the "battle rifles" I still prefer the M-14 over the others. I am most familiar with that rifle, though I have .civ examples of all (FAL, G3, AR10). The FAL is good, but at its heart it's the FN-49 with a pistol grip and detachable mag. The M-14 is unfairly criticized for being extremely design dependent on the Garand when the FAL is in a similar boat. The FAL also is an armorers dream. You need so many different tools to service the thing. The G-3 is a disposable gun. The Germans were forced to adapt the CETME when they couldn't buy FALs, and most of the G3s success is in the FMS market due to several nations prolectivity for buying German arms. The G3 has horrible ergonomics all centered on the cocking handle.

The idea of Constant recoil has been championed by Sullivan forever, but no one other than Singapore with the Ultimax cares about it. I believe for this concept to truly take hold, we have to go beyond brass cartridges.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

You can get an M14 to shoot for a while, but keeping them shooting accurately is a fool's errand, not that this discussion has anything to do with battle rifles.

When you take incoming fire at realistic distances, it's very common to not even see the enemy.

The most important discussion for me regarding the M14 is the classified Fort Benning studies done in the early 1960s, where they took an OPFOR Platoon with AKs and pitted them against a Platoon equipped with M14s. The adoption of the AR15 and export of the M14 to several 3rd world countries (who couldn't really afford to make their own rifles) happened right after that, as M14s were purged from the US armories, with a few exceptions for the National Match rifles and ceremonial rifles for The Old Guard.

The biggest failure on the US side was refusing to learn the lessons of the Sturmgewehr.

Everyone else took note and started to develop their small arms accordingly, including our allies, who were eventually sucked into the mistake of the 7.62x51 cartridge.

Then out of left field, the private sector answered the solicitation for SCHV demonstrators, and a minority .224 nerd group from within Army Ordnance got the USAF's attention with the AR15, and the rest is history. The AR15 was so ahead of its time, that it continues to be the go-to service rifle today, and a viable replacement for nations who held onto the FAL and G3, or even AKM for half a century.

We still haven't realized the full capabilities of the Sturmgewehr though, namely constant recoil and its fire control group.

Small arms / rifle procurement for the US military is hamstrung by the never ending parade of incompetents in US Army Ordnance. They've been making the wrong calls for 160+ years. Examples include:
1. Colt SAA over Schofield
2. Trapdoor over any repeater
3. The Krag
4. Overwelming desire for magazine cutoffs (Krag & 1903)
5. Benet Merci LMG
6. Making John Garand go 30-06 vs. the original .276
7. Taking almost 15 years to make a detatchable Mag Garand chambered in ~300 Savage (M-14)
8. Somehow taking the best parts of several machine guns and coming out with the s$%tty M-60

Most of the successes of US Small Arms procurement are the result of commercial development/foreign designs. Browning was responsible for the 1911, M1917, M1919, M2 and the first generations of trench shotguns. Winchester designed the M-1 Carbine and multiple rifles superior to the trapdoor. Stoner/Armalite/Colt did the M-16 family. Foreign arms predominately come from FN, who most of their designs are still influenced by Browing's ghost.

Of the "battle rifles" I still prefer the M-14 over the others. I am most familiar with that rifle, though I have .civ examples of all (FAL, G3, AR10). The FAL is good, but at its heart it's the FN-49 with a pistol grip and detachable mag. The M-14 is unfairly criticized for being extremely design dependent on the Garand when the FAL is in a similar boat. The FAL also is an armorers dream. You need so many different tools to service the thing. The G-3 is a disposable gun. The Germans were forced to adapt the CETME when they couldn't buy FALs, and most of the G3s success is in the FMS market due to several nations prolectivity for buying German arms. The G3 has horrible ergonomics all centered on the cocking handle.

The idea of Constant recoil has been championed by Sullivan forever, but no one other than Singapore with the Ultimax cares about it. I believe for this concept to truly take hold, we have to go beyond brass cartridges.

While I do not disagree with you about the US Army ordinance dept. some of the early choices were good for the times.

SAA was adopted before the Schofield was designed. Hard to argue for spending the $$ on a relatively unimportant weapon.

The Trapdoor was picked at the time other armies were adopting single shot large caliber rifles. Repeaters at teh time used pistol cartridges and were not particularly durable.

The Krag and later...yup.

Posted: 11/1/2018 5:34:17 PM EDT

[#28]

Quote History

Quoted:
Small arms / rifle procurement for the US military is hamstrung by the never ending parade of incompetents in US Army Ordnance. They've been making the wrong calls for 160+ years. Examples include:
1. Colt SAA over Schofield
2. Trapdoor over any repeater
3. The Krag
4. Overwelming desire for magazine cutoffs (Krag & 1903)
5. Benet Merci LMG
6. Making John Garand go 30-06 vs. the original .276
7. Taking almost 15 years to make a detatchable Mag Garand chambered in ~300 Savage (M-14)
8. Somehow taking the best parts of several machine guns and coming out with the s$%tty M-60

Most of the successes of US Small Arms procurement are the result of commercial development/foreign designs. Browning was responsible for the 1911, M1917, M1919, M2 and the first generations of trench shotguns. Winchester designed the M-1 Carbine and multiple rifles superior to the trapdoor. Stoner/Armalite/Colt did the M-16 family. Foreign arms predominately come from FN, who most of their designs are still influenced by Browing's ghost.

Of the "battle rifles" I still prefer the M-14 over the others. I am most familiar with that rifle, though I have .civ examples of all (FAL, G3, AR10). The FAL is good, but at its heart it's the FN-49 with a pistol grip and detachable mag. The M-14 is unfairly criticized for being extremely design dependent on the Garand when the FAL is in a similar boat. The FAL also is an armorers dream. You need so many different tools to service the thing. The G-3 is a disposable gun. The Germans were forced to adapt the CETME when they couldn't buy FALs, and most of the G3s success is in the FMS market due to several nations prolectivity for buying German arms. The G3 has horrible ergonomics all centered on the cocking handle.

The idea of Constant recoil has been championed by Sullivan forever, but no one other than Singapore with the Ultimax cares about it. I believe for this concept to truly take hold, we have to go beyond brass cartridges.

View Quote

I was just thinking last night about what a failure the M60 was, in the same context you put it:

How do you take successful machine-guns that were proven in WWII and make a failure-prone GPMG that should have rocked. We dealt with M60 issues all the time in line units when we still had them, then replaced it with the older design in the MAG58 known as the M240.

Between Browning, Stoner, and the German designers, I think there was opportunity for a gem. Instead, US Army Ordnance chose 1930s tech with the M14, which is why it didn't go anywhere and served for such a short time.

Posted: 11/1/2018 5:37:24 PM EDT

[#29]

Quote History

Quoted:
How do you take successful machine-guns that were proven in WWII and make a failure-prone GPMG that should have rocked. We dealt with M60 issues all the time in line units when we still had them, then replaced it with the older design in the MAG58 known as the M240.

View Quote

Someone once said the M60 was the result of studying all the design features of all successful WWII MGs, then incorporating all the worst features of each into one weapon,

Posted: 11/1/2018 5:47:32 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

I have shot plenty of high power, never seen anyone else do it either. What gunsmith is promising 1 MOA with surplus ammo? Maybe 1 MOA with FGM, on a windless day after a bedding job. Even if you were able to shoot a 1MOA group a few times, it is repeatable, consistent accuracy that people seek. Can you take that 1 MOA M1A shoot a match on the coast and shoot one the next weekend in the desert? Can a properly bedded M1A handle humidity and temperature changes or will your zero be off on your first string? There is a reason that nobody serious shoots them anymore. Yes they have a nice trigger, nice sights, great sight radius, less drop and windage than an AR, and still nobody touches them because the repeatable accuracy isn't there. But if you can shoot 1MOA with surplus ammo, you will surely leg out in no time.

View Quote

He's right...(GreenLocust) no one is running a 1 moa M1A.. I've shot service rifle since the mid 90's.
I run a Super match because I like it, but
I'm not competitive with the 5.56mm guns shooting heavier grain bullets across the course.

Posted: 11/1/2018 5:55:51 PM EDT

[#31]

Quote History

Quoted:
I've often wondered if the M-14 being 7.62 NATO factored into the decision to provide them to the Baltic states after their independence. Most of our NATO allies still hadn't completed their changeover to 5.56 back then, so by giving them M-14s they would better be able to be logistically supported if needed.

View Quote

That's exactly how that went down. The M-14's, along with the capability to produce their own ammunition- were part of the package to "wean" them off of Combloc cartridges.

Posted: 11/1/2018 6:02:50 PM EDT

[#32]

Quote History

Quoted:
Someone once said the M60 was the result of studying all the design features of all successful WWII MGs, then incorporating all the worst features of each into one weapon

View Quote

It's not that bad.

Essentially it's an FG42 with the feed mechanism from the MG42. The prototypes make this more obvious.

The worst flaws are the bolt lug peening issue (which is completely inexcusable from an engineering standpoint), and the fact that a barrel-mounted bipod left the poor gunner with no way to support a hot weapon while replacing the (even hotter) barrel.

It's like they were trying to make replacement barrel assemblies have the highest possible unit cost for their contractor buddies, with no benefit to the military whatsoever.

The MAG 58 (M240) is definitely the better gun. It just weighs more. The designs for both were finalized around 1957.
It's based on concepts from the BAR and the MG42

The Minimi (M249) was inspired by the Stoner 63 and the AK.

Posted: 11/1/2018 6:03:07 PM EDT

[#33]

Quote History

Quoted:
"You know exactly why I said it that way. When he says: "
I know you don't know what program management is if you can't understand the difference between "secret documents" and the literal fuck ton of un-digitized content that's either been destroyed or archived over time.

Hammer forged barrels and stamped receivers in European countries might end up a little cheaper, but scale that up to American sized military numbers. Then have all those parts have to be as close to 100% interchangeable as possible from different contractors over multiple years and sources. Then there's things like lifecycle cost for support.

I feel like the problem is he's talking about things on a WHOLE different level than you are.

Also, appears that the unit cost per rifle started at around $70 a rifle for the M-14, and were getting cheaper per unit as time went on.

That's $617 in today's dollars. So M-14's, which were"expensive to build" cost LESS than a shitty anderson AR-15 does now.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/677383.pdf

What was the unit cost for the G3 and FAL?

View Quote

The only contractor that could actually make M14s for ~$70 sustainably, TRW, hammer forged their barrels.

Posted: 11/1/2018 6:13:46 PM EDT

[#34]

Quote History

Quoted:

I see nothing wrong in comparing the AR15 SYSTEM against the M14 SYSTEM.

View Quote

The problem is, when you compare the M14 "SYSTEM" to it's peers of the day, it doesn't fare NEARLY as poorly as when you compare it to the AR-15 SYSTEM.

To carry this to the extreme, if we want stupid comparisons, let's compare the M14 SYSTEM to the Trapdoor Springfield "System."

For all practical purposes, the M14 is really a child of post-WWII, circa 1952. The fact that we did not actually type accept it until 1957 isn't because of design issues, it was purely due to bureaucratic intransigence.

The fact is, in 1952, the M14 was on par with it's peers. By the time the Ordnance Corps fucked around for 7+ more years, it was a rifle whose time had come and gone, but with no clearly MATURE replacement in sight.

Posted: 11/1/2018 6:46:36 PM EDT

[#35]

Quote History

Quoted:

Before the Stoner patents were sold to Colt, ArmaLite licensed the AR10 to the Dutch, who then made the finest battle rifle samples I've ever seen for the era.

Norway and Sweden licensed the G3 from Hk and made their own versions, the Norsk AG-3 from 1967-1974, and Swedish AK 4 from 1965-1970. Many other nations licensed production of the G3, including Denmark, Luxembourg, Myanmar, Pakistan, Turkey, and Iran.

https://www.hkpro.com/plugins/editors/tinymce/jscripts/tiny_mce/action2norway2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v613/Tim_Orrock/SDF/AK4_stor.jpg

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Ak_4_Swedish_Army_Museum_006.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVhf0uKhfds

Columbia, Greece, Israel, Lebanon, Philippines, South Vietnam, Taiwan, Turkey, and Venezuela got excess defense article program M14s.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/2018/08/1541250copy-1.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/D5kbYlV.jpg

https://laststandonzombieisland.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/philipino-marine-2007-w-m14-and-selector-switch.jpg

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130909125838-philippines-lock-down-horizontal-gallery.jpg

View Quote

Taiwan set up their own factory for M14's, some of their parts make it to the US occasionally.

Posted: 11/1/2018 6:48:32 PM EDT

[#36]

Quote History

Quoted:
Someone once said the M60 was the result of studying all the design features of all successful WWII MGs, then incorporating all the worst features of each into one weapon,

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
How do you take successful machine-guns that were proven in WWII and make a failure-prone GPMG that should have rocked. We dealt with M60 issues all the time in line units when we still had them, then replaced it with the older design in the MAG58 known as the M240.

Someone once said the M60 was the result of studying all the design features of all successful WWII MGs, then incorporating all the worst features of each into one weapon,

The features I do love about the M60 that make it stand out are:

* Short overall length due to the half-bullpup layout. This is actually a great design taken from the FG42.
* Weight wasn't that bad.
The layout of the M60E3 is a lot better because it places the bipod on the forearm, so spare barrels got much lighter than the abortion from the M60. I was an AB and AG, so I know how much spare barrels sucked. For barrel changes, we normally did that off the tripod during gun drills, and didn't run the guns at high rates when shooting bipod-supported.

Posted: 11/1/2018 7:47:04 PM EDT

[#37]

Quote History

Quoted:

You were comparing the then and now cost of a issued service rifle to a bottom of the barrel AR. I'm comparing the now cost of the semi auto versions of the battle rifle. I am willing to bet the cost to build a G3 was about half of what a M14 cost.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted: Oh for fucks sake, you expect troops to put their rifles together in the fucking basement?

I'm talking strictly about ready to fire rifles. I don't care if you don't value your time and as such can claim a home brew junk rifle can be "half th price" nor do I care that a guy can bend a sheet of steel once. Does he have a punch and die to do it a few thousand times, a day?

I'm pointing out a very specific thing, that the unit cost for the M-14 was cheap as shit, even compared to today with inflation. chinese M-14's in canada has shit all to do with that.

What is being repeatedly pointed out to you is the machining for the M-14 forged receiver is complicated as shit, which is expensive; its contemporaries were easier to manufacture, to the extent that today they can be built in basements, while the M-14 is not being built in the original manner b/c it's too much of a pain in the ass.

Which, I showed that it's not at all. It cost 70 bucks to build one. So the "it's expensive" argument is off the table. It's complicated as shit, SO WHAT? It didn't stop a FUCK TON of them being built, nor the Grand as well. Shitty argument when investigated.

"its contemporaries were easier to manufacture"
Easier for countries that were not America. Punch and die PRODUCTION lines are still complicated and die sets wear out. New dies have to be made and so on and so on. Who gives two shits about "easier" when you have a post WW2 machining Juggernaut?

"while the M-14 is not being built in the original manner b/c it's too much of a pain in the ass."
Which means nothing to me, because that has nothing to do with comparing or contrasting PRODUCTION guns.
Building some gun from a flat in the basement isn't building one in the original manner either. Did Chase45 roll his own steel, stamp his own flat, then run a huge punch and die set and bending jig popping out a few hundred receivers to a thousand or more a day? If not, once again, spurious argument.

Since you brought up cost. It is at least 50% more to buy M1a's today that it is to buy a PTR91. That is with the cheaper cast M1a receiver. A forger receiver would push that to double the cost.

which one of those is an issued service rifle?

You were comparing the then and now cost of a issued service rifle to a bottom of the barrel AR. I'm comparing the now cost of the semi auto versions of the battle rifle. I am willing to bet the cost to build a G3 was about half of what a M14 cost.

SPECIFICALLY to disprove the "m-14's are expensive to produce" myth to give perspective in the unit price adjusted for inflation. NOT comparing and contrasting different variants. Your opinion is not germane to that, so I don't have any interest in the cost of new battle rifle knock offs, unless you can show the cost of the original unit price of the service rifle they are based on.

If I would have thought ahead I would have compared it to the unit price of M-16's but I didn't think people would aspie out so hard.

Posted: 11/1/2018 8:22:30 PM EDT

[#38]

Quote History

Quoted:

SPECIFICALLY to disprove the "m-14's are expensive to produce" myth to give perspective in the unit price adjusted for inflation. NOT comparing and contrasting different variants. Your opinion is not germane to that, so I don't have any interest in the cost of new battle rifle knock offs, unless you can show the cost of the original unit price of the service rifle they are based on.

If I would have thought ahead I would have compared it to the unit price of M-16's but I didn't think people would aspie out so hard.

View Quote

In doing so you're using a price that was bid below the cost of production in order to secure the contract. From the DTIC report:

"An overall analysis of the two contractors, H&R and Olin Mathieson, seems to be that, they bid low on the first contract and then subsequently increased their unit prices to about where the Springfield Armory unit price would have been had the Armory's 92% learning curve been used."

In other words it actually cost H&R and Winchester closer to $116 to produce M14s, as opposed to the $70 price you're using. Springfield M14s cost even more, with only TRW coming close to your $70 price after they threw out the Springfield Armory designed production process and replaced it with a more advanced one that included hammer forging the barrels.

Posted: 11/1/2018 8:34:57 PM EDT

[#39]

Quote History

Quoted:
In doing so you're using a price that was bid below the cost of production in order to secure the contract. From the DTIC report:

"An overall analysis of the two contractors, H&R and Olin Mathieson, seems to be that, they bid low on the first contract and then subsequently increased their unit prices to about where the Springfield Armory unit price would have been had the Armory's 92% learning curve been used."

In other words it actually cost H&R and Winchester closer to $116 to produce M14s, as opposed to the $70 price you're using. Springfield M14s cost even more, with only TRW coming close to your $70 price after they threw out the Springfield Armory designed production process and replaced it with a more advanced one that included hammer forging the barrels.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

SPECIFICALLY to disprove the "m-14's are expensive to produce" myth to give perspective in the unit price adjusted for inflation. NOT comparing and contrasting different variants. Your opinion is not germane to that, so I don't have any interest in the cost of new battle rifle knock offs, unless you can show the cost of the original unit price of the service rifle they are based on.

If I would have thought ahead I would have compared it to the unit price of M-16's but I didn't think people would aspie out so hard.

In doing so you're using a price that was bid below the cost of production in order to secure the contract. From the DTIC report:

"An overall analysis of the two contractors, H&R and Olin Mathieson, seems to be that, they bid low on the first contract and then subsequently increased their unit prices to about where the Springfield Armory unit price would have been had the Armory's 92% learning curve been used."

In other words it actually cost H&R and Winchester closer to $116 to produce M14s, as opposed to the $70 price you're using. Springfield M14s cost even more, with only TRW coming close to your $70 price after they threw out the Springfield Armory designed production process and replaced it with a more advanced one that included hammer forging the barrels.

And it also says things would have gotten cheaper over time (had the rifle not been obsolete before it was built and ditched for a modern weapon).

Don't forget that part.

Posted: 11/1/2018 8:41:36 PM EDT

[#40]

Also, why do people always hyper focus on the M-14 receiver as being "complicated" when it's all basic machining, and in a production setting it would just be tossed in a jig and one or two steps per machine would be milled?

The most complicated part is the bolt/ chamber interface.

Posted: 11/1/2018 9:48:52 PM EDT

[#41]

Quote History

Quoted:
SPECIFICALLY to disprove the "m-14's are expensive to produce" myth to give perspective in the unit price adjusted for inflation. NOT comparing and contrasting different variants. Your opinion is not germane to that, so I don't have any interest in the cost of new battle rifle knock offs, unless you can show the cost of the original unit price of the service rifle they are based on.

If I would have thought ahead I would have compared it to the unit price of M-16's but I didn't think people would aspie out so hard.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted: Oh for fucks sake, you expect troops to put their rifles together in the fucking basement?

I'm talking strictly about ready to fire rifles. I don't care if you don't value your time and as such can claim a home brew junk rifle can be "half th price" nor do I care that a guy can bend a sheet of steel once. Does he have a punch and die to do it a few thousand times, a day?

I'm pointing out a very specific thing, that the unit cost for the M-14 was cheap as shit, even compared to today with inflation. chinese M-14's in canada has shit all to do with that.

What is being repeatedly pointed out to you is the machining for the M-14 forged receiver is complicated as shit, which is expensive; its contemporaries were easier to manufacture, to the extent that today they can be built in basements, while the M-14 is not being built in the original manner b/c it's too much of a pain in the ass.

Which, I showed that it's not at all. It cost 70 bucks to build one. So the "it's expensive" argument is off the table. It's complicated as shit, SO WHAT? It didn't stop a FUCK TON of them being built, nor the Grand as well. Shitty argument when investigated.

"its contemporaries were easier to manufacture"
Easier for countries that were not America. Punch and die PRODUCTION lines are still complicated and die sets wear out. New dies have to be made and so on and so on. Who gives two shits about "easier" when you have a post WW2 machining Juggernaut?

"while the M-14 is not being built in the original manner b/c it's too much of a pain in the ass."
Which means nothing to me, because that has nothing to do with comparing or contrasting PRODUCTION guns.
Building some gun from a flat in the basement isn't building one in the original manner either. Did Chase45 roll his own steel, stamp his own flat, then run a huge punch and die set and bending jig popping out a few hundred receivers to a thousand or more a day? If not, once again, spurious argument.

Since you brought up cost. It is at least 50% more to buy M1a's today that it is to buy a PTR91. That is with the cheaper cast M1a receiver. A forger receiver would push that to double the cost.

which one of those is an issued service rifle?

You were comparing the then and now cost of a issued service rifle to a bottom of the barrel AR. I'm comparing the now cost of the semi auto versions of the battle rifle. I am willing to bet the cost to build a G3 was about half of what a M14 cost.

SPECIFICALLY to disprove the "m-14's are expensive to produce" myth to give perspective in the unit price adjusted for inflation. NOT comparing and contrasting different variants. Your opinion is not germane to that, so I don't have any interest in the cost of new battle rifle knock offs, unless you can show the cost of the original unit price of the service rifle they are based on.

If I would have thought ahead I would have compared it to the unit price of M-16's but I didn't think people would aspie out so hard.

The m14 cost is a useless data point without knowing what the other rifles cost to produce.

Posted: 11/1/2018 9:51:55 PM EDT

[#42]

Quote History

Quoted:
Should've adopted the T48.

View Quote

he's right or the british version in 28 cal.

Posted: 11/1/2018 10:06:45 PM EDT

[#43]

Quote History

Quoted:
You're forgetting or just are not aware of the fact that the US had to rig the tests to make the M14 beat the FAL in trials.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
It was perfect at the time

1) We were into the Cold War. Potential Soviet invasion. Anyone who was trained on the M1 Garand could pick up the M-14 and use it. Very little retraining for a new weapon

2) It has 1/2 the parts as the FAL and only a few springs. Fewer parts, fewer problems. Also the Armorer didn't need much additional training except about 30 minutes for the Gas System and removal of the flash hider.

3) It had the ability to be topped off with stripper clips. Nice if you are down to a magazine or two left.

4) I always hear there were many countries that adopted the FAL. The M-14 was only produced for the US Military. It was never marketed for sales outside the US Military

5) The FAL had problems in the desert, hence the addition of the sand cuts added by the Israelis. Never had to do anything to the M-14

You're forgetting or just are not aware of the fact that the US had to rig the tests to make the M14 beat the FAL in trials.

"Fewer parts" in this case means a stupidly engineered op-rod scheme and needlessly expensive forgings.

That, and while the Izzies added sand cuts to the FAL so it'd run better, the Garand-pattern is almost uniquely ill-suited to dusty, windy conditions because of the op-rod track being exposed.

The BM59 actually did what the M14 was supposed to do...and there's really no debating that. If the plan from the get-go was a clean sheet design, they could have done better than the M14; but the plan was to reuse Garand bits to save money and get something just as good. Neither of those things happened, and the gun was dumped almost immediately.

Posted: 11/1/2018 10:23:05 PM EDT

[#44]

Quote History

Quoted:
Moving to 7.7 was done because it was a better LONG RANGE machine gun round, and standardized because logistics. Germans didn't go to 7.92 Mauser, they were never using 7x, but there reason for that cartridge was same reason as everyone else, it did better at LONG RANGE. Machine guns are often shot in long range, especially back in the day.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Longer bullets do better than shorter. Diameter is immaterial except as it dictates weight for a given length. By the time you get long bullets in .30 you’re either going too slow or creating too much recoil.

The Japs moving from 6.5 to 7.7 was a mistake, as was the Germans moving from the excellent 7x57 round to the “meh” 7.92.

Moving to 7.7 was done because it was a better LONG RANGE machine gun round, and standardized because logistics. Germans didn't go to 7.92 Mauser, they were never using 7x, but there reason for that cartridge was same reason as everyone else, it did better at LONG RANGE. Machine guns are often shot in long range, especially back in the day.

30's about as small as you can do tracer, that's all.

Higher BC puts more energy on the piece of target you're hammering. Skinny goes further for a given weight. Skinny is also more fragile & I suspect harder/costlier to make in FMJ, and makes for longer assembled cartridges.

Posted: 11/1/2018 10:28:45 PM EDT

[#45]

Quote History

Quoted:
The m14 cost is a useless data point without knowing what the other rifles cost to produce.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted: Oh for fucks sake, you expect troops to put their rifles together in the fucking basement?

I'm talking strictly about ready to fire rifles. I don't care if you don't value your time and as such can claim a home brew junk rifle can be "half th price" nor do I care that a guy can bend a sheet of steel once. Does he have a punch and die to do it a few thousand times, a day?

I'm pointing out a very specific thing, that the unit cost for the M-14 was cheap as shit, even compared to today with inflation. chinese M-14's in canada has shit all to do with that.

What is being repeatedly pointed out to you is the machining for the M-14 forged receiver is complicated as shit, which is expensive; its contemporaries were easier to manufacture, to the extent that today they can be built in basements, while the M-14 is not being built in the original manner b/c it's too much of a pain in the ass.

Which, I showed that it's not at all. It cost 70 bucks to build one. So the "it's expensive" argument is off the table. It's complicated as shit, SO WHAT? It didn't stop a FUCK TON of them being built, nor the Grand as well. Shitty argument when investigated.

"its contemporaries were easier to manufacture"
Easier for countries that were not America. Punch and die PRODUCTION lines are still complicated and die sets wear out. New dies have to be made and so on and so on. Who gives two shits about "easier" when you have a post WW2 machining Juggernaut?

"while the M-14 is not being built in the original manner b/c it's too much of a pain in the ass."
Which means nothing to me, because that has nothing to do with comparing or contrasting PRODUCTION guns.
Building some gun from a flat in the basement isn't building one in the original manner either. Did Chase45 roll his own steel, stamp his own flat, then run a huge punch and die set and bending jig popping out a few hundred receivers to a thousand or more a day? If not, once again, spurious argument.

Since you brought up cost. It is at least 50% more to buy M1a's today that it is to buy a PTR91. That is with the cheaper cast M1a receiver. A forger receiver would push that to double the cost.

which one of those is an issued service rifle?

You were comparing the then and now cost of a issued service rifle to a bottom of the barrel AR. I'm comparing the now cost of the semi auto versions of the battle rifle. I am willing to bet the cost to build a G3 was about half of what a M14 cost.

SPECIFICALLY to disprove the "m-14's are expensive to produce" myth to give perspective in the unit price adjusted for inflation. NOT comparing and contrasting different variants. Your opinion is not germane to that, so I don't have any interest in the cost of new battle rifle knock offs, unless you can show the cost of the original unit price of the service rifle they are based on.

If I would have thought ahead I would have compared it to the unit price of M-16's but I didn't think people would aspie out so hard.

The m14 cost is a useless data point without knowing what the other rifles cost to produce.

...........

NO SHIT.

Then why do people keep saying they were expensive to produce with NO DATA POINTS?

Why do they say other production service rifles were cheaper to produce with NO DATA POINTS?

People bringing nothing to the table but gunshow hyperbole, don't make for persuasive arguments.

Posted: 11/1/2018 10:29:54 PM EDT

[#46]

Quote History

Quoted:
Everyone likes the BAR and equate it to a godly weapon.

The m14 was a BAR light and GD says it’s a POS.

M14 hate is because of the hate of .308.

View Quote

The BAR was objectively awful in many ways, but it was the first LMG of its type to be reliable, and that was a big deal in WWI. Why we used it for another 30 years is a mystery, or why so many people loved a gun that weighed 2X as much as a BREN and had even less firepower.

The product improved FND and later MAG58 were far, far superior.

Posted: 11/1/2018 10:31:30 PM EDT

[#47]

Quote History

Quoted:
30's about as small as you can do tracer, that's all.

Higher BC puts more energy on the piece of target you're hammering. Skinny goes further for a given weight. Skinny is also more fragile & I suspect harder/costlier to make in FMJ, and makes for longer assembled cartridges.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Longer bullets do better than shorter. Diameter is immaterial except as it dictates weight for a given length. By the time you get long bullets in .30 you're either going too slow or creating too much recoil.

The Japs moving from 6.5 to 7.7 was a mistake, as was the Germans moving from the excellent 7x57 round to the "meh" 7.92.

Moving to 7.7 was done because it was a better LONG RANGE machine gun round, and standardized because logistics. Germans didn't go to 7.92 Mauser, they were never using 7x, but there reason for that cartridge was same reason as everyone else, it did better at LONG RANGE. Machine guns are often shot in long range, especially back in the day.

30's about as small as you can do tracer, that's all.

Higher BC puts more energy on the piece of target you're hammering. Skinny goes further for a given weight. Skinny is also more fragile & I suspect harder/costlier to make in FMJ, and makes for longer assembled cartridges.

A lot of trigger time being 249's and using tracer mags to mark targets from my M-16 would say that tracer's work well under 30 cal...

Posted: 11/1/2018 10:37:36 PM EDT

[#48]

Quote History

Quoted:
Once the ZB.26 (which spawned stuff like BREN and Type 96) came along the BAR was outclassed.

BAR did have a short run (less than 10 years) of being a world-class LMG (mainly because it had no real competition) but by the time it was widely adopted (1938, IIRC), it was second-tier.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

The BAR was a POS. If you gave the American troops a Bren. And pretended it was American made, they'd instantly want that over a BAR.

Once the ZB.26 (which spawned stuff like BREN and Type 96) came along the BAR was outclassed.

BAR did have a short run (less than 10 years) of being a world-class LMG (mainly because it had no real competition) but by the time it was widely adopted (1938, IIRC), it was second-tier.

The only real competition was really the odd-but-excellent Madsen LMG, and stuff like the Chauchat/Saloranta that were not nearly as good in general or in the LMG role and were essentially less technologically advanced. The BAR was simpler than all of them, as its primary virtue (which also made it more reliable, more mobile, cheaper, easier to clean, easier to produce, etc)

Posted: 11/1/2018 10:44:10 PM EDT

[#49]

Quote History

Quoted:
But nobody cared about it except the silly Spanish.

The post-war Bundeswehr wanted the G1 (FAL). The Belgians wouldn’t sell it to them.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Roller locked rifle existed before the FAL.

But nobody cared about it except the silly Spanish.

The post-war Bundeswehr wanted the G1 (FAL). The Belgians wouldn’t sell it to them.

And the Swiss. Everyone forgets the G2 (STGW57)

Posted: 11/1/2018 10:49:49 PM EDT

[#50]

Quote History

Quoted:
I think the Belgians were willing to sell the FAL to Germany, but FN wouldn't grant a license to Germany to build it.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted: But nobody cared about it except the silly Spanish.

The post-war Bundeswehr wanted the G1 (FAL). The Belgians wouldn’t sell it to them.

I think the Belgians were willing to sell the FAL to Germany, but FN wouldn't grant a license to Germany to build it.

The progenitor FN49 had been heroically denied to the Nazis by engineers taking the plans with them to England before the factory was overrun. Nazis getting a cheaper, better, higher-capacity gun than the M1 early in the war could have been disastrous (likely would not have changed the final outcome, but they may have had a lot more effective full and intermediate power semi autos & assault rifles)

The Belgians had a pretty good argument to not simply hand over the product-improved FN49 technology five years after their liberation.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - M1 vs. M14 Did the Military Get it Right in 1957? (Page 8 of 11)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us