The M14 was not a good rifle.
- Thread starter Reaper of the apocalypse
- Start date
BeaverMeat
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nanaimo, B.C.
He is correct. The M14 wasn’t a “good” rifle for post-WWII/Korean combat. They U.S. did go backwards with weapons development.
That doesn’t mean the M14 is not an effective rifle platform.
That doesn’t mean the M14 is not an effective rifle platform.
Last edited:
BeaverMeat
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nanaimo, B.C.
The M14 was a good improvement over the M1 Garand rifle but the manufacturing quality was low until TRW finally fixed all the issues.
By the time this was done, the M16 had supplanted it and history never looked back until a 308 Win DMR was needed ASAP in Afghanistan.
Very good design if somewhat dated (it was an update on a 1930s design), bad initial manufacturing quality and many manufacturing issues.
Both FN FAL and HK G3 were far superior designs which went on to serve continuously for roughly 40 years.
By the time this was done, the M16 had supplanted it and history never looked back until a 308 Win DMR was needed ASAP in Afghanistan.
Very good design if somewhat dated (it was an update on a 1930s design), bad initial manufacturing quality and many manufacturing issues.
Both FN FAL and HK G3 were far superior designs which went on to serve continuously for roughly 40 years.
Only LMG needs to be full auto in NATO not a rifle.
Because soldiers can control 5.56 in fully auto you think M14 is not a good rifle .
.
All the 7.62 x51 base calibre fully auto are unsuccessful in combat with that status . Unless using as DMR , EBR , or EMR even in CQB no one is using fully auto.
I remember G3 HK in fully auto , is the worst battle rifle ever.
I shoot more than 10000 rounds in semi and fully auto with it .
I can see in FAL , M14 , and even in Scar 17 or M417 or M110.
Because soldiers can control 5.56 in fully auto you think M14 is not a good rifle .
.
All the 7.62 x51 base calibre fully auto are unsuccessful in combat with that status . Unless using as DMR , EBR , or EMR even in CQB no one is using fully auto.
I remember G3 HK in fully auto , is the worst battle rifle ever.
I shoot more than 10000 rounds in semi and fully auto with it .
I can see in FAL , M14 , and even in Scar 17 or M417 or M110.
Someone needs to introduce him to the idea of Hanlon’s Razor, *Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity*.
His assertions about M16 cleaning kits being intentionally denied to troops in order to sabotage the weapon’s adoption are bizarre to say the least.
His assertions about M16 cleaning kits being intentionally denied to troops in order to sabotage the weapon’s adoption are bizarre to say the least.
The M14 was n awesome rifle... For WWII. It just arrived 20 years late for that.
I really like my M305. I like it more than my AR-15. But as a combat rifle, it was a relic from a different era.
Full powered vs. Intermediate cartridge aside (personally, I'm on the fence on that argument), every other nation had moved on to modern ergonomics and production methods. As a standard issue infantry rifle, the FAL, G3, AK, heck, the VZ. 58... Were all better rifles for the era. Easier to operate. Easier to maintain. Easier to train noobies on. The AR-10, if it had been given even half the leeway and do-overs that the M14 was given during its development cycle and trials, would have easily outclassed the the M14.
I really like my M305. I like it more than my AR-15. But as a combat rifle, it was a relic from a different era.
Full powered vs. Intermediate cartridge aside (personally, I'm on the fence on that argument), every other nation had moved on to modern ergonomics and production methods. As a standard issue infantry rifle, the FAL, G3, AK, heck, the VZ. 58... Were all better rifles for the era. Easier to operate. Easier to maintain. Easier to train noobies on. The AR-10, if it had been given even half the leeway and do-overs that the M14 was given during its development cycle and trials, would have easily outclassed the the M14.
Honestly, if I could reasonably get the majority of the money out that I have invested in the "M14" I'd put it into the AR10 platform and never look back.
But the fact is at this point I'd loose my shirt on it so might as well keep them around.
That's my bottom line take on the M14 platform now.
But the fact is at this point I'd loose my shirt on it so might as well keep them around.
That's my bottom line take on the M14 platform now.
BeaverMeat
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Nanaimo, B.C.
It’s a fact.
BattleRife
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- of No Fixed Address
I don't feel like spending 30 minutes listening to some guy I've never heard of talking from a chair. Especially since in the first four he said almost nothing.
There is no denying the M14 program was the subject of multiple congressional / senate investigations; is cited as prime rational for disbanding the US small arms arsenal system; and had the shortest front line service life of almost any weapon issued by the US in the 20th century. It was delivered years behind schedule, suffered serious quality issues in mass production, and exhibited significant design flaws.
The M14 was a flop as a service rifle, and the romantic notions of today's recreational shooters do not change that.
There is no denying the M14 program was the subject of multiple congressional / senate investigations; is cited as prime rational for disbanding the US small arms arsenal system; and had the shortest front line service life of almost any weapon issued by the US in the 20th century. It was delivered years behind schedule, suffered serious quality issues in mass production, and exhibited significant design flaws.
The M14 was a flop as a service rifle, and the romantic notions of today's recreational shooters do not change that.
What is a fact exactly?
If you want to give the man another chance, take a look at his take on the MARK12 history.
https://youtu.be/BMVvVL9QeC4.
To me he knows his s**t.
