Why I Despise the M14...

chanrobi said:
Lol.

It's not a myth. You just decided it was one and said it. Injured pers are going to tie up resources much more than dead people are.
Click to expand...

True, but won't happen instantly and maybe the one causing the injury will not beneficiate from the tied up ressource.
 
Lol, this thread is funny. Arguing that a hammer is a terrible screwdriver, and that a screwdriver sucks at pounding nails is silly. Different tools, with different strengths and weaknesses. I would take one for one job, the other for another. Nuff said
 
5440fight said:
Lol, this thread is funny. Arguing that a hammer is a terrible screwdriver, and that a screwdriver sucks at pounding nails is silly. Different tools, with different strengths and weaknesses. I would take one for one job, the other for another. Nuff said
Click to expand...

pretty much eh?
LOL
 
1-trident-1 said:
I despise anyone who despises a firearm.
Click to expand...

I was just about to post that!

For sure, some firearms are better than others in an empirical engineering/maintenance/failure rate.

But every firearm has it's pro's and cons on the battlefield and to despise one simply because of some historical political jockeying is pretty strange in my books.
 
Kremator said:
Love how these threads devolve into dudes moving the goal posts to the defense of the Caliber rather than the M14 as a platform, but still somehow declare that a victory for the M14.
Click to expand...

The M14 doesn't really need defending, its only serious flaw, at least in mass issue service rifle terms, is the relatively exposed action.
 
870P said:
The M14 doesn't really need defending, its only serious flaw, at least in mass issue service rifle terms, is the relatively exposed action.
Click to expand...

Almost every nation that tested the M14 alongside its contemporaries for possible adoption for military service rejected it. Most of the time it was rejected very early in the process, not even making the short list of serious contenders. It had a lot more deficiencies than just an exposed action.
 
I wouldnt stand in front of one shooting...would you? If it works properly, look out ...

Better round for longer ranges, the questions for any battle rifle are: what's the general range needed? how many rounds does a general grunt need to carry at one time before resupply? (combat load?), you need a very dependable weapon capable of meeting your needs, what are your basic general needs?

AKs sure fit a wide bill .... just saying. G3 comes to my mind... I enjoyed the FNs C1 + C2.
 
Last edited:
BattleRife said:
Almost every nation that tested the M14 alongside its contemporaries for possible adoption for military service rejected it. Most of the time it was rejected very early in the process, not even making the short list of serious contenders. It had a lot more deficiencies than just an exposed action.
Click to expand...

I suspect politics had a lot more to do with that than technical characteristics, although the FAL being available much sooner was probably also a major factor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom