Blasphemy- "The M14, Not Much For Fighting ( A Case Against The M14 Legend )"
- Thread starter nntw
- Start date
- Location
- Southern ontario
M14 is crap the action is way to open for dirt to fall in and cause ftf. Secondly theres exposed threads on the barrel good luck getting the cylinder ring off if you bang that up. The gas system is also prone to misalignment. The type 97 has a much better action and is far more covered from the elements. Take down is easier and theres no stupid threads to tighten or strip out. Look up any torture test involving the m14 it fails miserably where a t97 would shine
OK, I'm going to translate your post so it is easier to understand.
"The M14 is crap. The action is so large that dirt can get in and cause "fail to fire". There are exposed threads on the muzzle, good luck getting the gas ring off if you bang it up. The Type 97 has a much better action, offers better protection from the elements, take down is easier and there are no stupid threads to strip. Look up any torture test involving the M14, you will see that it fails miserably where a T97 would shine.
Did I get that right?
I've never wanted or felt the need to own one of those P.O.S. T97's LOL
1000. bucks just because it's a bullpup ... ridiculous
have shot 3 of them now and you can have em....... NOT a quality rifle by any standards I personally judge a rifle by LOL
1000. bucks just because it's a bullpup ... ridiculous
have shot 3 of them now and you can have em....... NOT a quality rifle by any standards I personally judge a rifle by LOL
For sure, the M14 would be just about my last choice of rifle to take to war. Everything in the OP is dead on. I mean, this is a rifle that was arguably obsolete ten years before it was even adopted. No question I would take an AK over it if I had to choose between the two for real - and I think the AK is a POS illiterate peasant weapon.
Sure are cool, fun to tinker with and a LOT of fun to shoot on a one way range though! I suspect for most of us that's all that will ever matter.
Sure are cool, fun to tinker with and a LOT of fun to shoot on a one way range though! I suspect for most of us that's all that will ever matter.
Last edited:
“When I first got to Vietnam, I was scared to death of the M16. I feared a jamming M16 would get me killed, poison snakes, spiders and a jammed M16 was such a worry to me I opted to carry an M60 on my first LRRP patrol. Later I learned to love it. I hated the M14, it proved not as reliable and was heavier and I could not carry near enough of its ammo.
Is he trying to say the M14 is HEAVIER than an M60 AND he "could not carry near enough of it's ammo" (But could carry enough for an M60)? I think the rifle names are mixed up in that sentence, even though the M16 did apparently have some serious jamming issues at one time.
*Edit* I guess it depends on which rifle he's talking about when he says "Later I learned to love it" - maybe he carried the M60 ONCE and then learned to love the M16?
Is he trying to say the M14 is HEAVIER than an M60 AND he "could not carry near enough of it's ammo" (But could carry enough for an M60)? I think the rifle names are mixed up in that sentence, even though the M16 did apparently have some serious jamming issues at one time.
*Edit* I guess it depends on which rifle he's talking about when he says "Later I learned to love it" - maybe he carried the M60 ONCE and then learned to love the M16?
Last edited:
The right weapon is the one that is best suited to the tactics you plan on employing.
For skirmishing, close in fighting, etc... A lightweight intermediate cartridge rifle wins.
For stand off, longer range, designated marksman style shooting...
A semi auto with a traditional full powered cartridge is the better choice.
A lot of what determines what makes a "better" rifle is how it is used.
For skirmishing, close in fighting, etc... A lightweight intermediate cartridge rifle wins.
For stand off, longer range, designated marksman style shooting...
A semi auto with a traditional full powered cartridge is the better choice.
A lot of what determines what makes a "better" rifle is how it is used.
r34skyline
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
And for every single one of those roles there are better options than the M14. Fun thing to plink with, play with tinker with, as a serious platform. In a free world better options from the semi auto G3, The SIG 542, the FN FAL, the AR10 pattern rifle(HK MR308 is my personal favourite), The FN SCAR.
For us, there is now the Famae SG542. But the M14 was fun but really not that great for serious work.
If I ever suddenly find myself having to do "serious work" with a firearm, the last thing I'm going to be worrying about is whether the rifle I happen to be holding got voted "Most Tier-1-est" by a quorum of internet experts
If I ever suddenly find myself having to do "serious work" with a firearm, the last thing I'm going to be worrying about is whether the rifle I happen to be holding got voted "Most Tier-1-est" by a quorum of internet experts
One of my favorite lines I've read said...
"The best gun for a firefight is the one you have in your hands when the shooting starts"
So what your saying is the bullets that come out of a the SG542, FN SCAR-H, HK 417, etc are more deadly than the same 7.62x51 rounds out of an M14? Ergonomics on the M14 might be dated, and it might be harder to mount optics on it compared to modern rifles with full length rail, but it's still a battle proven design, and it still works. It''s just as capable for serious work as any other serious rifle.
If I want a pistol grip, I'll buy a pistol.
If I want to shoot accurately, I'll stick with a traditional stock arrangement. I just prefer the way it forces me to line up my arms and upper body. Also, more comfortable to shoot from unsupported prone.
