Blasphemy- "The M14, Not Much For Fighting ( A Case Against The M14 Legend )"
- Thread starter nntw
- Start date
r34skyline
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
No, I'm saying they are more capable as a fighting rifle, the cartridge is no more lethal, but if the gun shooting the cartridge is not as reliable, not as accurate, not as durable as its rivals, it's not the better choice, since there seems to be so many m14 fanboys here that will blindly drool over their archaic gun I will leave you guys to your amazing "battle proven" designed guns.
I'm wondering why so few FN's and almost no if any HK's ever showed up at the National Matches. Being more accurate and all.
And that's the beauty of choice.
There is no "one rifle to rule them all" - which goes back to what I mentioned earlier. It all depends on what you plan on using it for, how you plan on using it, how well you can use that particular rifle, how comfortable you are with it, how well it suits your style of shooting.
I like picking on the AR platform, not because it's a bad rifle, it just amuses me to see the AR fanatics get wound up (and I've been laying off a bit lately, because a couple of people caught me borrowing one, and enjoying it, at the range one day).
Truth is - the zombies aren't coming. I'm too old and my knees too sh!tty to sign up for any two way ranges. I shoot for fun, the way I like to shoot. If most people are being honest, they shoot the gun they like. That doesn't make it the best rifle in the world. It does make it the best rifle for that person.
And I'll stop being reasonable now and go back to my curmudgeonly ways.
You think they might have rubbed some Yak fat on that Long Branch to keep it from rusting. Savages.
The M16 has been criticized for being machined to such tight tolerances that it fails to function when subjected to adverse conditions. The AK 47 was said to be superior because its looser fit allowed it to ingest dirt, sand, mud and still fire. Now the M14 is being put down for its own open design. I've seen where others have said the M14 is easily cleaned with the bolt pulled back and the magazine out. A canteen of water quickly flushes the action.
None of this will ever matter to me. I like the AR and M14 and I don't drop them or drag them. I'm not really a fan boy I just like the rifle more than others.
The M16 has been criticized for being machined to such tight tolerances that it fails to function when subjected to adverse conditions. The AK 47 was said to be superior because its looser fit allowed it to ingest dirt, sand, mud and still fire. Now the M14 is being put down for its own open design. I've seen where others have said the M14 is easily cleaned with the bolt pulled back and the magazine out. A canteen of water quickly flushes the action.
None of this will ever matter to me. I like the AR and M14 and I don't drop them or drag them. I'm not really a fan boy I just like the rifle more than others.
me too
and I've always wondered something about the days of the m14/m16 switch over.
what do you all think would have happened if the first m14 they rolled out on the battle field was a 19" barrelled, gas lock sight, M16 style flash hider in a pistol gripped stock ?
Why would they be more capable? They shoot the same round, they have the same size magazines, and within reason are all reliable. I'm sure if you ran 10,000 through each military battle rifle, one of them is going to have the least amount of the failures. But I think in the ballpark, the M14 is just as reliable as all the 7.62x51 modern rifles. If you're talking about arming soldiers, giving them an M14 isn't going to make them worse then giving them a Scar-h, providing they're trained properly.
The M14 is a modified M1 garrand. If you don't think that an M1 isn't battle proven, and isn't accurate enough, isn't durable enough, than I don't know what more you want. Furthermore, the M14 has and is being deployed, and is a solid rifle.
I understand fan boy mentality. Every fan boy thinks his object of choice is the cat's ass, and that includes M14 fan boys. I'm not a hardcore fan boy of the M14 but I am a fan. I like the rifle, but I try to see things objectively. I certainly don't hate other rifles because I'm a fan of this one. The M14 isn't a perfect rifle, but it's still a very good rifle. Just like all the other modern 7.62x51 rifles out there.
An interesting thread though I'm not inclined to get tied up in knots either way, given that it echoes the ongoing 5.56 vs 7.62 and M14 vs M16 debates that rage endlessly elsewhere.
I think of the current Norinco M14s and reasonably priced .308 semi autos that work fine for big game hunting (whether with a SOCOM or short rifle in the bush or standard rifle from a stand), Service Rifle matches and perhaps tinkering with to make a decent distant shooting piece for a bit farther than effective .223 ranges. And being non-restricted makes a huge difference, as so much of the fun with them revolves around being able to pack them into the woods. While one can tinker with these rifles ad nauseam, most do work fine out of the box in the hands of a reasonably competent shooter.
Barring a pleasant surprise, we won't be taking AR15s into the woods in the short term, and even the cheapest .223 semi-autos (SU16, T97 or Mini-14) begin at least a couple hundred dollars more expensive than the Norc M305, while the really nice rifles in .223 that utilize AR mags add at least another $1000 to that. While I'm pleased with the T97 that I've played with and would get one simply to have a handy .223 I can take into the bush, I'm not so sure that I'd choose it over an M14 if I were to go into combat. In any event, I'm pretty sure that properly trained soldiers who take care of their kit would be able function effectively with any of the main choices (M14, M16/M4, AK, T97 etc.) within the limitations and strengths that come with each rifle, though the lighter, shorter carbines would shine in house clearing or other really close range uses.
Though it doesn't play directly to judging the quality and effectiveness of the M14/M1A design, I cane across the following links that discuss the value of .308 rifles in a combat setting, which could be achieved using M14/M1A/M305 variants in different configurations for short and longer range work:
http://www.maxvelocitytactical.com/2015/03/the-citizen-unconventional-rifle-squad-arming-with-308/
http://www.maxvelocitytactical.com/cutt-citizen-unconventional-tactical-team/
http://www.maxvelocitytactical.com/2013/10/rhodesian-cover-shooting-the-drake-method/ or http://smallwarsjournal.com/documents/rhodesian-cover-or-drake-shooting.pdf
As the last of the links above speaks of soldiers who primarily used the FN-FAL, it speaks more to the merits of the older, heavier rifle designs chambered in 7.62mm. This isn't to argue against the rifles that replaced them, but simply highlight some of the strengths of the older weapons. It's a pity that Canadian shooters don't have the opportunity to play with the FN and compare that with the M14 platform based upon real life experience. In any event I for one won't lose any more sleep over the OP's post than I would towards one saying that our Lee Enfields or Mosins were obsolete, or try to debate the point with references to articles about the Taliban using such weapons effectively, etc.
I think of the current Norinco M14s and reasonably priced .308 semi autos that work fine for big game hunting (whether with a SOCOM or short rifle in the bush or standard rifle from a stand), Service Rifle matches and perhaps tinkering with to make a decent distant shooting piece for a bit farther than effective .223 ranges. And being non-restricted makes a huge difference, as so much of the fun with them revolves around being able to pack them into the woods. While one can tinker with these rifles ad nauseam, most do work fine out of the box in the hands of a reasonably competent shooter.
Barring a pleasant surprise, we won't be taking AR15s into the woods in the short term, and even the cheapest .223 semi-autos (SU16, T97 or Mini-14) begin at least a couple hundred dollars more expensive than the Norc M305, while the really nice rifles in .223 that utilize AR mags add at least another $1000 to that. While I'm pleased with the T97 that I've played with and would get one simply to have a handy .223 I can take into the bush, I'm not so sure that I'd choose it over an M14 if I were to go into combat. In any event, I'm pretty sure that properly trained soldiers who take care of their kit would be able function effectively with any of the main choices (M14, M16/M4, AK, T97 etc.) within the limitations and strengths that come with each rifle, though the lighter, shorter carbines would shine in house clearing or other really close range uses.
Though it doesn't play directly to judging the quality and effectiveness of the M14/M1A design, I cane across the following links that discuss the value of .308 rifles in a combat setting, which could be achieved using M14/M1A/M305 variants in different configurations for short and longer range work:
http://www.maxvelocitytactical.com/2015/03/the-citizen-unconventional-rifle-squad-arming-with-308/
http://www.maxvelocitytactical.com/cutt-citizen-unconventional-tactical-team/
http://www.maxvelocitytactical.com/2013/10/rhodesian-cover-shooting-the-drake-method/ or http://smallwarsjournal.com/documents/rhodesian-cover-or-drake-shooting.pdf
As the last of the links above speaks of soldiers who primarily used the FN-FAL, it speaks more to the merits of the older, heavier rifle designs chambered in 7.62mm. This isn't to argue against the rifles that replaced them, but simply highlight some of the strengths of the older weapons. It's a pity that Canadian shooters don't have the opportunity to play with the FN and compare that with the M14 platform based upon real life experience. In any event I for one won't lose any more sleep over the OP's post than I would towards one saying that our Lee Enfields or Mosins were obsolete, or try to debate the point with references to articles about the Taliban using such weapons effectively, etc.
BattleRife
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- of No Fixed Address
Reading through the article I do get the feeling that the author has an axe to grind, but that doesn't change facts.
The M14 had the second shortest official service life as a primary arm of any rifle ever adopted by the US military. And if you look at how sluggishly it was introduced to the actual troops, and how quickly it began to be phased out by a "special purpose" successor (AR-15), it probably beats out the Lee Navy rifle for title of shortest practical service life.
The US government undertook several internal DoD reviews and at least one congressional inquiry into why development of the M14 had taken so long and cost so much to produce a rifle that seemed so difficult to manufacture yet functioned so poorly.
Several foreign governments were politically pressured into trialling the M14 as a service rifle, but after giving them a brief review not one other nation even put it on the short list for consideration. When the US government gave tens of thousands of M14s to Israel for free, the Israelis turned around and sold them on the international market (many of these ended up in Canada) to generate some money to buy other weapons.
This is not an honourable service history. I have long felt the reputation of the M14 was a fantasy of blindly patriotic Americans who could not accept the fact that their system had created a rifle that was singularly unsuitable for its task. And I have often wondered what the truth was of the much ballyhooed line of the "M14 is still in service today" that resulted from the DMR program. Maybe these anecdotes and opinions have some bias, but I tend to believe that a lot of what he tells about the modern deployments of the M14 is probably closer to the truth than what the fanboys have written.
It's also worth noting that much of what was written in the article is not the authors own words. The detailed listing of the deficiencies found in 21 rifles taken from inventory for example, is straight out of a military report done in 1961 or 62. The author can hardly be accused of bias in repeating that.
The M14 had the second shortest official service life as a primary arm of any rifle ever adopted by the US military. And if you look at how sluggishly it was introduced to the actual troops, and how quickly it began to be phased out by a "special purpose" successor (AR-15), it probably beats out the Lee Navy rifle for title of shortest practical service life.
The US government undertook several internal DoD reviews and at least one congressional inquiry into why development of the M14 had taken so long and cost so much to produce a rifle that seemed so difficult to manufacture yet functioned so poorly.
Several foreign governments were politically pressured into trialling the M14 as a service rifle, but after giving them a brief review not one other nation even put it on the short list for consideration. When the US government gave tens of thousands of M14s to Israel for free, the Israelis turned around and sold them on the international market (many of these ended up in Canada) to generate some money to buy other weapons.
This is not an honourable service history. I have long felt the reputation of the M14 was a fantasy of blindly patriotic Americans who could not accept the fact that their system had created a rifle that was singularly unsuitable for its task. And I have often wondered what the truth was of the much ballyhooed line of the "M14 is still in service today" that resulted from the DMR program. Maybe these anecdotes and opinions have some bias, but I tend to believe that a lot of what he tells about the modern deployments of the M14 is probably closer to the truth than what the fanboys have written.
It's also worth noting that much of what was written in the article is not the authors own words. The detailed listing of the deficiencies found in 21 rifles taken from inventory for example, is straight out of a military report done in 1961 or 62. The author can hardly be accused of bias in repeating that.
I have a 305, it's okay but does not shoot as well as my old issued C1A1. I'll sell my 305 soon and long for a day when I can legally use an FN, I agree with most of the O.P. I get much better accuracy out of my Savage even with Norc crate ammo which doesn't shoot worth #### out of my poly 305. Both will be for sale soon and will contain these warnings. The only good thing about my 305 is the ARMS 18 scope mount. To accurately shoot the M1a it has to be loaded to 2450 fps which is 30-30 territory using Hornady LE ammo so for a hunting rifle I can accurately shoot and cycle my pre 64 Winchester 94 with a Williams peep as quick as an M1a shooting NATO loads and be carrying half the weight.
Well, at the muzzle velocity is comparable but the .308 will have more foot lbs energy, keep its kinetic energy for longer and have better ballistic at long range.
Also, I love my 30-30 too.
I love my 305 , not because it's the best but because it's a fun project that I enjoyed building and got to meet some cool like minded people . As for the article above , I'm sure there's some truths to it but what there referring to ( I think ) are off the "shelf " or rack rifles for gi's , now our rifles have been extensively fiddled with or tuned , new stocks , spring guides , etc, etc ...... All of this makes them much better than a standard issue . Now will it out shoot a ar-10 ? Of course not , nor will my wife's Volkswagen 74 super beetle out drive a 911 Porsche , does this make the VW ####ty some how ? Not by a long shot why , because it's apples to oranges comparison . Quite frankly a good mechanic has more than one wrench , and that's why we all have more than one rifle in our collections . Would I like a ar ? Hell ya I would , but not if its a range only rifle , there's a lot more interesting guns out there that aren't restricted and work and perform better . Oh and the idea that the AR's are going to be non restricted strikes me as completely ludicriss and a pipe dream at best , sad but true :-( . Enjoy your m-14/305 for what they are , hard hitting reliable moderately priced projects that bring smiles to our faces . Ernst
Last edited:
Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
It seemingly appears that tradition and traditional practices are the only things standing in the way of progress.
The Canadian Army has had a pistol grip on it's rifles since 1953.
Last edited:
Gunnerlove
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Vancouver Island
I am interested in this documented success.
If I could have put as many rounds through my M1A as I did FNC1's and beat it up as much only then could I judge it as combat reliable. Other than some jamming I only ever had one major malfunction with FN's. The hammer pin extension broke. Thats not a field fixable part for infantry guys. My M1A was fun to shoot, reasonably accurate with iron sights but I will reserve judgement on if it was a good combat weapon.
