Just curious on the thoughts of some of the members on this forum on their opinion of the U.S.M-14 7.62mm rifle as compared to our C1 7.62mm rifle, i realize that the neither rifle is current issue in both countries, except i have heard that the U.S. has issued some M 14 rifles,on a small scale again for certain units, just thought maybe some former Canadian Army types may have had a chance to use the M 14 when attached to U.S. Forces, also curious what U.S. troops opinion on our C1 rifle was,. :idea: :idea: thanks :?:
Opinion of the U.S. M-14 vs our FN C1 Rifle
- Thread starter x westie
- Start date
The M14 is fun BUT... nothing compares to the FN. Yeah it's big, yeah it's heavy (compared to today's MBR's) but it shot great and worked flawlessly. You didn't have to worry about the stock breaking either when the butt plate was used for introductions! 
Regards,
Regards,
Last edited:
i also "learned "on the c1/c2, but prefer the 14- i didn't care for the charging handle on the left because i'm left handed, there was no way to quickly adjust for windage,( i think you had to monkey with the front sight) and mine never seemed to work- always had to adjust the gas regulator to almost the highest setting- this was about 1970 or so, so maybe the ones we got were getting pretty tired-some of the guys had trouble with the rear sight falling down too- esp the c2 - now the 14 just seems to be designed right- charging handle where it's supposed to be, thinner foreend( like a rifle, not a shotgun) and the sights are adjustable for both - plus there's a option to mount a scope- any scoped fn i saw had a special body cover that replaced the regular one and was still thin sheet metal-
DaveMachine
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- That one place with a cowboy complex
DaveGP said:
Obviously they aren't looking in the right places. :twisted:
- Location
- Calgary, AB
Used to have an FN-L1A1 ( British rendition), very capable machine, well made battle rifle, also large and weighty. I do appereciate the size/weight difference of my M14/M305.
FAL are still in use by a few Central /South American forces in Bosnia. Kind of tell the whole story.
One weakness US forces found in Vietnam was the M14 wooden stock tended to warp out of shape in humid tropical climate. This of course was before the extensive use of fiber glass stock with the M14/21 today
One weakness US forces found in Vietnam was the M14 wooden stock tended to warp out of shape in humid tropical climate. This of course was before the extensive use of fiber glass stock with the M14/21 today
I carried the C1A1 for 18 years. Also competed with it for about 10 years.
I've also owned and extensively fired both the M-14 and M305.
C1A1:
Good balance, better sights capable of finer adjustment. In well serviced condition the rifle can shoot better than most users. Straight line stock and pistol grip give good control during rapid fire. Pistol grip allows a good range of trigger contact but is not as "natural" as an orthodox rifle stock and good trigger control can be difficult for some people, especially those with hams for hands.
Magazines are very rugged and reliable but not invunerable to abuse like opening several cases worth of non twist top beers. All the same, hard to damage in normal operating conditions (As a side comment, the pockets of the old combat uniform shirt could be used to carry 6 magazines, although no one ever actually did as doing so was no good for doing anything other than perhaps walking slowly for a short distance.
Pockets were far better suited to carrying packs of regular size smokes, a note pad etc).
Reliable, but not utterly so. You can run out of gas adjustments and the regulator will foul up until almost frozen if sufficiently dirty. A tool to turn the regulator and scrape the carbon off it and the gas plug is provided in the cleaning kit if no one lost it last time out. Completely cleaning the regulator itself requires knocking out the gas tube pin and unscrewing the locking bolt which connects it to the receiver so the regulator can be removed. Not a quick job for the user in the field. Carry handle was a plus, usually for hooking it into the frame of a 64 pattern ruck for the long hikes (like trotting all over Cornwallis island, loaded up like a pack mule), otherwise not often used as rifle was either slung in the field or being used for arms drill in garrison. Was handy for carrying 4 or 5 back to the arsenal. Freqently became loose and would rattle about, get caught on gear etc.
Locking shoulder needs replacement from time to time. Axis pin can become worn/loose as can the locking lever. Fore end halves held on by one screw which can be lost. You can gun tape them on until it gets hot but it's not much of a fix. Same with breaking the handguard halves. Hump on the stock behind the rear sight beats up the cheek bone nicely.
Field stripping is easy but leads to a pile of parts such as breech block, carrier, body cover, gas plug, piston, piston spring etc.
When well maintained, the C1A1 was more than adequate for it's purpose.
M14/M305
Dirt simple to strip. Less parts to loose. Almost impossible to shut down except with defective ammo. Sights not as fine as the C1 but still very useful. Off the rack M14 or M305 shoots as well as any similar condition C1. Magazine not as rugged and more easily damaged. In it's day they were probably considered semi disposable. Mag latching does not provide as positive a lock as C1. A damaged operating rod spring guide will prevent proper mag instalation as will a damaged slot on the front of the mag. More of the magazine is also exposed on the M14. Orthodox rifle stock is better suited for long range shots (for me, anyway). Likewise, it allows a more "natural" (for me, in any event) feel for the trigger and is deep enough to accomodate a fair range of hand types. Stock to rifle bedding is superior to the C1 and there is no flex between upper and lower receiver or loose handguards to be concerned with. Gas system requires little user maint but again, is not invunerable to filth. Having said that, it will take more crap than the C1 before quitting.
C1 bayonet was good for a wide variety of uses and made an excellent all purpose tool for opening ammo crates, cans etc. About as sharp as a nerf ball so carry a pocket knife. M14 bayonet is nice and pointy and is also sharp. Having never pig stuck an enemy (or friend, for that matter) I cannot attest to the usefulness of the C1 bayonet for that purpose. In my opinion the M14 bayonet would be a nasty bit of work in the belly but you will go hungry or have to live on John Wayne cookies if you haven't got your trusty p38 can opener. Likewise, have a pry bay around for ammo crates and the like as the dainty profile of the M6 bayonet is not up to the task.
I'm sure others will have much more to say. These observations are just some quick and dirty stuff off the top of my head. I am not a weapons tech, weapons designer, or veteran mercenary nor do I play one on TV.
:wink:
I've also owned and extensively fired both the M-14 and M305.
C1A1:
Good balance, better sights capable of finer adjustment. In well serviced condition the rifle can shoot better than most users. Straight line stock and pistol grip give good control during rapid fire. Pistol grip allows a good range of trigger contact but is not as "natural" as an orthodox rifle stock and good trigger control can be difficult for some people, especially those with hams for hands.
Magazines are very rugged and reliable but not invunerable to abuse like opening several cases worth of non twist top beers. All the same, hard to damage in normal operating conditions (As a side comment, the pockets of the old combat uniform shirt could be used to carry 6 magazines, although no one ever actually did as doing so was no good for doing anything other than perhaps walking slowly for a short distance.
Pockets were far better suited to carrying packs of regular size smokes, a note pad etc).
Reliable, but not utterly so. You can run out of gas adjustments and the regulator will foul up until almost frozen if sufficiently dirty. A tool to turn the regulator and scrape the carbon off it and the gas plug is provided in the cleaning kit if no one lost it last time out. Completely cleaning the regulator itself requires knocking out the gas tube pin and unscrewing the locking bolt which connects it to the receiver so the regulator can be removed. Not a quick job for the user in the field. Carry handle was a plus, usually for hooking it into the frame of a 64 pattern ruck for the long hikes (like trotting all over Cornwallis island, loaded up like a pack mule), otherwise not often used as rifle was either slung in the field or being used for arms drill in garrison. Was handy for carrying 4 or 5 back to the arsenal. Freqently became loose and would rattle about, get caught on gear etc.
Locking shoulder needs replacement from time to time. Axis pin can become worn/loose as can the locking lever. Fore end halves held on by one screw which can be lost. You can gun tape them on until it gets hot but it's not much of a fix. Same with breaking the handguard halves. Hump on the stock behind the rear sight beats up the cheek bone nicely.
Field stripping is easy but leads to a pile of parts such as breech block, carrier, body cover, gas plug, piston, piston spring etc.
When well maintained, the C1A1 was more than adequate for it's purpose.
M14/M305
Dirt simple to strip. Less parts to loose. Almost impossible to shut down except with defective ammo. Sights not as fine as the C1 but still very useful. Off the rack M14 or M305 shoots as well as any similar condition C1. Magazine not as rugged and more easily damaged. In it's day they were probably considered semi disposable. Mag latching does not provide as positive a lock as C1. A damaged operating rod spring guide will prevent proper mag instalation as will a damaged slot on the front of the mag. More of the magazine is also exposed on the M14. Orthodox rifle stock is better suited for long range shots (for me, anyway). Likewise, it allows a more "natural" (for me, in any event) feel for the trigger and is deep enough to accomodate a fair range of hand types. Stock to rifle bedding is superior to the C1 and there is no flex between upper and lower receiver or loose handguards to be concerned with. Gas system requires little user maint but again, is not invunerable to filth. Having said that, it will take more crap than the C1 before quitting.
C1 bayonet was good for a wide variety of uses and made an excellent all purpose tool for opening ammo crates, cans etc. About as sharp as a nerf ball so carry a pocket knife. M14 bayonet is nice and pointy and is also sharp. Having never pig stuck an enemy (or friend, for that matter) I cannot attest to the usefulness of the C1 bayonet for that purpose. In my opinion the M14 bayonet would be a nasty bit of work in the belly but you will go hungry or have to live on John Wayne cookies if you haven't got your trusty p38 can opener. Likewise, have a pry bay around for ammo crates and the like as the dainty profile of the M6 bayonet is not up to the task.
I'm sure others will have much more to say. These observations are just some quick and dirty stuff off the top of my head. I am not a weapons tech, weapons designer, or veteran mercenary nor do I play one on TV.
:wink:
- Location
- Central Pacific
Otokiak said:
Here's a FAL type with a few M14 types.
GG&FB
The weight difference is pretty minimal. The early M-14 ( the one the FN competed against in the US Army trials) used an M-1 Garand butt plate and that version weighed 1 pound or 455 grams less than the FAL.
In general, I agree with EOS' assesment. Atho' for me all the C1A1s (and C2s for that matter) seemed to have some disturbing loosness between the front and rear halves leading to some wandering points of impact if one wasn't very careful.
And I loved the ability to detail-strip the trigger mech, with no tools, very quickly.
One never knew when it would be suddenly required to clean-out any small pieces of foil that accidently fell into the trigger mech. :twisted:
I also loved the folding, non-recipricating cocking handle, which for me was on the correct side.
In general, I agree with EOS' assesment. Atho' for me all the C1A1s (and C2s for that matter) seemed to have some disturbing loosness between the front and rear halves leading to some wandering points of impact if one wasn't very careful.
And I loved the ability to detail-strip the trigger mech, with no tools, very quickly.
One never knew when it would be suddenly required to clean-out any small pieces of foil that accidently fell into the trigger mech. :twisted:
I also loved the folding, non-recipricating cocking handle, which for me was on the correct side.
Splatter said:
I must concur on the cocking handle. Easy to do IAs without removing the shooting hand from the pistol grip (for right handers, anyway). Also, the safety on the C1 was thumb operated and could be manipulated easily by the average hand.
Both of these features are superior to the arrangements on the M-14 IMHO
Actually, I prefer the <push-pull> M-14/Garand type safety, C1 was easy to operate; but I always humped the C2, and the extra rotation almost needed the left hand.
I got the system down so that as I briskly flicked the 'safety' past "semi", I would give a mighty jerk in the trigger and that was enough to continue the rotation to "auto", or course, sometimes the lever would hang-up between "semi" and "auto" and give me "nuthin'"
I got the system down so that as I briskly flicked the 'safety' past "semi", I would give a mighty jerk in the trigger and that was enough to continue the rotation to "auto", or course, sometimes the lever would hang-up between "semi" and "auto" and give me "nuthin'"
Splatter said:
Never had any time for the C2. C6 came 30 years too late. I remember going on FTX with members of the Jamaican Defense Force in late 70s and having MAG 58 envy.
Most fun with the C2 was shooting candles in the dark on FA with subcal kits on the indoor range. Live fire with ball was a different matter as stoppages were very common and mag loading was a pain, even with the loaders. Getting beaten senseless by flailing bipod legs that wouldn't stay locked up is another fond memory as are barrel burns.
Mag loaders? You mean the things for stripper clips or something else?
I didn't mind loading the mags by hand.
And my experiences with ball ammo are just the opposite, super reliable, not so much with blank.
And were't the sub-cal kits the cat's pajamas? Almost as nice as the sub-cal kits for the Carl Gs
I didn't mind loading the mags by hand.
And my experiences with ball ammo are just the opposite, super reliable, not so much with blank.
And were't the sub-cal kits the cat's pajamas? Almost as nice as the sub-cal kits for the Carl Gs
Splatter said:
Stripper clip guide for magazines. Slipped over the mag.
You must have been issued the C2 that actually worked well. I heard that some battalion had one :lol: Actually, I'm perhaps too critical of the C2 but I would not have wanted to get into a prolonged firefight with one. Bren or BAR it is not.
BTDT!
Back in the dark ages, like it was the 60's man, I was trained as an infantryman and later as an Infantry officer on the FN C1 A1 with the C2 as the SAW. They were BIG, UGLY, HEAVY, and when you humped them and their fighting load of 7.62 ammo off into the bush, you had something to remember.
After I played around with the AR 10 [ Genuine Artillery Ingesprecht Sudanese and Portuguese ] I decided I had found something better. Ergonomically superior, lighter recoil, faster to use for repeat aimed shots OR on R&R, and just a better design for accuracy. At least as reliable and durable as the FN.
Somewhere around 15 or twenty years ago, I chopped up an original AR 10 into what I thought was the world's first AR 10 carbine. 18 1/2" barrel, skeletonized butt stock AR 15 round handguards, and pistol grip, and the front half of the carrying handle milled into a Weaver base. Mounted a Red Dot in front of the original sights, and had the best CQB rifle I've ever tried.
Of course, I wasn't first with such a concept ... Later on I learned AI actually built a very few Civilian Semi Auto Only "Pilot Survival" rifles which were almost twins to my effort. Apparently the Dutch airlines actually bought some, for their polar route [ Polar Bears are so much bigger than poodles, eh? ]
When the GENUINE AR 10 types dryed up around in the early 1990's, I switched to the Genuine M-14 rifles. Parts were availabe. they were almost as accurate as the AR 10 [ after a bit of minor tweaking ]. However they were not quite as good at fast repeat shots OR R&R.
These days, I have a few AR 15 rifles, a shorty Chinese/USGI Bastard M-14 with a folding stock, and am thinking seriously about getting rid of all of these and getting back into a NEW AR 10.
BUT, which AR 10??
So far I'm undecided between the Armalite and the Bushmaster. Either one, my choice would be the 16" "carbine" version [ or a custom chopped 18 1/2" ] Flat top with an ACE skeleton rear stock.
Anyone want to share their experience with the NEW AR 10?
Any one got an AR 10 they want to trade for an M-14 Shorty?? An AR 15 target?? or a Glock 17 C with all the trimmi9ngs??
Larry Z
Back in the dark ages, like it was the 60's man, I was trained as an infantryman and later as an Infantry officer on the FN C1 A1 with the C2 as the SAW. They were BIG, UGLY, HEAVY, and when you humped them and their fighting load of 7.62 ammo off into the bush, you had something to remember.
After I played around with the AR 10 [ Genuine Artillery Ingesprecht Sudanese and Portuguese ] I decided I had found something better. Ergonomically superior, lighter recoil, faster to use for repeat aimed shots OR on R&R, and just a better design for accuracy. At least as reliable and durable as the FN.
Somewhere around 15 or twenty years ago, I chopped up an original AR 10 into what I thought was the world's first AR 10 carbine. 18 1/2" barrel, skeletonized butt stock AR 15 round handguards, and pistol grip, and the front half of the carrying handle milled into a Weaver base. Mounted a Red Dot in front of the original sights, and had the best CQB rifle I've ever tried.
Of course, I wasn't first with such a concept ... Later on I learned AI actually built a very few Civilian Semi Auto Only "Pilot Survival" rifles which were almost twins to my effort. Apparently the Dutch airlines actually bought some, for their polar route [ Polar Bears are so much bigger than poodles, eh? ]
When the GENUINE AR 10 types dryed up around in the early 1990's, I switched to the Genuine M-14 rifles. Parts were availabe. they were almost as accurate as the AR 10 [ after a bit of minor tweaking ]. However they were not quite as good at fast repeat shots OR R&R.
These days, I have a few AR 15 rifles, a shorty Chinese/USGI Bastard M-14 with a folding stock, and am thinking seriously about getting rid of all of these and getting back into a NEW AR 10.
BUT, which AR 10??
So far I'm undecided between the Armalite and the Bushmaster. Either one, my choice would be the 16" "carbine" version [ or a custom chopped 18 1/2" ] Flat top with an ACE skeleton rear stock.
Anyone want to share their experience with the NEW AR 10?
Any one got an AR 10 they want to trade for an M-14 Shorty?? An AR 15 target?? or a Glock 17 C with all the trimmi9ngs??
Larry Z
