What is the best and worst thing that you can say about the M14?

steelgray

steelgray

Regular
Rating - 100%
37   0   0
Location
Ottawa Valley - Ontario
The M14 became the standard-issue rifle for the U.S. military in 1959[8] replacing the M1 Garand rifle in the U.S. Army by 1958 and the U.S. Marine Corps by 1965 until being replaced by the M16 rifle beginning in 1968. It was a controversial gun, which took about three decades to develop and then had the shortest service life - as a standard-issue rifle - of any modern US military gun.

Yes, I know about continuing - use in "niche" circumstance. Big deal, the Northern Rangers still use Lee Enfields

What is the best and worst thing that you can say about the M14?
 
I guess the open nature of the action just like the garand...the action is more exposed to mud, snow etc....the FN and AR actions are better in that regard....as is the AK which is just a covered version of the same garand action and over-gassed to the max.....making it ultra reliable but less accurate....all in all as a infantry rifle I don't think it was that bad as long as the full auto feature was blocked....for open country like Afghanistan I kind of wonder if the boys would have been better off humping F.N.s and M-14s, at least the 308 cartridge would do better at those ranges especially if wind was involved...having chatted with a Falklands War vet he felt they would have been at a great disadvantage had they been armed with 5.56mm weapons and the argee's still had their 308s....open country and wind were a big factor there....

at the end of the day I think the Vietnam War is what killed the M-14....
 
great battle rifle no doubt about that. they are substantial, they are reliable, they are not cheap to feed.
the only down side is the springfield offerings being too dang expensive. thank god for norinco lol.
 
steelgray said:
The M14 became the standard-issue rifle for the U.S. military in 1959[8] replacing the M1 Garand rifle in the U.S. Army by 1958 and the U.S. Marine Corps by 1965 until being replaced by the M16 rifle beginning in 1968. It was a controversial gun, which took about three decades to develop and then had the shortest service life - as a standard-issue rifle - of any modern US military gun.

Yes, I know about continuing - use in "niche" circumstance. Big deal, the Northern Rangers still use Lee Enfields

What is the best and worst thing that you can say about the M14?
Click to expand...

interesting question.
From a civilian owners point of view : I always viewed the M14 as an affordable dual duty hunting/survival/zombie apocalypse/walter mitty rifle. And who's kidding, I have to admit I have always had a fascination with this particular rifle.... why I don't know. I like the robust action and mechanical workings, and the ability to modernize the rifle from that cumbersome unit they entered into service. Becoming intimately familiar with the platform and the tools for it, I am able to highly modify the traditional rifle into a very handy and reliable unit that is far more ergonomic and lighter. So 'for me' the best thing about the original m14 is that it paved the way for guys like me to have a life long hobby and it inspired me to educate myself on gun smithing , lathe and mill work, design of accessories and led me down the road of becoming a stock maker. Stock making in composites opened the door to other work in composites..... and I have to thank the M14 rifle as being the inspiration for it all.

the worst thing.... hmmmm , I started modifying the rifle because I personally find the flash hider unwieldly, the 22" barrel unnecessary and the full size stock simply doesn't fit all shooters. And the last thing I hate about the m14 is Canadian magazine restrictions LOL
 
7.62 nato round was developed with some bullying from the US, with memories of WW 1 and 2, and an expected additional war in Northern Europe. As was mentioned, Vietnam and the jungle war made the shorter, lighter M16 and especially the 5.56 round much more attractive. I read once that the US planned on 600 rounds per man per day during the height of the VN war. At the same time Canada prepared for 200 rounds per man with the FN, if Northern Europe actually erupted.

I have always wondered how much the military-industrial complex and $$$ influenced the adoption of a new rifle and associated gear.

Back to the OP, I have a couple M305’s that I had shortened to 18.5 inch. Louder, but a lot handier and a lot of fun to shoot. The best things about the platform in my opinion is that they were cheap and got a lot of guys shooting, or shooting more. As Tom says, they are addictive and stimulated a cottage industry for a while.

They have fallen out of vogue with newer stuff on the market but still a fun shooter. My biggest complaint is finding cheap brass for reloading.
 
They are clunky ergonomically for sure. As a battle rifle the wide open action is a bad design for dirt and debris.

The pros for me far outweigh the cons though:
Reliable action
Very simple and easy to work on.
The iron sights are some of the best stock sights ever put on a rifle ever.
Heavy hitting full powered extremely common caliber.
Can be modernized with all sorts of plastic #### if you're into that (good aftermarket product)
It's a great looking rifle aesthetically.
You could use it to pound in a railway tie and it would probably fire as straight and reliably as ever lol.

And of course with the very solid quality older norc models all over the country and everyone jumping on the AR10 bandwagon, it's a buyers market for those that still appreciate them.
People are practically giving them away these days.
 
steelgray said:
To me, the best thing about the M14 is that it would have been a great battle rifle for WW2.

The worst thing about the M14 is that it would have been a great battle rifle for WW2.
Click to expand...

I agree with you....honestly I think the M-14 and the FN FAL were intended to fight a war like korea...armies are always prepared to fight the LAST war not the current one...
 
Last edited:
I honestly love mine, but I do have it listed on EE.
The way it looks, the way it feels and the way it sounds when shooting I ####ing love it! But I am afraid of investing more money into it to try and accurise it more which I crave. I need an sub moa gun or whats the point ;(
 
The look of a wooden hunting like gun stock with a big military style box mag sticking out the bottom always drew me to this rifle for some reason. The gun is just intriging. Heavy it is, but it's also balanced. Overall it's simply a joy to shoot.

Like others, I do think that the this gun would have been better suited in open country then jungle. I'm kind of of the opinion that an army simply needs two types of weapons depending on the war their fighting, but that's not going to happen for obvious reasons.
 
Pros:
Its a sturdy rifle,good accuracy,excellent iron sights,great caliber to work with. I just love the feel of that rifle in hands.

Cons:
More expensive to feed if compared to some others caliber

Last word, i got my Norc M14 since 2010? 2011? and even if i never used it alot,still like new and i am not gonna part with it ever! Too good value for the money.
 
The us got rid of the 14 as a standard issue rifle, not because there was anything wrong with the m14, but because warfare evolved in vietnam. Spray and pray became the norm, and a small calibre light rifle allowed far more rounds to be carried.

Later, in gulf 1 and onward, soldiers have had to lug ever more gear and electronics, making a heavy rifle less desirable than a smaller arm. Troops also rely more on air support and artillery for ranged attack than individual marksmanship.

As a 7.62x51 thumper, the m14 is as good as anything else out there with the possible exception if latest gen AR based systems.
 
Pros
M14: full auto capability
M305: inexpensive
M1A1: Made in the US

Cons
M14: impossible to get or own
M305: next best thing to an M14 but still not an M14
M1A1: Made by Springfield
 
Garaldtao said:
Pros
M14: full auto capability
M305: inexpensive
M1A1: Made in the US

Cons
M14: impossible to get or own
M305: next best thing to an M14 but still not an M14
M1A1: Made by Springfield
Click to expand...

I like this. However there are certainly folks who legally own original M14s in Canada. In fact, having shot these original M14s I can really say that the originals are really no better than the early Polytech that I own. As for the comparison between Norincos and Springfield Armory guns, the Norincos have more tool marks but use forged receivers - not castings like the Springfield Armory guns.

People make a HUGE deal about the fact that one early lot of Norinco had bolts that weren't properly heat treated but that is REALLY OLD NEWS and totally over blown.

Coincidentally, I personally blew the bolt and mag out of a real 12.3 Winchester M14 on a bad day. My fault on a reloading error. I'm still here and the gun has been fixed. Life is good and isn't black-and white. M14s aren't the paragon of perfection and M305s are terrible guns. It is all shades of gray
 
Pros: I love the vintage looks and 7.62 old battle rifle feel!

Cons: doesn't compare against modern rifles like the AR platform, but then you're comparing apples and oranges
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom