Why I Despise the M14...
- Thread starter Rebel Rouser
- Start date
For starters, there are a lot of former US soldiers who carried them that still love the M14. The guy in the video is being deliberately one sided, but not every proposed weapon system he talks about would have been as ideal as he lets on, and the M14 is not all that bad either- it's still in use after all. The other side of the coin is that in the current endless war, in the open and treeless environments of the Middle East and Afghanistan, the 5.56 cartridge is consistently found to be inadequate, so it's not the be-all and end-all, of course not, and the move should be back to a heavier and more modern calibre- that ain't happening any time soon either.
The truest thing the guy talks about was the deliberate sabotage of the M16 system when it was first issued- that was well known at the time and actually made the US Army despised by the very people that should have been most supporting it. In a less political army, firing squads would have been the probable result.
The truest thing the guy talks about was the deliberate sabotage of the M16 system when it was first issued- that was well known at the time and actually made the US Army despised by the very people that should have been most supporting it. In a less political army, firing squads would have been the probable result.
I'm seeing a lot of hate towards the M14 down south on the various YouTuber gun channels. Granted most 'hosts' are the garden variety characters who've developed a following due to their personality way more than their knowledge, but even the odd more respected channel such as InRange has little positive to say about it. The M14 seems to be very polarizing, loved or hated, few in the middle. I dare say we Canadians have embraced it so lovingly more than partially due to its non-restricted status and the cheap availability of chinese clones.
We didn't get safety glasses for my first 22 years in the army, somehow we managed not to be douches...
Battle rifles have their place as section and platoon marksmen rifles. As a general issue rifle, unlikely anymore. The soldiers I joined with 80 were almost all experienced shooters and mostly rural. The soldiers now are mostly urban and unfamiliar with firearms. The level training needed to get these recruit up to scratch with hard recoiling FN would be cost prohibitive. 5.56 is the city boy army calibre.
One thing usually not mentioned in these kinds of discussions is the ongoing failure of the U.S. intelligence community to provide accurate, timely data on the likely threat.
In this context, developing an infantry rifle that was basically meant to counter Warsaw Pact troops armed with the SKS, and not even hearing of the AK until the M14 design was finalized.
Even once they had finally obtained some AKs to study in the early '60s, it was written off as a crappy little overpowered submachinegun and was deemed to be vastly inferior to the M14, let alone the upcoming SPIW wunderwaffe, and of course it took some bitter combat experience to suggest otherwise.
In this context, developing an infantry rifle that was basically meant to counter Warsaw Pact troops armed with the SKS, and not even hearing of the AK until the M14 design was finalized.
Even once they had finally obtained some AKs to study in the early '60s, it was written off as a crappy little overpowered submachinegun and was deemed to be vastly inferior to the M14, let alone the upcoming SPIW wunderwaffe, and of course it took some bitter combat experience to suggest otherwise.
Talk about ruffling feathers...lol
These are the same people that say Harley makes the best motorcycle or Ford makes the best Truck....
Talk about ruffling feathers...lol
These are the same people that say Harley makes the best motorcycle or Ford makes the best Truck....
You'll have to show me where this happened here. I personally am a big fan of the AR platform.
Only because our FNs and then the next most popular, the G3s, were banned from being owned by most owners here. There was nothing else available in 308 semi. If it wasn't for the non-sensical legal category, no one would have bothered to buy any if FNs were still avaiailable.
It is heavy and brutal recoil for being that most fighting occurs under 200m.
He's got some good points, especially about the US Army's Ordnance Corps. They were the ones that forced the 7.62 NATO round on NATO, when the British had something much better in the EM1- EM2 rifle and cartridge series. (yes, I watched the entire video)
He's also right that the Ord. Corps tests of the M-14 vs the FAL were a complete sham. The US Army wanted the M-14 and lied about it's producibility among other things (it was supposed to use the majority of existing Garand tooling to manufacture - the reality was quite different) so as to make the FAL fail. If one wishes, one can read Hatcher's Notebook in which he describes the actual testing of the M-14 vs the FAL (I found the bit about the FAL failing winter tests where the M-14 passed most amusing
)
Having used FAL's in the CDN Armed Forces and shooting a civilian M-14 (M-305 Norinco) I can say that the FAL is better balanced, has better ergonomics, is about the same weight, easier to shoot, and most certainly easier to maintain in the field. Neither one is controllable on full auto as the cartridge is just too powerful and the rifle is too light.
IMHO the only advantage the M-14 has over the FAL is its sights, but those are just M1 Garand sights designed for accurate fire out to 1000 yards - which capability is only used by the best marksmen in the unit (designated marksmen) as the German Army discovered at the end of WW1.
The M-14 ISN'T a bad rifle, but there were much better ones available even for the average infantryman in the mid 50's.
He's also right that the Ord. Corps tests of the M-14 vs the FAL were a complete sham. The US Army wanted the M-14 and lied about it's producibility among other things (it was supposed to use the majority of existing Garand tooling to manufacture - the reality was quite different) so as to make the FAL fail. If one wishes, one can read Hatcher's Notebook in which he describes the actual testing of the M-14 vs the FAL (I found the bit about the FAL failing winter tests where the M-14 passed most amusing
)Having used FAL's in the CDN Armed Forces and shooting a civilian M-14 (M-305 Norinco) I can say that the FAL is better balanced, has better ergonomics, is about the same weight, easier to shoot, and most certainly easier to maintain in the field. Neither one is controllable on full auto as the cartridge is just too powerful and the rifle is too light.
IMHO the only advantage the M-14 has over the FAL is its sights, but those are just M1 Garand sights designed for accurate fire out to 1000 yards - which capability is only used by the best marksmen in the unit (designated marksmen) as the German Army discovered at the end of WW1.
The M-14 ISN'T a bad rifle, but there were much better ones available even for the average infantryman in the mid 50's.
Last edited:
People would still buy them if FN and G3 type firearms were non restricted.
They are both very good guns and when you could, I put the rounds through them. G3's are hard
on brass. FN's are great, L1A1, L2A1,C1A1 are the best because Canada used to have a lot of parts for them.
They are both very good guns and when you could, I put the rounds through them. G3's are hard
on brass. FN's are great, L1A1, L2A1,C1A1 are the best because Canada used to have a lot of parts for them.
BattleRife
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- of No Fixed Address
Nope, his take on that is as distorted as anything else he spews. Nobody "sabotaged" the rifle to get soldiers killed and make the M16 look bad. Some testing was designed to bias against the AR15, but that was years before the rifle ever saw service in the field.
