PDA

View Full Version : this really broke my bubble with the M14


Cava3r4
June 02, 2015, 11:43
http://looserounds.com/2015/01/30/the-m14-not-much-for-fighting-a-case-against-the-m14-legend/

Broke my heart. I've been one of the believers of the 14 over the 16 in terms of KNOCK DOWN power in nam. And NOT at just long range either, I mean, dead as in NOW!

Cav

nyalaman
June 02, 2015, 13:31
If anyone searches enough, they can find data or statistics to support their cause,whatever that may be.

GunOwner2011
June 02, 2015, 14:10
I've never been to that site before, and to tell you the truth, I had a tough time trying to follow the author's line of thought, because he seems very disorganized.

He tried firing four guns at 1000 yards, using a scope on an enhanced AR15, (didn't mention what he did with the short barreled AR carbine), hand loaded match loads in a 1903 with irons, and factory loaded premium bullets in a LRB M1A with irons.

Doesn't seem to me like he was comparing apples to apples. I mean if you are trying to do a comparison of US military issue for accuracy purposes, why scope the ARs? If you are going to do that, wouldn't it be fairer to scope all four guns? If you are looking to compare ammo, wouldn't it make more sense to compare M193 and/or M855 against 30-06 M2 ball, and 7.62mm M80? The author made an case for why he used 80g hand loads in the AR (didn't mention if they were magazine loaded or hand loaded one at a time) and why it made sense to hand load to longer OAL than magazine length, but how is that a test of a combat effective gun and ammo. Does he really think that it makes sense to carry a gun and ammo in a combat situation that you would hand load one round at a time?

I don't think that anyone will try to say that the AR is not an accurate platform when used within the effective range of it ammo. It's just that from what I can see, that effective range is much shorter than 30-06 or 7.62mm X 51. Is the author trying to say that he can shoot 5.56mm at 1000 yards, so the AR is a better gun than a 03 or M1A because he can get hits (or more hits) at 1000 yards with a scope on enhanced AR with a scope VS an iron sighted 03 or M1A?

What exactly is the point he is trying to make?

hairygreek
June 02, 2015, 15:43
I'm wondering about the statement that the M1 was better in many ways than the M14.

Arby
June 02, 2015, 18:27
Here's a previous thread with comments on this article and the subject of the M-14:

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=382254

Jarhead504
June 05, 2015, 21:32
Yeah, yeah. So get an LMT AR-10 or a SCAR and know that masturbating is much safer than pursuing sexually active wimmin. I mean why take ******* chances, right?

Jarhead

ALL FAL
June 06, 2015, 16:45
Great article and aligns exactly with the $$ end of M14 madness and personally where the M14 has always been in my book.

01BIRDDOG
June 07, 2015, 09:50
I read these reports in depth every time a different one comes up and think it might be a generation thing in part. I know as Commander of our VFW Post it is hard to get new,young members to join. I had one tell me that they didn't want to hear stories about Vietnam and the M-14 as a reason to not join. I have been around this weapon since 1966 and never had any trouble with it or the M-16. Sure, it wasn't a scoped,well tuned DM type.....one i'm sure if dropped enough would cause bad problems to the accuracy, but a standard, issued M-14.
I'm sure also the current DM rifle (SR 25 Type ?) is tough as nails as compared to the old M-21 as far as taking a beating without loss of accuracy but i wonder if these Units baby, if you will their equipment to prevent any problems. Wish we had some current users to comment so it would at least be straight scoop reporting.
As a gauge to things i take note of the order the weapons are in my safe.....back rows occupied by Garands, M-1A type,bolt guns, HK91, AK type and for the most part FALs and L1A1's not shot or handled a lot. Near the front night vision equipped AR's, scoped, dead nuts accurate high priced scoped AR 10 type and suppressed hot rod AR's. Pistols the same way....best original 1911's in back moving up to Sigs and finally the use everyday Glocks. When someone get this all figured out let me know but to end it i know i beat the shit out of both with both doing the job at hand. http://oi61.tinypic.com/riyvc3.jpg

ArtBanks
June 07, 2015, 11:50
I am one of those that fell in love with the M14 in 1966 and used one in RVN in 1967 until it was replaced by the M16. As with the advances in the M16 type rifle , the changes in the M14 are amazing. Current LRB M25s and JRA M21s have no problems holding zero thanks to the integral rail systems.
As a modern day rifle enthusiast and paper puncher, to a degree, I still favor the M14 over other weapons.

http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x413/nf1e/IMG_0118_zpsq1c55fgt.jpg (http://s1180.photobucket.com/user/nf1e/media/IMG_0118_zpsq1c55fgt.jpg.html)

Semper Fi
Art

baker72
June 07, 2015, 20:35
http://looserounds.com/2015/01/30/the-m14-not-much-for-fighting-a-case-against-the-m14-legend/

Broke my heart. I've been one of the believers of the 14 over the 16 in terms of KNOCK DOWN power in nam. And NOT at just long range either, I mean, dead as in NOW!

Cav

im sorry for your broken heart:] I shall replace all your m14 types with new colt ar rilfes brand new in the box , please send me your rifles an I shall send you your AR's

the m16 is a great rifle its been in combat for a long time it lends it self to many easy updates it has always cost less than the m14, the ak47 might be the greatest combat rifle ever , some will so no its fal type others will swear that fals are a pile, my ford is better than your chevy lol good hug your m14 if you have one that's is :uhoh: its going to be ok

ArtBanks
June 08, 2015, 05:58
Me thinks I am too old to know any better.
The M14 has proven itself to me. Now it's my turn to do the proving.

http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x413/nf1e/IMG_0105_zpsgopvtkmc.jpg (http://s1180.photobucket.com/user/nf1e/media/IMG_0105_zpsgopvtkmc.jpg.html)

http://i1180.photobucket.com/albums/x413/nf1e/IMG_0102_zpspl3sc2ss.jpg (http://s1180.photobucket.com/user/nf1e/media/IMG_0102_zpspl3sc2ss.jpg.html)

Semper Fi
Art

bubbagump
June 08, 2015, 06:17
http://looserounds.com/2015/01/30/the-m14-not-much-for-fighting-a-case-against-the-m14-legend/

Broke my heart. I've been one of the believers of the 14 over the 16 in terms of KNOCK DOWN power in nam. And NOT at just long range either, I mean, dead as in NOW!

Cav

Mostly true from what I can tell, although it is only half the story. Color me one of those 'service rifle' shooters, I can attest to the fragility of an accurized M-14 and their rapid deterioration under match conditions. I can only imagine how much worse it is in the field.

As to the M118LR ammunition, even in a Georgia summer it's a marginal load for an M14. Beats the rifle to death, not exactly what a fragile, accurized M14 needs. Much better in a bolt rifle. For an M14 they would have done better to use a 155 Palma bullet instead of a 175 Matchking on that round.

The whole ergonomics thing is imo a cheap shot. With one glaring exception there is nothing at all wrong with the ergonomics of an M14 when fired in semi.

The thing I still find amazing is how few people ask why. Why the M14 at all? The M1 fires a superior cartridge instead of that cut-down french round and is faster on the reload.

That said, I really liked all the M14s I've fired over the years although I can't say I liked making brass for 'em. I do like and will never sell my M1a even though it's high maintenance. But I do recognize it's shortcomings.

b.

Alpha-17
June 08, 2015, 09:36
The thing I still find amazing is how few people ask why. Why the M14 at all? The M1 fires a superior cartridge instead of that cut-down french round and is faster on the reload.

Not sure what you mean by this. The 7.62 NATO loading is ballisticly the same as the old M2 Ball that the M1 Garand fired, until you really get out there. 7.62 NATO also has nothing to do with the French. While the Garand might be reloaded faster with an en bloc clip, that is more than made up by the M14's larger 20 round mag, which means fewer reloads.

On topic: I used to be a "true believer" in the M14/M1A, but when I actually started looking at it, I came to the conclusion that the M14 would have been a great combat rifle, if it had been adopted in 1943. By the time it had been adopted, it was very much behind the times, in terms of weight, style, size, caliber, and length. Even rifles that shared it's short comings were usually several years older, and were better in a few ways (weight, length, etc). As a former Infantryman, I can't imagine trying to do half of the stuff we did with a weapon the size of an M14, especially if the opposition was using something as short and light as the AK.

Even in it's current, reincarnated forms, the Mk 14 or M14 EBR, the M14 is stretched to it's limit, and is definitely at the end of it's life. When I was in the 82nd, we had to give up all of the M14s still in the Arms Room to a central post armory. They were stripping 'em down, and using them to plus up units going to Afghanistan. While this does demonstrate the need for a 7.62 DMR, this really shows the limit of the platform, if they only way they can keep 'em running is to cannibalize other weapons.

bubbagump
June 08, 2015, 09:58
Not sure what you mean by this. The 7.62 NATO loading is ballisticly the same as the old M2 Ball that the M1 Garand fired, until you really get out there. 7.62 NATO also has nothing to do with the French. While the Garand might be reloaded faster with an en bloc clip, that is more than made up by the M14's larger 20 round mag, which means fewer reloads.

On topic: I used to be a "true believer" in the M14/M1A, but when I actually started looking at it, I came to the conclusion that the M14 would have been a great combat rifle, if it had been adopted in 1943. By the time it had been adopted, it was very much behind the times, in terms of weight, style, size, caliber, and length. Even rifles that shared it's short comings were usually several years older, and were better in a few ways (weight, length, etc). As a former Infantryman, I can't imagine trying to do half of the stuff we did with a weapon the size of an M14, especially if the opposition was using something as short and light as the AK.

Even in it's current, reincarnated forms, the Mk 14 or M14 EBR, the M14 is stretched to it's limit, and is definitely at the end of it's life. When I was in the 82nd, we had to give up all of the M14s still in the Arms Room to a central post armory. They were stripping 'em down, and using them to plus up units going to Afghanistan. While this does demonstrate the need for a 7.62 DMR, this really shows the limit of the platform, if they only way they can keep 'em running is to cannibalize other weapons.

With respect to exterior ballistics, yes. Interior ballistics are quite different. The .308 operates at a substantially higher pressure to achieve the same exterior ballistics with respect to the M2 loading, and in an M14 it's pretty much at its operating limit which is one big reason M14s are as hard on brass as they are. And if the discussion moves from 'what does the Army in their infinite wisdom load' to 'what is the round actually capable of' the .308 isn't even in the same class. Tweak the M1's gas system and the loads and you have a rifle that gets within striking distance of what a .300 win mag can do. M14s not so much.

To the magazine question, it really depends on how practiced you are with the reloads I suppose. Four reloads in a Garand gets ya 40 rounds whereas one will get you there in a '14. With me it's close to a wash. While an M1 can be reloaded without taking the gun out of the shoulder I have yet to see anyone be able to manage this quickly in an M14. The real downside to the M1 (to me anyway) is that it cannot be 'topped off', have to shoot it empty before it can be reloaded efficiently.

Again and for the record I really like my M1A and will likely never get rid of it. But as you note they are past their 'use by' date.

ArtBanks
June 08, 2015, 11:55
Excellent point. The M14 can easily be topped off from a stripper clip without removing it from the shoulder. By the same token, magazine changes can me done quickly with very little practice. Especially if the adrenalin level is elevated.

bubbagump
June 08, 2015, 12:40
Excellent point. The M14 can easily be topped off from a stripper clip without removing it from the shoulder. By the same token, magazine changes can me done quickly with very little practice. Especially if the adrenalin level is elevated.

When empty, yeah otherwise you have to lock the bolt open, that's not easy to do in the shoulder. The point is it CAN be topped off without taking it all the way to empty, and yeah to me that's pretty important. Even the old Krag rifle had that capability. In fact the Krag design was brilliant in that it allowed the shooter to top off the mag without even opening the bolt.

As to mag changes and adrenalin and what constitutes a little practice, an efficient reload of both the M14 and M1 is gonna take some practice so it's probably a wash there too.

I personally prefer the ergonomics of the M1, managing the M14 for position shooting is a bit of a problem. But as they say, that's a good problem to have if the alternative is to pick up an AK.

b.

ArtBanks
June 08, 2015, 12:45
Rgr on the axes. My wife won't let me play with anything sharp. She is the wisest person in the house.

Warbirds Custom Guns
June 10, 2015, 13:32
Iron Brigade Armory has posted the same comments many times in the last few years & without giving credit to the many advancements made for the M-14.
I don't give much stock in 1 persons opinions since many others have already proven the that M-14 can hold it's own.

The M-14 is user servicable unlike many other MBR's that require special tools just to change a simple recoil spring to name just one.



.