The US ditched this beauty for the M16A1

I own one and I love it, but I freely admit the M14 was outdated by 20 years when it was introduced. The US should have put money into developing the AR-10 instead.

>Is there a worse battle rifle than the M14?

here's the king

Attached: Enfield_L85A1.jpg (740x287, 88K)

Not arguing one side or the other but why is the effective range of a 14" barrel 5.56 M4 rated for 600 meters, and the 7.62 loooong barrel M14 500 meters? I'd have guessed 1000m minimum

Forgot Pic.

Attached: M14 fags wish they were this good.jpg (289x320, 17K)

>Should have been replaced overall by the M16 but should have been kept around at the squad level to get “muh long range engagement”

fucking what
we already had the AR-10 for years by the time the AR-15 was designed. Why would you use the inaccurate M14 instead of using a superior rifle with an identical manual of arms to the M16?

Attached: AR10.jpg (1280x960, 274K)

>exceptionally accurate
you know how i know you're nogunz little guy?

Attached: 1509585241919.gif (322x178, 2.56M)

The M14 isn't a bad gun. It's better than the Garand. But it had no reason to be made in the late 1950s. WW2 showed where the future of small arms was going and it wasn't full-stocked, machined steel, semi-auto, battle rifles.

The M14 could have been introduced in the mid 1930s. White's gas system was in a competing rifle and Garand was thinking about using BAR mags.

That works, pretty well in fact, can fire in full auto and weight just as much as the POS in question.

That's an assault rifle not a battle rifle.

>>doesn't have 0 tolerance for foreign objects
nogun pls go away

An unbelievable number of brave young men were found dead slumped over jammed M14 rifles. It's shit.

In another timeline, the U.S. adopted FAL's instead, and all was well with the world.

>It's better than the Garand
How?

>exceptionally accurate

the M14 was not accurate. It's easily the worst of the Big Three battle rifles, being less accurate, less reliable, and heavier than either the G3 or FAL.

Attached: pew.jpg (1024x768, 122K)

haha

The Italians basically did just that years before the M14 got out of development hell.

>twig
The majority of 18-25 year old grunts are twigs. They don't hand a 20lb M249 to the scrawny kids. And for patrolling around doing nothing, yeah a 12lb battle rifle and the 7.62 ammo sucks and is why soldiers have fucked knees and backs.

A mini 14is like half the weight of a m14.

Militaries should have went 5.56/ 5.45 a loooong time ago.

The U.S hasn't designed a good firearm since 1894.

Go back to akfiles nigger.

>better than the garand.
Yea maybe in 1940. The Italians made the better m14. The bm59 was more reliable, more controlable in full fun, cheaper to make and had more features (bipod) while weighing just a little bit more. The m14 is an example of government favoritism.

Wasn't a battle rifle. It's a niche paratroopers rifle and excellent for its role. Which was a sorta cross between light machine gun and battle rifle.

The fuck do you mean, "how"? It fires a superior cartridge and takes 20-round box magazines instead of enbloc clips. It's literally just a straight upgrade.

Why does the saw even exist?
Wouldn't giving every platoon a 240 be the most sound idea since then all platoons can manage the same level of suppressing fire with their mgs and can provide longer range fire.

M14 7.62 fags btfo.

Marines were even late to the game for keeping 20" M16's around for way too long.

Attached: Screenshot_20181026-103833.png (1080x1920, 535K)

>How?

Now I know this is a troll thread. The only thing the M14 did worse than the Garand were some early production QA/QC problems.

>Much better gas system
>Better accuracy potential
>Muzzle device
>Lighter/shorter and better balanced
>Lighter cartridge with nearly identical ballistics
>Removable magazines, plus stripper loading

If the M14 had come out before WW2 it would have become a legend, and then would have been replaced by the AR-10 in the early '60s.

I owned both an SA52 Garand and a golden-years M1A at one point. Still have the M1A.

>20-round box magazines instead of enbloc clips.
Some Garands could take 20 round box mags just as well and Enbloc clips are not a disatvantage for the Garand.
>Superior cartridge
If the US army really wanted too the could have converted the Garand to fire 7.62. Instead of wasting money on a retarded project.

Even Chad will shoulder and aim a light weight carbine faster than he would a heavy battle rifle. There are plenty of photos of big guy operators using short barreled rifles because they're adequate at the ranges they fight and faster.

>Burgerland
Kill yourself eurotrash

Each M240 bravo requires 2 guys to operate efficiently, to my knowledge. It's a specialty tool.

An m1 garand can maintain an almost equal rate of fire with an m14. The magazine was barely an upgrade with how fast enblocks are to reload. And unlike what video games tell you, you can't just throw away your magazines like you can your clips. and the Italians, made 308 garands.

>better gas system
Except the gas system on the m14 was a waste of time and the main reason it sucked and cost so much . Everything else the garand could have been made to do. Again bm59 was already in service.

>>beautiful wood furniture
So does the BM-59, and that gun can be made on M1 Garand tooling

>>exceptionally accurate
Since when is 5-7MOA exceptionally accurate? More often than not a FAL outshoots it, and the G3 runs fucking circles around it at 2-3MOA

>>doesn't have 0 tolerance for foreign objects
Except it does, a MAS-49 can take more abuse before choking up, FAL's and G3's are more reliable

the bastard of the m14 is the 7.62 NATO (.308 Cuck). see m21

So does the SAW unless the gunner is really conservative with his ammo, which he shouldn't be because it's a machine gun.
>It's a specialty tool.
All nations militarizes but the US give every platoon a full size cartridge MG.

Effective range could mean a lot of different things.
>could be when the cartridge goes subsonic or could be when the cartridge reaches some other arbitrary velocity
>could be the limit of the mechanical accuracy of the gun from a vice at torso sized or sometimes bigger targets. It could also be the mechanical and practice accuracy combination from the soldier as well.
I'm guessing it's accuracy related though given that the factory ones were just a little less accurate than the M16s on average

To be fair the USMC should have went with the M16A5 conversion - collapsible stock 20", with a later switch to a free float rail, new uppers purchased would be 18".
They cucked to the M4 and HK416 instead

Because m14 had no chance to win against the ak-7

Less accurate than an FAL? Lol.

The reason why everyone goes for the HK416 is because Heckler and Cocks can manufacture in the volume necessary to outfit an army. Outside of the Comblock national armories and FN I can't think of any other company that can churn out enough guns.

Absolutely zero reason to not have this directly after the Thompson.

Attached: Screenshot_20181026-104741.png (1080x1920, 647K)

You do realize admitting the M14 was a better rifle than the Garand doesn't mean it was a better strategic decision, right? The US would have been better off not making the M14 (instead of keeping the Garand until the AR-10, or adopting the FAL, etc.) but it doesn't mean the end result was a bad just. Just a stupid move for the time period.

And the M14's gas system was the biggest improvement over the Garand. It's self-regulating and its position effects the barrel harmonics much less than the M1's. People knew this before WW2 but the Garand was hobbled by Ordnance guys who thought gas-traps and full-length gas systems were necessary.

>>Much better gas system
The white gas system is shit, the Garand proved itself and the BM-59 alleviated the issues without a drastic re-design

>>Better accuracy potential
The Garand is a 4-5MOA Gun
The M14 is a 4-7MOA gun

>Muzzle device
Inconsequential, the Garand had clamp on flash hiders, the BM-59 had a combination Hider/Comp/Grenade Launcher

>Lighter/shorter and better balanced
Barely lighter, and the Garand is finely balanced, the M14 is heavier rearward

To drastically increase the firepower of an infantry squad, but the SAW is a heavy beast and it's only gotten worse.
Every Infantry platoon has 2 M240's
M240L's have replaced the M240B for dismounted use - they are like 5lbs lighter, 6 with the short barrel and new buttstock (they are issued with a full stock)

>the detractors of the M14 are so eager to screech at someone they take the world's most obvious bait
The M14 is fine. The M1 is fine. The BM59 is fine.The M16 is fine.

Attached: this is fine, stalker.gif (592x570, 386K)

Jow Forums, how feasible would it have been to theoretically mass produce a magazine-loaded select fire rifle using 1940s technology (assuming cost and red tape wasn't an issue).

I'm writefagging a scenario where one of the Allied Powers decides to field the T20 (M1 Garand converted to accept BAR mags) after encountering the German StG 44 and by September of 1944 have already equipped several airborne divisions with it.

Attached: M14E2.jpg (1191x887, 362K)

A non bedded GI spec wood M14 will be outshot by a FAL. As for newer Springfields, who knows, they have polymer and some of the guns have bedding blocks in the stocks (National Match)

Did some Youtube personality just make a Garand and BM59 video I'm not aware of? Pretend experts like this always come out of the woodwork when something gets published.

The US should've adopted the M1 Carbine as their primary rifle during WW2, and they should've mass-issued the M2 Carbine until the M16 was adopted.

Attached: 30Carbine_u3.jpg (1400x746, 158K)

The M14 weighed over a pound less than the FAL, when they were both introduced.
The BM59 and the M14 both entered service in 1959, but I believe the BM59 was the better rifle.

Attached: 5938CA79-C798-4A36-801E-700CCA7E220D.jpg (3264x2448, 1.22M)

What people forget about the T20 is that BAR magazines are utterly shit and unsuitable for being rigged onto a new rifle. If you wanted to deploy something not shit it would need to be an entirely new magazine design like the BM59 and M14.

The BM-59 is superior to the M-14 by every appreciable metric
>Shorter
>Better Gas System
>More controllable on Fully Automatic
>Non-retarded Bipod
>Can be made on Garand Tooling
>Combo hider/Brake/Grenade Launcher
>Proven Garand reciever
>Better scope mounting
>Carbines so good that SEAL's bought BM-59 stocks from Italy to modify and mount on their M14's

>how feasible would it have been to theoretically mass produce a magazine-loaded select fire rifle using 1940s technology
The BAR, Chauchat and RSC-17 could do it with WW1 technology.

The biggest issue for a select fire rifle is getting the tolerances loose enough or the gun tight enough to deal with a global conflict and to have reliable mags.

To be honest the best weapon to fight the StG-44 would be an M2 Carbine not an M1 Garand with box mags.

>Jow Forums, how feasible would it have been to theoretically mass produce a magazine-loaded select fire rifle using 1940s technology

The M2 is the exact weapon you're looking for
youtube.com/watch?v=P03r1d3s6Us

The M1 Carbine was supposed to be select-fire to begin with, but this feature was dropped so that they could produce them as quickly as possible

>how feasible would it have been to theoretically mass produce a magazine-loaded select fire rifle using 1940s technology

??? Several countries did. In the US all the parts to make the M14 were in place in the mid 1930s. The biggest problem was that the US was very late to appreciate straight-line stocks for controllable full auto.

Anyone who has shot both will tell you the BM-59 is a better rifle, and mre importantly the BM-59 is actually a mag fed Garand, the M-14 is an abortion

are battle rifles not a bit shit in the first place ?

>5-7 moa
What are you talking about? M14s are 4moa guns on a bad day. Not to mention their rediculous potential accuracy if you put any effort into them.

the Fal doesn't come close the the g3 or m14 as far as accuracy because of its tilting bolt.

The M2 had the same problem as the M14 in full auto, it just wasn't as much a deal since the cartridge was so weak. M1 magazines were shitty too.

Nice bait

Not the scar h

Well since you seem so knowledgeable about it I figure I'll ask. What does the clip latch do on a magazine fed rifle? I always ask and no one answers me.

Attached: _dsc05d31.png (800x600, 286K)

I'm not saying the M14 is better than the BM59 you drooling potato. It's just not a bad gun like you're autistically making it out to be. They're both similar means to the same end--an improved Garand. And there's nothing fucking magic about "muh Garand parts." Side-by-side the Garand the M14 receivers are nearly identical.

Only if you have a bagina.

>it just wasn't as much a deal since the cartridge was so weak.

.30 carbine's muzzle energy is roughly equivalent to 5.56

it wasn't a perfect design, but it was a handy, versatile, select-fire, intermediate-caliber carbine - it was the EXACT kind of gun that everybody realized was the future by the end of WW2 (except the Americans themselves, of course, who proceeded to squander the design and waste time with .308 for another decade or so).

That guy's an idiot. But to answer your question, it's a bolt holdopen.

Ah I got you.

Yeah maybe a new manufacture Springfield with a properly fitted stock, there are many reports from the .mil in the 50's and 60's of the M-14's accuracy woes, alot of this was quality control, some Garands even outshot them.

>the Fal doesn't come close
The FAL might be a 5MOA clunker, but the accuracy was uniform
The M14's had shit quality ontrol, they got more innacurate as they took abuse, and the stock swelled causing further inaccuracy. A mint 4MOA M-14 would end up a 7MOA gun.
You can beat on a FAL and it stays 5MOA.
And the M14 will never compare to the G3, ever.
The M14 needs a rebuild with NM components, a bedded stock or chassis to even match or beat what a bone stock G3 is capable of, The most accurate G3 variants were Sub-MOA, the most accurate M14 variants were just under 2MOA

Threads like these demonstrate why this country is going down the tubes socially. Nobody's really diagreeing about anything but they need to fight to prove who's more right.

All the guns talked about in this thread are fine. Some were just better at some things or better for a different time period.

Attached: DSC_7606.jpg (2304x1358, 711K)

The M16 is the best combat rifle ever designed. Prove me wrong.

>Side-by-side the Garand the M14 receivers are nearly identical.
>The US mil had to make entirely new tooling for the M-14 from the ground up, when the intent was to use mostly Garand tooling.

>To add insult to injury the US Navy made a .308 Garand, Italy had the right idea of things

>It's just not a bad gun like you're autistically making it out to be.

You are right, I'm being unfair.
It's worse, much worse than I'm making it out to be, it's a jammomatic that got soldiers killed as well

You're not contradicting anything I said, you know? They are nearly identical to the naked eye. The US was just too retarded to realize the small changes they were making required new tooling.

You’re not wrong friend. Mine all seem to be pretty accurate, but what the heck do we know.

Attached: 490E5D99-7A45-439C-8B49-B80A343FBECE.jpg (3264x2448, 1.68M)

M2 had it's own mags tho.
The M2 is an okay "assault carbine", because I wouldn't call it a full on AR unlike a certain tankie. Wish I had one.

This. 100%. Fuck k. Fuck you losers, get a life. Keep larping.

Attached: 1539686251756m.jpg (498x1024, 49K)

>Boomerlore american as apple pie M14
>Poo poo's the AR-10/AR-15/M16/etc which is the best Western Small arm ever devised, and also American as apple pie

(you)

>a bait thread on an alaskan boat building forum is a good example of society as a whole
fucking christ you're dumb. also the M14 is a piece of garbage.

Attached: 821ccba76d3fbf4ed26ecb283a26bbd764f14090_full.jpg (184x184, 4K)

Well this is a country that managed to get a hold of several hundred Fedorov Avtomats from the collapsing Russian Empire and had spent the last 20 years trying to reverse engineer it (with only limited success) until they got a hold of the American M1 and Browning Automatic Rifle and decide to literally combine the M1 with BAR mags as a stop-gap measure after encountering the StG 44 while fighting in Italy.

Would a rifle version of the M2 (i.e. same cartridge, but full length barrel) work? Was a long-barreled M2 ever considered in reality?

Attached: Aussie with M3 Carbine.jpg (786x600, 60K)

All guns are great, but not every gun is made equally, esp. when it comes to mass issue infantry small arms - the M14 failed in that role flat on it's face but it is still an aesthetic civilian "battle" rifle combining form and function (more of the former though).

You want to be a gun egalitarian then you can go suck start a Rohm .22

>USP owner
>Get a life larpers
Fucking worse than CZ fags

>folks are being contentious... on the INTERNET?
>this is why the entire country is fucked!
neck yourself

>Was a long-barreled M2 ever considered in reality?
Nope because the M2 was supposed to be just an upgrade of the M1 which was supposed to be a light easy to carry personal defense weapon for guys who didn't need an M1 Gayrand because Peestols make shit PDWs.

EXACTLY, the M14 has less US service time than the Krag-Jorgensen FFS

>Would a rifle version of the M2 (i.e. same cartridge, but full length barrel) work? Was a long-barreled M2 ever considered in reality?

No - .30 Carbine is basically just a mild .44 magnum. A longer barrel wouldn't help it in any way.

Our entire country is fucked because of (((Faggotry))) not because of dissenting opinions on the internet

Neck yourself glockboi

Doesn't the M1 Carbine fire a pistol round with delusions of grandeur?

It's practically a big boi revolver round. Still effective at killing gooks, in fact verry effective on soft targets. Just useless at range or through cover.

Attached: 1537983723677.png (1186x665, 441K)

GI service time. In limited service it's been around in one form or another to this day. Navy still uses them to shoot lines and sea mines. Most of the rest have been handed off to police departments and other countries.

Attached: U_S__Navy_Gunner's_Mate_2nd_Class_Nickolas_Graham_uses_an_M14_rifle_to_fire_a_shot_line_from_th (2473x1766, 862K)

Didn't we also use the Krag for stuff like line rifle duty?

xm177e better then m16a1 and m14

Attached: Troy-XM177E2-11.jpg (684x384, 16K)

Yep. It's a good way to use last generation rifles if you can't or won't surplus them.
>CMP M14 never
Feels bad man.

Attached: 1538072438134.jpg (764x1081, 336K)

The US Krag was in limited use until the 30's and saw Combat in WW1