Why is it so hated? I understand why it was bad as a military service rifle, but what's wrong with it for civilians?

Just but one of sweaty ben's from RRA. That or get the spaghetti M14.

The bm59 was the perfect evolution of the m1 garand. The m14 was a Springfield lie to get money from the government. Seriously, the only reason it won was the dod being full of Springfield shills, and the lie that it could use mostly garand tooling (hint it couldn't). It's also just a bad gun when it finally came out of development hell, it woukd be a good ww2 gun, but ww2 was 15 years ago and the soviets already had modern assault rifles, while the rest of the world had modern handling battle rifles.

>gas system
Valid point, but Pointless improvement really. Not only that but the short stroke m14 still didn't fix the main issue which was powerful gas impulse, it did better self regulate but that doesn't really matter if the military just used the same ammo or had adjustable gas regulators.
>muzzle device
What?
>mag
Bm59
>recoil...
Bm59
>full retard
Bm59. Also came with a built in bipod for actually using the full auto
>308
Bm59.

It's a gucci civilian rifle, it's just outclassed as a combat rifle. That's it. Everything else boils down to
>I don't like thing

Your fortune: Reply hazy, try again

Thank you for your service

Don't forget the BM-59 had a nifty winter trigger for shooting with mittens and a muzzle attachment for launching rifle grenades. Plus, the BM-59 used far more of the Garand's old tooling, another plus over the M14. I'm not even here to shit on the M14, it's a gorgeous gun and if you can buy one that's not from Springfield, or even a used one that is (let's be honest, they already got their money when the previous boomer owner paid for it) then you absolutely should if you want to. It's just telling of the innovation that comes out of budget concerns and a looming Soviet threat in Europe that the gobbagool gobblers could dab on Springfield Ordinance like that.

Assuming you're being sincere and not satirizing ARFCOM posts, thank you for your service. I only wish that the military had deployed more of you guys to places like Berkley and NYU than Vietnam, it would have worked out better for us all in the long run.

Attached: bravemendefendingquadhillagainstcommunistinsurgents1970decolorized.jpg (900x631, 100K)

Now i feel bad. Rising Storm 2 is a video game, i wasn't expecting anyone on here would not know what RS2 stands for. Sorry user.

>heavy

get stronger

>BM59
I'm not doubting Beretta's ability to make a better gun (they did).

It's still annoying if you're carrying the thing for 20 miles. Every ounce counts.

You can build them pretty light but a standard M1A in a walnut stock is a big chungus of a rifle.🏀

as a military rifle it was outclassed by the AK-47 for jungle warfare, and basically on par with the SKS for everything else.

As a civilian rifle theres no reason to want one other than "it look cool" when an AR-10 will do the same stuff only better.

By the time it finally arrived it was noticeably out of date. By the time it reached civilian hands it was horribly out of date

>caliber is larger than most people need

t. gunlet

>You be the judge.
Paul Harrell is that you?

What's wrong with Springfield M14/M1As?

lol dude it just sucks get over it

>need

kys

>need
SHALL

I'm just genuinely curious, I haven't heard anything bad about them before.

dude it's made of wood

troglodyte boomer lol😃

nah, most of the people here don't mention springfield when shitting on the m14 unless someone is going to buy one.
they act like it's incredibly inaccurate.

see shit like
No one buys a fucking battle rifle for top tier accuracy, ergonomics, or really top tier anything.
Everyone who gets a battle rifle gets it because they like it and think it's fun to shoot. For some reason G3s and FALs get a pass because they have more coolboy points. None of them are "good rifles" by today's standards, which is why barely anyone is fielding them in any actual modern conflict.
No one defends it but everyone attacks it.

It's overpriced from (((springfield))), and the way the stock attaches to the receiver leads to the accuracy being limited and very finicky. Other than that it's a nice rifle.

Limey larpers will buy a FAL instead, poorfags and utilitarians will get a G3 style gat, and it just doesn't have enough rails and aftermarket parts to please the ARfag.

I hear that brother. 127th RS2 vet here. Hill 937 is hell without my trusty M14. I dont want no teenage queen when I feel that steel in my hands,

Springfield receivers, and some smallerparts, are cast instead of being forged like the milspec rifles were.
And generally they are overpriced.

so basically people get butthurt for the same reason as the mini-14
fucking hell now I want one

Your fortune: Very Bad Luck

>delicate op rod
"I don't understand the tensile strength of steel": The post

let us all know the performance difference that stems from springfield making their stuff cheaper for boomers.
it's negligible difference for a big affordability boost. if it breaks, their warranty covers it as well.
I'm not here to shill for springfield, but the shit you guys use as ammo to say why the m1a from them is bad is retarded and a huge reach.
i doubt you'd tell the difference from a JRA m14 and a SA m1a if i had you shoot a full mag from each.
markings aside, the differences would be felt in trigger above all else which is a separate design choice by each manufacturer.

them damn millianals cant handle a real mans rifle. heh must be them damn chemicals the guvment is puttin in them damn yuppies onions lotays, yep 762, that right there is a mans cartridge

-----------------------------------------------
Pvt. Bill Boomerstein (Ret)
USAF 1996-1997
USPS 1997-2019
"9mm takes a life, .45 takes a soul"

basically, except the shitting on springfield armory themselves is valid. look into springfield armory hate.
they later apologized and rescinded their nonsense but the damage was done. however they seem to be doing fine now

Need meaning it would be better to have higher capacity

soulless imposture that only reminds me of one of the best threads we had in months

the m1a was never a service rifle user

It might break your scope, and finding a good optic mount in the first place is a challenge. But aside from that, It's a handsome rifle and you can baby it to be a pretty decent bench target gun.

Attached: upotte_m14.jpg (1600x1200, 783K)

Kel love these cringe gunforum posts.

>It might break your scope
source?
> finding a good optic mount in the first place is a challenge
no, people just don't like to pay for the known good ones.

An actual negative of the m14 when using a scope is that your natural cheek weld is too low so you either have to adjust which gets tiring after awhile or slap on a pad to compensate.
this isn't a unique problem to the m14/m1a though in the battle rifle family

>semper fi
OORAH MARINE

Asking what was wrong with the M14 is like asking what was wrong with a lot of weapons designs of the 1950s that didn't last long in service. What was wrong with the B-58 or the F11F? Nothing, really - they were just developed at a transitional time both in terms of technology and doctrine. The M14 would have been fine for what it was actually designed for, which was combat against Soviet forces in the fields and forests of central Europe, at a well-defined front, close to friendly supply lines. Just like the B-58 would have been fine for what it was designed for - launching from England and then hauling ass into Russia to drop a single nuke. Neither was really suited to the kind of combat we saw in Vietnam or the counterinsurgency doctrine that resulted from it, though. (True story: The USAF painted a single B-58 up in Vietnam camo and used it to test whether the aircraft could be used for the kind of bombing we were doing in Vietnam. It couldn't, and the fleet was retired in 1970.) They both got replaced by projects based on rapidly-advancing technology (the M16 and the F-111, respectively) that suited the new doctrine better.

But they were both fine for their time and place, and had no more teething problems than any other weapons of their age, including the ones that replaced them.

Attached: imageproxy.jpg (1496x1122, 87K)

The difference is the M14 was not good as a battle rifle when it was in service, while the G3 and FAL have distinguished careers.

The mini 14 is actually a good rifle, its just not as affordable, or modular/customizable as the AR platform.

You service your thank for.

>need

Attached: EE1D0DFC-0939-48C4-8728-46326A3A0F35.png (500x570, 136K)

Because, aesthetics and personal preference aside, they're not as good of a value as an AR-10 or PTR in terms of accuracy. The design is dated enough that new productions will not perform to modern standards out of the box (though they accurize well, and there is a decent aftermarket). OTOH, being magazine fed, in a relatively modern caliber, in new production, and only 60 years old it gets compared to modern battle rifles whereas things like the Garand are not. If people just thought of it as a slightly improved, magazine fed Garand, they wouldn't hate it, because they wouldn't feel that it was trying to compare to modern rifles. The proof of this is in the fact that people like BM-59s, which are actually modernized Garands, and objectively worse in every way than an M14 besides the muzzle brake. Also, zoomers masturbating to pictures of rhodesia and tacticool retards with an irrational hatred of anything associated with older generations.

USGI M14s were more accurate than FALs, by a decent amount. Plus FALs can't really be accurized due to shitty bolt lockup, whereas the military was able to create sub-MOA shooting M14s across multiple generations (match rifles, M21, mk14 EBR).

OK to buy from Springfield now, IMO
thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/05/john-boch/springfield-armorys-gun-rights-turn-around/
tl;dr a lobbying group which they shared with another manufacturer, acting (they claim) autonomously traded support for a gun control bill for carving out an exception for SAI and the other company. Upon public backlash, they dissolved the lobbying group, and poured resources into getting the bill trashed, and they actually succeeded.

It was a poor fit as a standard infantry rifle in the jungles of Vietnam, but variants have performed well as marksman rifles. In that role it is better than FAL/G3. It's less 'tactical' given the frontloaded weight and high bore axis.

Gee, it sure would be nice to be able to get a BM59 for less than an M14 or M1A.

...

Gay and bluepilled.

>had no more teething problems than any other weapons of their age
Yeah, i remember the ak47 being scrapped and replaced by a totally different design with 10 years of its introduction

I know it's a boomer meme now but I worked with a guy who was in Vietnam doing mostly route clearance in a USMC demo unit and who saw action.

He swore by the M14 and owns a Springfield M1A now.

It really might just be a matter of older guys who grew up using and shooting old fashioned, wood stocked, rifles with a wrist preferred the familiarity the M14 offered vs the m16.

and what the fuck does that have to do with modern day civilian usage?

> they're not as good of a value as an AR-10 or PTR in terms of accuracy.
they have similar accuracy and are not that much more expensive than a PTR
the ceiling of accuracy for an M1A/M14 are much higher than for a G3 clone or FAL of any kind, so for marksmanship training or just pushing yourself and a rifle, the m14 is superior.
aka range use.
I won't pretend that it's not more expensive to maintain those numbers but to maintain accuracy on par with any PTR or FAL you'll have no problems. None of the big 3 battle rifles are that accurate and no one should give a shit when they're 2-3 moa in the first place

It basically took the Garand action and made it worse by adding an intermediary short stroke piston when the M1's long stroke operation was just fine.
Besides that, it wasn't really as bad a rifle as people say. It's both lighter and more accurate than the FAL, yet you'll never hear someone talking about how the FAL was too heavy a rifle for the Aussies in Vietnam. Recoil is greater than that of the FAL and neither rifle was substantially reliable. Overall, I think it gets a bad rap because a) it beat out the FAL, which everyone gets their cocks wet for because of Rhodesia, b) it was intended to replace not just the M1 Garand, but also the BAR and M3 Grease Gun, which it absolutely could not do, and c) the M16 really outshined it when it came out, making the M14 look that much worse.

Honestly boomers drive the gucci M14 market with the 'muh forged' meme.

SAI casts are basically as strong as USGI forgings would have been. Plus cast parts can be harder, meaning less risk of the receiver lengthening from bolt knocking over time, with the tradeoff of a higher risk of cracking. Regardless, that problem is completely averted if you just make sure the rifle cycles properly by replacing worn out op rod springs.

sounds like a fudd who only likes his gun because he used it and justifies that in his head. Imagine thinking that the gun you were issued, that you had no choice in the matter with, was the "best" gun.

I agree. I just firelapped the barrel on my M14 today and saw my groups shrink by ~30%. Also been doing a lot of fitting work making sure none of the barrel connected components have tension exerted on them by the stock/op rod/handguard, and that has improved accuracy a good bit too. They're good project guns.

My father was the same way and it took forever for him to accept the AR15 as a good rifle. A lot of the folks who were in before the A1 version came out had to deal with the guns that weren't optimized for the different powder loadings the US military issued, and didn't have properly chromed bolts and non-chromed chambers and barrels. It's not hard to see why someone whose first experience with the rifle was something like that would say "hey I want my M14 back." All the plastic certainly didn't add much confidence. As my boomer dad said, "you couldn't smash someone's head in with the buttstock," which was apparently something you needed quite often in Vietnam. He also didn't trust the early 55gr 5.56 projectiles and complained about their lack of penetration.

>Yeah, i remember the ak47 being scrapped and replaced by a totally different design with 10 years of its introduction
Nice cherry-picking. Of course, the SKS was replaced in Soviet service within 10 years of its introduction, and was only saved from obscurity by the fact that the Chinese took a liking to it. And the SVT before it didn't even last that long in frontline service. As for the M16, its teething problems were legendary and still dog its reputation to this day. And that's not even to mention the problems with heavier weapons, like the notorious "lieutenant killer" jet aircraft of the era. The F-104 is the most famous of those, but the F-105 and F-111 had reputations that were just as bad in their early years of service until their technical bugs got worked out and good SOPs were developed for them.

So no, the M14 was by no means unique in the general outlines of its service history.

There is no "best gun". There only is the "best gun for you". If guy is extremely proficient with a weapon, can field strip it blindfolded, knows it like the back of his hand, served with it and it saved his life multiple times, and he is thankful for it's reliability, chooses it as his personal defense weapon, then I say he made a wise decision. Wisdom always trumps knowledge. Shit you've experienced in life and learned from weighs more than second hand information that ANYBODY can get. He choose that weapon for personal defense because of those things. Why did you choose yours?

>There is no "best gun". There only is the "best gun for you". If guy is extremely proficient with a weapon, can field strip it blindfolded, knows it like the back of his hand, served with it

Imagine being so fucking stupid that you think it's in anyway impressive for a soldier to know how to use the weapon they were expressly trained with. As if a weapon that you were issued and had no choice in deciding means anything at all. Whether your issued weapon saved your life or not means nothing and has little to do with what you should be using instead. I was issued an M16A4 with a non-adjustable stock. I would never use that gun as a civilian because I'm not some moron that can't adapt and train with a different gun that would suit my individual needs better.

>Imagine being so fucking stupid that you think it's in anyway impressive for a soldier to know how to use the weapon they were expressly trained with.
Imagine being so fucking stupid that you failed at reading comprehension and that is what you got from my post. Don't choke on any crayons before you reply to this post you windowlicking shitbird.

My green beret mom loved it in nam, wouldn't put it down

>Clips lighter than mags

cli- oh, wait, this time someone is right. congrats. en bloc.

He knew user, u just didnt get the joke

man, and i thought i accidentally pulled some mean joke on an old, unsuspecting boomer.

>drink 2 monsters a day
>just bought an m1a
*sip*
Yep...

Attached: 1529256289156.jpg (380x349, 35K)

The M14 didn't really have that many teething problems. It worked fine.
It was a great design for a service rifle in 1935.

it's objectively worse than an ar10

it's also objectively worse than a pile of racoon shit.

so are the ptr and fal
point?

>G3 and FAL have distinguished careers.
If you consider being obsolete barely a decade old as soon as the M16 was introduced "distinguished."

>the M16 made battle rifles obsolete

Attached: 1553345053833.png (193x200, 37K)

not him but what do you think made battle rifles obsolete?

Are you going to try to tell me a FAL or G3 is better than an A10?

*AR10💚

Attached: 300px-AR10_Armalite_vue_d'ensemble.jpg (300x225, 18K)

my part of the world only gets the china and Mexico made ones

No heavier than most other BRs.
18" M14geries are a thing.
Actually does a lot of things quite well.
Can be had much cheaper than you'd think.
There is plenty of aftermarket.
.308 is pretty damn useful.
Less of a problem than people claim, unless you routinely stuff mud into your action. A little dust won't hurt it at all. I've shot mine in dust/dirt plenty, but I wasn't shoving it right in.

As for the op rod, that's an issue on the M1 but not really the M14, which is short stroke and bleeds off any excess gas pressure. You'd have to fire proof loads or something crazy like that to bend it.
By muzzle device he means flash hider.
And the BM59 is a better take on the concept of recycling/updating M1s, but side to side it's not really any better or worse than a properly sorted M14. People just like to think it is because Ian said so.
It's long, sure, but still weighs like 9 lbs. Mine's 8.5 unloaded with the full 22" USGI barrel, USGI wood stock, sling and metal buttpad.

Mexican-made M14s?

my mistake

Attached: NORINCO M305.jpg (600x337, 50K)

>sendra receiver
This is the only version that matters.

Attached: AR10_ReceiverMarkingsLeft.jpg (800x600, 132K)

*cervix

everyone should just carry a M2HB

What if you live in a ban state? What other BR options are there besides M14/M1A?
Need muh 308

>What if you live in a ban state?
then your a fag

Are you retarded?

Featureless AR 10
The meme paddle grips are fucking gay but at least you can have a normal mag release

Bm59, ptr, fal, scar, ar10, are all better options.

>a normal mag release
Simply not having the same mechanism that an AR has doesn't make something "abnormal", newfag.

Not him but pretty sure he meant relative to a Calicucked AR10

>most plebs in the game prefer the m16
REAL FUCKING NATO YOU GODAMN GOOKS

Have you shot all of these guns, or did you type this post with your anus?