M14

oy vey think of the six million bullets expended

this

do we really need one of these threads every day

It's not an FAL

Good is an understatement. It would have been hands down the best small arm of the war.
But that’s the thing. Like so many weapons, it was made to win a war already won. By the time it came into service the paradigm had begun to shift.

Attached: tumblr_mexkh6qmDN1qicteeo1_250.jpg (250x189, 22K)

And yes I know weapons don’t win wars, I just used the word for alliteration.

looserounds.com/2015/01/30/the-m14-not-much-for-fighting-a-case-against-the-m14-legend/

Honestly? It's not that the gun was bad, it's that the leadership was retarded. The AK47 was already adopted by the USSR when the US began looking into a new infantry rifle. Hell's bells, the Nazis were mass issuing assault rifles for years during WW2. WHY THE FUCK didn't American procurement officials see the value of assault rifles?

The entire reason "people" don't like it is a backlash against boomers who overrate it versus the "Mattel" M-16. I own one and I like it but that's the entirety of it.

Also we have this thread every day

they saw the value of benjamins in their pockets.

>I own one and I like it but that's the entirety of it.
that's pretty much how guns work for personal use. also same.
>Also we have this thread every day
it's bait and the OP will samefag to keep it alive. it's pretty pathetic but can ya blame em? people will argue the same shit every thread.

Attached: 1526923753186.png (689x540, 411K)

full auto fire wasn't very effective at all, the cartridge was too heavy and didn't afford any benefits for the extra weight it put on soldiers, the gun itself was heavy, the action was not well sealed from the elements, and overall the thing is large and unwieldy.

Real answer here.

It costs the amount of two M4 to perform the necessary upgrades/accurizing to make it shoot as accurate as a standard M4. An m110 costs less than an m14 with the necessary upgrades to shoot as accurate as an m110. You dont need a specialized gunsmith to work on m4/m16 style rifles.

The concept of the M14 is actually probably the best Idea the US Army Ordnance Corps ever came up with. The Idea to take your Current Issue rifle, add a box magazine, improve its gas system and chamber it in a more compact round with the same power is genius. But this is the Post WW2 US Military we are talking about. Of course they fucked it up. Blame the (((people in charge))) at Springfield for totally screwing the fucking pooch

Attached: 1462567171612.jpg (1920x1280, 876K)

obsolete before the first one rolled off the assembly line

Attached: m1a user opinion.png (1061x879, 156K)

its service life proved it was a capable rifle

Attached: pararescueman-ebr.jpg (600x400, 63K)

kek

M14 also sucks in adverse conditions.

>airforce pararescue

>capable

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA

Post your MOS fag.

Outdated design, outdated caliber, outdated materials, outdated philosophy.

AR-10 fixes all but one of those. AR-15 fixes all of them.

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I'll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I've been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I'm the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You're fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little "clever" comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn't, you didn't, and now you're paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You're fucking dead, kiddo.

>g3 is more ergonomic than m14
lol if you're andre the giant maybe. the m14's manual of arms and ergonomics are fine. this is a downside of the g3.
g3 doesn't even lock the bolt back on an empty mag forcing you to reach all the way up there and charge it on a reload
i love both rifles just fine but let's not get carried away

>changing mags is hard as fuck
for someone who's never used it maybe... really? Changing AK mags must be "hard as fuck" too.
>trigger sucks
g3 trigger worse
>set up dmr look literally anywhere else
g3 or fal cannot be made as accurate as an m14 can. but of course that same m14 will return to 2-3 MOA in no time, but you can't take any g3/fal and have a dmr.

your picture is terrible and doesn't say anything other than this dude, a guy who dropped hundreds to EBR his rifle only to find out that physics is a thing is not a trustworthy source of information, friend. there are reasons not to like the rifle, like the takedown of it, the installation of scope mounts, the length, the gas system...whatever
but what this guy mentioned isn't it.

so like every other battle rifle at the time?

Attached: 1523039418687.jpg (777x704, 36K)

It was painfully obsolete when it was first adopted and then the army spend 30+ years trying to force it into a DMR role which it isn't accurate enough for. The AR-10 does everything the M14 can do, and it does it while being lighter, more accurate, more controllable, and generally better in every way.

Not really, design and material were better for competitors like the G3 and FAL.

>t. manlet

And sharing the same manual of arms as the current issue rifle.

>which it isn't accurate enough for
for most of those decades it was just fine for the role. they had to develop a proper fancy AR10 to actually replace the damn thing, no off-the-shelf ar10 for most of that time was good enough.
could they have developed an ar10 that was superior during that timeframe? yes but the need wasn't there.
you're fucking fuming over an issue that wasn't really an issue

i am blessed and exactly 6ft. even guys bigger than me shooting my ptr can't fully operate the rifle without moving their trigger hand around. it's made for big boy hands and big boy hands alone.
and i do mean big

Attached: 1520509129608.jpg (1383x1950, 584K)

battle rifles lasted all of 2 decades before being effectively phased out by any military that could afford it.
all of them were big. all of them were 2-5MOA.
all of them had no consequential advantage over 5.56/7.62x39 at typical engagement ranges

just because folks kept using the fal and g3 (some still do) doesn't make them hot shit. better military rifles than the m14 for their role, for sure, but people inflate their superiority. the m14's reliability is shit on when even today it's fine and was never known for malfunctions when it mattered.

Nah, the M14 is a ww2 gun competing against cold war guns. G3s are more accurate off the shelf, FALs are reliable af (crank open the gas and blow the dirt out) and soft shooting on f/a, while AR10s were light af even by the standards of modern 7.62s, lighter than a SCAR of the same length. M14 on the other hand brought nothing to the table except manual of arms familiarity.

these threads are basically, this rifle based on a 1930s design isnt as good as these rifles designed in the 1950s

thats enough time to make the other obsolete.

cry harder bitch

I'm 5'10" and have no trouble operating my PTR. What do you retards do wrong?

yes saved

they have tiny hands to go along with their tiny brains.

You can technically get an M14 accurate enough to be a DMR, but it requires a very high investment in terms of man-hours, and it requires an extreme amount of careful maintenance to maintain that level of accuracy. It can also be easily knocked out of tune by any sort of abuse it suffers in the field, which is a very serious problem because any DMR is going to get knocked around quite a bit. The guys who got issued these things simply had to suck it up and make due, but there is no question that they would have been better off if they'd just been issued AR-10's from the beginning.

>G3s are more accurate off the shelf
you fucking what? you gonna provide numbers to back that up?
>FALs are reliable af
m14 reliability was never an issue of the rifle. g3s are also super reliable, so what?
>soft shooting on f/a
full auto battle rifles are dumb though and not a replacement for a dedicated mg. it's like using an m4 on full auto, almost never happens.
>M14 on the other hand brought nothing to the table
>except a big reason they started with it to begin with
also the stupid fucks wanted it to be a cheaply produced rifle using a lot of m1 garand tooling from the factories but lo and behold that didn't happen and they paid up anyway.

>m14 is a ww2 gun
is the equivalent of fuddlore, the rifle works fine. the g3 and fal aren't lighter. they're not more accurate until you provide numbers saying otherwise. I gotta go for a bit but can provide numbers to the contrary later

>ar10 ar10 ar10 ar10
the "ar15" wasnt even in service yet. it was a brand new design among generals who witnessed the m1 garand do good work for the worst war the world had ever seen.
an ar10 made back then would not have been as light as an ar15. The original m16 was ~7lbs upon conception and fired 5.56. you think an ar10 at the time was going to be 7lbs too?
the m14 is 9lbs unloaded. people always think the ar10 back then was on par with what we have today and it wasn't. it would've gone through the same growing pains as the m16

post your hand on the pistol grip and your thumb operating the selector switch from safe and fire. i doubt your thumb can operator it while still maintaining the high and firm pistol grip you use to fire.

The original AR-10 WAS 7 pounds, and it was the ONLY design provided that met the weight requirements set out by the Army which they had decided wasn't reachable.

The later models added weight to improve durability.

Except for the fact the M16 was more accurate in the hands of infantry than the M14
> In 1961 marksmanship testing, the U.S. Army found that 43% of AR-15 shooters achieved Expert, while only 22% of M-14 rifle shooters did so
>Battlefield reports indicated that the M14 was uncontrollable in full-auto and that soldiers could not carry enough ammo to maintain fire superiority over the AK-47
Also the army literally had to rig the tests between the m14 and M16 so that the m14 could win lmfao

Attached: C5016172-C0E1-4373-87E5-ECFE084F3B9F.png (1024x673, 25K)

On one hand its all a moot point because we should have gone with an intermediate round in the 50s and battle rifles should never have been a thing, but on the other hand it bothers people that we could have had a better gun but didn't due to fuddery and dogma. Its like, it shouldn't even be a discussion but we decided to pick a shit concept (BRs) and on top of that picked the worst choice, so the M14 is double shit. So people double shit on it.

Come to think of it, its the very same issue with the BAR. Not only was the doctrine a shit idea from the outset (walking fire=critical brain problems), but we picked the shittiest option when we could have just made or more ergonomic M1919, which in a way we did with the m240, it only took us 60 fucking years.

>The later models added weight to improve durability.
thanks for the assist. so you end up with a 9lb battle rifle either way even with the space age materials. funny.

Attached: 1523492236064.gif (112x42, 41K)

The AR-10 which existed in 1959 was already substantially better than the M14.

the m14 was adopted in 1959 and produced and designed in the late 40s.
its ok, they eventually replaced it with the ar10 and no wars or battles were lost because we used m14s.

The M14 weighs over 10 pounds loaded, so a 9-pound BR is still an improvement over that.

It mostly had to do with manufacturing and not being noob-friendly for combat.

Heavily machined parts make a strong rifle, but limits production without more facilities having the exact precision machining and expertise (in contrast to an HK G3 for example). And the .308 round is hard to control on automatic fire, unless you have a good muzzle brake on it.

If I had to pick though, I'd still be more confident with an M14 with a coast guard brake, rather than a modern M4.

so do the g3 and fal, friend.
the ar10 fully loaded at the time would have been ounces different. not 16 ounces either.

Because it was worse than most contemporary battle rifles, and an utter failure at even being a modernized Garand when compared to the BM 59.

>no wars or battles were lost because we used m14s
Meaningless either way, since it didn't win any either. Korea was a stalemate, Vietnam a loss and GWOT an abject failure.

But the original question was "why do people say the M14 was a bad weapon" and the answer is that much better alternatives existed at the time it was adopted, especially the AR-10.

my point was that the adoption of the m14 ended up having no demonstrable effect on any war efforts at all except being financially irresponsible.

a 9 pound AR-10 is still infinitely better than a 9 pound M-14

no the question is
>Exactly why the M14 isn't a good weapon?
your answer can't be "because the ar10 is a good weapon"
it's like saying "cuz the ar15 is a good weapon" meanwhile when they threw them into the field it was a shitshow and literally got people killed. does that mean the m16 was bad? of course not. but it had to go through growing pains.

Nope. The models sold to Sudan only weighed 7.3 pounds empty. The AR-10 was lighter than the M14.

Attached: dealwithit-raven.jpg (360x270, 82K)

>If I had to pick though, I'd still be more confident with an M14 with a coast guard brake, rather than a modern M4.
Try rucking with an M14 vs. an M4. You'll change your mind very quickly.

Attached: download.jpg (225x225, 11K)

how does that make the m14 a bad rifle, though? they would have performed effectively the same at the time in terms of accuracy and maybe reliability.

dont get me wrong i think if they had adopted the ar10 it would've been a superior choice, but people act like the m14 was a terrible weapon and the ar10 would've outperformed it in every way back in the 50s and 60s.

>but it had to go through growing pains.
The "growing pains" weren't anything to do with the gun though, shit ammo and no cleaning. M14 would have gotten plenty killed too if big army had issued it alongside subsonic loads and no cleaning kits without telling anyone. Thats not "growing pains", sabotage either through incompetence or spite. So yeah, the ar15 is a good weapon, fullstop; and that can presumably be applied to the AR10 too

>your answer can't be "because the ar10 is a good weapon"
Yes, it can, because weapons inevitably have to be compared against contemporary weapons. The Gladius was the best infantry weapon of the first century AD, but it would be woefully inadequate if it were introduced today, because it would have to be compared against modern infantry weapons. Likewise, the M14 was a terrible weapon when it was introduced, but if you took it back to era of the Gladius, it would outshine the competition pretty easily.

Attached: 300px-Uncrossed_gladius.jpg (300x300, 6K)

Nothing wrong with the rifle, it just wasn’t designed for the type of war that was being fought in Vietnam. Would’ve been excellent in Korea or Europe

If I was in the Army, I'll believe you. As much as I hate to say it, standardization is essential when you're needing to get things done. But if I was in some informal militia group, and not having to carry a huge pack on routine patrols, it would be like listening to your favorite band during a workout versus one you don't like to listen to.

the original ar10 was m16 weight empty. it also had a barrel kersplode during army testing.
at the time, the army wanted a battle rifle by 1959.
"Unfortunately for ArmaLite, the rifle's aluminum/steel composite barrel (an untried prototype design specified for the tests by ArmaLite's president, George Sullivan, over Stoner's vehement objections) burst in a torture test conducted by Springfield Armory in early 1957.[16] ArmaLite quickly replaced it with a conventional steel barrel, but the damage had been done. The final Springfield Armory report advised against adoption of the rifle, stating that it would take "five years or more to take it through tests to adoption".[15] While ArmaLite objected, it was clear that the AR-10, a brand-new rifle still in the prototype stage, was at a disadvantage compared to competing designs with longer development cycles, and by 1957, U.S. Army infantry forces urgently required a modern, magazine-fed infantry rifle to replace the M1.[15]"

the sudanese variant is also the rare variant with a lot of details that went into it to specifically make it light, beyond that armalite went back to your standard ar10 setup which was still 8lbs. Not inconsequential but also too late to take over the m14 in testing.

just to be clear im not denying the ar10 is a better rifle and it would've been even better quicker if we adopted it sooner. but you guys REALLY act like it would've made some sort of difference in literally anything that happened in history besides the US having adopted AR10s and their proliferation being widespread and kinks worked out sooner as a result.
It wasn't until the portuguese testimonials that it was taken seriously by any military. Whereas the m1 design was tried and true (on top of the brass kickbacks no doubt). Doesn't make the m14 a shitty rilfe, especially considering the time.

The m14 is by no means a bad weapon it was just already outdated by the time the m16 came along

the gladius is a shit weapon compared to a modern rifle.
it is not a shit weapon on its own.
You're comparing the m14 to modern ar10 if you're any of the guys beforehand. The AR10 of the 1950s was not the great rifle it is today. It got there late 1950s and early 1960s after the m14 was in production and the decision was made.

It's a specialized weapon, not good for standard issue.

Attached: 17265873_1517399454972209_4558686916563697664_n.jpg (1080x888, 226K)

My sides are a victim of the holicaust

And they replaced the barrel with a regular one immediately after and it worked fine.

I don't think that adopting the AR-10 would have made some enormous difference, I do think that it should have been the choice over the M14 because it was clearly a superior gun, as test after test showed.

Meanwhile people act like the M14 was an amazing gun when it was really the bottom of the pile for the 50s rifles. Perfectly functional, just like a Mosin-Nagant was perfectly functional in WW1, but decisively worse than the alternatives.

Fucking okay, what's so special about it?

This is just a platitude used to defend a weapon from scrutiny.

It was outdated before the M16 came along. For reference the AKM was adopted by the Soviet army in 1959, same year the M14 entered production. If a squad armed with M14's encountered a hostile squad armed with AKM's, I'd be better very hard on the guys with the AKM's.

Attached: 1920px-AKM_automatkarbin_-_7,62x39mm.jpg (1920x609, 126K)

literally just an M1 Garand with a bigger magazine and full auto.

Attached: 1555011155402.jpg (400x305, 21K)

>The AR10 of the 1950's was not the great rifle it is today
Sure, but the AR-10 of the 1950's was definitely better than the M14 of the 1950's.

>And they replaced the barrel with a regular one immediately after and it worked fine.
aka
>they made it heavier immediately after testing when it weighed 7lbs

>Meanwhile people act like the M14 was an amazing gun when it was really the bottom of the pile for the 50s rifles.
who on this website is acting like that? go find a nonbait post that says the m14 is something special and share it if you're aware of any

that's debatable and they literally blew their chances with testing with an army brass that was already biased as fuck.
shoulda listened to stoner.

oops. inb4 >its NOT debatable!@!#$!@#$!@
sorry, at the time of testing the ar10 wasn't insanely superior to the m14 and was a new "untested" design for all them old fucks who sat through ww2.
yes the ar10 was a superior design and it would've really shown itself in the 60s (which it did) but that doesn't make the m14 a shitty weapon.

0372

Nope, the new barrel weighed the same as the one it replaced. Read the Collector Grade book.

>Exactly why the M14 isn't a good weapon?
youtube.com/watch?v=VAABMvmaGWQ&t=193s

>at the time of testing the ar10 wasn't insanely superior to the m14
It was lighter, more accurate, more controllable, and had lower maintenance requirements. And while the AR-10 was the best option available at the time, other options like the FN FAL, H&K G3, or even the BM-59 were still better than the M14. The M14 was easy the worst of available options.

Long, heavy, not super accurate, and had an open action that would get shit inside it. It would have been great in the 40s, but the G3 and FAL both outclass it and the AR-15 is just straight up a superior platform due to the weight and how closed the gun is compared to the garand action.

>lighter
yes the light version they brought to army testing blew up.
the next version was not even 1lb lighter than the m14.
>more accurate
no it wasnt
>more controllable
on full auto, sure. how often does anyone shoot any battle rifle full auto? and I do mean any battle rifle, including the modern ones like the scar and hk417.
>lower maintenance
true but not when it showed up in time for army testing. army already had all the stuff to maintain the m14, to include training materials.
>bm59 better than the m14
you better provide some facts because it literally is inferior to the m14 and that is not debatable. though i'll say the fal actually should've taken it over the m14 for a variety of reasons

the history of the m14 isnt the thing here though. Is it or is it not a shit weapon? The answer is "No."

It was a weapon designed for WWII, when the world was preparing for WWIII. Our rivals in the SU and Second World were going for assault rifles and close quarters combat, and our western friends were adapting to that same concept. We said fuck that, and stuck to .30 caliber marksman-ready rifles. The M14 was a nice upgrade from the M1 and its operating system, but rifles like the FAL and CETME took it even further, and the BM-59 did what was initially ask for in one of their requirements: be parts compatible with the M1. Had George Sullivan not intervened and fucked the AR-10 with the bi-metal barrel, it probably had more chance in the trials, or at least left more of an impression for the future. Also should've given .280 a chance as well, and have it as our main infantry caliber, while keeping 7.62 as our marksman and machine-gunner round.

i'll assume you own the book and would just ask you to cite it like a shitty bibliography
quote and page #?

Awww too heavy for the poor baby

you ignored the "doesnt make the m14 a shitty weapon" bit.
a rifle being good doesn't make another rifle bad and that's pretty much all this boils down to.
everyone who acts like people fluff up the m14 are literally creating their own demons. it's fuddlore that isn't parroted around here except to bait.

this entire thread is probably just good bait. the mere notion of someone not hating the m14 pisses people off for some reason.

Attached: 1540633551514.png (498x520, 18K)

>on full auto, sure.
Recoil doesn't magically stop being an issue just because you're in semi-auto mode. You still have to control the recoil. The AR-10 is designed so that all the recoil goes straight backward, which makes it easy to keep your sights on target. The M14 has a canted stock which causes each shot to push the rifle upwards in a way that makes it impossible to fire rapidly, even on semi-auto, without losing your ability to aim.

Being inferior to most of your direct competition is generally grounds for being considered "bad".

Would you rather use that weight on the rifle or use that weight on the number of rounds you can carry?

Absolutely not.

If the M14 existed during WW2 it would have been in direct competition with the FG42 in terms of what they actually do (even if the latter is supposed to be an MG), and the FG42 is just plain better. A good muzzle brake and a scope goes a long way.

you're inflating the difference considering how each rifle is and was effectively used. the real issue with rapid fire on an m14 wouldnt be the recoil but the barrel getting hot which starts causing shots to be thrown pretty wide.
that's a personal gripe i have with it.
everyone inflates how inferior it was while inflating it.
almost everything people bitch about the m14 for can be attributed to every battle rifle of the time.
>heavy
>awkward
>not accurate
>shit on full auto
>terrible for scopes
>immediately outclassed assault rifles
that's why these threads and the avid m14 detractors are nonsense.
the rifle is not inherently bad. should the US have adopted it? no. but is the rifle bad? no.

this post is so fucking stupid i pray to god it's bait

was while inflating it.
while shitting on it*
outclassed by*

In a firefight you don’t feel the weight of the gun or the recoil you just feel the over encumbering feeling to empty a mag in the enemy. The vary degree of a soldier is how well that mag dump did.