Why is the M14 platform so ill-suited for mounting optics?

>why is the M14 platform so ill-suited for mounting optics?
>Why is it almost impossible to find a mount close to what you would see on an XM21?

Attached: Rifle_M21_2.jpg (615x212, 17K)

>why is the M14 platform so ill-suited for mounting optics?
Because it was never designed to.

Fpbp

>why is this rifle that was not designed with scopes in mind bad for mounting scopes
yeah beats me
all the other semi auto rifles of the time were way better, the m14 was truly behind

arent there rails you can add that are exactly what you're looking for but it requires you uninstall the rear sight assembly and the stripper clip feed?

>all the other semi auto rifles of the time were way better, the m14 was truly behind
/thread
The M14 was always the bad choice, in nearly every way.

you idiot i was being sarcastic with that post. mounting scopes to the other semi autos of the era was equally shitty as far as cheek weld and needing to add heavy hardware to the side.

Attached: 1562616368739.jpg (905x881, 254K)

But your sarcasm was the truth. The M14 was a mistake

While the M14 was the worse standard issue rifle of the time, the FAL has horrendous accuracy to even think about putting a scope on. Its a great battle rifle, but who scopes a 4-6MOA rifle?

As much as I hate the ergonomics, the G3 is hands down the best "all around" rifle of the time.

that has nothing to do with optics mounts for the thing.
the m21 is more accurate than you probably realize and could be 1moa. back in the 70s. with a semiauto. not too shabby.

both AR10 and G3 variants were best and both could actually be made accurate

It would have been neat if stoner made a free float handgaurd and figured out the picitanny rail back in the day. Theyd have done wonders vietnam

I feel like it’s a retroactive thing to lump the AR10 in with those rifles. If your gonna do that may as well include the STG57. Nobody used the AR10 but Portugal. The FAL, G3 and M14 are the only 3 battle rifles that were widely adopted at that time, and even then the M14 was essentially only adopted by the US.

>g3
>made accurate
must be why the psg1 was made.
>ar10
no where near the levels it's at today.

where do you people come from that just make shit up? the ar10 was not designed to be a DMR or used for sniping. it wasn't anywhere near where it is today, in fact, it wasn't even where it is today until the last 10 years or so.
the g3 and m14 are on par, but op's pic is an m21 which is an autistically accurized m14 that make it stand out. no g3 is going to be able to be turned into that.
that's why hk had to make a rifle entirely designated to the dmr role.

yeah. im far from an engineer but i wonder what took so long? at least for testing purposes they could've used shitty materials for proofs of concept and then gone from there.
of course hindsight is 20/20 and all

granted, the US mil wasn't looking for super accurate rifles for everyone, just good rifles that would kill the bad guys.
and i don't think the machining they had back then was going to be able to crank out picatinny on a mass scale but i really don't know.

As much as I agree with what you’re saying an accurized g3 is just a MSG or SR9. Both of which are at the very least as accurate as a M21.

my point is that you can't take any old g3 and fuck around with it in the shed and walk out with a psg1 or msg90.
just like you can't take a psg1 or msg90 and end up with a g3. there are very specific design choices made between the g3 and those 2 to make them what they were.
otherwise why not just make every g3 a 1moa rifle?

though yeah, they're probably both superior to the m21 in every way. definitely when it comes to shooting.

M21 is a meme

US shouldve adopted the fn49. Try to convince me otherwise.

US should have adopted a FAL in .280 brit

What could have been

Attached: FN_Herstal_T48.jpg (639x219, 14K)

Sup

Attached: xm21-ultra-precision-086.jpg (1200x800, 114K)

Its better than the m14 in every way. But inferior to the G3/FAL In every way.