You can blame us for that.  

 

I wonder how things would have turned out if we hadn't forced the 7.62 down NATO's throat?  The EM-2 was interesting even though I'm not a bullpup fan.

Something along the lines of the .260 Rem would have been better.

While the M14 is not my favorite 308 rifle, "vastly superior" seems a bit overstated and dramatic doncha think?

 

My father qualified on it and the Army and my stepfather used one in the Navy.   Both of them loved theirs and both have springfield M1As now.  I've owned a scout length that wasn't accurate at all.  At one time I owned an old Supermatch that was damn pretty.   I've been toying with getting an LRB from time to time, but for the money I'd probably just get a SCAR heavy.  Most of the issues in the article seemed to revolve around bad quality control and fitting at the manufacturer.  I'm thinking modern cnc machining has probably solved a lot of these issues.

I like my M1A for nostalgia, but I want a 7.62 AR for SHTF gun.

Which I acknowledged, as do most people. I just don't see the need for a yearly new "why the M14 sucks" article. It's hack writing.

Thank you for posting your interesting story

IIRC pressure went from like 40k to 70k with the new powder, and with it cyclic rates went up.

The Black Rifle is a great read, but there is a LOT of detail about powders and eventually it hurts my brain.

The F-86 doesn't get used in Iraq or Afghanistan.

The 5 malfunctions were: 2 rilfes fired with water in the barrel which split the upper, 2 were magazine problems, 1 was an XM177E1 that pulled the head off a case.

I carried 1 magazine in the rifle and 28 magazines in bandoliers. Can you imagine carrying 29 M14 magazines?

That's kind of irrelevant.  The fact remains that the M14 is not suited to modern combat.

m16 needed fixing and updating after it was introduced. M14 is great rifle but the m16 is better. I have shot more rounds out of my m1a than m16 in the service more likely 5 times the round count. assuming all members of the service shoots same amount of rounds as I did, I have put the round count of  20 service years of service m1a, granted the handling of the m1a is less.. M14 is not trash can rifle but compared to m16 it is out dated the military should have welcomed it when it came. M14 is legendary rile despite the critics.

Yep.

The "Cult of .30" has hindered our small arms development pretty much since the smokeless power era began.  The .30-06, .30 Carbine, .7.62X51... all would have been better rifle cartridges with 6-6.5mm bullets.  As an added bonus, something like a .260 Remington might have been considered too small for a GPMG (whereas the .308 was incorrectly considered to be "just enough".  Then we might have ended up with GPMGs chambered in something like a hot .338-.375 round, which would be awesome.

I had one about 25 years ago. Traded it for a SAR-48 which I still have.

Are you remembering that some poor grunt has to carry that ammo in Light Infantry units?

7.35x51 carcano FTW

 

Great article.  Mimics exactly my experience, and that of many senior SF NCO's from various SOTIC Committees that I know.

Here's a thread I started in 2013 about it.  Some Pics of M14's in use you Probably Haven't Seen




As a service rifle, the M14 is an abortion of epic proportions.  Best rifle World War I never had.

Hahhahah lulz

A rifle designed around a 40K PSI cartridge would blow up in short order if pressure were increased to 70K PSI.  If memory serves, the pressure for 5.56 is about 60K PSI and always has been.  That said, changing the pressure curve will change the port pressure and that can dramatically affect the cycling performance.

As for the M14, I used to own a Springfield Armory M1A loaded.  It was a great rifle, with a good trigger, great iron sights, and excellent accuracy.  I shot it at several informal High Power matches and received complaints from shooters next to me about how the muzzle blast was rattling them.  D'awww, poor widdle intermediate cartwidge shooters!  That said, position shooting never really felt natural with the M1A, which I attributed partly to the stock design and partly to the medium-contour barrel, which made it quite front-heavy.  When I added a scope mount, optic, and cheek riser, the ergos tipped over into downright awkward and unpleasant to handle.  

Around that time I bought a FAL.  Although it had less mechanical accuracy than the M1A, practical accuracy in my hands was greater due to the better fit and handling characteristics.  It also proved possible to scope the FAL without affecting its handling characteristics beyond increased weight.  Add to that the improved ease of disassembly and cleaning and amenability to tinkering, and the choice was clear.  I sold the M1A and went all FAL.  Sure, FALs are 2 MOA rifles at best, but the difference is nearly completely nullified by user-induced inaccuracy when shooting any way except off a bench.  In case you're wondering, I didn't go with an AR-10 style rifle because they're enormous chunky hogs and have inferior ergonomics to FALs.

The article linked should be considered an editorial.  Although the information on M14 manufacturing quality (or lack thereof) is interesting, it exhibits clear bias and attempts to persuade.  The M14 hate is kind of puzzling, though.  M14s are far from the best rifle ever made, but they aren't horrible.  It'd be nice to believe that the M14 hate is something other than AR fanboys reacting with reflexive anger to the suggestion that anything other than an AR in 5.56 is even an option, but evidence suggests otherwise.  ("There will be no improvement justifying replacing the M4 as a military weapon until we're using laser weapons."  Seriously?)

If that configuration M-14 had been used in Viet Nam this would be a wholey different discussion.  I like my NM, but the synthetic stock on the SMUD, with its integral pistol grip would have been much more accepted than the heavy wood stock version fielded.

If I could find one of those stocks I'd start hunting for a second M-1A for my collection.

I think the M14 is like the 1911 its nice and does a decent job, but has been surpassed over the years... to continue to shoe horn it into modern day .Mil operations only indicates that we are consistently not ready for a conflict and are always pulling something old out of inventory... and then sticking a bunch of money into it to get it to do what we want, vs. spend the time to get the right toll in the first place.


Are there guys in the GWOT who think it's all that?? Probably, but then again, there are a lot of Joes who are far from SME's. Its always cool to get issued
something different then everybody else, and get a cool title like SDM.. And call your self a sniper, cause you get to make some longer range shots then the buddies in your squad. and get to go to the range more often.

The guys who's Opinions I heed who I know have the correct experience and the are SME's in there field, tell me that it needs to go...

Will I still shoot mine in Service rifle competition?? Sure I will, cause its fun and brings me enjoyment.

Mechanical reliability in arctic conditions.

 

Don't have one, but would like to.

Would never claim to have served or be a combat vet but objectively I can see how it is no longer a viable front line combat weapon.

But I enjoy my M1A and would feel just as warm at night if it's all I had during a realistic SHTF situation ( Katrina.)



RC

I still love my m1a's.  I've spoken to plenty of people who carried them in combat that chose the m14 over the ar.  While I'm sure a bunch of this article is true, I think it may be over hyped.  I still consider them to be a fine gun and accurate enough.  I also love FAL's.

Wow that guy really really hates the M14... like it molested him as a child or something....

Makes it sound like a Jennings-manufactured Chauchat clone or something...

I have an M1A National match, I really enjoy it. The Ca-legal brake reduces recoil much more than the flash hider (fired one of those in Florida)

That said, when I move out of here I'll get out of the M1A game and get a flat-top AR in .308 with an ACOG and call it a day.

Sounds like a training issue to me.



 

I will gladly dispose of that shitty rifle for you...

280 British. We were so very, very close.

The M14 and the AR15's biggest hindrance are shit calibers.

Nutnfancy: "One of the BEST battlefield rifles produced"

I don't see it as bashing.  

The rifle was invented, by a hidebound military, to fight WWII all over again.


Throughout the years, even though we know it's an obsolete platform, the military has been throwing money at it to try and make it work.


It's a lousy design by today's standards, and needs to go away, like the G3 and FAL already have.

 

What's the T35?

 



Sorry guys, but I hate .308 as a Infantry cartridge. It weights twice as much as 5.56, has more recoil, AND current variations of 5.56 actually out shoot .308 at what used to be distances only .308 and up could shoot.


If I was king for a day, we'd ditch .308 and we'd be using 6.5 Creedmoor or .260 Remington for machine guns, DMRs and light bolt guns.

Nutnfancy wouldnt know anything about a battlefield.

Valid points here

Cool.



 

A few weeks ago I ran into a "retired infantry officer" who said the 7.62 NATO was the perfect infantry cartridge and they should go back to it for general issue.  When I disagreed he tried to pull the "well you're AF" line.    I laughed at him and told him he was still wrong.

He was mid 40s to give you a reference for when he served.  

M1 garand with an M1941 Johnson type magazine



 

Makes me wonder if the Italians dug out BM59s from their armories and refitted them for A-stan

Well 13'er, please regale us with tales of that dickbag's combat prowess.

GD cracks me up sometimes.   This site should be called m4's and glocks, because that's all you're supposed to like shooting.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Dad (Army Pre Vietnam era vet 3 tours) much prefers the Garand, but the M14 is his second choice. He considers the M16 slightly better than a pointed stick. He says he usually tried to get a M60 instead and usually had no problems as most guys didn't care for "humping a pig". I know the M60 wasn't his first choice either but they took away his 1919A6.

No they were pretty much gone already..



 

 
The argument isn't about not liking the M14, it's about not having the M14 as a weapon our soldiers and marines carry into battle.

Subtext

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

M16s won't reliably detonate a antiship mine.

I doubt they could reliably throw a line either.