The only thing the M-14 excels at is beating someone to death with it.

My dad was just old enough to get drafted, and go through boot camp just be told after his advanced training thanks, but no thanks after his advanced training when my Paw Paw died of cancer. He is not exactly a gun guy by our standards, but in recent years getting him to talk time being trained he to this days thinks the M-14 he got stuck with was a good rifle. I have no idea if he is  right since M-14 anything China clone, or the real American deal isn't exactly cheap to buy versus  just getting a modern civilian AR type in the same caliber.

I am a FAL guy and will always be one but I do want an M1A. Among other reasons is I made a promise to my dad and I intend to complete that promise.

The problems with the M16 were not design flaws but flaws in the execution of the idea such as no chrome lining and the powder that, while being a little more powerful, gummed up the works.

The F86 was not the shortest lifetime fighter plane as was the M14 as a standard issue infantry rifle so that was a really bad analogy.

The F86 in its day was the best fighter plane although the Mig-15 was close.

The M14 was all about "not made here" relating to the FAL.

I have an M14S, and I love it, but for 7.62x51 NATO in a semi, I have better rifles.

All conversions on existing Garands, not the original design.

At various stages of development, John C. Garand had meant for it to have a ten round magazine (fed by stripper clips, like the Lee-Enfield) and for it to be chambered in the .276 Pedersen round.

The Ordnance Branch nixed the magazine, insisting that it would get in the way of the close order drill and manual of arms, hence the en bloc clip.  The original objection, 35-40 years earlier, was that enlisted men would lose the magazines on the pistols that were replacing the revolvers, hence the lanyards on the magazines in the US, Russia/USSR, and other countries.

MacArthur nixed the chambering in .276 Pedersen, arguing that a cash strapped Army (this was 1932, after all) needed to shoot up the stockpiles of 30-06 left over from WWI.  This set back the development by about 5 years, by which time, all the WWI ammo was shot up anyway.....but, like his vicious attacks on the Bonus Marchers, this was forgotten in all the canonizing of MacArthur.

If we had gone with the .276 Pedersen round, we would have had an intermediate round that might still be with us today. Troops landing on Normandy would probably have been issued a (controllable) select fire Garand with a 20 round magazine that was probably a pound lighter than the M1.

Dad told me it was mediocre rifle in Semi-Auto and a garbage in full auto.
He started with the M-1 and wasn't a huge fan of the M16 but he hated the 14 and the grease gun.

I love my M1... never really cared for the M14, and love my AR-15.

This being said, an AR-10 would be awesome to own.  And if someone ever makes any AR platform that runs with .30-06 I will buy it in a heartbeat.

I remember my first day with an AR too.

I can't believe that someone had a less than stellar experience with a piece of equipment that was basically in storage for 50 years.

Next from the O_P..."why my CCKW sucked in Iraq."

Not all of them were in storage. Iirc the state of Maine had thier NM m14s signed out to competive shooters and had to recall them.

How bad would you have to be at competition to still use an M14?

Noreen BN36

Considering the state of Maine would provide you a free match grade weapon for just your signature and a club card they had a good deal.
Some of those guns had been shot for years by the shooters they were signed out to.

I had one for a short time, and I sucked.

Price was right, though.

The design itself sucks for modern use, not just individual examples.

http://onlylongrange.com/bn36-long-range-assassin/

Holy crap... it does exist.

Unsurprising, considering that less time had elapsed between V-J Day and IOC for the M-14 than between now and 9/11.

I like mine. Haven't shot it in nearly 2 years. But I keep stock piling ammo and mags for it. Local range has high power and Garand matches. Director says I could shoot it there. But I would probably shllt the A1 clone instead.

Has H2O found this thread yet?

I like my LRB. I keep it around for nostalgia sake I guess. Though about giving it the NM treatment, but figure I could build a pretty damned nice precision upper for my AR10 for the same money and less headache.

My step-father was able to compare/contrast the M14 and M16 as he carried both in Vietnam, his unit transitioned to the M16 mid-tour. He said he made good use of the M14 fighting from a fixed position one night, but otherwise preferred the light weight and "firepower" (read: lighter loaded mags and select-fire) of the M16.

That article probably saved me two grand, I've wanted an M14 clone for so long.

That thing looks like a bag of smashed assholes.  Noreen should have left the previous handguard which allowed the bipod to be placed further out.



Meanwhile at Nemo Arms..... Omen Recon 2.0 in various configs is out (30-06 should be along soon).

The M14 is used by virtually no one these days, but the G3, and to a lesser extent, the FAL are still widely used.

 
As I and others have stated, the 308 sucks dick as military cartridge. It was outdated back when we forced NATO to adopt it.

The sexyness of it makes up for what's lacking.

here is another idea.  find a reference for the statement, "ordnance officers didn't trust enlisted with magazines" and we could end this silliness.

We should have kept the 30-06. With modern powders we could be shooting streamlined 165grn M2AP at 3000 fps muzzle velocity.

Which would be great for MGs and DMRs, but less useful for service rifles.

I meant for GPMGs and forgot to type it.

In that case I agree. The new General Dynamics HMMG in .338 Norma Mag is looking promising too.

I am just starting the process of building a couple of AR .308 rifles.  If they meet expectations, my M1A will get moth-balled for a long time or sold off.  

The similar manual of arms to the AR-15 (which I shoot lot more of), accuracy, options, optics mounting, only makes sense to for the switch over.

Mine is a range toy - plus I needed to fill a hole on the wall. Shoots fine.

That is a worthy point. The author brings it up like it's another damning point against the M14... it isn't. It's a damning point against the makers, which could happen to any maker.

Look at the early M16 stick/ball powder problem. The makers were forgiven for that.

Yep Michigan too. I took a course and we got to shoot NM M14s. Super sweet shooters. Likely recalled to national service post-9/11/01.

I owned one for a little over two years. I shot it a few times compared to my FAL. It had a better trigger and sights than the FAL, yet I still think the FAL is a better rifle

It wasn't a bad rifle yet I'd describe it as one of those things that you always want but then when you finally get it, it looses its luster

 
The US Rifle, Caliber .30, M1 has a internal magazine which is charged with 8-rd enbloc clips.




The experimental rifle, T20, was a M1 with a detachable 20-rd box magazine.  The experimental rifle, T35, had an integral 10-rd magazine carved charged with 5-rd stripper clips or loose rounds.




The M1 always had a magazine.


 

spelling.

I think the Garand is a BETTER rifle than the M14, even some Vets who used the Garand in Korea and then the M14 in Vietnam seem to have that belief.

Not to mention, supposedly, Garand himself thought the M14's gas system was a step backward from the Garand.


But regardless, that doesn't mean a Garand is more viable as a weapon on the battlefield today than a M14.

I find it difficult to believe that a knowledgeable pedant like Larry didn't know that...

What a bunch on total shit

FAL

M14


G3



In that order

I'd invert the M14 and FAL personally ... i had an FAL. I have an M1a.

Don't forget this is from 1962 and production was just getting underway..TRW had just started building them...that's why they weren't included in the report.



This was also the first service rifle with a chrome lined bore...new technology for them back them...



All of those issues reported only affect accuracy not function.  The M1 had nearly 20 years of R&D before it was pretty much finalized...



"All of the rifles from Winchester and H&R exhibited excessive headspace." probably confusion in .308/7.62 headspace specs...it still happens today..

Me too

me three

I think it's a bad idea for a service rifle in any capacity these days...I still think it's pretty and i want one....like everything else that goes bang. I'd rather get a garand.

5 rifles is hardly an indictment of the design.  Nothing that couldn't be fixed by a qualified armorer.  

"A ton of work"?  

I disagree.  

This is the last group of the day of just over 20 rds of different types of ammo fired at 100 yds from my son's LRB M14-type rifle I built for him when we took it to the range for the first time.  Everything on that rifle is stock USGI except for the drop-in Sadlak Industries NM op-rod spring guide (I highly recommend them, except I understand they aren't compatible with a Sage Ind. stock).  The barrel is a used USGI "take off" manufactured by SAK in July of 1969.  It's one of two I ordered from Shawn @ LRB back in 2006.  "Send me two that gauge as new as you can" I asked of him.  I guess he did.  

I had LRB install the barrel and lap the bolt for correct headspace.  The issue iron sights only needed a couple of clicks to the right to match POI with POA.  

The ammunition for this group was American Eagle (Federal) brand match grade ammunition supposedly developed specifically for the M1A firing 168 gr OTM bullets.

I was very pleased, but I'm taking it out again to see if I can duplicate the results, or at least come close.  I need to sand the handguard down a little so it doesn't contact the stock like it does now, since the handguard isn't supposed to contact the stock at all.  Other than that, I'm not messing with it.  Once we fired some rounds through her to settle the receiver group into the stock, she started grouping quite nicely.

The day was warm in the lower 70s, no wind, fired at Black's Creek range off a concrete bench with sandbags east of Boise about four weeks ago.  The rifle's forearm rested on a sandbag just in front of the magazine.  The first three rounds cloverleafed.  The last round impacted to the right after I lifted my head off the buttstock to try to understand what my son was saying as he attempted to call the POI while observing through the spotting scope the next bench over.  

This LRB sits in a USGI birch stock from Fred's, while mine is in a USGI fiberglass stock.  Mine also shoots just under 1.5 MOA with surplus M80 ball, with no modifications other than the aforementioned Sadlak Ind. NM op-rod spring guide.  No cloverleaf'd groups, however.  With optics, I bet the groups would shrink a little more.  A properly assembled and serviceable M14 is an accurate rifle.  

Every vet I have talked to that used both have said the same thing.  

 

lol

no

I like mine.   I'd like an FAL, too.

The M14 as a limited issue DMR has seen more combat in GWOT than the other two rifles you mentioned combined.

The Germans apparently use or used a modified G3 as a DMR as well, but the Germans didn't show up in Iraq, and don't have much of a combat presence in Afghanistan.  

Ex NZ Navy L1A1s was used by the NZ SAS during the early part of the war in Afghanistan, but those SLRs were retired shortly thereafter.