The Marine M39 EMRs were never as successful, or as supported as the Army M14EBR-RIs are.
And the total number of Enhanced Marksman Rifles never came close to the number RI built for the Army.

Dinner!!!!!!!!!  Looks like feed corn though for animals....  I've never tried to eat that.  

For all practical purposes, they are the same

The military is phasing out the m14 for rifles you can get as a civilian

You can get a fal, or a g3 style rifle or an ar10, all are far superior to the m14/m1a


So, answer my question, unless you are just going to keep deflecting.

Your comments make no sense, especially the middle one, but you're entitled to your opinion.

And, you can continue asking your questions if you like, but it's clear that the SAI M1A is not obsolete.

Clearly a MP5, Garand, M14, a shotgun or even a black powder six gun can be used to kill someone. Or a spear, or a stick, or a..... Nobody ever says in these threads "a (insert firearm here) won't kill somebody," unless they're joking.
Whether the question is "is this rifle obsolete?" or "Is xyz better than zyx?" answering the question doesn't imply that the other option can't be used, or won't hurt somebody, or even there is absolutely nothing a zyx rifles does better than xyz rifle.

This is another aspect of these discussions that I find inexplicable, though it shows up more in shotgun threads, usually. "You said my 870 loaded with birdshot isn't as good a defensive weapon as your AR15, do you want me to shoot you with it? HUH?! You think a 12 gauge won't hurt?"  (I'm sure you've seen that, JJ, you've been around long enough to have seen some of those threads.)

I hear ya.  Like I said originally, I'm not really qualified to say if it is or isn't obsolete.  And being deadly isn't the only requirement in determining that.  I think there are probably varying levels of what obsolete is.  Like my MP5 example.  It's going be a whole lot more effective then a spear, but maybe not as super top hot shit as the latest MK18 CQB gun.   Where it is that each gun falls is kind of a scale I think.  I have no clue how far down the scale the M1A / M14 should be put.  But I think some people put it down that scale further than maybe it should be.  And then the same could be said in the converse.   That's how I see it.

Makes perfect sense, you can get an m14/m1a, and you can get the rifle that is currently replacing it, due to it being better in every way.

So why pick the m14/m1a?

And why won't you answer my question?

Those who say that the m14 is not obsolete, do you feel the same about the musket? Or the trapdoor springfield?

They are still capable of taking a life, so that means that they aren't obsolete.




Right?

My own opinion is an AR style 7.62 / scar is top teir .  I would not feel under gunned with a M14 . I think the m14 is a better rifle than a FAL or a G3 .. Personal prefferance.  WarDawg

Which of the 7 MEUs love them?

So now the M14 is on the same level as a musket or trapdoor.  Yeah, OK.  Makes sense.  

That was pretty funny, but was the comment meant to be funny

Very true. A lot of people on here think that intentionally misinterpreting the extremity of a statement lends credence to their argument, for some reason. i.e. "You said xyz firearm isn't as (whatever) as an AR15, therefore, you're saying a xyz is utterly useless and can't kill someone or be used successfully for self defense." Which is asinine, and only serves to make the person using that argument look illiterate and illogical. Of course, it goes both ways. "Xyz isn't an AR15, so it's utterly useless" is about as common as the reverse.

I've noticed this sort of binary thinking in a lot of different topics on this forum. Many gun people seem to prefer narrow, unrealistic considerations of things; "my favorite gun is either the best, or it's useless," "birdshot is either deadly, or it can't harm a fly," or "ft-lbs of energy/caliber/gel tests are the only thing I look at when I choose a gun for self defense, and no other factor."
I suppose it's too tempting to take a difficult, but ultimately more factual grey view of things, versus a black and white outlook.

As far as the M14 goes? It's an extremely cool gun, the last remnant of a concept of warfare that was dead before it was conceived of. It's definitely not as far down the "obsolete ladder" as a musket or manually operated firearm.
However, the STG-44, AK, and AR15, along with less successful designs like the British .280, rendered every mid-century battle rifle, at best, a niche weapon, be it the FAL, G3, M14 or even the AR10. They're definitely obsolete as a standard issue, military weapon, for a number of reasons that we all already can list from memory.
But, you and I aren't outfitting an army, we can afford to have guns just for the sake of having them. I own FALs and Lee Enfields that I wouldn't use in any serious role, and will admit any time someone asks that they're inferior almost in every way to my AR15s. Hell, for a while, the only semi rifle I had was the L1A1, but I could admit that a 45" long, 10lb, .308 was surpassed decades ago, and therefore, is obsolete. Again, obsolete doesn't mean can't or won't work. I can make a phone call on an iphone, a rotary phone, or a handcrank phone on a party line. The rotary phone might give me the best clarity, but nobody will argue that it's not obsolete compared to an iphone, not even people who collect rotary phones. Regardless, the fact that you own a rifle and spend time shooting it puts you significantly ahead of the vast majority of the populace in skill level and survivability.
I just don't see the need to be intellectually dishonest about a certain gun to justify why you own/like/use them for whatever purpose you use a rifle for. Just like I wouldn't see the need to justify why I might want to call over a land line with a nostalgic phone instead of an iphone.

I like them better than the FAL and G3

in the standard USGI configuration, I love the ergonomics, the rifle just feels perfect coming into the shoulder.

It's a really fun rifle to shoot.

I've owned two and both 100% reliable.






However......as soon as these weapons below were developed, the M14 was obsolete, which is to say as soon as it was born....

the pentagon forced 762NATO down NATO's throats, when the Brits, Belgians, Germans, already knew the intermediate cartridge was the future.

The full-size rifle cartridge and all its advantages never went away.  The effective range of the M14 is greater than that of the STG-44 or AK-47.  

Shhhh

Don't they mainly see use with Guard units?

I think the m1a is definitely obsolete, but that doesn't mean it isn't cool.  It's definitely on my list of guns to buy someday, but then again so is a 1917 enfield, a 1903 springfield, an m1 garand, an m1 carbine.  Would All of these rifles still do the job, and do it well? Yes.  Are they obsolete? Yes.

Also, I've been wondering: From what I can see, the arm's FN SCAR17 is routinely a sub-1MOA rifle, and the Knights SR-25 isn't really THAT much better.  Taking light weight and increased reliability into account, why doesn't the military use a SCAR17 with a longer barrel and Geiselle trigger and get rid of the unreliable SR25 altogether?

They can still kill

Since that is obviously the only criteria of a weapon being obsolete or not, i fail to see your problem.

It's literally the only argument you guys have "wull it can still kill, so it ain't obsolete"

Still dodging questions i see

I don't think that's quite what I said.  And I didn't see anybody else saying that exactly.   But whatever.  It's all just talk.  You are totally entitled to your opinion and for all I know you're the smartest guy in this thread.   It just seemed like an oversimplification of the matter.  To the point of being somewhat rude.   Or maybe it's just meant to be hyperbole and I'm probably misinterpreting.  

Am i the smartest guy in this thread? Maybe, maybe not

If you try and read my comment, you will see that they are not directed towards you, nor did i say that you said something you didn't actually say.

Go back and read this string of comments again


I'll wait.

If the OP hasn't gotten an answer to his question by now - he never will.

Good luck!

I probably missed something.  I apologize.  I'm not going to back to read us arguing about the M1A though.  It's all good for me.  I'm sorry if I irritated you.

Already have.

If the only reason why the m14 is not obsolete is because it is still lethal, then muskets and trapdoor springfields aren't obsolete.

Why do you have such a hard on for the m14? Does you or your employer have a vested interest in the m14?

OK, I can't take it.  

Zak, lethal can mean different things at different times.  I'm not sure exactly what he said, but c'mon, have you seen a trapdoor or musket in military use in the last 10 years?  Why do you have such a hard time letting waterman be a big proponent for them?  They have obviously been used to some degree of proficiency in the last 10 years in combat.  Heck, there are a few guys on this site that actually used them.  One of them obviously isn't posting over here, and I don't think I want to drag him into this, or if any of them would really care to argue about it.  But an M1A/ M14 is going to be a whole heck of a lot more LETHAL in today's world than a musket or trapdoor for all of the obvious reasons.  If for no other reason than you could put more bullets into your target in a lot quicker time than the other two.  

Is that not a reasonable thing to say?  I think it's unreasonable to put it in the same category as the two you keep referencing.  Even if we're talking how LETHAL it is.  I guess we'd have to look up the word lethal but I think at this point we're splitting hairs.  I guess not for you though.  hehehehee

do me a favor and look up the definition of "obsolete"


Here, ill do it for you

ob·so·lete
?äbs?'let/Submit
adjective
1.
no longer produced or used; out of date.
"the disposal of old and obsolete machinery"
synonyms:outdated, out of date, outmoded, old-fashioned, démodé, passé, out of fashion

The ar10 does everything the m14 does, and it does it better.

That is obsolete.

In case you missed it.

So your side of the argument is that the AR-10 made the M14/M1A obsolete.  Because you can mount optics easier?  Oh wait, I remember you saying other reasons.  Easier to maintain, etc etc.  OK.   Those are valid points.  But in a general view of them their both semi auto .308 guns.  And using new stocks does make it more optic and gadget friendly.  But I see what you're saying.

And the ar10 has rendered it obsolete.

Now answer my question, why are you white knighting for the M14?

The only thing the M14 does better than an ar10 is trigger nostalgia.

The one size fits all AR10 is a good choice for some, but what if you don't like a pistol grip?

I owned a nice Armalite AR10, but I prefer the flexibility & commonality I get with the M14.
All M14 type rifles share the same parts & magazines, and you can switch in & out of different
stocks as you please. This makes it possible to customize the rifle to better fit the end user.

Standard stocks, chassis stock with, or without a folding butt stock, and even a bull pup kit.
You would have to try really hard to NOT find an M14/M1A configuration that fits your needs.

Congrats! Lipstick on a pig that died in 1943!

Still, you have not answered my question.

You just quoted my answer.

Read it again, it's ALL there.

I'm tired of the semantics argument. So please answer this question.

You did not answer my question, which was, why do you have such a vested interest in the M14?

Are you employed by a company that builds m14's/m1a's? Or accessories for said rifles?

You didn't answer a damn thing

Well, bless your heart.

Is that all you have?

Normally, "well, bless your heart" is normally reserved for people of simple mind, and given your inability to answer a simple question, you insulting me in that manner is quite ironic.

I get the feeling Zak has his mind made up, no answer will satisfy him.

It's AR10 or the highway, so I'm heading down the road, and out of this thread.


As for the civilian M1A

Obsolete? NO!
Worthless? NO!


Anyone that says otherwise is wrong, or you just don't understand the question.




.

Im not even talking about the ar10 anymore, I'm back to the first question i asked.

Which you STILL have not answered.

But hey, keep making snide little comments, it makes you look REAL mature

Zack,

I am guilty of owning several M1As and have run them for 25 years. I don't believe they (M1As and M-14s) are obsolete. Neither has the US military who have used them since they went into service, although they where replaced by the US Army for widespread use after a relatively short time. But the USMC used them for a longer time, and the USN and Spec Ops have continued to use it because it met needs that the M16 and M4 didn't. We all know it went back into widespread use in the Gulf Wars, and Afghanistan.

While I have M1As and also FALs I've thought about getting .308 ARs since I've run a few but concluded why, since these "classic" MBRs I have meet my needs. .308 ARs date back to the same time period as the M-14 when the AR-10 was developed by Eugene Stoner in the mid-50's but we all know the AR-10 was rejected by the US and had very limited use in its original configuration.

Do you have one (or M1A) or have used that platform?  If so and you don't like the platform that's OK but it doesn't mean its obsolete until it goes out of US service, which it hasn't.

Current M-14s/M1as and .308 ARs are more versatile today than the original designs with either platform. The difference I see is there is no standard .308 AR platform with a multitude of different manufacturers with their variations on the theme. The only standardization is roughly with the magazines and some components. But the ones that the USA has acquired (in small numbers) meet a need, just like the M-14 has/does, albeit with some more versatile ways to mount optics.

So you're entitled to your opinion that that M-14s are obsolete. But in the fine tradition of arfcom we all know the old saying about opinions.

My .02

You're right.

He's been here one year with a lot of posts, and 0% feedback. Adds up to being a producer of a lot of green house gases.

There are multiple definitions of obsolete.

The ar10, amd fal and g3 have rendered the m14 obsolete.

No i do not own an m14, nor does it matter.

And the us military is replacing the m14 with an ar10, the only reason why the 14 is still used is because the military loves to drag their feet

You should read the thread

Really? this is a tech forum dude, if this is what you come with, you should stay in GD.

at least i support this site

I also find it funny that you say i am full of shit, while agreeing with a guy WHO HAS A FINANCIAL INTEREST IN THE M14/M1A

I have yet to hear an actual argument, people have just flung poo and tried to discredit me based upon join date, post count, and EE feedback rating.

This isn't GD

Still has the best iron sights out there if you're looking to shoot sans optic....

Werd homey.  That's what I was tryin to say earlier.  Although I do admit that an A2 sight with the ghostring is nice in low light, even if it is really blurry for me now......   But line up those things (M14/M1A/Garand) in broad daylight and my eyes feel like they're young again.....  

When you brought up Arfcom Tradition, I really expected to read, "Get Both"   Not differing opinions....

I think the word I'd use for the M1A is "obsolescent".

It was a nice rifle for its time, but has since been outpaced in any number of important areas - controls, weight, ergonomics, and accuracy. Yes, it's reliable and has great sights, so it's a fun gun to shoot... but I can say the same for any number of other guns.