Quoted: What was wrong with the M14 and a scope on it?
|
1) Old tech, poor ergonomics (hunting-rifle-with-a-mag design)
2) Less accurate due to gas-piston operating system and barreled-reciever-in-(ugh-WOOD)-stock design. Requires glass-bedding, and accuracy degrades as wood stock expands/contracts. AR operating system in the SR-25, combined with a reciever-supported design (a/o stock-bedded-reciever) allows for more accuracy.
3) AR-pattern weapon builds on familiarity with the M16 - everything works 'the same'
4) Much wider selection of accessories
The M14, all in all, was 'What the Garand should have been' - While it would have been a show-stopper in WWII, it was beyond it's time when adopted, and had one of the shortest lives as a standard-issue weapon in US history...
The only reason to deploy M14s in active service today is that they are allready paid for...
What SASS seems to be is a PSG-1 grade weapon - an entirely different ballpark from the warmed-over-M14-with-scope that seems to be getting some use here-and-there to fill the role of a 'designated marksman' weapon (a/o a true sniper rifle)...