The M14. Not so great.

clandestine · Feb 9, 2015

http://looserounds.com/2015/01/30/the-m14-not-much-for-fighting-a-case-against-the-m14-legend/

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/677383.pdf

I saw this on another forum and I have to agree with it.

I have grown to dislike them because they shoot lose and the parts are absurdly expensive.

clandestine · Feb 9, 2015

This video with a S.A. makes me laugh.
https://www.full30.com/video/9eef6b3a4eb6c8846a4c8dc4b8968bc4

Vile Shadow · Feb 9, 2015

Perhaps.

But the Army used 'em for a while, and apparently they offend libtards as well so I had to have the semi-auto version.

Abellmio · Feb 9, 2015

Seems like our standard for what made a good service rifle has changed a lot. People rave about M1s, but aren't M1s functionally identical to M14s aside from the shorter cartridge length and a detachable box mag?

I guess that makes me feel good. Here I've been thinking small arms technology has been basically stagnant since the 50s and maybe there is still some room for mechanical improvements.

Sundazes · Feb 9, 2015

I like my M1A, but then again, I just at a bench.

Vile Shadow · Feb 9, 2015

sundazes said:
I like my M1A, but then again, I just at a bench.

For SHTF, definitely an AR rifle due to parts availability. So the wisdom of our masked gunsmith is definitely not wasted.

But few rifles have the character bestowed by wood and steel.

outrider58 · Feb 9, 2015

Sling Blade said:
Perhaps.

But the Army used 'em for a while, and apparently they offend libtards as well so I had to have the semi-auto version.

...and Marines

Sundazes · Feb 9, 2015

Sling Blade said:
For SHTF, definitely an AR rifle due to parts availability. So the wisdom of our masked gunsmith is definitely not wasted.

But few rifles have the character bestowed by wood and steel.

Amen to that. I would not take it for SHTF, but I do enjoy shooting it. I am always asked about it and asked to shoot it.
The AR's are for SHTF. But don't worry, they are neither 40 cal or gas piston. :lol2:

echo6mike · Feb 9, 2015

That mud test was very interesting - I'd love to see more harsh condition testing vids like that of different firearms. I guess I need to go poke around youtube, I'm sure they're out there.

But once again, The Man speaks truth.

outrider58 · Feb 9, 2015

Had a couple buddies, Vietnam Marine vets, swore by their '14s.

trbon8r · Feb 9, 2015

outrider58 said:
Had a couple buddies, Vietnam Marine vets, swore by their '14s.

Yeah somehow these guys pictured below seem to be fans as well. Maybe their rifles work since they know better than to stuff a wad of mud into the chamber. :rolleyes:

My rack grade M14 with a Super Sniper 1-6 scope will shoot 5 shots inside 2 inches all day with decent ammo, and that SS scope isn't exactly a target optic. My match gun with a heavy Douglas barrel will do a good bit better than that. But it's the interwebs where everyone's AR is a 1 MOA shooter with ball ammo.

During the M14s run as a match rifle the USMC acceptance standard for those poor inaccurate turds was that each rifle had to shoot 10 rounds from a mechanical rest inside 3 inches at 300 yards. Not to mention the steel bedding compounds have improved greatly since the M21 first came into service. Combined with the rear lug and double lug receivers, a good bedding job will last the service life of a match barrel's competition accuracy.

tinydata · Feb 9, 2015

From talking to veterans who lost friends due to the terrible early versions of the M16, its clear why they hold the M14 in high regard.

Despite its issues, by the time it was subjected to combat, the M14 had gobbled up enough tax dollars and T&E effort to become a somewhat reliable infantry rifle. (note that this doesn't mean it was a good sniper's rifle platform- its not) Given time, the M16 and M4 seem to have been refined enough to be considered reliable by those that have carried them into tough conditions.

On the subject of accuracy, my M1A is a little more accurate than my CMP service grade M1 Garand. This comparison is made based on using standard ball loads (M2 Ball vs M80). That being said, my 16" barreled AR upper kicked the snot out of both while using 55gr XM193 clones. The AR platform is simply more mechanically accurate. It has more locking lugs, consistent metal-to-metal surface mating, and all the benefits of modern manufacturing. The lack of a compressed, moisture-sensitive wood stock is also a great bonus in the accuracy department.

The NM AR-15 is stupidly easy to build in comparison to the NM M1 or M1A/M14. Those that dispute this point only need to compare the prices on NM service rifles. The former doesn't need the precise hand fitting, bedding, and constant maintenance to perform. At my first outing at a local military match with a borrowed Bushmaster DCM gun and Turkish 5.56, I beat all of the M1A shooters using the full NM setup. If a casual M1903/M1 shooter can take a relatively crappy NM AR and kick the snot out of experienced shooters who are using M1As, something's up with the guns.

I acknowledge the clear superiority of the AR platform, but there is something fun about shooting the old, 9-10lb service rifles and dealing with the abuse of .30/7.62mm full power cartridges. The M1A is a nice looking rifle, but I don't think I'll ever buy a NM variant and pretend it will beat the NM AR-15s.

clandestine · Feb 9, 2015

tinydata said:
From talking to veterans who lost friends due to the terrible early versions of the M16, its clear why they hold the M14 in high regard.

Despite its issues, by the time it was subjected to combat, the M14 had gobbled up enough tax dollars and T&E effort to become a somewhat reliable infantry rifle. (note that this doesn't mean it was a good sniper's rifle platform- its not) Given time, the M16 and M4 seem to have been refined enough to be considered reliable by those that have carried them into tough conditions.

On the subject of accuracy, my M1A is a little more accurate than my CMP service grade M1 Garand. This comparison is made based on using standard ball loads (M2 Ball vs M80). That being said, my 16" barreled AR upper kicked the snot out of both while using 55gr XM193 clones. The AR platform is simply more mechanically accurate. It has more locking lugs, consistent metal-to-metal surface mating, and all the benefits of modern manufacturing. The lack of a compressed, moisture-sensitive wood stock is also a great bonus in the accuracy department.

The NM AR-15 is stupidly easy to build in comparison to the NM M1 or M1A/M14. Those that dispute this point only need to compare the prices on NM service rifles. The former doesn't need the precise hand fitting, bedding, and constant maintenance to perform. At my first outing at a local military match with a borrowed Bushmaster DCM gun and Turkish 5.56, I beat all of the M1A shooters using the full NM setup. If a M1/M1903 shooter can take a relatively crappy NM AR and kick the snot out of experienced shooters who are using M1As, something's up with the guns.

I acknowledge the clear superiority of the AR platform, but there is something fun about shooting the old, 9-10lb service rifles and dealing with the abuse of .30/7.62mm full power cartridges. The M1A is a nice looking rifle, but I don't think I'll ever buy a NM variant and pretend it will beat the NM AR-15s.

That's a really well composed and reasoned response. You should post more.

Arcamm · Feb 10, 2015

So if SHTF, grab the PTR91 and leave the M1A in the safe.

Good info.

Magnumite · Feb 10, 2015

Nice post, tinydata.

As for:
"I acknowledge the clear superiority of the AR platform, but there is something fun about shooting the old, 9-10lb service rifles and dealing with the abuse of .30/7.62mm full power cartridges."

Its called smoking a solid 16" cinder block into a dust cloud at 85 yards with one round of M1 ball. No sniper shot but interesting results. Gotta love it!

If SHTF I'd grab the AR. Hopefully with some 855A1 ammo.

byf43 · Feb 10, 2015

In my (much) younger days, I was a BIG fan of the M1 Garand the the M14/M1A platform.

There's 'just something' about that .30 caliber (7.62mm) boolit that draws me in.

With a bad back, broken (and surgically repaired) neck, and "Arthur" (arthritis) settling in, my beloved M1A and M1 Garand don't see as much range time as they used to.

To these old eyes, these two platforms are just 'sexy'.
However, I won't even try to kid anyone......... IF the SHTF, I'd have to disable both of them, and pick up one of my AR platform rifles.

I'm not going to (nor am I able to) lug around a 9-10 lb M1 Garand, and I surely WILL NOT lug around my almost 15 lb (empty!) M1A!!!!!!!
Screw that.

Still........ I am a BIG fan of the platforms. I have thought about selling both, but, I just can't (and won't).

Maybe, one day, I'll take my match grade M1A and put a Scout/Squad/"Bush rifle" barrel on it, and fit that old USGI synthetic stock that I have, to it.

Jed195 · Feb 10, 2015

As a Marine who served in the early 90s I was extremely lucky to have had the chance to have, as one of my issued weapons, an M14. I carried an M16A2/M203 as my everyday rifle but as a Designated Marksman had an accurized, glass bedded National Match M14 in a Mcmillan woodland camo stock with a Leupold fixed 6x scope. We also had M40A2s but I would rather have the 20 rounds and ability to fire rapid follow up shot or merely engage multiple targets without taking my eye out of the scope. I almost acquired a BM59 from a Somali body guard but we never saw each other again after our first encounter, that thing was beautiful and looked well maintained. My M14 never had an issue with sand wet or dry that I can attest to.

I currently own a SOCOM 16 and intend on replacing the stock components with H&R or other USGI parts but she's a blast to shoot and the 16 inch barrel is more maneuverable to me. Talk about fireballs!

paperwork351 · Feb 10, 2015

I like shooting them. I don't carry the rifle/ammo any further than the car and the bench.

erwos · Feb 10, 2015

As a sniping platform, the M14 sucks. In fact, I'd say that the big 3 battle rifles all suck as sniping platforms. HK had to do absurd amounts of work to the G3 to get it to perform in that role... kinda like what's being done with the M14.

As a DMR platform, the M14 is average at best, and I suspect it will be displaced eventually by some sort of AR-308 procurement. As the article correctly notes, the M14 is a rather finicky platform to keep tuned for accuracy, and it's kinda heavy for what it is.

Remember that the usage of M14s as DMRs was mostly driven by the fact that there were a zillion M14s in storage, not because someone ran a competition and decided that an M14 in a fancy dress was the bestest DMR ever.

trickg · Feb 10, 2015

erwos said:
As a sniping platform, the M14 sucks. In fact, I'd say that the big 3 battle rifles all suck as sniping platforms. HK had to do absurd amounts of work to the G3 to get it to perform in that role... kinda like what's being done with the M14.

Doesn't Delta and the Navy SEALs still use the M14 (M21/M25) as a sniper platform, or are they moving away from it to a different, better and more modern rifle for their lightweight, semi-auto sniper system?

The M14. Not so great.

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

AR-15 Savant

AR-15 Savant

...

Member

Throbbing Member

...

Eats Bacon Raw

Throbbing Member

Ultimate Member

Eats Bacon Raw

Ultimate Member

Attachments

Active Member

AR-15 Savant

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

SCSC Life/NRA Patron Life

Ultimate Member

no error code for stupid

The Hebrew Hammer

Guns 'n Drums

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics