Why?
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Why do people think this is good when it's actually a bucket of shit?
>>29266490
It's not shit.
Just the newest victim in AR fanboy envy and defensiveness.
>>29266510
>It's not shit.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrPjlcJ3rtY
Kay.
>>29266490
It ain't bad homeboy, you eva own one nigga? probs not.
I did once, sold it to some sketchy Russian guy, told him it shot 5.56 and gave him a few boxes. not really sure why I did that... ended up with a PTR and very happy about it.
>>29266510
its shit compared to comparable rifles, especially for the price.
>Hurr durr a musket is shit if the powder gets wet
Old firearm designs have to be used properly, how easy it is to operate determines this. Just don't be a retard and shovel dirt into the weapon.
>>29266524
>I put lots of sand inside of a gun and it didn't work!
No shit.
>but the AR worked!
The AR had 0 sand in it.
>Well that means the AR is a more reliable design!
Most people who actually makes guns seems to think so.
Tons of guns, such as AKs, which many consider to be the gold standard of reliability, have a gap like the M14.
If it was such a huge issue, they could easily cover the gap with a dust cover like on the FNC. It's a very cheap and simple part.
Also, those people are not nearly as knowledgeable as they claim to be.
Ian literally doesn't know how a Garand works, then went on to make a video incorrectly explaining how a Garand works.
It was embarrassing, honestly.
>>29266535
Post your rifles.
>>29266532
>you eva own one nigga? probs not.
Anecdote, who cares?
>>29266546
>The AR had 0 sand in it.
>Literally subjected to the same test
Suicide watch pls.
>Tons of guns, such as AKs, which many consider to be the gold standard of reliability
>Pretends to know how firearms work
Kekked tho.
>>29266535
In accuracy it's not.
>>29266557
>>The AR had 0 sand in it.
>>Literally subjected to the same test
>Suicide watch pls.
Do you not understand why the AR didn't get sand in it and the M14 did?
Please tell me you aren't that stupid.
>>Tons of guns, such as AKs, which many consider to be the gold standard of reliability
>>Pretends to know how firearms work
>Kekked tho.
No idea what you're getting at here.
>>29266555
i would but its 5:30 and im 19 and live at my parents house still. its got nothing on the competition. this is coming from a guy who owns a garand in .308.
>>29266559
its not even particularly accurate unless you accurize it to hell and back, making it cost nearly enough to just buy a SCAR and have an all around better rifle.
>>29266573
>I own none of the rifles being discussed
Thought so.
Noguns pls leave
>>29266565
>Do you not understand why the AR didn't get sand in it and the M14 did?
So you confirm it's a better design?
>No idea what you're getting at here.
The fact they actually did similar tests with the AK and it failed. The AK isn't the gold standard of reliability, it's just cheap and everywhere.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX73uXs3xGU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAneTFiz5WU
>>29266581
>m14 fags mad that they wasted thousands on what was literally the worst possible firearm for the money
a FAL or PTR wouldve cost you half as much and been better in every way.
>>29266559
Unless you're regularly shooting 800+ yards this is irrelevant even if it is true.
>>29266595
>noguns mad he has no money to spend on rifles
>>29266597
protip, it's not true!
>>29266593
I think you need to reread my first post.
>>29266603
Your first post was poorly written and was made to sound like you first agreed the AR was a better design, and then moved on to justify the gap issue.
>>29266598
>ive got no excuse for why i bought a terrible rifle
>ill just call him a no-guns
m14 owners are even more delusional than mini 14 owners.
>>29266609
If that's the result you have from reading my posts, then I don't think there's anything I can say that can actually impact your mind in its intended fashion.
This is the part where I decide that this conversation isn't worth my time, and leave it up for the lurkers to decide what they believe.
It's also the time where you then mistakenly claim some kind of victory for yourself out of a sort of narcissistic, imbecilic, need to prove that you aren't as dumb as you secretly think you might be.
So congrats champ, you win!
Go ahead and make your smug post now.
I won't read it, but you can imagine I did.
And that's just as good, right?
>>29266490
Because its the literal definition of a meme gun. A gun that sticks around in peoples heads because of association with a certain time in history.
>Vietnam
>M-16 first issued to troops
>lack of cleaning and chrome lining causes reliability concerns, however, this problem is not well understood by the grunt on the ground, thus, the M-16 is bad
>if the new rifle is BAD that must mean the old rifle is GOOD
Therefore, the M-14 is GOOD
This belief has simply carried forward to the current day. The M-14 was GOOD and should have never been replaced by the M-16, because the M-16 is BAD. Even as the M-16/AR-15 platform has been shown tk be very good this belief remains, that the M-14 is a GOOD rifle.
>>29266557
I care, I care a lot, nigga.
>but really though, its not a bad rifle.
HK pattern battle rifles are better IMO hence why I sold my M1 to the dumb Russian guy and bought a PTR, I bought the M1 on a whim because well I could, should have just bought a PTR in the first place, you get more "bang" for your buck 1300 dollar fudd rifle that costs about that much to tacticool it.
>in short I'm agreeing with you
>care about me
>no one else does
>>29266524
>>29266557
>>29266593
>>29266602
>>29266609
>>29266595
Jeez, you people are dead-set on tearing apart the m14. It sounds like a bunch of "AR master race" fags making fun of the old timer who came before them. The m14 is a fine gun, its nothing spectacular, but it works and its as accurate as any 308 battle rifle in my experience (you don't think so? Then prove it).
>>29266630
Hey, the first m16 was SHIT. And I mean total shit.
>n-n-no its not
>they just didn't give grunts cleaning kits
>they never told them they needed to clean the rifle
Bullshit, that old chestnut has been used for years to defend the m16a1. How about you admit the first version of your raifu was shit and get over it?
It was shit so they turned to what they knew, the m14.
Doesn't matter though, because if vietnam tuaght us anything, its that the AK still beats the AR in all respects.
>>29266773
You are stupid.
>>29266773
>AK still beats the AR in all respects
/Thread
>>29266490
Guns and Ammo industry shills disseminating their propaganda unopposed until based Ian made it jam with literally the smallest around of sand.
>>29266779
well you are a nigger.
>>29266628
Check out this clown
>>29266783
Here we go, while I agree, u just unleashed hell
>>29266595
I can buy whatever I want with my money, I just like the way it looks, so I bought it, I could care less if I can't take a shit in the action, because I'm not a retard
>>29266630
At what point did it stop being good? Did humans some how get used to .308 bullet wounds and grow immune? It's still a good rifle m8
>>29266790
You literally agreed with the guy you were arguing with and tried to claim that as a point some how. No shit first run m16s were phaggytime, thats the whole point, meaning, it was never something 'inherent' to the design, meaning, you dont have a leg to stand on if you try to criticize later versions using the same logic.
There is no basis in reality, only ancient recycled memes, still lurching zombie like half a century later.
>>29266597
>It's not an advantage unless I say it is.
>>29266787
>
The garand, which the m14 is a slight improvement, would have done the same and is considered by anyone with a brain to be the best rifle of the war.
>>29266595
The fal and ptr are not significantly better than an m1a in every category at the same price point.
The M14 is a great rifle as long as you keep it clean. The exposed M1 garand/M14 action does offer some vulnerabilities to debris, but that's also why they taught soldiers in bootcamp to drop to prone with your action facing upward.
>>29269506
Agreed
>>29266490
It's the only (norinco version) .308 battle rifle that we can get in Canada that dosen't cost over $2,500 or is prohibited
>>29266490
Because its fun
>>29267486
No, the fal and ptr are marginally better in every way for 2/3-1/2 the price
>>29266490
A better question is why you even care abouy what others think about it.
If you hate it so much, go burn down Springfield Armory, every gun shop that sells one and the home of everyone that owns one. Maybe that'll stop the puns.
>>29269622
>syrups get norincos and I can't
I shouldn't be so butthurt over this
>This entire fucking thread
/k/, stop fighting plox, we are supposed to be united against tyranny and antifunners, not (memegun name here) fags
>>29269622
>>29269710
Only 5 rds tho /:
>>29269821
fuck man that's harsh
Is that for bolt actions too?
>>29266773
The AR 15 is a better sniper rifle than the AK47...
>>29269957
What the fuck is this mickey mouse shit?
>>29269705
>A better question is why you even care abouy what others think about it.
Because people may end up tricking someone into buying a piece of shit.
>>29266546
>durr I am dumb it doesn't count because the AR got less sand in it by fucking design
Please kill yourself
tfw got the chink Norinco copy for 400 maple bucks and spent 60 on a good recoil spring guide rod and shims
That's about the only good thing about being Canadian
>>29271538
>durr
opinion discarded
>>29269957
The us armys accuracy tests say otherwise they are both 2-4 moa rifles.
>>29271784
>discarding something because you dont like it makes you look like a moron
Wew lad. Kill yourself.
>>29269673
Please show me the ptr for 3-500 dollars or an fal for 7-800.
>>29269882
No smle can have 10rd mags.
>>29266490
ITT: a father better than its son
b-but muh detachable mags
muh .308
muh railz
who the fuck cares, a Garand is half the cost and comes with history.
Pic fucking related
>>29271888
So, I'm legit curious. We know the Garand action sucks, we do, no ifs and or butts, in comparison to modern designs, it sucks. But, I never really heard any kind of sweeping shit on it, even in the pacific, even on the beaches of France. Are torture tests basically meme tier? I mean sure I figure a couple dudes here and there dropped their rifle in the sand and goofed em for half a minute or more, but its not like they all fell out of action. I get mud and sand tests being extra harsh, but there may be a point when they become entirely unrealistic.
>>29271888
The Garand is a Canadian turd. The M14 is better in every measureable way.
>>29271888
>implying history is worth fuck all
>>29271916
It suffers from literally the same problems an M14 does while firing an obnoxious round, having an inferior feed system, and weighing more.
Everyone wanted the M1 Carbine.
>>29271952
But I have no historical evidence of it actually being an issue.
>>29271944
>ignoring that you could buy two garands for one m1a
>>29271818
not op, you just sound like a child
>>29271998
Hey, you'll get over it. I may sound like a child but you're still wrong.
>This rifle is shit because there are better options, even if you like this one because history or you get a boner from looking at it or the garand you are WRONG.
This is all of you. So fucking what if the rifle doesn't work if you shovel obstructions into the action? I love my $500 Chinese copy.
>>29272524
it was never good though.
>jams if magazine rests on ground
solid design
http://looserounds.com/2015/01/30/the-m14-not-much-for-fighting-a-case-against-the-m14-legend/
>>29272546
So the rifle has to have 0 issues to be enjoyable to own?
Mine also feeds fine if I have it sitting on the magazine, no wiggle at all.
>>29272628
>So the rifle has to have 0 issues to be enjoyable to own?
Who said that?
>Mine also feeds fine if I have it sitting on the magazine, no wiggle at all.
Anecdote, dismissed.
>>29271952
>.30-06 obnoxious
You wut m8?
>>29266524
>uses worlds shittiest version of the m14
>compares it to an exceptional version of the AR-15
"M14 is just a bad gun guise"-no guns /k/id
>>29272635
I like the rifle that I got for cheap
>But it was never good
>Here's a reason why it was never good
Is there any reason for typing those other than "I don't like the rifle, you shouldn't either. Look at some things that are wrong with it"
>>29272735
>has no evidence to back up claim
SHAKINGHEAD
S
-H
--A
---K
----I
-----N
------G
-------H
--------E
---------A
----------D
>>29266773
The A1 was shit because those inebriated fucks at the Army Ordinance Board kept on rigging the tests to favor the M14 because of muh wood and steel. Once McNamara found out what the AOB was doing he forced the military to adopt the M16 no matter what they said. If the AOB wasnt filled with fucktards and actually gave the rifle a proper testing trail, the problems would have been ironed out and the reputation of the jam-o-matic wouldnt have existed. The deaths of all those soldiers due to their M16 malfunctioning can all be blamed on the AOB because they were scared of change.
>>29272737
You wanna have it as a novelty that's fine, if you like it that's fine, that's not the issue here.
It is not a good rifle.
>>29272770
Actually, Army Ordinance DID give the rifle a fair shake to prep it for war after they got put in line, however the whizz kids thought it was more bullshit they were pushing to keep the rifle out of the conflict, so they ignored the proposed fixes and just threw the rifles into combat.
>>29266787
Cherry picks worst version of the gun, puts it up against good version of other gun.
"history was wrong guise! just look at da utoobman!"
>>29272710
It's a pretty terrible round all things considered. We should've went with .25 Remington or .351 WSL, the latter of which was already combat proven.
>>29272816
Do a rebuttal with your god tier version
>>29271944
>implying history isn't the greatest torture test of all
>>29272830
>.351 Winchester self-loathing
>less than half the energy and velocity of fuddy-ought six
you cant be serious
>>29272948
>He thinks ft-lbs of energy matters
It's actually right at half and similar (more than) to 5.56 Nato in energy.
Not that it matters as it's more than enough for anything engagements in WW2 and Korean required.
The main advantage would be completely streamlined logistics with an extremely compact and easily manufactured and distributed cartridge.
.276 Pederson could have been used in the 1919 family of weapons. You could also drop the BAR by using a full auto Winchester like the French did in WW1 or produce a new gun to take advantage of double stack magazines.
Also shitcan the 1911, Thompson, and all pistols in general to eliminate production of 38SPL, 45 Auto Rim, 45 ACP, 32ACP, and all those other oddballs that were floating around at that time in the US military. Officers can buy their own if they want one.
The gun was introduced in 1959 and is still in use in the Middle East.(currently being phased out) Regardless if the FAL or AR platforms are better, the fact that the strongest military on the planet has is using a 57 year old platform in the modern day says something about the firearms reliability and usefulness. If it was a hunk of shit, they wouldn't use it.
>>29266773
This thread is officially retarded, the M16A1 was the version where everything was fixed.
The M16A0/M16 was where the barrel and chamber weren't chromed and there was no forward assist. The M16A1 had the forward assist added along with a chrome plated barrel/chamber.
because gun owners are extremely impressionable and they love watching movies and buying the guns in them
the M1A and the M14 are shit, the only fags who want them don't even carry them around they are literally range toys
