What is with the recent hate toward the M14?
>>29402350
/k/ ends up loving and then hating everything the same way fads work.
Eventually they'll be liked again.
A few recent articles showed /k/ that M14 is not that wunderwaffe they perceived it to be. And since /k/ only either hates or loves something now they are hating it.
It wasn't all that great of a rifle.
>>29402350
You can trace all the m14 hate back to a select few articles and posts on reddit guns and ar fags ate it up.
>>29402377
>>29402388
This, also nice consecutive dubs. Not to mention she's partly to blame for America cucking NATO from having the superior .280 British round
>>29402392
neither was the garand, or the fg42, or the gewehr 43, or nugget, or svt-40, or the.......
Because its inferior to the hk91 or the FAL
>>29402350
Who gives a shit? /k/ shits on things all the time,
>Hey guys I wanna buy a 308 semi-auto what should I get. I want an M14 or a AR-10
>BUY A PTR
>I dont want a PTR
>WOW OMG U R STUPID
>>29402406
Give one objective reason why
>>29402402
>America cucking NATO from having the superior .280
I'm still salty about this. We would never have needed to change it, and now when you champion rounds like that /k/ will call you a retarded faggot and tell you that battle is all about laying down fire and that 5.56 is just fine.
>>29402407
STOP HAVING AN OPEN MIND FOR THE THINGS I DON'T LIKE
>>29402413
Losing zero if you grasp the top cover.
>>29402413
Do you seriously want him to post those articles shittalking the M14 yet another time?
>>29402420
What's the weight savings for .223 over .280 when stacked end to end inside a C3? Something tells me we'd still have switched.
For an all around excellent civilian round though, I cannot deny how awesome the .280 would have been.
>>29402413
Reliability
Accuracy
Weight
Cost
Versatility
>>29402443
>top cover
>M14
B8 confirmed
>>29402350
It's one of the most aesthetically pleasing rifles IMO but it's performance is pretty mediocre. As long as you dont do the opposite of what they trained GI's to do with the M14 and plant the op-rod track face down in the dirt/sand, it will hold up pretty well. FWIW, I know two guys who carried them in OEF out on patrols regularly and both of them said other than the weight they were great.
>>29402443
sounds like fuddlore to me, like if you dry fire a 1911 it will damage the gun
>>29402451
I've heard that argument, but you end up carrying the same amount of weight anyway, and it comes down to what you'd rather that weight consist of.
>>29402420
Nigga what? In most loadings, .280 was a on the lighter end of full-power cartridges. It was not a true intermediate like M43 or 5.56
>>29402350
I think a majority hate it becuase of two reasons, its not an AR and they cant afford it. I love the 14 and to be quite honest its the only rifle I have ever wanted to own. Its perfect but its a classic american rifle and is just much more fun to shoot than anything besides an M1 carbine imo. I would absolutely trust my life to my M1A and in the end thats all that matters.
TLDR: I like them alot
>>29402475
When in my post did I ever say the words "true intermediate?"
>>29402475
Wouldn't that be the same for 4.85x49?
Heavy range queen.
>>29402453
>reliability
Fair
>accuracy
None of those rifles are exceptionally accurate. Especially the G3.
>weight
Fair
>cost
You pulled this out of your ass
>versatility
Buzzword with no real meaning. Not one of those rifles is any more or less versatile than the other.
>>29402479
It isnt perfect*
>>29402350
it's shit friend. Get an ar10. Fuck, a dsa or ptr would probably be better.
>>29402443
That's bullshit, maybe on some tweaked rifle to within 1/10,000 of perfect spec. but the standard fiberglass handguard is the same design as the Garand. A spring steel clip holds the handguard onto the barrel like white on rice, removing the clip can be quite difficult even with a needle nose pliers. Simply picking it up by the handguard would not even make it wiggle.
>>29402413
>>29402496
Looks like I do have to post it.
http://looserounds.com/2015/01/30/the-m14-not-much-for-fighting-a-case-against-the-m14-legend/
http://looserounds.com/2015/02/04/more-thoughts-and-follow-ups-from-some-others-on-the-m14/
>>29402496
>None of those rifles are exceptionally accurate.
Then why were they ever used? Spray-n-pray like the AK?
>>29402350
I really like M14s
Its too bad they're so fucking expensive
1500$ for the cast springfield and then 2100$ for a "real one"
>>29402406
Both those guns are severely uncomfortable when I hold them, whereas the M1as I've held are always comfy as fuck.
I'd buy an M1a over two of those others for the same price.
>>29402402
Let it go britcucks. Its not like you would ever ever be able to look at a bullet without a license.
>>29402473
Yeah, it's the same weight slowly destroying some privates knees, but the auto rifleman just got more rounds for suppressive fire. Current doctrine goes with the lighter round.
Seriously, I'm just waiting for them to switch to the fucking .17 hornet at this point.
>>29402534
so in other words, it isn't high speed low drag enough for 1337 operators like the author
>>29402557
Not him, or European, but what does that have to do with anything?
>>29402568
>just waiting for them to switch to the fucking .17 hornet at this point.
I've had pretty much that exact thought.
>>29402557
>Implying I'm a Brit
Carribbean actually, 7.62 NATO is shit compared to .308 Winchester. Also
>7mm>7.62mm
>>29402489
You're ignoring the real issues it had, like being difficult to control on full-auto. It has a very real weight disadvantage, both in terms of ammunition and and the weight of the gun itself for small arms use while at best matching the trajectory of existing full-power cartridges.
>>29402575
Looks like you didn't read the articles.
>>29402453
I'll even explain it
> Reliability
No contest. Piece of shit. Unironically the most unreliable battle rifle available. Mutiple videos recently showing this. MAS49 is more reliable.
> Accuracy
For what it is, it CAN be accurized, but for the tradeoffs on weight and length, it's medicore.
> Weight
Slightly heavier than G3 and the FAL, but not by much
> Cost
1,700$ vs 900$-$1,200
> Versatility
It's way longer, doesn't have a folding stock, optics are limited.
>>29402575
It's just not the gun to end all guns as people perceive it to be. There are better alternatives for the price.
>>29402403
>neither was the garand
How about I fuck you up?
>>29402617
At the time? Yes. But not in general.
I mean, if we're considering the M14 not good then we should consider the M1 the same.
>>29402479
I have a Chicom m14 (m305 ) and they are heavy. Throw a Bassett on the side and a scope and the weight is getting ridiculous.
That said, it cost $800nzd ($400usd) and functions pretty flawlessly if you aren't blowing dirt directly onto the op rod track.
>>29402599
>ignoring the issues
No, you're taking me not mentioning that and shoving words down my mouth.
>>29402599
>7mm British
>Difficult to cotrol in full auto
Pick one.
>>29402595
>7.62 NATO is shit compared to .308 Winchester
ITT: Day/k/are
>>29402568
>.17 hornet
It'd be a lot easier on everyone's ears
>>29402652
>What are gas pressures
>What are higher pressures in loadings
>What's reloading
http://www.fulton-armory.com/%5Cfaqs%5CM14-FAQs%5C308.htm
>>29402685
Were you ever aware that they exist for different purposes, despite being the same size?
Are you aware of the .223?
>>29402685
And yet, the M14 can eat both 7.62 NATO and .308. Even fairly hot .308- the weak link is the gas system, not the action- and the M14 gas system isn't terribly weak. Ask me how I know!
>>29402704
Yes, and in this civillian market, I prefer the cartridges to be reloadable with higher velocities.
>>29402711
Don't care, I'm not interested in getting an M1A or an M14
>>29402768
>Don't care, I'm not interested in getting an M1A or an M14
>therefore it is objectively a bad gun!!!
>>29402651
It produces similar levels of recoil from the 7.7lb EM-2 to .308 from a 9.5lb FAL
I feel confident in saying that, as a shoulder fired rifle, it was in fact difficult to control in full auto
M1A Scout master race base
For Californians, it's got the paddle release instead of a bullet button. For anyone anywhere, it's got the power of an M1A/AR-10/PSL in a handy yet surprisingly sturdy package. For me, the stock's just heavy enough to absorb enough recoil yet not be too heavy to carry for extended periods.
I've put hundreds of cheap .308 through my Scout with no failures. The Garand-style irons are fantastic. Blastwave from the muzzle break is a tad high, but if it bothers you just take it off.
You can certainly get a more accurate rifle in the same caliber for less money, but if you enjoy the aesthetics and ergonomics of the M-14, the Scout's a great choice IMO.
>>29402834
How much for it? My dick is in love now. Much better than the synthetic Socom model.
>>29402537
Minute of human at 500 and in, big boolit
>>29402797
Now try that in the orginal designation of the FAL that was design to fire 7mm NATO vs. 7.62 NATO. I'd like to see the recoil differences there
>>29402853
Speaking of wood vs. synthetic, I read that the composites were originally created for use in Vietnam. Would western Washington be that soggy or could I get away with a wooden rifle out there?
>>29402782
I never said it was a bad rifle. I'm simply not interested in it. They all have their flaws, ya know?
>>29402602
>Piece of shit
Sounds like YouTube channel pushers looking for anything to talk about. The US fought a jungle war for years with the M-14, and it worked perfectly fine.
>>29402350
Look at the price.
>>29402479
It's not even that it's not an AR. It's not economical and it's worse in every regard to an HK91 pattern rifle.
>>29402866
Concession accepted
>>29402853
Mine was about $1500 new (bought it last year). You can find it cheaper than that used.
>>29402350
It's the anti-Nugget and therefore a badwronggun.
>select fire (military) or semi auto (civ) instead of bolt action
>American instead of slavshit
>still in production instead of 70+ year old milsurp
>expensive
>>29402947
so are HK pistols shit because "TEH PRICE! MUCH BETTER ALTERNATIVES!!1"
>>29402496
I've been pleasently surprised in the accuracy department by more G3's than I care to mention
It's as least as reliable as the AK47 or any other Garand action derivatives. Probably even more reliable due to the White gas system.
>>29402540
Only few parts like an op rod and the ejector and maybe the bolt would be worth changing out. The cast receiver doesn't matter though.
The M14, Garand, Mini-14 and M1 carbine are objectively the worst, most pathetic excuses for "firearms" ever made and I'd rather take a Chauchat to war because even that is more accurate, reliable and cheap to make because I think Ian said so. If you disagree you're stupid and should kill yourself for LIKING WHAT I THINK I PROBABLY DON'T LIKE.
I trained a lot with the Mk. 14 in the Army. That motherfucker weighed too much for what it was. I was much happier when the armorer dropped it and they gave me a pristine SAM-R instead.
The Mk. 14 was reliable enough after I picked through the beat up magazines but it was just unrealistically heavy. The SAM-R was half the weight, was more accurate, had a fucking SD-C trigger, and allowed me to mount a light and PEQ out of the fucking way.
>>29402647
Pic related
>Simple, it's not FAL!
>Not even a G3.
Seriously though. I love all three.
Maybe my FAL just a little more cause
> Muh first battle rifle.
>>29402420
>I'm still salty about this.
>I was alive at the time and have used both .280 and .308 in combat conditions trust me fellow anons.
No need to be salty because it doesn't affect you.
I had to carry a m14 in iraq. Not even the EBR, just a Vietnam relic with modern glass.
It sucked to carry unless I was pulling security for my unit's FARP.
>>29402413
weight.
>>29402350
I don't hate the M14, I just think it's a vastly over-rated rifle, especially when compared to the FAL or G3.
>>29402602
mhm i wanna suck dem toes
>>29402479
>can't afford it.
Nah, more like it costs to much for what you get. Its just not a good value. I like them, but in you're heart you know it's true. Unfortunately by choosing to me a namefag you automatically outed yourself and any points you could have made for the rifle due to you're inherent bias
>>29402497
I thought that was some faggot airsofter until I saw that casing. Now I realize it's just a faggot.
>>29402350
>recent
/k/ has hated everything since /k/'s inception. If you had to work with a 7.62 rifle you would be pretty retarded to choose an m1a/m14 these days. That being said they are still cool rifles and plenty capable if you can keep the action clear. They don't eat muck and dirt like most modern combat rifles.
>>29403082
I hated the Sage stock conversion when we got them. When I went over in 2005, mine was set up with just the Smith scope mount and an M68 on it. Looked pretty much like the BHD movie gun. Worked well for what it was, which was 7.62mm firepower for roadblocks when we didn't have enough 240Bs to go around.
But it was also a case of cobbling together a weapon out of what we had. This was long before the M-110 or any other 7.62mm semi option for Big Army. So while the sun might be setting on its last war, we can't forget that Delta and the SEALs used them in Desert Storm, Shugart and Gordon got it a Medal of Honor fight, and it put in good work in Iraq and Afghan. Pretty good postscript for what had been just the first couple years of Vietnam.
>>29402350
It's a recent victim of AR fanboy backlash and ego protection.
The M14 worked just fine in the jungles of Vietnam, whereas the AR got soldiers killed due to jamming, and to this days still jams all the time in helmet cam videos.
So of course AR fanboys like Ian then have to make a video where the blow tons of dust at point blank range into the M14's receiver to make the uneducated think that means it's unreliable.
>>29403082
>>29404517
I haven't had a chance to fire one but from reading specs the M-110 seems to be just as heavy as the M-14, if not a bit heavier. Obviously neither would be a great choice as an assault rifle, but it seems like the "wow so heavy" gripe is kind of overblown.
>>29402392
t. AR fuccboi
>b-b-buh if I dump mud inna action
NO SHIT
>>29404600
nah
>>29404621
Yeah.
>>29404644
nah
AR has continued to have money poured into R&D to make it near perfect like it is today, M1As stopped a long time ago.
>>29404600
You are talking from the deepest regions of your own ass. The M14 had a pretty terrible reputation in Vietnam. Not only was it heavy as fuck, but there were LOTS of reported stoppages during combat. Its questionable reliability under very adverse conditions is listed as one of the major reasons of looking for a new issue rifle, among the desire to switch to .223/5.56.
>Read on internet
>I want to agree with this so it's true
>Repeat on internet
The cycle only stops when you kill yourself my man.
>>29404672
>near perfect
>jams in almost every helmet cam video
>beaten by all competitors in army reliability test
Nah
>>29404679
Provide evidence for your claims.
>>29404707
Post one of those helmet cam videos with a jamming AR/M-16. I'm curious what that looks like.
>>29404707
You mean the reliability test where the testers didn't understand how the burst cam worked?
>>29404707
>>jams in almost every helmet cam video
>highschoolers not-maintaining weapons that have been worked for 30+ years continuously will malfunction occasionaly
Holy shit.
>>beaten by all competitors in army reliability test
Funny that most of those competitors were based off AR-18.
>>29402636
But the M14 was never good in its time. It was essentially a slightly upgraded Garand, which in and of itself was a terrible idea considering the competition. It was also meant to fill the role of BAR, Garand, Thompson, and 1903, and it was exceptionally bad at all of those things.
>>29404610
The m110 is not an infantrymans rifle, and it weights 15.3lbs fully loaded.
>>29404723
then why haven't we phased them out of DMR roles then?
>>29404723
Yes it was. It did fine. Except for the fact that full power cartridges in full retard mode was extremely inefficient and wasteful which is why they switched over to intermediate and the AR15.
>>29404736
Apparently they're working on it over time, but the cost to switch out isn't worth it
ergo, it's good enough to use for the time-being, which puts to rest the fucking retardlore of the M14 being total shit.
>>29404736
>then why haven't we phased them out of DMR roles then?
Because a critical lack of other DMRs
The government literally sent letters to people they had lent M14s out to asking for them back so that they could arm troops going to Afghanistan with something that could reach out to a long distance.
>>29404707
Read the fucking Hitch Report which was an official government inquiry into issued rifles for our military. The report explicitly states the M14 is less reliable under ALL conditions, but especially in adverse conditions to the M1 Garand, the AK-47 and the AR-15. There are dozens of inquiries and reports run through the government and military prior to Stoner's design ever being on the radar stating the M14 was a pile of dog shit.
As issued:
95% of the rifles had loose stock bands.
90% of the rifles had loose gas cylinders.
75% of the rifles had misaligned op rods and gas pistons.
50% of the rifles had loose op rod guides.
50% of the rifles had op rods that rubbed the stock.
I could keep going. How about instead of spoon feeding you sources you actually educate yourself on the matter before trying to pass off fuddlore as fact. The M14 is a rifle the government wanted so badly to succeed, even up to GWOT where it had been converted to DMR/Sniper platform in both M14 and M21 forms, and it still failed miserably.
I actually like the fun, it's a fun and historical rifle, but it is a pretty fucking shitty rifle when compared to just about all of its peers.
>>29404756
>sourceless opinions: the blogpost
That guy was a faggot and so are you.
>>29404715
Just go search "combat footage iraq" on liveleak
>>29404716
That's an internet rumor that was never substantiated.
>>29404722
>>highschoolers not-maintaining weapons that have been worked for 30+ years continuously will malfunction occasionaly
>Holy shit.
So you admit that it's unsuitable for the average infantryman.
>Funny that most of those competitors were based off AR-18.
Probably because the AR 18 is a much better rifle design.
>>29402941
>"perfectly fine"
>"strategic withdrawal"
>>29404756
That's not a source, that's a bunch of shit you typed out.
>>29404734
The M-14 isn't being used as an infantryman's rifle either nowadays. It's for when you want to reach out and touch someone with 7.62mm at range. Rifle performs well when used in original intended role, film at 11.
>>29404774
>So you admit that it's unsuitable for the average infantryman.
I'm saying the military to upgrade to newly produced rifles.
M60 was fine during the first years of Vietnam
M60 was a piece of shit during the last years of Vietnam
(because it got worked so hard that most examples reached their service life in a few short years).
>Probably because the AR 18 is a much better rifle design.
I've owned one.
No.
It is beyond easy to permanently fuck up an AR-18.
>>29404765
I just cited the Hitch Report you fucking retard. That is a source. Find a copy of it yourself.
>>29404789
See above. You millenial faggots are the worst, if there's no hyperlink it doesn't exist apparently.
Kill yourselves.
>>29404808
>You millenial faggots are the worst
Fuck off i'm not that faggot but don't lump me in with him.
>>29404808
>if there's no hyperlink it doesn't exist apparently.
Given the ease of linking shit on the web, NOT hyperlinking is a red flag for someone blowing smoke out of their ass and telling me it's a campfire.
>>29404804
>M60 was fine during the first years of Vietnam
>M60 was a piece of shit during the last years of Vietnam
That's because it is a bad gun.
>It is beyond easy to permanently fuck up an AR-18.
I should have said better in concept.
The AR-18 design was not finished.
>>29404808
Well according to the Bitch report, everything in your report is wrong and you're a faggot.
>>29404786
He was referring to the rifles performance and not the conclusion to the actual war.
>>29404826
>That's because it is a bad gun.
No it isn't. It was fine until it reached the end of its service life.
You can fuck up an AK just as bad as an M60 or AR.
>I should have said better in concept.
I should have said you're a faggot who's never owned an AR-18.
This is what an AR-18 is
A piece of shit AR-15 built cheap for poor people.
It's only expensive now ironically. You are a turbofaggot.
>>29404857
>A piece of shit ar-15 built cheap for poor people
That's right, the AR-18 was built for those who couldn't afford AR-15s.
>>29404824
Given the ease of searching shit on the web, NOT taking the time to google it yourself is a red flag for someone who is lazy and incompetent in the first place and telling me their opinion matters.
>>29404823
Well I still cited a source and your response still retarded. Glad to know you are not that faggot though.
>>29404838
11/10 dude totally hilarious trolled me good
We could have had the FAL, but the American MilIdustrial Complex sold the Brass on the M14.
>>29404878
>Well I still cited a source and your response still retarded.
Not him homo, dunno why you're being such a bitch tho.
>>29402880
Yeah because the wood stocks were too heavy and would absorb water and split.
>>29402941
>The US fought a jungle war for years with the M-14, and it worked perfectly fine.
Of course, that's why they replaced it.
>>29404857
>No it isn't. It was fine until it reached the end of its service life.
>You can fuck up an AK just as bad as an M60 or AR.
Wrong.
The M60's receiver wears out very rapidly, which is why they had such a shitty service life.
>I should have said you're a faggot who's never owned an AR-18.
>This is what an AR-18 is
>A piece of shit AR-15 built cheap for poor people.
>It's only expensive now ironically. You are a turbofaggot.
If it's so bad, then why is it that all the AR's competitors are based off of it, and beat it in reliability tests?
>>29404908
>The M60's receiver wears out very rapidly,
Literally because soldiers smacked it around.
>If it's so bad, then why is it that all the AR's competitors are based off of it
Because there's nothing else to base a gun off that isn't a gimmick.
AR-18 is almost an AK.
>>29404900
They replaced it because they wanted a new awesome future rifle.
So they hurried the AR into deployment, and ended up with a total shitshow.
>>29404800
>Rifle performs well when used in original intended role,
Its original role was to be an INFANTRYMAN'S RIFLE. And for that it was shit.
>>29404927
>and ended up with a total shitshow.
non-extruded gunpowder fucked it up.
No other reason other than the actual military logic is the reason the AR sucked in 'nam
>>29404927
AR pattern rifles had been around since the 50s. AR10 already saw combat in Africa with colonial armies.
early m16 problems were due to wrong propellant and lack of cleaning.
>>29404890
Fits of rage from 100% uncut stupidity on this board. I'm usually strong but simple ones like
>No source
When in the first sentence the source was cited activate my nerd rage.
>>29402350
>2016
>not liking a glorious 308 american battle rifle that is highly accurate and rugged
The only downside is that its heavy and its difficult to mount modern optics
Wood stocks are sexy though so it gets a pass
>>29404924
>Literally because soldiers smacked it around.
Even if that were the case, that only shows how shitty it is.
>Because there's nothing else to base a gun off that isn't a gimmick.
>AR-18 is almost an AK.
I think that's an exaggeration, but whatever.
So you're saying it's better to base guns off the AK than the AR?
I thought you said ARs were great.
And if you're not saying that, then why did guns based off an almost AK beat the AR so easily in reliability tests?
>>29404908
Every one of HK's infamously quality roller delayed designs is based off of a shitty last ditch Nazi Wonderwaffle, doesn't say anything about the StG 45.
>>29404707
>jams in almost every helmet cam video
>beaten by all competitors in army reliability test
>I have no idea what I'm talking about
>>29404939
Doctrine is different now than it was in the 50s fampai. Wierd right?
>>29404939
Its role as designed was for aimed shots at individual targets at medium to long range, which is less "infantryman's rifle" and more "squad sniper" these days. It's not the gun's fault that the Army spent decades trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
>>29404944
>>29404942
There were more problems than using ball powder and not cleaning it.
>>29404958
>still haven't actually posted a source
If you had the book in front of you, your autistic ass would have at least taken a picture by now.
At least we all know you're full of shit and can ignore you now.
>>29404962
>highly accurate
Get you fuddlore out, M14s are not M21s or National Match M1As.
>>29404944
There were also some mild QC issues in the very early XMs, but once it was sorted out just about everyone loved the rifle. You had SEALs out there running snatch and grabs and hit and runs with 30-50 round magazines and a couple dudes with stoners just hosing down the bush. Hard to get real good accounts of SF shit in Vietnam other than the bit that's out there, those were the OG hardasses who knew how to keep their mouths shut, but the little you do read the guys who knew their shit and were neck deep in it pretty unanimously loves the XMs and M16s by the thickest part of the war.
>>29404958
You can cite by name all you like, but there's no actual copy of the hitch report PDF on the first six pages of Google or DDG results, only other documents that refer back to it. That goes beyond "reasonable for people to look up themselves" and enters territory where you really need to link the thing directly.
>>29404892
Makes sense. Looks like my future M1A will be composite after all.
>>29404974
>Even if that were the case, that only shows how shitty it is.
AKs are suffering the same treatment in durkastan and some of them are not even functional anymore because of it. If the holy grail of durable can get fucked up from retards so can anything else.
>I think that's an exaggeration, but whatever.
Sorry, post your AR-180?
Here's mine.
>So you're saying it's better to base guns off the AK than the AR?
I dunno why you're asking this because both have proliferated through the gun world as nauseum.
>I thought you said ARs were great.
They are, That's why every singlebody has one.
>then why did guns based off an almost AK beat the AR so easily in reliability tests?
They actually kinda didn't. For the same bullshit excuse AKnerds use, no soldier is going to fire 60,000 rounds non-stop.
>>29404990
They literally spent years trying to accurize it too so they didn't seem like massive idiots for buying so many. It was a shitty sniper to begin with.
>>29404976
Actually it says the Stg 45 was the start of something really good and with more development time it would have been a fantastic rifle.
>>29404991
Besides staking the gas key, what?
>>29405003
It's a report available in PDF somewhere, I read it a long while ago. I believe late 20s or maybe early 30s on the page count is where the meat and potatoes are. I did provide a source. The literal providing of a source is listing it. Check the back of books and textbooks, can't click those, but what do you know, sources.
A 2 second google search returned nothing at a glance. Guess you will have to find it if you want to read it. I'm already educated on the matter and have nothing to lose by you not finding that source. Why the fuck am I going to do your leg work? Lazy motherfuckers.
>>29404990
>Its role as designed was for aimed shots at individual targets at medium to long range,
That's precisely what he M16 and M4 are currently used for. That's why the CCO and ACOG exist. The expected engagement distances have changed and the size of the round has changed to reflect that.
>>29405026
oops, forgot 180
>>29405026
>holy grail of durability
When will this meme die? It's a fairly reliable rifle, but it's not some miracle gun that can be beaten around any more than any other reciprocating CH, gas piston gun.
>>29405026
>Sorry, post your AR-180?
Then maybe you don't own an AK, because if you did you would notice there are a lot of differences.
The AR-180 is a short stroke piston for example.
>>29405049
>I read it a long while ago.
>>I then when on to quote exact statistics and numbers from it
Holy shit, you could not be more obvious if you tried.
I don't know who you think you're fooling, anon.
>>29405033
Exactly. The 18 was a pretty good system, but everything about it was made to be cheap, making it in itself a bad rifle. Just because it was the basis of some good things doesn't make it an amazing mystical rifle.
>>29405075
>When will this meme die?
Hopefully soon, I'm tired of AKfags.
>>29405083
>because if you did you would notice there are a lot of differences.
Short stroke gas piston and rotating bolt are almost identical.
Since i've owned an AK as well i can tell you both the AR-18 and AK are working nearly identically.
>>29405055
>The expected engagement distances have changed
Well then they're not true replacements for the M14 are they? That's just moving the goalposts so the AR platform can claim to be usable as a sniper.
>>29405107
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/677383.pdf
Suck 1000 dicks you two timing triple faggot.
Full Metal Jacket basic training scenes. Love my M1A more than my Magpuled Aimpointed out AR15 but would still rely on AR15 for SHTF. Something about old school iron and wood.
>>29405006
at distance m14 will always outshoot a M16
308 is a great round
m14 is for high test men
m16 is for guys who like prissy skinny girls
closer range and full auto m16 might be better but id rather have a m14 in ww3 for fighting chinks
>>29405165
>That's just moving the goalposts so the AR platform can claim to be usable as a sniper.
How can it not? It's so adaptable it's been used for everything.
>>29405196
>How can it not?
When it's chambered in 5.56 like the Army was using. An AR-10 based platform is just as good a sniper as an M-14.
>>29403340
Now you're just looking to be a dick just for no other reason than for the sake of it.
>>29404056
>Now I realize it's just a faggot.
>reenacting is gay because I say so
Okay.
>>29402350
Because there are no surplus M14's.
If you could get a surplus, service grade M14 for $5-700 I would love the shit out of them, but as it stands you have to settle for a Fulton/custom build for all the money, or a Springfield for a lot of money and a lot less quality.
It is the most attractive battle rifle in my opinion, especially with the wood stock.
>>29402350
>Recent
It's been hated since it was fucking adopted.
>>29405306
No nigga, you are not affected by the choice to go .308 over .280.
If you want a .280 go make a wildcat barrel for your shit.
>>29405329
>$2700 list price for a Fulton stock M14
Goddamn, you're not kidding about "all the money."
Conclusion. K generally likes m14s like a lot of us like classic muscle cars. It isn't a high rpm modern piece of kit, we get that and that is ok.
>>29405414
what's K?
>>29405062
Why is the magazine loaded?
>>29405192
>m14 is for high test men
I always knew there was a reason I liked it
>>29405542
I was trying to figure out why it wasn't working.
Fucking thing sat too low for the bolt to strip a round out of the magazine.
Sterling quality m8.
>>29402443
This 'can' be an issue. But not for the reasons most people think.
Honestly I like my m1a but the open action and how the rifle beats it self to death are it's biggest flaws.
>>29404756
This was from the looserounds blogpost.
The rifles in this study were all early production rifles before tooling and production processes were finalized on the M14.
>>29402575
That author is an insufferable faggot on reddit and has no credibility.
>>29405329
>>29405376
even fulton recievers are cast.
>>29405329
fucking Clinton, Reagan and the ATF.
Clinton made it so all the surplus guns go into the wood chipper before it gets sold on the civ market.
Reagan signed Hughes.
ATF wont' let us have semi auto conversions.
>>29405644
It doesn't beat itself to death more than any other gun. The heel of the receiver is well reinforced to withstand quite a bit of abuse before failure. I have only seen two cracked heels on M1/M14 actions. An early 5 digit that had been reparked at least 3 or 4 times judging by how worn the markings were and was produced before they began to anneal the heel to soften the steel making it more shock resistant. The other was a preban M1A that someone blew up using a 2x over max pressure.
>>29405782
>>29405329
JRA makes high quality forged receivers that are competitively priced with Fulton receivers. I think base price on them is about $750ish compared to Fulton's $650 cast receiver
>>29405329
Agree, and the Norinco clones are correspondingly good deals for the syrup-swillers.
>>29405806
>Clinton made it so all the surplus guns go into the wood chipper before it gets sold on the civ market.
FUCK
YES MAD
>>29405916
Man i want that..
>>29405916
>>29405806
>Clinton made it so all the surplus guns go into the wood chipper before it gets sold on the civ market
that actually started with Jimmy Carter, chopping up hundreds of thousands of WWII arms until the NRA started a petition that ended up being passed into law that said no Surplus Garands, carbines or 1911's could be destroyed. The Clinton's did chop up a lot of NIB TRW M14's though, arguably the best of the USGI makers and gave most of the leftover stockpiles in US inventory to Ethiopia and Lithuania of all places. Hence, why there was such a shortage for DMR's in the early days of gulf war 2: electric boogaloo
>>29405939
LaFrance M14K, a 14" barrel with an M60 gas system bolted on to handle the short barrel. Supposedly they were soft shooting with how oversized the M60 gas system was for it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDUmQQSCPtw
>>29406027
>can't buy one
I..i'll just have to build one....
>>29406061
For about 3k or so you can still have one built
http://www.crazyhorserifles.com/m14k%20article.htm
>>29402350
>recent
>>29406104
>3k
fuck
but maybe..
>>29406116
Honestly without full auto the system isn't very useful, unless you must absolutely have an SBR M14 in your collection.
>>29404723
>It was also meant to fill the role of F-15, F-16, F-18/A, and A-10, and it was exceptionally bad at all of those things.
Sound about right? Youre here to shit all over this parade, but cant take it when it comes to your farce of a $1.5trill boondoggle, can you?
>>29406144
>unless you must absolutely have an SBR M14 in your collection.
Well yes because fuck sanity
>>29406144
>you must absolutely have an SBR M14 in your collection.
Only if it's got a can too...or a phat muzzle brake.
>>29402350
For guys like me that enjoy original army videos on issued weapons:
https://youtu.be/1Kgnh4neVaY
>>29402413
Too many puns.
>>29406148
Wow I could light a bonfire with all this straw.
>>29404756
sounds like production issues you fucking retard
>>29404600
>The M14 worked just fine in the jungles of Vietnam
Nigga do you know how much an M14 weighs? That's the last thing you want to be carrying in a steaming jungle.
>>29406873
Meanwhile, the M16 could be manufactured cheaply without skimping on quality.
>>29407066
which is why it was the pinnacle of reliability when it was first issued.
>>29407095
They went a little too cheap at first but it got sorted out pretty quickly.
>>29407095
blame the AOB for that
It's not the M14 (M1A) is a bad rifle, it's just severely over rated.
It's accurate, and is semi auto which is good, but it's reliability can be compromised with just a little dirt in the action, and it will stop feeding rounds. It's also heavy, rds are heavy, etc.
I have one because I was able to get it cheap, but I'd never buy one at retail price.
>>29407262
>McNamara orders Army Ordinance Board to investigate the M16.
>AOB rigs all the tests to make the M-16 look like shit cause "Muh wood & steel"
>McNamara finds out, orders the M-16 to be adopted anyway
>AOB suggests a few changes to the M-16 to make it better while insisting it would still be shit even with the changes (chrome barrel, forward assist, different twist rate)
>At this point McNamara just doesn't believe anything that AOB is saying and again orders the M-16 to be adopted without the requested changes
>fast forward
>field reports start coming back from Vietnam about the M-16
>McNamara doesn't believe them because he remembers how the AOB tried to kill the M-16 and thinks this is just the latest attempt
>turns out this time it was real
>Eventually the M-16A1 goes into production with the changes that the AOB had requested
>Everything is now fine
>At least until the M-16A2 rolls around and ruins the M-16 again by forcing an unreliable burst mechanism in place of full-auto.
>>29404056
This is exactly the comment I was about to type out.
Judging by the background, it doesn't really look like a reenactment, more like he's shooting a 2-gun or 3-gun match in historical costume, which honestly doesn't bother me. /k/cgl/ can be fun sometimes.
>>29404600
>The M14 worked fin in the jungles of Vietnam
if it did than the US army wouldn't have adopted the M16.
The M14 wasn't a bad rifle but it was heavy and long making it impratical in the jungle.
At least the FAL could be sawn down.
>>29407066
Dad used a Diemaco C7 back in the 90's.
He told me that the build quality is shit.
The problem with the AR platform isn't the design, but rather government agencies getting the cheapest contract and not get the guys that build it best to build them.
>>29405213
>An AR-10 based platform is just as good a sniper as an M-14.
The only thing they share is an effective range. It's much easier to make an AR-10 pattern weapon more accurate and lighter with inherently more reliable, easier to service, and cheaper to manufacture.
>>29408116
>M-16 again by forcing an unreliable burst mechanism in place of full-auto.
Forcing grunts off of full retard is the best decision they could have possibly made.
>>29404600
>buttmad ak fag detected
>>29402479
I love mine. First rifle I purchased for myself.
>>29408794
It wasn't until the civvie demand for ARs came in with force in 2004 after the awb sunsetted, that the small parts and magazines got to the point of reliability we have today.
>>29402350
People with a head on their shoulders have always disliked them. One of the Trip Fags with experience (That Guy maybe) hated them and took a shit on them being used as equipment every chance he got.
>>29402350
They're better than the M16.
The M14 has never been a particularly good rifle. The only thing protecting it from being labeled as such was typical American protectionism. Much like people insinuating that the 1911 is still a valid weapon in the 21st century. Or the legacy of American forces consisting of a full-size cartridge when everyone else with a brain wanted to transition to intermediates.
It's a large, heavy, dated design that incorporates almost zero modern features or engineering. It wasn't particularly noted for reliability (despite people sticking their heads in the sand in this thread), used an outdated overpowered and oversized cartridge. It was behind the times when it was first adopted and competing against the G3, CETME, FAL, and (unfairly) the AK. Today there are weapons like the SCAR and AR-10s that are doing everything it should have done, just better than it ever could. It's a relic of American stubbornness and nothing more.
>>29402568
.17WSM designed for a centerfire would be pretty cool actually
More power at 200yds than a .17HMR at 100
It would be a pretty fucking cool round if it didnt go 3000fps and literally eat barrels
>>29402797
Because thr gun was heavier? No shit
Thats like saying a 5.56 recoils like a .22 because someone designed a 20kg rifle for it
>>29409431
Well, maybe because one of the goals of the EM-2 was to be controllable in full-auto. As it turns out, it was just as bad from a recoil perspective. Woops.
And you could reasonably expect a FAL or G3 scaled down to .280 British to have similar weight
Just a hipster backlash.
>>29405062
Jesus Christ you are a disgusting human being...
You bang fat chicks in that room??
>>29405062
>lincoln log house
>dirty dishes
>over 9000 tabs open
>filthy gun
>filthy chamber
>loaded magazine
>not wearing pants
>>29409269
>308 M1A uses an outdated cartridge
>308 SCAR uses totally modernized .308
Ok?
>>29405062
Disgusting.
>>29402350
>muh weight
>muh sand
>muh controllable full auto
>muh tacticool
but most of all:
>muh price
>>29409854
I've cleaned it up but i bang fat chicks anywhere
>>29410023
>not having lincoln logs
>wearing pants in your own house
>>29402350
its not in .30-06
>>29405453
Tommy Lee Jones
>>29402350
slavaboos ok /k/ most likely
>>29404765
>>29404789
>>29405708
Prove me wrong.
>>29410510
No. It's the ARfags. They're the new Glockfags ie: If it's not a glock, it's shit.
Anything used by the military has to pass minimum standards. What do you honestly expect?
>>29402350
>hating m14's
>>29404612
Kek
>>29405884
Accuracy wise it does beat itself to death.
How is it okay for a combat rifle to shoot itself loose? Especially when almost every 7.62 NATO rifle is expected to serve a DMR role?
It's fucking absurd. The SR25 is clearly superior from an engineering perspective. It's not as pretty but functionally the SR25 is the only remotely modern battle rifle today out of the major adopted 7.62 NATO rifles.
>>29411319
Are you that same faggot I have to smack down in every thread? No, the M14 does NOT beat it self to death and I never will despite you parroting it in EVERY m14 thread here.
Spend two seconds googling what the M14 went through during it's trial. The receiver life is over 400k rounds.
>>29411726
Plus add on to that that the civilian market doesn't have any milsurp M14s. You're getting a modern-manufactured gun with much tighter tolerances than half broken 1950s machinery, whether it's SA or Norinco.
>>29403667
The thing with heavy things is the longer you hold them, the lighter they become.
>>29408281
It was nuggetfest actually and the only cold gear i have the fits me anymore is surplus stuff I got from my dad and uncle. I have lost a bunch of weigh so my commercial gear is just to big. I figured why not wear the brain bucket and alice gear with it. Carrying around 6 mags and a handgun is just easier with that on. The helmet and pants are 80s vintage and the jacket is a naval deck jacket from the 70s, so its not really even accurate to the gun, more just what I had on hand at the time of nugget fest.
>>29411319
>SR25 is the only remotely modern battle rifle today out of the major adopted 7.62 NATO rifles.
SCAR 17
>>29402350
M1 Garand-
>"The M1 Rifle is the greatest battle implement ever devised."-George S. Patton
>/k/ loves it
>Let's improve the design and give it an updated round
M14-
>"It's a giant piece of shit"
>"muh sand"
>"muh FAL"
>"muh weight"
>/k/ hates it
The only real gripe is price, which is probably why /k/ loves the M1 Garand and simultaneously hates the M14.
Poorfags gonna poor.
>>29411977
>The M1 Garand was an excellent rifle for its time
>The M-14 was a mediocre rifle for its time
Also, the M-14 ended up getting rated BELOW the Garand in terms of combat effectiveness during studies.
>>29412021
>The M1 Garand was an excellent rifle for its time
Which is why people still rave about it, to this day, as being one of the best rifles to ever exist
>The M-14 was a mediocre rifle for its time
Which is why people shit on it to this day despite being an updated M1
We seem to be in agreeance here.
>Also, the M-14 ended up getting rated BELOW the Garand in terms of combat effectiveness during studies.
Could you post the study? I'd be curious as to how they determine "combat effectiveness."
If they didn't test a large sample of rifles in the exact same conditions, I wouldn't read too much into it.
>>29402406
>Because its inferior to the hk91 or the FAL
In all seriousness, the FAL is a great rifle but the stock sights are split when the rifle is opened and it's not a rotating bolt which reduces its accuracy. They're 2-4 MOA guns which is fine for a battle rifle. The M1A is more accurate perhaps at a cost of reliability but their current use as DMR reflects that.
The HK91 is a turd and always has been. It's roller delayed which means your trunion wears with use. You have to replace the rollers every ~2000 rounds and once you run out of roller sizes you have to have a new trunion welded to your receiver. Their service life is 10,000 - 15,000 rounds and they're 2-3 MOA guns on average. No magazine last round BHO but they got that cool bolt slap and are expensive so they must be cool. Out of the thew the HK is the only one with a sheet metal receiver which makes them less rugged and they have that terribly designed claw mount for optics. That's worth skipping them alone. The only plus being cheap magazines right now.
>>29411854
>lack of bayonet lug
Do you live in some commie state
>>29411726
Who gives a flying fuck about receiver life, I'm saying that a bedding job lasts a thousand rounds at best before you need to rebed. Fuck that.
>>29412866
>I read this on the internet so it must be true.
Shooting the gun has fuck all to do with the stock bedding. The problem arises when the gun is taken down repeatedly for cleaning as you would find in a military environment. This is a complete non fucking issue as anyone who ISN'T limited to irons via CMP rules and gives a shit about accuracy is running an optic held in place by the fucking receiver or rail. You could put the action in a noodle and retain zero in that case.
You're repeating shit with zero real world experience and it's painfully obvious your talking out of your ass.
>>29411977
Yeah, no. The BM 59 is the legitimate upgrade of the garand than the M14. Literally just a garand rechambered for 7.62 NATO, have selective fire and instead of an integral magazine, its upgraded to have 20 round magazines. The US Military should have done that instead of making a whole different firearm.
>>29404610
The M110 weighs around 15lbs with bipod, scope, PEQ and scope. Plus M110A2 is lighter.
With all that shit on a EBR you are pushing loaded SAW weight
>>29413260
>BM 59
So you're saying that because the M14 has a redesigned receiver, specifically for 7.62 NATO and magazines, that it somehow isn't a derivitave of the Garand, but only because there is another rifle more closely related to said Garand.
I'm not disagreeing that the BM 59 is more closely related to the M1, but you might be retarded if you can't see how the M14 is a glorified, upgraded M1
>>29404857
Dude you are insane if you think the M60 didnt have serious issues.
Armorers literally cried in joy when it was replaced with the M240. The reciever shit itself to pieces, it took 50 years for it become a decent weapon system after a complete redesign
>>29402973
HK pistols can be had from $600-900 which is not absurdly expensive for the quality you're getting, unlike an M1A
>>29402941
>muh anecdotal evidence
look at the videos, the rifle is inherently unreliable because of the open action system
>>29402479
I have $2500 into my AR, I can afford an M1A, I just have no reason to use an inferior platform for anything other >muh nostalgia
>>29404600
lol and the same videos where the AR or the FAL performed way better than the M14?
>>29404736
Literally because money. The SR-25 and I suspect the Scar Mk. 20 series vastly outperform it.
>>29411977
because the M1 in comparison to other service rifles at the time was an amazing piece of equipment, and by vietnam the M14 was out dated in comparison to what our allies and adversaries were using?
>>29402350
>recent hate
Original Wooden bodied M-14s are the one that get the hate. The one's with replaced Plastic bodies shot like a dream and are fairly accurate as long as they're not in full auto mode.
>>29413436
The 60 was fine.
The DoD has never treats its machine guns very well. Well maintained, its great. The 240 is great too.
Because they're too heavy for pussy millennials.
>>29413497
>The one's with replaced Plastic bodies shot like a dream and are fairly accurate as long as they're not in full auto mode.
And guess what the Springfield M1A comes in? Composite body with semi-auto only.
>>29413499
The newer titanium 240 models are still better
>>29413509
Actually their both shit in comparison to other rifles, like the SR-25
>>29404976
For all the HK91's shortcomings it is vastly superior to the M14.
If you want to see the best the garand system could become look no further than the BM-59:
>integrated rifle grenade launcher
>Garand sight picture
>Much better mags than the M14
>Much less reliability issues
>Wasn't shoehorned inti a sniper rifle, Italians slapped a scope on it for a DMR and used a bolt gun for snipers
Go buy a navy .308 garand reciever TODAY and assemble a BM59 from a parts kit
>>29413480
>because the M1 in comparison to other service rifles at the time was an amazing piece of equipment, and by vietnam the M14 was out dated in comparison to what our allies and adversaries were using?
Again, not saying that isn't the case, but for civilian shooters who just punch paper today, how one can see the M1 Garand as a great rifle, but the M1A as a giant piece of shit is beyond me. Especially when comparing their $650 CMP special to something like a Fulton built M1A
>>29413542
>but for civilian shooters who just punch paper today, how one can see the M1 Garand as a great rifle, but the M1A as a giant piece of shit is beyond me
They're salty poorfags. Literally every popular /k/ gun is dirt cheap on an absolute scale (Nugget) or relative to other weapons in its class (handbuilt AR, most AKs, etc.).
>>29405213
>Dropping the rifle ruins the bedding
>Or you can slap it into a chassis and enjoy carrying around SAW weight without SAW results.
Yeah no, it was a shit platform. There were literally stories of Carlos Hathcock taking dives or falling on his face to stop his M21 from taking a jolt which would instantly open his groups from 1MOA to 4 MOA
