Qualified with a M14,spent two tours in Vietnam with a M16 and this is the best rifle I've ever used. With the 18" barrel,I'm still good at 600 yds.
Posted on 07/15/2020 3:47:21 AM PDT by AggregateThreat
Given that, the effectiveness of infantry rifles is a slippery question and rating one against the other is certainly a subjective one. Our choices are based on a number of factors; innovation, effectiveness, service life, impact on history and small-arms development. These are the choices of our editors, no doubt you have your own, perhaps better choices. We don’t expect it to be definitive and hope only to spark debate and interest among our readers.
Omissions from the list will no doubt provoke the most questions, so I will try to explain the absence of some of your, and our, favorites. Some innovative wonder guns like the Stoner 63 and the FG42 were dropped because of their limited service history.
One of our personal favorites, the M14, was dropped because we decided that when two comparable contemporary guns were on the list, like the M14 and the FN FAL, the tie had to go to the gun with the greater historical impact and longer service life, rather than the gun we liked best. Even if, when all is said and done, some of us would rather go into harm’s way with the M14.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanrifleman.org ...
Nostalga aside, the M14 was a piece of crap. The wooden stock swelled in high humidity, changing the zero. It was heavy. It was nigh on uncontrollable in full auto. It was supposed to be producible on existing M1 Garand tooling, but was not.
It served the U.S. Army as the main battle rifle for just 10 years. It took longer to develop the T44 into the M14 than the M14 served.
Had the trials been honest, we would have adopted the FAL, had a compatible weapon with NATO, and probably would then have used it for the next 40+ years.
There were major issues with the initial rollout of the M16, and they were not only well documented, but there have been many movies and books on the subject. And I’m sure you know the story: McNamara nixed chrome lining, the Army changed from stick to ball powder - changing the pressure curve and increasing fouling, and cleaning kits were deemed unnecessary and were not issued.
55 years later, the M16/M4 is not the jam-o-matic it was in 1965, when it was issued to troops in Vietnam with zero training and all of the above flaws.
M14, a beautiful piece of history.................
Despite the ringing endorsement of these two Giants of American military history, the improved version of the Garand, the M14, wasn't good enough for Robert Strange McNamara and his "whiz kids".
Were you able to bring it home with you?
Few ordinary citizens have seen such a rifle squad delivering full, stock-smoking target-destroying firepower. I have. The experience is stunningly fearsome. Every maturing American high school student ought be required to observe at least one such demonstration to expand one's appreciation for the power of a trained military unit's dominance. That ought to instill the basis for reinforcing the citizen's desire to implementing the ideal of the Second Amendment in every family, a purposive required element of the civics syllabus should it ever be needed.
My grandad who fought in The Nam said they called them Mattie Mattels because that toy company was making them.
Qualified with a M14,spent two tours in Vietnam with a M16 and this is the best rifle I've ever used. With the 18" barrel,I'm still good at 600 yds.
Swiss M31 straight-pull 7.5x55 and the Carl Gustaf — M 94/14 Swedish Mauser Model 94 Carbine 6.5x55 should be on the list.
The profile is quite like that of a Ruger Mini-14.
My critique on this article is insufficient dates on these rifles. Unless you are an expert in the field of firearms, it is difficult to pace them into context.
That said, I agree with the M1 Garand Battle Rifle as Number 1. WW2 was the first war we went into where we fielded so many world’s best weapons. This rifle, the 1911 45, the ubiquitous Jeep, the “Duece and a Half” Cargo Truck, C-47 Gooney aircraft, PBY Catalina Amphibious Patrol aircraft, B-25 Mitchell and B-17 Bombers, LCI and LCT amphibious Landing Craft, Liberty & Victory Cargo Ships etc.
None of these were ‘prestige’ items like roaring battleships or aircraft carriers or main battle tanks. They were ordinary, mass produced QUALITY items that were the envy of the world.
It’s a joke - 3 round burst and it jammed - get it?
See Post #31
Close. I was surprised how the 18” barrel added to the ergonomics with little loss of range. I tried a conventional scope but it just made it awkward. That’s actually a 4x6 Bushnell pistol scope with the pica-tinny rail made into the heat shield. The only other major modification is the top two rows on the flash suppressor were taken out with a die grinder to make a muzzle brake. It has quite a bark.
Time and innovation produces better products. The same goes with battle rifles. Just because they are cheap to stamp out by the millions (AK47 and SKS) doesn’t make them better rifles. My favorite thing to do is heavy irons multi-gun competition. I likely have fired over 100,000 rounds out of M14/M1a rifles. I have literally shot the barrels out in them. However, as with all battle rifles, time eventually caught up with the M14 platform. Compared to the AR/M16/M4 platform, the M14/M1a has issues. Through early design and manufacturing issues, it was doomed to have a short 10-odd year run before it got replaced. Sure, the M16 had issues, but those were ammo issues and not design and manufacturing issues. For an all-around infantry rifle, you just can’t beat the M16/M4 platform. I shot M14/M1a hybrids for years in heavy irons competition, but I eventually had to hang my last one up and go to the AR10 platform. Out of the box, my latest AR10 clone shoots tighter and performs better than any of my M14/M1a rifles ever did. And, it does it for about half the money invested. Oh, I’ll never sell my M14/M1a match rifle. That wood stock, as bulky as it is, is sexy. I drag it out every now and then so my friends can “ohhh” and “ahhh” over it. Hell, I probably have more money invested in that gun than some people spend on cars. And, I still shoot it. But, only rarely because the barrel is still good and I want to keep it that way. But, time and innovation marches on. And, if you want to be competitive, you have to utilize the best tools. Make no mistake about it. War is a competition.
Yep, the Ruger Mini-30 tactical in 7.62x39 is a remarkable looking younger, leaner step brother with the Garand action. Loved the M14 and love the Mini-30.
Is that the “Scout” version?
I have a standard M1A. Love it. Also a 1945 vintage M1 Garand.
The M16 was an atrocity: not just the gas system funneling crud into the chamber, an inaccessible chamber, difficult to adjust and counterintuitive sights, but was also fragile (I saw one shatter while hitting a VC over the head) and the safety would jam on "Safe" and could only be moved using the butt of the bayonet.
A bunch of people made a bunch of money on that stupid thing and it was another example of how little our country gave a shit about us over there.
The M14 worked. All the time. And when you hit someone, they stayed down for good (it never hurt to add a couple more to make sure he stayed down). It penetrated walls, deep foliage, sandbags, concrete gravestones, and killed anyone on the other side.
Full auto worked great - all you needed was a bipod and better than average trigger control and you could light them up with ease. Ignore the YouTube commandos firing an M14 from offhand - that isn't how anyone fires an automatic weapon to get the best out of it.
I carried FAL for one day in Vietnam - we had an Australian unit with us and we traded rifles for a little bit. It was heavy with its loaded magazine and quite long and I was glad to have my M14 back.
The only reason we still have the M16 and its variants are that we have millions of them and they were cheap - and Ft. Benning and Picatinny Arsenal won't hear of anything else.
"Nothing but the best for our boys in green"./Sarc.
The powder type originally used during the early years of the war was never designed for a system with direct impingement, and consequently, caused the death of many thousands of users.
This last part was made by a bunch of bureaucrat paper-pushers, often known as "the best and the brightest," who simply didn't understand what the problem was, and simply didn't give a damn.
Mark
There is no argument that the original M16 was a disaster in Vietnam. But it wasn't a disaster because it was a flawed design, it was because of stupid decisions by McNamara and Army ordnance.
The fact that it still serves today is not because there is a mountain of ammunition available for it. There was a mountain of 7.62 when the M14 was axed.
That said, I'm sure you're aware that the Army is trying to change cartridges from the 5.56 to something in the 6.8 mm range.
https://taskandpurpose.com/military-tech/army-next-generation-squad-weapon-photos
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.