I put this in the General forum because this topic also touches on caliber and procurement politics.
Let the feather ruffling begin!
Let the feather ruffling begin!
Why the M14 sucks. And the sins of the US Army Ordinance Corps.
We not only got fucked out if a better caliber... ie the 280
But so fucked out of a better (especially if chambered in the correct cartridge) rifle. Aka the right arm of the free world aka the FAL
But so fucked out of a better (especially if chambered in the correct cartridge) rifle. Aka the right arm of the free world aka the FAL
oc shooter
.223 Rem
why live in the past whats done is done the FN is a better rifle not so sure the 280 is better than the 308.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Very informative.
Robin
.475 A&M Magnum
Other than the Brit's .280, which sounds like it might be a good one, I don't think I learned anything new. Yes the weapon has a lot of detractors, and with good cause, but I still like the rifle, the action, and the ease with which it shoots that big .308. But thats just me.
Robin
Robin
Well, FAL or not, 308 or 280 it is the 16" AR15 in 5.56 that has become the modern man's musket.
My primary HD tool is a 14.5" AR using 64gr Gold Dots, when I finally get it scoped my go to SHTF rifle will be a 16" AR with a 1-6/8 scope using 77gr OTMs. The M14 represented a lack of innovation. An M14 in .276 Pederson is what we should have had in WWII, or even a modernized version of the 6mm Lee Navy caliber. Such was well within our technological grasp in the 30s. After the War, In the 50s the AR10 in .280 British is what we should have adopted though the AR15 in 5.56 has proved better suited for today's fleeting, hyper paced close range combat.
My primary HD tool is a 14.5" AR using 64gr Gold Dots, when I finally get it scoped my go to SHTF rifle will be a 16" AR with a 1-6/8 scope using 77gr OTMs. The M14 represented a lack of innovation. An M14 in .276 Pederson is what we should have had in WWII, or even a modernized version of the 6mm Lee Navy caliber. Such was well within our technological grasp in the 30s. After the War, In the 50s the AR10 in .280 British is what we should have adopted though the AR15 in 5.56 has proved better suited for today's fleeting, hyper paced close range combat.
Last edited:
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
It's wasn't supposed to be. It's an intermediate cartridge. Carry more, weigh less, and have effective ranges up to about a little over 300 yards.
Not every engagement is over 500 to 800 yards where a long distance round is required. In fact, most combat engagements are below 200 yards. A long range cartridge in a long range platform hinders effectiveness in short ranges. That's the problem US soldiers faced in Vietnam with the M14. The long length and the uncontrollable recoil hindered them in close engagements.
As a civilian just funning around you can like whatever you wish.
I myself really love my heavy Galil Ace 308 despite my lighter 5.56 ARs being tools better suited to most HD/SD/SHTF tasks.
I can maybe see a role for the Ace in dealing with vehicles and light body armor.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
That sounds like those army guys that stuck to tradition over innovation and the changing battlefield.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
With the right solid copper bullet, you can do similar damage in 5.56 or .223 when dealing with hard targets.
As an addendum, I think the FAL and AR10 handle the 308 much more smoothly than the M14 pattern. Maybe the CETME types are worse.
I will say I haven't shot anything in 308 that tames the cartridge more than my Ace does.
It is really has only slightly more recoil than my 5.56 ARs do. The SCAR is probably as good also but the one I shot had the brake replaced with a flash hider and I found it much harsher.
I will say I haven't shot anything in 308 that tames the cartridge more than my Ace does.
It is really has only slightly more recoil than my 5.56 ARs do. The SCAR is probably as good also but the one I shot had the brake replaced with a flash hider and I found it much harsher.
Last edited:
I really doubt a copper 5.56 will punch through more than M80 ball can. I wonder how M955 performs vs M61?
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
For car doors and such, yes. Engine blocks, no. But why the need to shoot engine blocks? Just shoot through the windshield and car door to stop the threat.
I don't have the skill to aim at specific areas of a moving vehicle. In such a hypothetical situation I would simply be firing at the vehicle in general.
M80 ball would have better barrier pen overall against a wider variety of surfaces than most any 5.56, certainly M855 or M193.
Honestly I would really like to have a stock of m855A1 or M80A1, either of those seem to have a very wide margin of performance against a wide variety of targets over an equally wide range of velocities. But what tiny stocks were available have long since dried up, and were outrageously expensive besides.
Robin
.475 A&M Magnum
No, not at all Will. I am well aware of the stodgy way that the Army went, and to a certain extent still does, through the procurement process, even rigging test. I may seem lost to the past with my flintlocks and all, but I am all for giving our guy's in the Infantry the best and latest personal firearms, rifle and handgun alike, and still feel a sense of rage when I here stories of dirty dealing when it comes to that process.
Robin
I shot SCAR 17H on full auto. Recoil was very controllable.
Try one without the muzzle brake. Very different experience. It would be interesting to see what a 308 Ace would be like full auto.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Understood. I agree with you as far as the how the military handles things. However, a .308/ 7.62 with a longer barrel in a rifle configuration without a bipod wouldn't be the ideal tool for close quarters combat and accurate rapid fire in a battlefield. That's where intermediate cartridges shine.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Sure a .308/ 7.62 will perform better but at a certain point, better is overkill and dead is dead.
In the video below, a surplus 55 gr 5.56 performed excellent against an SUV. It went through multiple barriers. Now use a solid copper or brass spun round and it'll do even better. Sure a .308 would do better but enough is enough. It's kind of like saying a .357 Magnum would do a better job than a .38 if you want to penetrate a couple of sheets of plywood. They both will.
Fast forward to 3:47 if you don't want to hear him talk so much.
I shot mine in the military, SF was giving a training class to test their training abilities. So idk if it had a break or what. I will take your word for it though.
Yes, they ship with a highly effective brake:
Without it the recoil was significant, being such a light gun for a 7.62x51 semi auto. It wasn't horrible by any means but in full auto it would have been.
S
stuck in ny
Guest
The true AK types have a better future for modernization since they have a hardpoint (the rear sight block) that the supposedly upgraded Valmet derivatives lack.
Why would that be? Besides the best optic mounting point on a standard AK is the side rail.
Of the Valmet system, the most prominent derivative today being the Galil Ace, the top cover and floating gas tube fit together on the receiver very firmly, I can detect no movement whatsoever when in place and it gives a nice, long continuous M1913 rail for optics. The return to zero of this arrangement is very good, I observe an inch or less of deviation at 100 yards.
An additional benefit of this arrangement is that the gas tube floats and does not affect the barrel movement as much under fire. While not truly free floated I find no observable shift in POI from offhand to supported shooting as long as the rifle is rested on the handguard, the pressure on the barrel is transferred through the gas block and is consistent regardless of the shooting position. While not as good as a truly free floated setup like on an AR it is better than the standard arrangement and the Ace delivers impressive accuracy considering what it is.
S
stuck in ny
Guest
A railed top hinged where the rear leaf would go should be cheaper to manufacture than a side rail and a throw lever mount.
That is very silly.
Shadow2
6.5 Creedmoor
So it is easy to look back and say why the M14 sucks, but let's not forget that the entire US Army was using the M1 Garand before they switched up to the M14.
Let's not forget why the US army and the rest of the free world was using a .308... because of NATO. The 7.62x51 was the standard round before the 5.56
So with that said consider the following;
1) Everyone Drill Instructor that was training people when the M14 was deployed spent most of their careers shooting M1s. The thought was no need to really retrain anyone including the people training new solders. The controls between the two rifles are very similar and you didn't need to swap out the M1s that were already stocked in the base armories around the country.
2) The various groups who made high level decisions for the military in this country at that time where not going to buy FN FAL rifles which where produced in Europe when at the time globalization really was just being born so the US Army still liked using rifles produced or re-chambered in the US. This was for various reasons but NATO was pretty sure the USSR would be marching through Europe at any moment so the US was more interested in producing US made products for the military.
3) The M1 took the US through two wars. To many old timers that had been promoted up the chain trusted it to much and therefore liked the M14.
The M14 was a transition rifle and most likely would have served longer if not for the Air-Force using the M16 for guard duty and some senator getting asked by parents why their son was using some old style weapon in Vietnam when Air-Force guards were using new weapons to guard bases in the US mainland and pictures of the AK-47 started hitting the newspapers.
I don't really think the M14 is that great of a platform for the .308 either but I can understand why it was used at the time it was and can respect those reasons.
Let's not forget why the US army and the rest of the free world was using a .308... because of NATO. The 7.62x51 was the standard round before the 5.56
So with that said consider the following;
1) Everyone Drill Instructor that was training people when the M14 was deployed spent most of their careers shooting M1s. The thought was no need to really retrain anyone including the people training new solders. The controls between the two rifles are very similar and you didn't need to swap out the M1s that were already stocked in the base armories around the country.
2) The various groups who made high level decisions for the military in this country at that time where not going to buy FN FAL rifles which where produced in Europe when at the time globalization really was just being born so the US Army still liked using rifles produced or re-chambered in the US. This was for various reasons but NATO was pretty sure the USSR would be marching through Europe at any moment so the US was more interested in producing US made products for the military.
3) The M1 took the US through two wars. To many old timers that had been promoted up the chain trusted it to much and therefore liked the M14.
The M14 was a transition rifle and most likely would have served longer if not for the Air-Force using the M16 for guard duty and some senator getting asked by parents why their son was using some old style weapon in Vietnam when Air-Force guards were using new weapons to guard bases in the US mainland and pictures of the AK-47 started hitting the newspapers.
I don't really think the M14 is that great of a platform for the .308 either but I can understand why it was used at the time it was and can respect those reasons.
Still better than the M16 IMO. Soldiers in Nam preferred it over the M16 as well. Both had their benefits but I would take this thing over an m16
Edit: haven’t watched the video yet will within the hour. I was just sticking up for the M14
Edit: haven’t watched the video yet will within the hour. I was just sticking up for the M14