For those who may not know, when Ian starts talking about Springfield Armory around the 3 minute mark, he's talking about the US Armory and Arsenal at Springfield Mass, which was shut down in 1968. It was one of the major small arms development sites for the US military from the Revolutionary War to Vietnam. This Springfield Armory is not the same as the Illinois based Springfield Armory company that is still in business today.

@shroom903

14 күн бұрын

You mean it's different from the new gun importer that buy Croatian handguns and markets them as a US branded handguns 😂

@rusTORK

14 күн бұрын

It's a good clarification because i thought: -Springfiled Armory made M14? Whaaat? -Springfield Armory was shutdown. Whaaat?!

@fastrider600

14 күн бұрын

The current Springfield is just an importer. Grew up 30 minutes away back when they still made custom deer rifles.

@andrewallason4530

14 күн бұрын

I’m of the opinion that they should not have been allowed to use a name of a previous company. That goes for Henry, and several others as well.

@joshualandry3160

14 күн бұрын

Another good thing to mention is that there have been quality complaints about their products, specifically the M1A. I recently received one that I was expecting to need a fair amount of work. Out of the box the bedding was excellent and the fit of the parts is actually really good. So from my subjective experience they seem to be improving their past issues.

I started Basic Training in November of 1969 at Ft. Benning (A-10-1 Sand Hill) & we were some of the last troops to train with the M-14 as the new issue M16's were going straight to Viet Nam. We had one Platoon Leader who was not particularly well-liked & he was present when we were at the range using full-auto fire. The RO's had loaded too many magazines for that day & told the Officers they were welcome to fire off the excess. If you have experience firing sustained AW fire, you'll remember the barrel becomes insanely hot with very pretty blue-black iridescent lines dancing along the barrel. Lt. R. was anxious to take up their offer but had no rifle. I had just finished firing my last magazine when he appeared & yelled "Gimme that rifle" & proceeded to yank it from my hands by the barrel. His reaction was pretty much instantaneous with a very loud scream. I've no idea how long it took his hand to heal but it was definitely one of my most rewarding days of Basic.🤣

@stevetheduck1425

14 күн бұрын

I burnt my arm on the barrel of an L7 Bren on the range, after only 30 shots, and not fired rapidly. The mark lasted for years, and I've not burnt myself since.

@BobSmith-dk8nw

14 күн бұрын

Yeah. They'll ALL do that. There was a guy in my Jr. ROTC unit who did that. We would spend Spring Break on Maneuvers - and that Spring had been bused to Fort Irvin where we fired M14's on the range there. This guy did the same thing. Any of them will do that. That's the reason they all have those hand guards. You touch any of those barrels after they've fired a few rounds and - yes - you can burn the shit out of yourself. .

@mbr5742

13 күн бұрын

Better than a certain german navy officer who did not listen before firing an MG3 and put his hand UNDER the gun acting as a human brass catcher

@rockystewart3297

13 күн бұрын

@@mbr5742 Looking back at the actions of some officers, you had to wonder HOW in the hell did they ever get a commission.

@mbr5742

13 күн бұрын

@@rockystewart3297 Maybe there is a secret purchase system...

I remember my grandfather telling me about being in basic training when the M14 was just introduced, and he accidentally fired it on auto whilst in prone. The sergeant was not happy until he noticed 7 of the rounds hit the target in the kill zone. My grandfather told me the sergeant said, "Since you hit so many on Target, I won't punish you as badly, and I also suggest pursuing the marksmanship ribbons."

@idrinkmilk282

4 күн бұрын

Ah, good old bullshit war stories

@drcovell

3 күн бұрын

😂😂😂😂😂😂

@boondocker7964

3 күн бұрын

GrandPops had an M-14, in Boot Camp, with a selector on it? Really? GrandPops is full of B.S.

@bobbyscalchi4013

3 күн бұрын

My old man got the M14 in basic in the Corps in '58

@carlcrisp8700

3 күн бұрын

That could not have happened unless the rifle had been locked in "full auto" with the key by someone else. The rifle has no selector switch like the M-16 or Thompson SMG. No offense.

I'm a Marine sergeant. I love the M14. It's very accurate out to 500 yards and beyond. When you're holding it it feels like it's part of you. Sergeant Steve Dow USMC 1966 - 1970 Vietnam Vet

@RonWagner

7 күн бұрын

My thoughts exactly! I bought a bolt action Remington, for civilian life in 308. It was just as accurate.

@jarhead1814

7 күн бұрын

Semper Fi

@rolandsmith4394

7 күн бұрын

Thank God you didn't get eaten by cannibals (or claim such as a matter of stolen valor).

@jebbelew9428

6 күн бұрын

Thank you for your service sir.

@dimains6011

6 күн бұрын

Sergeant? I would think a sergeant would know how to spell the rank

When firing the M14 in full auto, the first hits an enemy personnel, the second hits the enemy on the tree, the third shot misses, and the 4th hits an enemy aircraft. Edit: Can't believe how many people missed the joke

@khoinguyenphamtrong4637

14 күн бұрын

5th shot hits ISS

@REDNDEAD

14 күн бұрын

The 6th shot somehow hits your head.

@twistedyogert

14 күн бұрын

​@@khoinguyenphamtrong4637 ISS didn't exist until 1998 and didn't see crewed flight until 2001.

@derekhenschel3191

14 күн бұрын

​@@twistedyogerta satellite then

@iancorrigan1174

14 күн бұрын

​@@twistedyogertyou must be a very fun person at cocktail parties

Ah......The shoulder thing that goes up. Truly a weapon of war.

@jonnybravo3606

14 күн бұрын

😂

@EDKguy

14 күн бұрын

Yeah, that essentially makes it a bump stop which is automatic and also is made of gas. I heard all about it on CSPAN 🤭

@neutronalchemist3241

14 күн бұрын

Unfortunately, it's completely useless without a bipod (it's made to suspend the rifle between the bipod and the shoulder, without tiring the arm).

@thatguyoverthere9634

14 күн бұрын

​@@neutronalchemist3241 not true, resing the front of the stock on on some sort of cover like sandbags, a wall, or a log would make it useful. Albeit it's not as useful as using a bipod but for waiting for an ambush or defending a checkpoint it would work perfectly fine

@BobSmith-dk8nw

14 күн бұрын

What he left out - was the two holes in the stock you can stick a cleaning tool in. Same as the M1 Garand. Handy way of carrying your cleaning kit. .

My brother swore by the M14. He was a flight engineer during his 2 tours in Vietnam and used it in a few firefights. One plus never mentioned is it used the same ammo as the M60, and any flight crew had boxes of 7.62 ammo.

@richardgreen4567

7 күн бұрын

A very beautiful weapon, I served in United States Marine Corps in the early 70s, Boot Camp the 14 was our weapon! It’s easy to take apart, easy to put together. if I had my way hell I’ll get 12 of them if I can afford it with ammunition, give one to each of my grandkids. I know they would have a lot of fun firing that weapon, you got some guys will say well the AR 15 is better damn 16 is better because you can put all kind of stuff on it. I’m old school. With me an M1 14 800 m that is your ass . And with the scope, I could find tune it even better.

@drcovell

3 күн бұрын

Amen! I missed my chance to buy a scoped civilian version with a match barrel in the 1990s. Didn’t have the $700-which was half of my quarterly tuition at UCLA. (You know, the “University of Communists in LA.) Been kicking myself ever since. Although I DID buy an M1 in 2010, to go with the .45 ACP that my BIL (After retiring from the USA Special Forces--RIP CIL. Bill Lutz). After replacing the barrel, even after 60, I can still shoot 6” groups at 200 and hit steel at 400-it’s the “Reach out and touch someone” part of my collection. 😉

@msg63bretired82

Күн бұрын

While doable, still a lot of work stripping it from the links 👍🏼

Spending New Years Day, 1971, at Marine boot camp at San Diego, we were issued the M14. At the rifle range, I gained appreciation for the rifle. I found it reliable and accurate. Much more so than I found the M16 I was issued later. What it boils down to, many find the M14 to be a fantastic rifle, while others don't. But because of my experience with the M14, the day I retired, I celebrated by buying myself a Springfield M1A and have never regretted it.

I wasn't in Vietnam, but two of my buddies who were there had M-14s for at least some of their time in country. They both loved it. They felt that it was more reliable than the M-16 (till the Army got the ammo sorted out). They also liked the heavier bullet. One guy said that if a VC was hiding behind some logs or something, you could just start chipping away at the cover, and pretty soon it was gone, and so was Charlie. The other guy just said, "When you hit somebody with it, they die." God bless them both. --Old Guy

@Privat2840

10 күн бұрын

I have never heard the M14 called a failed program and the US Army still uses versions of the M14 today. Their are no issues I know of, just the advantages or disadvantages found when comparing rifles, calibers weight and magazine capacities. the US defense department chose lighter weigh rifle with higher rounds per pound than the M14.

@gitss7367

10 күн бұрын

@@Privat2840 Yes Me either, grew up around lots of Vietnam vets including my father. All loved the 1911 and M14 while none liked the M16. From what I heard I would have guessed it was the most successful rifle the US used.

@beestoe993

9 күн бұрын

It seems to me that the m14 was considered superior to the m16 until about 10 years ago. Isn't revisionary history special?

@wockawocka5293

9 күн бұрын

@beestoe993 - Thats actually not the case. The Army tested the M14, AR-15 and AK-47 in a reliability test in the 1960's. The AR actually won. But that wasn't the result the Army wanted so that report was hush hush. But it can still be looked up. So many myths such as the AK being so "indestructible", the AR being "unreliable", etc. What actually happened to the early M-16 in Veitnam was sabatoge by people with the mindset that U.S. rifles should still use full power cartridges. Nothing against the M14, but once the sabatoge induced problems were fixed in the AR, it has proven to be one of the most reliable rifles ever made. But myths will always persist. Also, watch InRange's mud test series and see how the M14 does in mud. And see how the AR does.

@beestoe993

9 күн бұрын

@@wockawocka5293 It's only natural that the bureaucrats pushing the cheaper to manufacture rifles would conjure up a glowing report. I'm talking about popularity among the men in the field that actually used them. Some of them have already left their comments.

My dad was an Army Ranger. He enlisted in the 60s and served for many years. He loved the M14. He told me it was superior to any other weapon he used.

@rimanahbvee

10 күн бұрын

Either he was joking or he got a lucky batch

@gravelracing

9 күн бұрын

My dad was a marine in the 60s. He said the same thing, he and his buddies loved the M14

@a2birdcage319

9 күн бұрын

Your dad is also a fudd

@HighCapacityAssaultPug

9 күн бұрын

Same here, my father was a Marine during Vietnam and he carried the M14. He refused to carry the M16 (for obvious reasons). He talks so highly of the M14 that my brother and I bought him a M1A.

@BBaldwin

9 күн бұрын

@@rimanahbveeWRONG. The M-14 was a fantastic rifle. My dad used one in the Corps and loved it.

When I was in the navy, the M-14 was still our standard issue rifle, the other branches having long ago moved on to the M-16 platform. I personally loved the old girl. It was easy to disassemble, easy to clean, easy to shoot, easy to make accurate hits with, decently powerful, and 100% reliable with tens of thousands rounds total fired through various rifles. I just don't get all the hate, except about it being a bit heavy, but to me that forged receiver was confidence-inspiring. I even mag dumped one in full auto, and although impractical once I hit the fourth round fired in that mode, it was still pleasant to shoot even then.

@rolandsmith4394

7 күн бұрын

It was used by special forces for ev-er.

@Gunners_Mate_Guns

7 күн бұрын

@@rolandsmith4394 It was. Also, an M-14 with custom Douglas barrel was normally carried by the secondary sniper in the customary two-man sniper teams. Carlos Hathcock's right hand man was one.

I was in Vietnam, Army ‘69-70. We were issued M-16A1A as our weapon. By choice many of us secured extra M-14s as a backup when at our LZ. We kept both locked and loaded. I preferred the M-14 for at camp defense. It rarely misfired and was extremely accurate, once dialed in. When on patrol, we preferred the M-16 due to its light weight. We had to be very careful not to get them too dirty. They jammed easily and without proper lubrication tended to jam. The humidity was brutal and the oils did not last near as long as stateside.

The bottom line is they were never going to turn a 8+ pound service rifle into a BAR simply by adding a 20 round magazine and selective fire.

@uzivatel56

13 күн бұрын

Yes, the demands were impossible to meet. But still, just as a service rifle, it was kinda shit, wasn't it?

@spvillano

13 күн бұрын

Well, it started out at 9 pounds unloaded, almost 11 pounds loaded and yeah, way too light to remain on target. For crying out loud, the M50 weighed in at 23 pounds, the M240 at 29 pounds. That mass kept the weapon in the general direction of the target. Might've as well have a 5 pound version of Ma Deuce!

@anfrac3700

13 күн бұрын

Or a replacement of the Thompson submachine gun on the basis of full-auto firing. The guys running the trials were deluded.

@gutfinski

13 күн бұрын

@@uzivatel56 Not necessarily. With proper barrel bedding the accuracy was excellent. Four different manufacturers, US Arsenal at Springfield, Harrington and Richardson, TRW, and Winchester produced differing qualities of manufacturing. Proof of the pudding was that later modifications, such as the M21, produced a highly accurate and excellent Service Rifle.

@jeffreyhutchins6527

13 күн бұрын

@@uzivatel56 Fun fact the M14 is still in service to this day. just not as an MBR

Remember guys; while the US MoD rejected the AR10 or the FAL under the promise or building M14 from old M1 Garand and turned out not to be abble to do so... a peruvian guy named Erquiaga just did it on his own appartment creating the EM62.

@muddyhotdog4103

14 күн бұрын

So did the Italians with the bm59

@sergiom9958

14 күн бұрын

@@muddyhotdog4103 Im not 100% sure they re used M1 Garands or make brand new parts. But if they made the BM59 from existing Garands that makes them even greater.

@FireGoliath

14 күн бұрын

Did you just call the DoD the MoD? :-)

@tomaspabon2484

14 күн бұрын

The proud tradition of random dudes in sheds outdoing major gun companies is one of the reason i love guns so much

@bartb7790

14 күн бұрын

@@sergiom9958 They also made it from old M1 Garands. I own a BM59 made from a Springfield M1 Garand. The Springfield name is still present at the heel of the receiver, its original serialnumbers is X't out and a new number is put on.

My father was USMC in ‘nam 66-68, used an M14 his first tour and never had a problem with it. Was issued an M16 for his second tour. Kept it clean, but it jammed the first contact he got into with it. He bought an M3 after that and HATED the M16 until his dying day.

@topcatandgang

8 күн бұрын

i bought an M3 also while in Vietnam, cost me $20 American money. came with 3 clips.

@dwrdwlsn5

8 күн бұрын

@@topcatandgang My dad had a M-14 in training and was issued a M-16 when he got to Vietnam. He said the M-14 was heavy as hell, but when you pulled the trigger, it fired and when it hit, things died. The M-16? Not so much until much later. Then he got a M-16/M203 combo and loved it. Guys in his unit had M3s and one had a Thompson. Loved the M3 and the Swedish K he got somewhere he never explained, but he hated the Thompson because he said it was even heavier than the M-14.

@jonathanbaron-crangle5093

7 күн бұрын

M16 jammed because the wrong ammunition was used (not his fault but what was issued) Early ammunition issued (not specified by Colt, who specified a faster-burning propellant) the powder burned slower so it fouled the workings, once they got that figured out, the M16 worked just fine.

@dwrdwlsn5

7 күн бұрын

@@jonathanbaron-crangle5093 But it got a VERY bad rep from lots of people before they fixed that. After? Fine weapon as long as it was maintained.

@robertslusser6753

5 күн бұрын

@@jonathanbaron-crangle5093 Yeah, they finally figured it out, but more than a few guys died because they issued the rifle to combat troops before all of the bugs were ironed out.

Great video…lots I did not know. The M14 was the rifle I was issued in ROTC special forces in the early 1970s, and I loved it…still do. During the fighting in Iraq, when I was the head of Maritime Weapons Systems support, the Seal Teams had us bring back the M14 because the 5.56 rounds wouldn’t penetrate cinder block walls. We changed the stocks to Kevlar, and the teams were pretty happy with them.

@douglass56

5 күн бұрын

In the navy base shooting team I enjoyed my fiberglass stock.

Bm59 would want to talk to the manager

@ericsampson372

14 күн бұрын

McNamara: I AM the manager.

@paleoph6168

14 күн бұрын

​@@ericsampson372McNamara: *transforms into Erquiaga EM-62

@AlanRoehrich9651

14 күн бұрын

​@@ericsampson372 McNamara was an idiot.

@jayabramson6702

13 күн бұрын

That it would!

@ezzz42

13 күн бұрын

good weapon, i had the chance to fire one in switzerland. sweet shooter. real slick

I'm a manufacturing engineer and you did a really good job of describing how difficult it actually is to manufacture something complicated like a rifle.

@Edgy01

13 күн бұрын

I have a tremendous respect for manufacturing engineers. You’re the guys that actually get the stuff to work.

@everettrhay4855

12 күн бұрын

The engineers dream it up, the programmers code to the model. The Machinist makes it a reality.

@pb68slab18

12 күн бұрын

@@everettrhay4855 Toolmakers! Because engineers need heroes too!

@MichaelDavis-mk4me

12 күн бұрын

@@everettrhay4855 These days, programmers code the machines too to be fair.

@BC-wj8fx

12 күн бұрын

@@everettrhay4855 You don't know engineers then. You literally have to be able to design, code, and machine to be qualified as a mechanical engineer these days. Not just do it, but understand everything behind it too.

My Old Man loved the M-14. When I was growing up he gave me a book to read . Marine Sniper , all about Carlos Hathcock in Vietnam. My Dad called him one day and ended up befriending him. He was an interesting man and my brothers and I enjoyed visiting him. He also had an appreciation for the M-14. Probably more of a sentimental feeling from his days in the Marine Corps. He signed my Dads M-14 in the early to mid 90s I think it was. Happy to have met him and I thank my Dad for those times.

@gsmith4295

5 күн бұрын

Thats some cool stuff. Do you still have the signed M-14?? I hope so

Marine sergeant ‘65-‘69. Qualified every year for 4 years. 3 out of 4 years Expert. Third year it was raining and blowing down range heavily enough to blow/bend the targets over and I qualified Sharpshooter. At recruit qualification on day one the DI told me I would probably break the range record if I continued firing the same way. I didn’t, but this illustrates my capacity to fire the M-14 well. When I got to Vietnam I took my M-16 to a test range and fired in 3-6 round bursts. At round number 234 the projectile jammed in the barrel. That basically soured me on that weapon so I carried an M-14 and a 45 my entire 14 months in country. I’ve told anyone who will listen from then until now, give me 3 rounds at 500 yards and the third round will hit the bull every time. That was a weapon I trusted my life to. I’m pretty sure all the M-14’s I ever had were H&R. In retrospect, I would have preferred to be a sniper, because that’s something I was pretty good at. Either that or an armory tech, because I’m good at repairing mechanicals. That said, counterintelligence was my choice at the time and I don’t regret that. 😉👍

@boondocker7964

3 күн бұрын

So, you were issued an M-16, as your TO weapon, right? And you got your hands on an M-14, right? How did you do this, legally? Unless, you had stolen an M-14, from some place, how did you get issued an M-14, when everyone else in your unit was carrying an M-16? I was with E/2/1 1st Mar Div. '66-'67, and you were assigned to what unit and when?

I Still love the "WHHAAAA!" sound you made when you fired that thing on full auto haha.

@ElTejon47901

14 күн бұрын

Noise kills.

@jf6647

14 күн бұрын

It shoots small warios?

@GleichUmDieEcke

14 күн бұрын

If there's one thing I've learned from 40K orks, it's that screaming while shooting makes da boolets shootier.

@Cats-TM

14 күн бұрын

Ian is the best of gun ninjas.

@AshleyPomeroy

14 күн бұрын

That was his war face.

19:07 Ian finds a second way to get Garand thumb.

@K.D.R_

12 күн бұрын

the so-called "M14 thumb".

@jimlong20

10 күн бұрын

in the marines we call it an "m1" thumb

@not-a-raccoon

10 күн бұрын

He can get Flannel Daddy two different ways??

@KH-rt3ef

10 күн бұрын

@jimlong20 Thompson M1 thumb is a special kind of battle scar.

@taproom113

10 күн бұрын

@@not-a-raccoon LMAO! Well played, Sir ... 🤣 ^v^

Basic at Fort Ord in 1962, we all used M1's. I barely qualified with it. A year later, as an instructor in the Signal School at Fort Monmouth, I had to qualify with an M14. I had never fired anything but that M1 in Basic. I qualified Expert with the M14 at Fort Dix. A year after that, I again qualified Expert with the M14. The only two times I had ever fired the M14, I qualified Expert and I could barely hit the target with an M1. Excellent video. I have no interest in guns to be honest, but I'm a mechanical engineer and appreciate mechanisms and well-presented videos. This video satisfied both. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

@drcovell

3 күн бұрын

Your M1 probably had a bad barrel. I bought one and couldn’t hit the black at all at 200. At 200, with no wind, it should hardly need any adjustment, as it shoots pretty much flat at that range if you use proper rounds. I bought an “as new” GI replacement on eBay and had my gunsmith install and headspace it properly. Now, at 60+, I can shoot consistent 6” groups at 200 and ring a steel plate at 400.😉

@boondocker7964

3 күн бұрын

If you can fire well with either the M-1 or the M-14, you can easily fire either weapon with little problem, I did, no problemo.

I'd love to see a video on the "armory concept" you mentioned at 31:50 as being missing after the shuttering of Springfield! Thanks for another great video

@jonathanromemusic

10 күн бұрын

I’d love to see that too!

@brandonwood3442

6 күн бұрын

Same

BTW, the next time someone blubbers about "military grade weapons" remember that when M14 rifles had trouble meeting the Extreme Spread standard, the Army changed the acceptance standard to our old friend the *Figure of Merit* which was the Extreme Horizontal Groups Size added to the Extreme Vertical Group Size and then divided by two to take the average. Remember, if a military weapon can't meet a standard the usual procedure is to lower that standard.

@DEP717

12 күн бұрын

Especially if the weapon system is the Ordnance Folks' "Woobie." See: LCS.

@snuppssynthchannel

11 күн бұрын

Forget about that, Tarkus tanks for the army!!

@FIREBRAND38

11 күн бұрын

@@snuppssynthchannel Works for me!

@ronaldkonkoma4356

10 күн бұрын

Same is true for people

@daneaxe6465

9 күн бұрын

The US Army Ordnance geezers were desperate to keep modern European designs out of 'Murica. Their real motivation was job security by keeping the USA Ord dept relevant. Well that didn't work out very well for them. I'm sure they were blindsided a few short years later when McNamara erased them like a dry erase board.

The only transferable machine gun that nobody actually wants to fire in full auto. Thanks for going back to the long format too.

@jamallabarge2665

12 күн бұрын

It's not bad..... but it's not fun. I went to a rental to shoot one. Spectators said, "You were wrestling with that thing!"

@marks1638

12 күн бұрын

We (Air Force Small Arms Unit) had some full auto M14A1's in the armory left over from a project in the 1960's. Don't know why the Air Force had them as we only used the semi-auto version for sniping, SMUD (standoff munitions detonation) rifles, and competition. We took a couple out to the range and tried the full auto mode. Holy Cow, whoever came up with that concept at the Army Arsenal must have been issuing them to Schwarzenegger and Stallone for use. We couldn't hit squat at 100 yards in full auto. I guess it would great for human wave attacks, but then you'd have an overheated barrel and cookoffs. Not a well thought out concept.

@pb68slab18

11 күн бұрын

Most were issued without the switch, but with a selector-lock installed. I fired a few while in the Navy. I had a chance to purchase an amnesty-registered Winchester M-14 in excellent condition for $5000 back in 1985 but couldn't afford it.😥 And we all know what happened in 1986! 😭

@rsilvers129

10 күн бұрын

I have two of them and it’s fine. The G3 is worse.

@davidlefranc6240

10 күн бұрын

Full auto on close quarter fight i guess.

I loved this rifle, which I fired in the Navy. I was qualified Nuclear Power Operator from 1977-83 on USS Arkansas (CGN-41), so practice with weapons was a very rare experience for me and other interested Nukes. I was well liked by our Gunner's Mates, so I occasionally got to work out with them when I wasn't on watch down in her Plants. Great video - very informative. Thanks!

I qualified "Expert" with the M-14 in the 1990's in the Navy & it still has a place in my heart. Shot one at a range a few years ago and she still has it for me. Wouldn't want to carry one in the desert, but It's a solid shooter in my experience.

USAF communicator here - Viet Nam '65-'66. I remember the Grunts casting aspersions on our "plastic rifles made by Mattel". Funny how that worked out.

@ltcajh

12 күн бұрын

I’ve despised those rifles since I was a kid in the 60s for that reason (whether rightly or wrongly).

@fjb4932

12 күн бұрын

Everybody loved the CAR-15. The .223 Rem ammo, a chrome lined barrel and done . . . But start changing the powder, adding a forward assist to jam bullets into the chamber, and without a quality barrel in jungle enviroments . . . a cluster-F. I believe Stoner had it right from the start, but leave it to bureaucrats . . .

@Bob_Adkins

12 күн бұрын

That's just normal human negativity, which is about 50% of people. About 20% don't like anything.

@JerryEricsson

11 күн бұрын

I remember in 1970 when I was in Basic Training at Fort Lewis Washington, when we were issued our M-16's the joke on the open bay floors was 'It's Mattel, It's Swell!" we did well in training with them though. We took our training to heart with the sure knowledge that we would be carrying one of those in the jungles of Vietnam within months of our graduation, All my AIT buddies, many who went through basic with me were sent to Nam but one who was not yet 18, he got orders for Germany.

@duranbailiff5337

11 күн бұрын

​@Bob_Adkins Tru-dat, Brother. The 20% are the type who attend a potluck, uninvited. They complain about Everything, they eat Half of the food, and they didn't bring Anything! Sound about right? 🎉 MAGA

I was on my Navy ship's Security/Guard Force, early 1980s. Our armory had the M-14 rifles, semi-auto only. On a security alert, the first five team members showing up at the armory got armed and dispatched to specific locations. Fifth guy got the M-14. I alway arrived quickly as my ET office was close. I held back until I was Number Five. First two responders got the .45 Colt M1911A1 and two magazines, next two got the Rem 870 12 gauge with 12 shells in a pouch, the M-14 guy got three 20 round magazines. FIREPOWER! 😅 Normal Roving Patrol watch got the .45 pistol. We also used the M-14 with cup style grenade launcher for use in line throwing when unrepping with another ship. My ET/EW shop handled the comm line between ships. A big rubber "bullet" carried the light line over, which was then attached to the comm line.

@kirk2767

14 күн бұрын

I remember in a single mooring, where the initial line-throwing M-14 broke its firing-pin. They replaced it, shot a line over, only to have the rubber thing smash someone's windshield.

@lesliepaulkovacs6442

14 күн бұрын

I served in the US Navy from 1976-1986, in the Submarine Service. Every Boat I was on had M-14s, Remington 870 Shotguns, and 1911s.

@cbozant3428

14 күн бұрын

We had 2 full auto on Stethem in 2005.

@snagglesmagoo2750

14 күн бұрын

Our topside rovers always had the M-14. Pretty much everyone had to be qualifed to carry it and the 1911. Our security force had M-14, Remington 870, 1911 and then added Beretta M9 and M-4 during my last deployment. A few of the GMs even got to train on the Stinger, which we used during the Gulf War and picket duty for years afterwards.

@spvillano

13 күн бұрын

@@kirk2767 well, it's a Navy ship, they've likely had spares. Hell, the USS New Jersey just recently found spare windshields squirreled away aboard ship.

Just a comment about training with the old rifle and switching to the new one. In August 1965 in USMC boot camp in San Diego we trained with the M-14, upon completion of boot camp we find ourselves at Camp Pendleton in Infantry Training Regiment with M-1s. Switch to Vietnam and once again we have the M-14. The first M-16 I ever saw was on a dead VC. 17 months later I exchange my M-14 for an M-16 and upon firing it the trigger housing group falls out. As we had no more rifles to exchange I was told by the Armorer to just not shoot it. Good advice. I rotated home shortly there after. Good times.

I was an M14 full auto rifleman. In full auto with bipod and left hand holding down on the front sling and buttstock shoulder extension, you sweep it like a machine gun in small increments. Used it target shooting as well. The only drawback was only a 20 round magazine. It is an excellent rifle and never had a problem with it. Don't know any Military men that used it who said it was a bad or faulty rifle. If you haven't humped it for a couple years, shot the hell out of it, cleaned it till it was spotless, you haven't a clue about the rifle. Taking it to the range once a month or longer period means nothing.

@murphy7801

6 күн бұрын

I don't think it's a bad rifle. But it was simply outclassed. Internationally it did absolutely terribly which is unusual for a USA adopted firearm (see M1, M16 and M4). The fal and the G3 being sold by smaller countries with less influence cleaned up the world market. G3 8 million made Fal 7 million M14 2.3 million I think that's the reputation people are talking about rather than gun itself.

@zx7-rr486

6 күн бұрын

@@murphy7801 Yes - the FAL and the G3 were far superior designs. I'm not even sure Ian was correct when he said the M14 had fewer moving parts than a FAL. A FAL is a devilishly simple but brilliant tilting bolt design.

The fact that the M14 was the shortest career as the main military rifle shocked me because I always remembered seeing it used for Honor Guard duties for so long. They must have kept it because that polished wood looks incredible for the procedures.

@egoalter1276

14 күн бұрын

Yeah, post aoviet coumtries still regularly use SKSes/SVTs for parades. Full length rifles with wooden furniture just look sexier.

@davidknapp4025

14 күн бұрын

That’s how I used it. Heavy piece of crap. See my comment about blanks jamming.

@mbr5742

13 күн бұрын

The West German Army still used Mauser 98K for the ceremonial job. The 98K was not used by any other Bundeswehr unit ever

@uzivatel56

13 күн бұрын

M14 is the very last main U.S. rifle, that can do the traditional "prussian style" rifle drills. You can't do that stuff with M16. It is essentially irreplaceble in that niche role.

@uku4171

13 күн бұрын

​@@egoalter1276In Estonia we actually use the M14 as a ceremonial rifle.

"It has a 20 round box magazine..." wow that insertion was really smooth for an... *fade starts* ah there it is

@blueorb7030

13 күн бұрын

People complain about ak maglock, but there's no other gun that's worse for it than the m14/m1a

@jamallabarge2665

12 күн бұрын

It's tricky.... kind of like an AK only a little tighter. Once it's in, it's in. Unlike the klunky M16 stuff 'n pray mag well.

@blueorb7030

12 күн бұрын

@@jamallabarge2665 it's much heavier than an Ak, are you kidding? You're nosing in against a spring, not a solid peice of steel. It's one swift motion, gross movement on an Ak. M1A is negotiations between two sprung latches. As for the AR platform, it takes less than half a second to smack the poodles out of an AR magazine and try to wiggle it out. On original M16 mags or modern polymer ones, by the time you'd damage the mag by stuffing it in too hard you'd break something in your hand.

I want to thank you. I was in ROTC from 1966 to 1970. We had M-1s for drill while we are at school and I qualified sharpshooter. When I went to ROTC summer camp in 1969 I worked hard on being able to qualify on the M-14. I ended up getting Marksman by just one point. I was worried I wouldn't qualify and I was devasted for years to come. When I got to the 82nd as a second lieutenant I was issued an M-16 and went back to qualifying Sharpshooter and Expert on the .45 pistol.. You relieved me of a bad memory. It was that damn M-14 rifle when I almost didn't qualify at all. I wonder how many guys didn't qualify at all who should have. I will offer you this. Think about FM 22-5 (drill and ceremonies). I think they adopted the M-14 so they wouldn't have to change the Manual.

All I know is that when we fired the M14 during basic training at Camp Pendelton in 1967 I was able to put 10 rounds in the black (old style butts) in about 30 seconds from 200 yards, and 8 of 10 from 500 yards. I credit the training we received from our Marine instructors -- I had never fired a rifle before -- and a rifle that shoots straight.

Significant heat treating problems sounds like institutional memory forgot about the 1903 issues...

@spvillano

13 күн бұрын

Probably, largely because most of that institutional memory had long been retired and the young-uns just didn't really pay attention, as they'd "never be involved in such a project".

@bbb462cid

13 күн бұрын

Actually the 1903 heat treat issue was not what most understand it to be. A deeper dive into that subject is really enlightening and even eye-opening

@nathanielweaver7078

13 күн бұрын

I worked at a machine shop/material testing lab for a few years and we actually went through a few heat treaters before we found a shop that could reliably treat large batches of parts to a very specific spec. It's not easy to do

@kyleschafer6275

13 күн бұрын

At least the 1903 heat treating problems were on a smaller scale and were due to shitty ammunition.

@HDSME

13 күн бұрын

Do you know low much and many treatments there were? You fall on the floor it was pure cutting edge

Thank you for this, Ian. This discussion is long overdue with histrionic bashing of the M14 design. While the gun is not a revolutionary leap forward, the essence of the design is a fundamentally good service rifle. The crux of the M14's problems was that the post-WWII era gutted the arms industry and then when the design was finally matured (quite late) by Springfield Armory and the Technical Data Package was ready to license out, none of these bidders were serious about building the rifles correctly. The tale of this rifle's problems is less a tale about the aspects of the rifle itself as it is a tale about the immense failure in factory production of guns and lax quality inspection standards after a severe contraction of the arms industry post-WWII. If it wasn't the M14, it was actually the FAL that would have been doomed to be ruined by Winchester's horrible quality control and lapses in good production management.

I was talking with my uncle a while back about military guns and stuff. He was in the Army during Vietnam and I was in the Marines during Desert Storm. He told me he loved the M14 and would really like to own one. Whereas the M16A2 I was issued could just stay in the Marines inventory as far as I was concerned. I have a deeper preference for wood stocks and blued metal, parkerized is okay though.

Was at the May 1967 Rifle competition in Graf. Troops from the entire European Theatre competed using the M14. Longest distance was 400m.

I used it in Taiwan's army. It rains a lot in Taiwan. The rain, mud, and dust that could go into the action and the charging handle guide rail is unbelievable. Lubricating the guide rail simply creates more goo and jams. Also, bipods should be standard on M-14s to compensate for poor ergonomics.

@SomeGuy1234X

14 күн бұрын

The M14 was obsolete when it was new. Up against the AK it was grossly outclassed for jungle warfare.

@stevehicks8944

14 күн бұрын

Were you in Vietnam? I know several old Marines who were; they were among the Marines who had to be ordered to turn in their M14s for M16s. Why did they hang on to this “obsolete” rifle ( your words)? Because it worked when the M16 didn’t; nor did Charlie get up after being hit by a 7.62 NATO round. Not much will stop a 7.62 NATO round; not even triple canopy jungle. Cite your experience with the M14 in combat( if you have any).

@wjlasloThe2nd

14 күн бұрын

I'm guessing you have no experience with the M14 in combat

@jameshealy4594

14 күн бұрын

​@@stevehicks8944wow, we so rarely see 'the whole AR adoption was a mistake' fudds in the wild these days, what a rare and beautiful creature.

@gumbomudderx7503

14 күн бұрын

My father used the M14 in combat in Korea and loved it. He also used the M16 in combat in Vietnam and preferred the M14. The only thing he liked better about the M16 is that you could carry more ammunition, but have less magazine capacity meant the extra mags you could carry were kind of a trade off. The only negative thing I ever heard him say about the M14 is that full auto was useless because of how uncontrollable it was.

I’m a Marine Corps combat veteran and when I started out we were still using the M14. I loved the M14. It was a solid, substantial , very rugged confidence inspiring weapon. When you fired the thing, it kicked into your soldier decisively. I loved it, but unlike many, I could control it well with “auto” selected. What I didn’t love about the M14 was carrying an 11 pound (fully loaded magazine and sling rifle on long patrols in 110 to 120 degree temperatures. That made me love the 9 pound (with fully loaded magazine) M16. Plus, I carried only two extra magazines with the M14, but I could carry a full bandolier or two of 5.56 ammo with no problem.

@TheRealCFF

13 күн бұрын

You hit the nail on the head about the M14.

@wesstubbs3472

13 күн бұрын

This the AK47

@PappyGunn

13 күн бұрын

I did my basic with the FN. I loved the 7.62. We switched over to M4s. Felt like a varmit rifle for sissies. I tried the M-14 later on and I loved it too except for carrying the bloody thing and the ammo. But still, very solid. And it didn't have a gas system that shot all the gas back into the chamber for you to clean later or a stupid little cotter pin. I found it a lotmore grunt friendly than the M4.

@rockitsurjon8629

13 күн бұрын

Respect for the M14. I loved being handed one from The Armory on my ship, for drills and...non drills. The GMs would match the parts from select M14s and would have a few completely dialed in with just iron sites and dang, those weapons were accurate.

@dejavu666wampas9

13 күн бұрын

@@rockitsurjon8629- In 1969, my 17 year old ass put 10/10 rounds in an 18 inch bullseye at 500 yards, with iron sights. I loved my M-14. I now have the M1a. Love it also. Just yesterday put 5/5 in a 9 inch bullseye at 200 yards, iron sights, and 72 year old eyes. Plus, for the gun grabbing crowd, it isn’t all black and scary looking.👍

I work in a machine shop. Any individual component that is manufactured has its own bluepring, but then there are also several other papers, each dedicated to a specific step in the process that details what that station needs to do. If a part gets caser cut, then deburred, then machined, then bent in a press brake, etc, thats a paper for each. So each part has a stack of papers kept in a traveler that follows the part around the shop until it is assembled/combined with other parts, or QC'd and shipped.

These are great videos and this is one of the best. Love the history, back stories, seeing the assembly disassembly and function. Thank you for making them.

I think another really important thing to discuss when talking about the M-14 is Robert McNamara. He was a big fan of forcing military services to buy cheaper generalist items rather than more expensive and more capable systems. Probably the most famous example of his interference was trying to force the Navy to adopt the F-111 as an interceptor despite it being totally unsuited to the role. It seems he had a big hand in forcing the services to switch to the M-16 over the M-14.

@blueduck9409

14 күн бұрын

Ya the M14 was old macs rifle. He wasted an insane amount of money on the rifle during development, but managed to turn out a decent battle rifle.

@HyBr1dRaNg3r

14 күн бұрын

Isn’t it funny how politicians think they know what’s best for the military?

@earllamerica9348

14 күн бұрын

Wasn’t he also responsible for the F-4 being adopted by the USAF?

@joshualandry3160

14 күн бұрын

@@earllamerica9348 I think so. He had a hand in all the Vietnam procurement, although I am not particularly failure with that process.

@LokiOdinson-fz8ps

13 күн бұрын

@@earllamerica9348 he was also the idiot that thought the F-111 would replace every fighter and attack bird in service.

I have to say, the M 14 is absolutely not a forgotten weapon, but this is one of the most fascinating videos from this channel I have seen in a long time… And that is an incredibly high bar to clear. Thank you very much Ian, I'm probably going to rewatch this several times this week.

This was a phenomenal video. Great history and technical discussion about the functional aspects and the issues with the weapon's use and manufacturing problems. Good job. I remember using these in my first year in ROTC. We used it for tactical training, on the range and used weaker return springs for use on drill teams. I do remember that these were semi-automatic only but secured in the arms room safe were the "conversion kits" that could be attached for auto fire. We used these for one year only and by my sophomore year they had been replaced with the M16 on campus. After that we went back to the bolt action Springfield for drill and the M16 for tactics and range work.

I trained with the M-14 in basic training at Fort Campbell in 1969. All 11-B & 11-C were introduced to the M-16 the last week. Then trained on M-16 at AIT Ft. Polk! I loved the M-14! To me it was a real rifle, easy to shoot and clean, and just plain looked good!! Carried M-16 in Vietnam, hard to clean, damaged easily, and looked like a toy with little 5.56 bullets, where the M-14 had the heavy 7.62 rounds just like M-60 machine gun! I always felt there had to be something wrong with a rifle that needed a “forward assist”??🇺🇸

Never made sense to me why people gawk and cream their trousers over an M1 Garand but throw a shit fit over the M14, I adore both.

@daneaxe6465

9 күн бұрын

The biggest problem I've seen from the M1A is accuracy sucks bad. The worst story was a nephew bought a new M1A which was about $1600. He immediately sent it off to some top tier gunsmith which cost him additional $2000 to $3000 more to make a M21 style super shooter. Boy did he get a surprise when he got it back. Now he had a 17 pound rifle with a massive bulky stock. And it STILL could not equal a bottom of the bucket DPMS LAR-308 in accuracy. Several years of messing around trying to get it to shoot didn't work, so he gave it to his brother who got tired of carrying the thing to his deer stand. Then he dumped on a trade for a usable rifle.

@natwolf687

9 күн бұрын

​@@daneaxe6465Lots of people talk up this rifle. I get it, it's iconc, but it's just not very accurate.

@beardaquatics9163

9 күн бұрын

​@@daneaxe6465compared to its peers it was an accurate rifle for the day. Most rifles back then were 2-4 moa if memory serves correct. A half way decent rifle now is usually sub 2 moa in many cases. So it is disingenuous to get an older weapon (or old style) and complain it doesn't match a modern rifle.

@beardaquatics9163

9 күн бұрын

I like both of them. The M1 because it is a classy old firearm. The M14 because it has nearly the same feel but in a round that is far easier to get. Also if the M14 a was good enough to be a DMR with delta snipers then it is good enough for me ( can't remember which but one of the two delta snipers carried one at time of death in Somalia during black hawk down)

@mikesacco4889

8 күн бұрын

I gotta disagree with those dissing the accuracy. I thought it was great. I maxed the course for my expert...had no problems with it

I cracked up when Ian managed to Garand Thumb himself in a completely new way when demonstrating the trigger 😅

My pops was drafted to Vietnam, and he always says that he preferred the M14 to the M16. He feels so strongly about this that he said he would even prefer an AK-47 to the M16. ... I don't know though. My time in the military kicked off in 2008, where the M16A2 was used for drill in basic and the M16A4 was used in the field. Plus unfortunately I've never fired an M14, but i think most agree that it would be pretty cool given the opportunity.

I really enjoy the in depth history videos, keep up the good work!

I think it is important to clarify that the M14 may have been the shortest serving PRIMARY infantry rifle in US history, but it is among the longest serving rifles in US history. The follow on development of the XM-21, M-21, M-14EBR, and M-25 to fill a gap in capability kept many of these guns in service for quite a long time. I'm pretty sure the US Navy is still using them as line throwers for at sea replenishment, and there are still EBR floating around the armories of various units in the US. I'm a fan of the platform in spite of the weaknesses of the design. There is something about it which just feels right in the hands and the recoil impulse is really lovely. My M1A Loaded will put 175gr SMK into 1.5MOA 10 round groups all day and spits out M80 ball at about 4MOA. Plenty accurate. With modern cleaning techniques, it holds that accuracy between cleaning, too

@Lex1uth3r

10 күн бұрын

^This. When I was working for the DoD and Army in R&D 20 years ago we got a lot of requests from units for these in Afghanistan since the 556 just didn't have the range needed for the big terrain out there.

@Soucka74

10 күн бұрын

In the mid 90's, I acquired a 70's built Springfield Armory M1A and was accurized by 2 good friends in Palmer, Alaska (Thanks Craig and Rocky)for NRA High Power competition. It was welded with double lugs, rear and fore. Now they only make rear lugged accurized M1A's. I was putting regular 10 rounds at 600 yards into the bottom of a large coffee can, about 8". These rifles can definitely do the job, as long as you do yours. And I'm a shit shot.

@ronaldkonkoma4356

10 күн бұрын

It's in Blackhawk Down

@100nitrog2

10 күн бұрын

Fun fact: while 7.62X54R is typically acknowledged as the longest serving military cartridge in existence, that distinction arguably also goes to .45-70 Gov't, in the form of the M32 blanks that are used in some models of line-throwing guns to this day. Just throwing that in there because you mentioned line throwing.

@marshalldcarpenter

10 күн бұрын

I carried the ebr through 5 tours of Iraq. Anyone who doubts the capabilities of the m14 is inexperienced.

My dad served from 56-76. While in nam from 67-68 as ncoic for an artillery battery. he went out on patrols occasionally as a forward observer and told me he preferred the m14 as it had better suppression power and could reach out and touch someone. He said only fools fired full auto as they turned into anti aircraft guns after the first couple rounds. He did like the lighter weight of the m16 but mentioned the tendency to jam if not cleaned and lubed diligently. He earned the Purple Heart during tet getting the Forrest Gump wound when his camp was attacked in march of 68.

Ahh, re-manufactured; I wondered why the finish looked so new. I was issued the M-14 (with a selector-lock, of course) in boot in 1973, and when stationed back at P.I. got to see the differences between the M-14 (my T.O. weapon again) and the M-16 issued to the wingers from M.C.A.S. Beaufort. Accuracy: At 500yds that semi of a bullet need less than half the clicks for windage, or elevation. At any range, it decimated the 2x4 uprights holding the targets, whereas the M-16 drilled neat little 1/4 inch holes. In exchange for this ability, the M-14 kicks like a mule and weighs half again as much as the M-16. The Marines in the Sandbox requested them for their greater penetration of walls, etc. (The Corps doesn't throw anything away.)

The problem is that the M-14 isn't a squad support gun. That's what the M60 was for. It also isn't a PDW. It is a marksman's rifle. That's all it is good for and it is a role for which it is exceptionally well suited and is still in use in limited quantities today by special forces for this very reason. The selector switch on an M14 is pretty much useless, tactically speaking. For that matter, there are plenty of reasons to issue semi auto only weapons to most troops. It is really just a great way to waste ammo you might need later on.

During my 2nd tour of Iraq. My unit was issued some M14s. Seems the Army recognized that most units didn't have designated marksman rifles to deal with more long ranged engagements or counter sniper operations. So the M14s were the answer. Got to shoot it in Kuwait. They were in excellent condition and obviously came out of Army weapons storage. To my knowledge my units soldiers who were assigned these never had to use them in combat. It was a better to have and never use than not have and need it situation I suppose. I was just happy I had a brand new M4 carbine with new optics. I was a happy camper weapon wise.

@blueduck9409

14 күн бұрын

I never heard any complaints about the M14 from the units that carried them in the field. Most people were happy to have the firepower at long distance. A guy that knew how tp use it and bring it into play quickly became the grim reaper.

@LRK-GT

13 күн бұрын

IIRC The 'Sandbox' reintroduced combat scenarios not much thought of since Lawrence of Arabia. >100-300yard shots over/up mixed terrain, became a necessity (again). Makes sense to pull M14s out of mothballs, v. the cost of issuing New Manufacture AR-10 derivatives (which IIRC, were *also* being introduced in more specialty roles) IMO, the 'experiences' in the mid-east influenced the procurement of the XM5/7's 6.8x51mm. Time will tell if that was a mistake...

@petehaack5228

10 күн бұрын

I saw some folks carrying them while we were in a mess halll in Iraq, but they all seemed to be support troops. A friend and I asked them about it when we saw them, but they just started bitching about having to carry them, and we got so annoyed that we never got the rest of the story. If I remember right, they were just straight M14's, wooden stocks, no optics, or anything special. I didn't think to look if they were select fire at the time. My friend told them that he wished he could trade with them, lol.

Went through Army Basic at Fort Benning in spring of 1969 using M14 . Having never fired any weapon other than a Daisy BB gun , I shot Expert and loved the M14 . A year later in VietNam I was oriented with the M16 and was surprised at the light weight .

@Bob_Adkins

12 күн бұрын

Same here, I trained in basic with the m14, but trained in AIT with the M16 and carried the M16 in VN. We had a pair of snipers in our platoon that carried M14s, and they looked miserable all the time humping the bulky, heavy rifles and ammo.

@tomn8204

8 күн бұрын

The title of this video is horribly misleading. A properly manufactured M14 with quality ammo is an outstanding rifle.

Fantastic Job!! Thank You for Sharing This information!!

USMC 68 -72 and I much preferred the M14 to the M16 because I knew the 5.56 round was originally developed as the .223 short range small varmint round and was and still in the school of heavy rounds generally do a better job. l do agree it was a heavy beast to carry around everywhere you went.

I recall Eugene Stoner talking in that interview from way back the M14s main purpose was to feed the Armory at Springfield. The brass were extremely reluctant of turning over their small arms development to the private sector. The Garand while a great platform in WWII, was soon outclassed by the assault weapons being developed. The Springfield Armory served its purpose, which was to mass produce small arms with interchangable parts. It took a government backed effort to do it and great advancement in production techniques were made. The Armory was shuttered in the late 1960s. But we are now basically seeing the same thing with space launches. It took a government backed effort to make that happen. Today, private industry is taking over lower earrh orbit launches and NASA is now focusing on deep space launches.

@dlmsarge8329

12 күн бұрын

Well said.

@edmundcharles5278

9 күн бұрын

All true! Very few, if any, small arms are/were developed by the government depots; even the M1 Garand was invented by an individual who worked on the M1 design with permission of his superiors!

I shot with a match 14 in Division matches when I was in the Marines. I placed in the bronze bracket and I had no complaints with my rifle. Consistently hit the bull at 600 yards with iron sights.

@jeffjames4064

9 күн бұрын

What has always amazed me is the ability to SEE the target at 300 yards, much less nail it.

@jimdrich1967

8 күн бұрын

It doesnt sound like your M14 had accuracy problems. I never fired over 300M but with open sights could drop the human silloettes w/o much trouble, both as a Trainee @ FT Polk, La. (F-3-5, 1966) and as a Drill Sgt @FT Bliss, Tx (C-2-3, 1968-69). I never saw a failure to eject, or load (unless the chamber was too full of sand for the cartrige to fit), or any other failure... It doesn't mean it didn't happen, I just never saw it. The reputation I heard coming back from 'Nam was nothing but 'good' pertaining to the M14.

@vampolascott36

8 күн бұрын

@@jimdrich1967 Yeah, 600 yd 20 round slow fire is the last leg of the National Match Course. We used a spotter scope to see the direction of the heat mirage and adjust windage. I went to Hawk Missile School in Ft. Bliss. We were the only Marines there I think. There were a couple Navy Seals in the Red Eye school and we shared the barracks with them.

@vampolascott36

8 күн бұрын

@@jeffjames4064 You position the front post on the target frame.

@RonWagner

7 күн бұрын

Thanks for that info. I have never had the opportunity to fire at long ranges but at 78 years old I would still like to take my Remington bolt action 308 out for a full day. I don't have a peep sight, which I preferred., but a basic 4X. What kind of iron sight did you use?

Super photography and excellent explaining of what does what Thank you

My dad told us stories of being in the Army in the mid 60's and going from the M14, to the M16 halfway through his service. What he remembers is the M14 was unbreakable, never failed, never jammed, accurate, and easy to disassemble and clean. Then the first M16s they were given, always jammed, would double feed, or fail to extract, failed to go to full bolt lock, failed instantly with slightest amount of grit/dirt, weren't accurate, and were a hassle to completely disassemble, clean and reassemble. Not something you wanted to do in your lap in the jungle. Times have changed, however some of these points will stand the test of time, as I also have a decent experience with both the M1A and various AR15 platforms, the rate of failures for similar reasons, the AR is a cute princess that can be great, but don't run it over with your truck. The M1A can be splashed with some diesel fuel occasionally, and it can't fail. Also passes the 'run over by your truck test'. 😅

The M14 should be taken as an example of the old engineering adage, anything designed to do everything, does nothing well.

@xavierlavoie9264

14 күн бұрын

And the military being dinosaurs refusing to evolve

@Puttrik87

14 күн бұрын

What about Main Battle Tanks basically replacing previously diverse tank lineups. They seem like an outlier.

@moss8448

14 күн бұрын

it did feel like an everymans BAR

@jacobgreve802

14 күн бұрын

@@Puttrik87 remember that the mbt was an accident, not intended. In the case if the mbt, they were designed as medium tanks first.

@brianjones9780

14 күн бұрын

Another example, the M2 .50cal was originally designed as an anti aircraft gun. Turns out it's pretty much anti-everything unless it has an inch of armor on it. Anti-aircraft, anti-vehicle, anti-materiel, anti-personnel... You can even snipe with it in distances over a mile if you mount a scope. Absolutely bonkers weapon, over 100 years old since it was first designed, still relevant on the battlefield and probably will still be relevant for another 50 years or more. But it was purpose built for anti aircraft use first, so it was coincidental that it's effective against almost everything else. Especially as drones become more plentiful and up-armored to withstand small arms fire, the 50 cal will likely be the go-to in anti-drone defense. So over a hundred years after its invention, still using it for its intended purpose of anti-air and still any other purpose we can think of. We slap one on top of every vehicle if there's space for it. Some M2s are still in service that were made in the 1930's. If you can't tell, it's my favorite gun of all time. It really speaks for a gun if we still use the exact same model 100 years after it was made. No other weapon in history has that type of longevity on a unit-by-unit basis.

First rifle I ever fired was the M-14 when I was drafted in 1966. I qualified expert without a problem but hated carrying it on those 20 mile marches. After basic we got the M-16 which I also qualified expert but I still thought the M-14 that I had in basic was better at long range than the M-16.

@donaldoehl7690

11 күн бұрын

They are that, especially when you consider how much work was done to make the M16 a long range rifle.

The last time I had to qualify with the M-14 during my naval career (1986-2006) was 2000, I also had to qualify with the M-16, 12 Ga (Mossberg A-500) and the M-9 Berreta. I loved everything about the M-14 except for the recoil which wasn't as bad as the recoil from my M-5/AR-10 (.308) is. I also got to shoot the M3A1 grease gun during Army basic training and fell in love with it.

Great video, Ian, thank you! I would personally love to hear you discuss that topic you mention around 31:57 (shuttering of Springfield Armory and how the lack of a government arsenal has impacted military arms procurement) more in depth!

They were aware that Sturmgewehr, AK, FAL and AR10 exist but still chose THIS

@jacobgreve802

14 күн бұрын

Springfield had lied to the procurement committee, and said that the m14 could use M1 Garand tooling, which would have said a nontrivial amount of money for production had it been true, which it wasn't.

@majesticface3631

14 күн бұрын

@@jacobgreve802if you were to retool using garand parts you might as well adopt the Italian bm59

@idontwanttoputmyname403

14 күн бұрын

The AR10s had some issues, and both the STG and the AK weren’t entirely proven yet I would think. The fal one is fair though lol.

@zenjon7892

14 күн бұрын

I HIGHLY doubt Cold War-era America would have chosen the AK

@geodkyt

14 күн бұрын

​@@majesticface3631True. And had Springfield basically done that, it is entirely likely the M14 wouldn't have been cancelled as abruptly as it was. 1. It would have gone into production faster, thus not already drawing the ire of McNamara right at the beginning of the Kennedy Administration (after the scandal of our "best and brightest" forward deployed troops in Berlin were still carrying Garands and effectively an entirely WWII suite of small arms during the Berlin Blockade, and being photographed next to British troops already equipped with SLRs, etc.) 2. We still would have likely adopted the M16, and eventually still would have made it the standard service rifle. It justvwould have taken longer to transition from "limited specialty purposes" (M2 Carbine replacement, use by SF & recon troops, use in SE Asia, etc.) to "everyone gets an M16, worldwide".

I'm torn. I have always loved the M14. I love the Cold War 1950s esthetics. I also like the IDEA of it being a continuation of the Garand and replacing all of the other small arms with one platform. It is one of my favorite guns to shoot at the range. I also admit that it was a bad service rifle and that it failed and should have never been built.

@Provo647

14 күн бұрын

The Garand was a poor design too, with a lot of machining and too much weigth, that only the USA could afford to manufacture.

@illegalclown

14 күн бұрын

@@Provo647 I know it's blasphemous, but I'm not a huge fan of the Garand beyond its historical value. I have one, but rarely take it out. It's heavy for what it is. I've always thought thought the feed system was stupid. Throw on a detachable box with a 10 or more round capacity and I would like it more. That's why I like my M1A and SVT more.

@xavierlavoie9264

14 күн бұрын

​@@Provo647it was quite ahead of its time however for ww2.

@fridrekr7510

14 күн бұрын

@@illegalclown Yes, the merits of the Garand was that more or less everyone gets a semi auto rifle, compared to the limited issue of the SVT and G43. And since the SVT and G43 was mostly fed with 5 round stripper clips anyway, due to limited issue of spare magazines, using 8 round enbloc clips for the Garand was a good compromise. But a larger detachable magazine was clearly the better solution going forward, and when the StG got introduced, the Garand was clearly no longer a cutting edge infantry rifle.

@SLIM-SH8Y

14 күн бұрын

They shoud have made the m14 a semi auto civillian rifle instead and adopted the AR10. The ar10 is clearly a better choice Who knows, Maybe in an alternate timeline libs are complaining wbiut the m14 being used in shootings instead of the ar15🤣🤣🤣

I'm pretty sure in the film Black Hawk Down, one of the snipers who asked to be put on the ground to protect the injured pilot who had been shot down, this was his preferred weapon, they were aware of the odds of them surviving, but still insisted on trying to save their injured colleague. They reicieved the highest award for their bravery and the admiration of all who read the book or watched the film, Brothers in arms to the end.

Was just looking for a video about the m14, and what luck, you just uploaded this! Thanks Ian.

Quick correction: the M14 has the shortest service life as the main service rifle in the US military, but it is actually the longest serving rifle in US military history. The M14 persists in military service to this day as the M14 EBR, for use as a designated marksman’s rifle.

@haley746

14 күн бұрын

The EBR is basically gone, replaced by the G28 in the Army and M110 in the Marines. NSW would’ve replaced them a long time ago too. However I believe the Navy still uses regular M14s as linethrowers

@thatcarguydom266

14 күн бұрын

Literally the shortest and longest service life at the same time 😂 This thing is contradiction incarnate Full auto rifle with which you can’t hit anything in auto Intended universal solution meant to simplify things that did anything but Advertised as being a conversion from the M1 Garand but they could never figure it out

@thatcarguydom266

14 күн бұрын

@@haley746some special forces units still use M14s although it’s mostly down to the preference of the shooter

@m1a1abramstank49

14 күн бұрын

@@thatcarguydom266They use it because they can’t procure 308 AR variants. The only reason they used M14s for marksmanship is because they didn’t give 5 fucks about that area for a time and used what was “best” and even then was worse than say an SVD.

@JeffEbe-te2xs

13 күн бұрын

Pulled,out of storage Replace quickly by 7.62 ARs Ceremonial doesn’t count

Imagine a properly manufactured "M14" chambered in 270 British allowing it to be slightly shorter, lighter and more manageable in full auto mode. Outfitted with synthetic furniture then coming into use, we probably never would've heard of Eugene Stoner.

@erwinsetyo1061

13 күн бұрын

Oh, I'm sorry. But I think I would take either FN Universal carbine or EM rifle, and made the M14 a DMR (which basically a M21)

@joshklaver47

13 күн бұрын

You mean basically the FAL they were supposed to adopt?

My father used the M14 in Vietnam, and he and EVERY SINGLE veteran I’ve talked to who also had one, loved it and did not want to switch to the M16’s when they came out.

Great video. Logical, accurate and truthful.

At Ft. Knox, in 1968 my basic training was only M 14 with two mornings on the firing range. We had no training on the AR-16. We learned how to disassemble the M14 and clean it. It was so similar to the M1 which I was previously acquainted with. I do not recall that the M-14's that we were issued had any select fire mechanism. A half a year later I was deployed to Vietnam. Before leaving for Vietnam, we had a short experience with the AR-16. We were handed an AR and asked to spray a target about 25 feet in front of us, full auto. That was it. When I arrived in Vietnam in 1969, our company was provided with M-14's

@George-vf7ss

12 күн бұрын

FUBAR

@hillbilly4christ638

11 күн бұрын

Serious eggheads in Washington caused the many failures. McNamara, Rusk and others who had the president’s ear caused the deaths of loads of servicemen. I don’t believe any of these boneheads should have anything at all dedicated to them anywhere.

@vicO1323

10 күн бұрын

M-161A

@jimlong20

10 күн бұрын

yes,they were weeded out early as unsuitable as s.a.w.. an experiment that didna work. fini

@galenhisler396

9 күн бұрын

To bad they didn't make the scout squad m1 a1 back then .

I often tell folks, I must have been very lucky with the 11 M-14s I have fired. One was an M-14 E2, or M-15 version. (More controllable in that configuration than a BAR.)

@kot0472

13 күн бұрын

M14A1 nor M15 were much less controllable than BAR. That's why they weren't successful.

Great video!! And, not too long 😉As always, full of good information shared concisely and interestingly. Thanks!!

Very comprehensive explanation - never heard anything about it - only fired 100 rounds with M16 in Air Force Basic in 1973 .

I own a TRW 1963 build genuine M14 here in Holland. Semi auto only (by an installed M1 Garand trigger). The M14's here are imported to the Netherlands from Vietnam in the 1970's. Today, a original M14 cost approximately half of a SA M1A. I used it for target shooting. 600 meters prone service rifle. My M14 was completely accurized by NM standards. Took me years to get it really accurate. I love the M14, it's a beautiful rifle. But it is not accurate or reliable enough. It can't handle simple range dust. And it holds accuracy only if you don't take it apart (for maintenance). At best a 2 /2,5 MOA rifle. I use my AR15 now for match shooting. It can run circles around a M14. But the M14 will always have a soft spot in my heart:-)😊

@Mk156

13 күн бұрын

Mijn held! 👍 Maar waar in Nederland kun je als particulier met deze wapens schieten? Dacht dat bij de meeste schietsportverenigingen .22 of 9x19mm wel zo'n beetje de limiet is?... of heb ik mezelf toch nog niet genoeg geïnformeerd?..In ieder geval, heel gaaf, leuk om jouw comment als mede-lander te lezen!

@JENKEM1000

13 күн бұрын

>national match stuff Have you ever shot at Talladega USA? cheers

@kymidnight

13 күн бұрын

Back in the 50s, 2-3 MOA was a sniper rifle. Even today, Most standard infantry rifles are 2-3 MOA.

@rogiervis2306

13 күн бұрын

​@@Mk156Amersfoort, Ede, Putten, Bussum hebben schietbanen waar je alle kalibers kan schieten. En anders kun je van militaire schietbanen gebruik maken :-)

@forrestlindsey3947

12 күн бұрын

It is possible that your accurizing job didn't work well. I had a Marine Corps- assembled match M14 for competition in late 1970s and It was excellent (two Gold and one Bronze medals) and it served me very well out to 600m. I never competed at longer ranges than that, but the M14 was for 1,000 meter competition back then.

What fasinates me about the "four guns down to one gun" idea is that it would have been a lot more achievable if they had gone to an intermediate caliber. It still wasn't going to actually work, but it would have been reasonable to replace the m1 carbine, The m1 garand, and the grease gun with something sort of approximating a Ruger Mini 30. Which would have made a very American AK I suppose. Edit: I understand the history of *why* this didn't happen. I was thinking more about what such a gun might look like IF those historical prejudices against anything other than 7.62x51 could have been overcome somehow.

@christofrini

14 күн бұрын

I’ve long wondered - and suspect Ian would have an interesting answer - what would have happened if, some time early in the Vietnam war, the Ordnance Department necked up a 5.56 round to .30 cal, and essentially invented .300BLK nearly half a century before AAC. Given the DoD’s propensity at the time to shoot down anything that wasn’t in .30 cal, it surprises me that this wasn’t among their first attempts to “improve” the M16 upon complaints that it didn’t have enough “stopping power”.

@thebobbyllama6410

14 күн бұрын

They sort of already had that in the M2 Carbine. I think the long shadow cast by the BAR and the reports of low stopping power in Korea made an intermediate caliber seem undesirable to the Army in the 1950's, unfortunately.

@patrickporter1864

14 күн бұрын

They would not act the new British round for the em2. You would wonder if any of these people had battle experience.

@ulissedazante5748

13 күн бұрын

Actually, the British SA80 with intermediate ammo (their 4,8mm, then 5,56mm) almost achieved that. The Sterling SMG, L1A1 SLR rifle were replaced by the L85A1 and a heavy barreled LSW version would resurrect a Squad Automatic Rifle/BREN sized weapon and pushing GPMG out of the squad into a platoon heavy-ish Machine gun. Then the whole L85A1 program became the clusterfuck it became, the LSW never get anywhere - but the idea of one platform for all had some sense.

@leonardwei3914

13 күн бұрын

One problem was that both the Americans and British wanted one caliber, instead of having an intermediate for the rifle and larger caliber for the GPMG. Which is what the Soviets did post WWII.

I grew up in a middle class suburb of a large East Coast city. In 1969 I joined the Army because I was in danger of being drafted.During BCT at Fort Knox we qualified on both the M-14 and the M-16. Although I had never even touched a firearm before arriving at BCT I qualified on the M-14 just 2 points below Expert. I didn't do nearly as well with the M-16. I never served anywhere near combat (I was a lot luckier than many guys of my era) so I can't judge the combat capabilities of either weapon. But I wonder if my experience with the M-14 was common.

The rifle that was meant to simplify and standardize ended up still being a rifle that comparatively needs to be fitted while you had the AR coming out that could be slapped together like a Lego set, was lighter, was simpler with less vibrating parts. The fact that the rifle was pitched as being able to re-use all this Garand tooling and then not being able to significantly folloe through on that was also a killer.

Watching that dissasembly really makes me appreciate even more now how simple/smart Stoner's design is. "The definition of genius is taking the complex and making it simple." -Albert Einstein

@Mike-ukr

14 күн бұрын

and compared to an AK an M16 is complex!

@ronaldjohnson1474

13 күн бұрын

Agree with Einstein, but most 1960's soldiers could disassemble/assemble the M14 blindfolded.

dude, i follow about a dozen other yt creators and you BY FAR the smoothest, cleanest (lack of extraneous bs) presenter out there. i LOVE your vids and your clearly explained thoughts.

@mark-wn5ek

9 күн бұрын

I cringe when the first words are Hey Dude!

@jrftracy

7 күн бұрын

@@mark-wn5ek Hey dude, y'know, just like, chill 😃

Thank you,I always wondered what happened to the M 14. Failures do happen in all things.Thanks again

So many individuals keep complaining about how bad the M-14, but never used it in combat. In 1963 I joined the USMC and was trained with the M1, loved it. In 1965 was issued an M-14 which I carried for two tours in VN. Shortly after entering VN the M16 was issued to troops who were never properly trained on how to use it, the result was many weapons jamming during operations. My M14 never jammed, never misfired. Resulting in at least one M14 in every fireteam. My M14 never failed me. It was a very accurate weapon and I loved it. Richard Lamb USMC-SSGT 1963-1973

That was completely enthralling. So much detail. Top marks to Ian for holding up so well. thanks !!!

I was in the US Navy from 1979 to 1985 and the M14 was still the rifle in use aboard ship. I had the opportunity to spend quite a bit of time with it at the range and qualified expert with it. I can see why it's not everyone's cup of tea but I think it was and is a solid weapon. When we would go to Little Creek Amphibian base to shoot at the range there the Marine Gunny that was the range master never failed to tell us how luck we were to have the use of that weapon vs the M-16.

Cool vid. Information I have always wanted to know. Thanks Ian.

What a complete shame it is! 1.38 million produced with none being made available to the average civilian. Damn the registry. The American people's tax dollars paid for these rifles and they are destroyed. Complete waste...

@otisarmyalso

9 күн бұрын

Ditto

@MarksWorldofEngravingandMore

4 күн бұрын

They do not want you to have a rifle as reliable powerful and as accurate as this rifle. It scares the poop out of them and Ian that there are so many in circulation.

Cons: - Heavy - Large Caliber - Outdated Pros: - Hella sexy

@xavierlavoie9264

14 күн бұрын

Awkward to carry too, especially in the jungle of Vietnam

@blueduck9409

14 күн бұрын

Just heavy. Other than that its an ass kicker.

@stevenparsons4464

14 күн бұрын

Shoots much farther than an AK.

@wraithwyvern528

14 күн бұрын

Lighter than the FAL, which was what they compared it to

@dennisyoung4631

13 күн бұрын

“…and, if you’re a short, dark-haired lady, you use one of these rifles to get one of the best scores out of a large match.” I’d *heard* of using the magazine as a palm rest, but didn’t take it that seriously until I saw Madame use that twenty-round box in that exact way!

Enlisted in Marines in 1972. Qualified on M14 in boot camp and in Okinawa, and got to try out M16 in infantry training. At time, Marine gate guards in certain garrison situations given M14 rifle; used it myself on guard duty at Pendleton. Big knock on M14 was that it was heavier than M16, and that it overheated on full auto as replacement for BAR. Also, 100 rounds of 7.62 MM weighted three times as much as 100 rounds of 5.56 MM from M16 series - heavier load for infantry Marines on patrol. As far as firing goes: M14 had a smoother overall recoil, as opposed to barrel pop with M16. Smoother recoil of M14 helped out on rapid fire during qualification. Which to choose: If it was a low-intensity vigilance situation, I would probably choose the M14 - greater range and more powerful bullet. And, the hinged steel butt plate serves as brass knuckles if you have to smash a rude person in the face. Note on M4, successor to M16: Taller Marines didn't like the M4 carbine - it was so short, they had a hard time getting a good site picture when aiming it.

I had an H&R M 14 in Queensland Australia in the mid early to mid-1980s. In those times, we did not need a licence, and it was legal to own semi-automatic firearms. I used it for pig hunting with good quality ammunition. I loved using it with little recoil compared to L1A1 fal I used in the Australian army. It had the selector switch removed, and the rod spot welded. Not a difficult issue to overcome if you so desired. My was stolen in 1985 sadly.

As an infantryman serving in the 3rd US Infantry Regiment (The Old Guard) in Arlington Virginia for two years in the late 1980s, I was a rare example of an active duty combat arms soldier who carried an M14 as my standard issued weapon decades after it was mostly phased out. We needed the M14 for our ceremonial function (conducting funerals in Arlington National Cemetery); but we also used them as our standard infantry weapon in the field (we were all fully qualified 11B infantry with a real-world military mission to defend the DC area as part of the Military District of Washington). I say this to explain that as a result of carrying this weapon in the field (with swapped-in nylon stock) and firing it countless times on the range and during exercises, my conclusion was that it was a SUPERLATIVE battle rifle. In basic training at Ft. Benning, we were issued and fired the M16-A2, which was new at the time. While the recoil was lighter, it occasionally jammed and the 5.56 cartridge didn't inspire as much confidence at the 7.62 beast we put through the M14. With its open Garand bolt, the M14 never once jammed on me or my friends, even when wet and muddy. It was incredibly accurate even with its fantastic iron sights, and the recoil was no problem once you got used to it. There was a simple elegance and brute power about the weapon that made it feel like a real "battle buddy". The M16 did not convey that same sense of security.

@mzmadmike

12 күн бұрын

In every test, the M14 jams a lot more than the M16. There were design issues as well as manufacturing issues. Springfield's worked better because they hand fitted every one of them.

@quietus13

9 күн бұрын

​@@mzmadmike what tests are these? I've put thousands of rounds thru both platforms. Modern AR iterations with nickel boron, nitride, or other treatments are indeed very reliable. But so is the M-14 platform. As an anecdote, I put 1000 rounds of steel case Wolf 7.62 thru a Springfield M1a without a single cleaning (very dirty ammo with lots of fouling), and it had zero malfunctions. There are many varieties of ARs that would struggle with that. I suspect older iterations of the AR pattern were less reliable than the product improvements available today, and if the same developments had been applied to the M-14 I would guess its reliability would be that much better.

I carried the M 14 with First Recon, Chu Lai from June 1966 to June 1967. On my first patrol wtih the M 16 the extraction failed and the rifle jammed. After extraction I turned the M 16 in and got my old M 14 back.

@WalterWild-uu1td

8 күн бұрын

Bingo, me too with Alpha 1/9, USMC.

@AFmedic

7 күн бұрын

Air Force Basic Training in 1968, while on the range (beautiful pristine day) we had several M-16's that jammed. To this day I still remember word-for word what one good old Southern Boy in our flight (must have been hunting when he was still diapers) said (with a heavy Southern drawl) to the Instructor, "With all due respect Sir, if this is what they're giving us to fight fight with, we're all fucked!". He was escorted off the range and when we got back to the barracks he and all his stuff was gone.

@ShadowlessPhantom

6 күн бұрын

I was at Chu Lai then with MAG 13. Got there late September 1966.

@zx7-rr486

6 күн бұрын

@@AFmedic Seems like a very petty thing to kick somebody out over. Was it because he swore, or simply because criticism of the M16 was too much?

@emmetband4931

6 күн бұрын

@@ShadowlessPhantom Welcome home!

I qualified easily with the M-14 in 1967 at Ft Jackson, SC, as a sharp shooter missing only 9 targets out of 300 target between 25 yds and 350 yrds, during final qualifying. We had 3 seconds to shoot each of the 300 target, which came up automatically every 3 seconds with new target at a different distance and position down range. And we had to move into different positions between each shot, but each shoot was in a different random position, ranging from prone to standing, to a deep 5 ft fox hole, etc. There were X6 different positions possible. The soldier that recorded my shoots would tell me which position to get into and when to reload the mag. I loved to shoot the M-14 and still love the M14 rifle. I also shot the M-1, as part of a Viet Nam funeral firing squad. I did not like the M-1 at all. It was a much heavier rifle and much harder to load and had fewer bullets in the mag. and was hard to fire and reload and operate without watching what I was doing, which we were not allowed to look at the rifle during firing... Zeroing in the M-14 was hard and took about 5 days of shooting, but once I had it zeroed in, it stayed perfect. Before going into the army I had little shooting practice, but was a farmer's son I shot squirrels and rabbits. There were no deer at that time in NE Ohio. I do not know which manufacturer built the rifle that I shoot in basic training. I was transferred to Germany, so I never shoot the M-14 while in the army after basic training. Thanks for the great review of the M-14.

What a great video -- first I've watched in the series and I will watch more. Came in the Army in '69 at USMA. We trained on the M14 and the weapon is still used for ceremonial duties (USMA, the Old Guard -- 3rd Infantry Regiment in DC for the Tomb and funerals/parades). I loved the weapon. Qualified on it, but I imagine many of the issues with the ammunition and the weapons remaining in service were ironed out. All of ours had been modified to semi-auto only. Firing pins were removed after summer training so we could use them during the academic year (stored in an unlocked rack in your room -- a room without a lock on the door). The butt plate that comes up was to go over your shoulder (obviously) but the little plate on the buttstock underneath that plate would open and the cleaning kit was in the stock. I also agree with other commenters -- the 7.62 NATO round (.308) will penetrate better and will not be deflected by leaves and small twigs in the jungle or a European forest. I think part of the decision to go with the M16 was lighter, and the individual soldier/Marine could carry more ammunition within the same weight. As for full auto, poor decision in terms of facilitating small unit fire discipline with permitting full auto. That's why we've gone to the selective fire of the three round burst with the M4. I also carried the M3A1 during ODS. Another great weapon for armored crews -- they were still authorized for recovery crews (M88) and I was able to "adopt" one for use from my Bradley hatch. Very interesting description of the small initial contract quantities. I worked operational testing after my uniformed career - we now call that Low Rate Initial Production and that is a big decision point for procurement. Before that point, the contractor/vendor must demonstrate production capability and quality control on the actual line they will use for Full Rate Production decision. No "custom" manufacturing steps or "work arounds".

My brother served in the Army National Guard in the late 60s with an M-14. He told me it was a great platform, but blamed inaccuracy on being issued worn out equipment. I missed out on buying a marksman (sniper?) version with the optic and carry bag for $1100.00 about 30 years ago.

@egoalter1276

14 күн бұрын

If I remeber right the inaccuracy was in part because disassembly required removing the furniture, and thus the sights would significantly shift zero after cleaning it.

@samwise1790

14 күн бұрын

Accurized version of it still suck compared to even a cheap AR platform rifle

@christophercorkill651

13 күн бұрын

Chris ​@@egoalter1276

@andrewroberts3187

12 күн бұрын

If your AR platform is using 5.56mm it will not have that same reach or punch.

@donaldoehl7690

11 күн бұрын

M14s we had in my Guard unit were lightly used and had been accurized by our unit armorer, probably without authorization; trigger, NM sights, bored flash hider and glass bedding. They shot VERY well. I shot an 856/1000 with "my" Winchester rifle to earn my Governor's Twenty tab in 1988. I would have hated to spend any time living with it slung across my back, however!