[Duce]

You guys will love this article.

The M14 Is the U.S. Military’s Worst Service Rifle. Ever.

ETA: Photo. It's the coolest thing there!

 

[scalovich]

Saw that in some M14 Facebook groups I follow.
How does the gun bend when you jump out of an airplane???

 

[John Crusher]

Saw that in some M14 Facebook groups I follow.
How does the gun bend when you jump out of an airplane???

The barrel is NOT the reserve chute !

 

[oldflyboy]

Saw that in some M14 Facebook groups I follow.
How does the gun bend when you jump out of an airplane???

Must be the hard rubber models used to make movies.

None of these claimed deficits are backed up with fact. They are just stated as though they are fact.

 

[1KPerDay]

So it's the worst battle rifle because:
1. It's hard to accurize
2. It's difficult to accurize
3. If you take it apart a lot after it's been bedded/accurized, it will not be as accurate
4. over lubrication attracts sand
5. The sniper variant is hard to accurize, and if you take it apart a lot, it will lose accuracy
6. full-auto is uncontrollable and of little utility (duh)
7. the stock design is outdated (duh)

Good article, bros

 

[MuppetMeat4Me]

The National Interest now joins Business Insider as one more website to not take seriously.

That article, aside from being stupid, was lazy. Why is there a market for this crap?

Oh, yeah, we pass it around, and then click on the link about the breasts hanging out because we're hoping that we won't be able to believe what happened next....

I have some scope rings to lap, or something.

 

[Tom Paine]

The comments are golden.

 

[tonyben]

About the author...

Charlie Gao studied political and computer science at Grinnell College and is a frequent commentator on defense and national security issues.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/charlie-gao-7a241995

Reading the comments section is like listening to high school lunch table talk.

Tony.

 

[Wasted ammo]

So, what’s the authors choice of the best?

 

[GardenValley]

So what you're saying is that this little boy has no practical experience with an M14 or much of anything else and knows not of what he speaks?

What an ass he is. Even with my bad eyes and a standard issue M14, my guess is that I could still drop him at 500 yards. Wonder how he would then view the "inaccurate" M14? Is every so called "journalist" an ignorant kid?

 

[tonyben]

I highly doubt he's ever fired a gun except in Call of Duty or Fallout.

Tony.

 

[KurtC]

Everything in the article sounds about right. However, he is ignoring the fact that the rifle turned out to be just what was expected of it as designed. He is comparing a 1950's battle rifle design to 21st Century precision rifle expectations.

You don't damage a rifle jumping out of an aircraft, you damage it upon landing. If jumping exposed (no M1950 individual weapons case), the M14 is a bit more complicated to rig than an M16 (or even an M1 Garand).

Putting the front sight on the flash hider didn't do anyone any favors, for either accuracy or durability.

A standard issue M1, M14 or original M16 takes a full week of Basic Rifle Marksmanship training and another full week of Advance Rifle Marksmanship in order to be proficient with it. These rifles were not intended for the untrained to just plop down behind it and start shooting 1" groups. I would suggest the author choose something easier to shoot and leave such rifles to trained rifleman. RNGR2

 

[Old Sarge]

So what you're saying is that this little boy has no practical experience with an M14 or much of anything else and knows not of what he speaks?

What an ass he is. Even with my bad eyes and a standard issue M14, my guess is that I could still drop him at 500 yards. Wonder how he would then view the "inaccurate" M14? Is every so called "journalist" an ignorant kid?

Well said Bert.
I saw this article mentioned over on Hawk's site and didn't even bother to read more of this B.S. Many experts, and especially those that actually carried the M14 in combat think it is the finest battle rifle...

 

[nf1e]

Who was it that said " There is one born every day".
Just another turkey to add to the list.
Thanks Duce, needed a chuckle this morning.

 

[hardheaded]

I love articles like this, they herd the masses towards other rifles and leaves more of the real rifles for me

 

[Pylonracer]

Hummmm Im Thinking the French have to hold that title of worst military rifle ever.

 

[The Wizard]

Hummmm Im Thinking the French have to hold that title of worst military rifle ever.

The Canadians might be in the running also! Remember the Ross?

 

[Pylonracer]

"Quite simply, the M14 has outdated ergonomics, is poorly designed, and is inaccurate. The rifle can be accurized but will not stay that way unless constant care and maintenance are performed on it." OK FOLKS HERE WE GO.... THE STANDARD NOW IS THE STONER IN 7.62 LETS REVIEW: The statement. Ergonomics .... thats a matter of O-pine, I find the rifle as easy to shoot as the stoner platform, Design... BOTH WEAPONS ARE OUTSTANDING DESIGN, Impingement gas is dirt, piston systems cleaner, Inaccurate HERES THE RUB FOLKS....LOOK... IVE OWNED MANY M1A'S AND A M 14 SO NO FLAMES... The M14 optics system is its downfall...there are no flat top M14's with rails for easy mount of optics. Iron sights have become Stone age because we are not training out military to a high level of Marksmanship...Its that simple. Ive Gone to the M 110 system for shooting 300 M and greater because of ease of optic selection.

 

[Random Guy]

I am not sure if I agree with this statement about the US Army EBR rifles:

The same story was unfortunately repeated many years later when M14s were brought out of retirement and placed in new metal Sage chassis to be the U.S. Army’s “new” marksman rifle, the M14 EBR-RI. These rifles proved to just be as finicky as the older M14s and M21s.

Ash Hess, a former U.S. Army NCO with four combat tours and extensive experience as a marksmanship instructor, describes stripping down the M14 EBR to clean them prior to a deployment and tripling the inaccuracy of the guns, from 1 MOA to 3 MOA, as the chassis had to be precisely torqued together for the guns to be accurate.

I think the SAGE chassis fixed a lot of issues that the author simply overlooked re improved ergonomics and durability. The 'tuning' of the chassis by torquing it together is something I would like to read more about. Is there a good link that describes this process re the SAGE stocks? I have heard this before, but specific experience re this would be appreciated.

I do like the picture in that article. Its shows how much excess combustion gas is being discharged via the small hole on the bottom of the gas cylinder and stock. That discharge is rarely seen unless the gun is used in full-auto, where it is a quite apparent.

 

[blutrident]

click bait just chugging along.