Worst Service Rifle. Ever.
61 - 80 of 106 Posts
Joined
·
3,288 Posts
Meh, whatever. He's just drinking a big swig of Hatoraide. Most of his points are personal anecdotes... if I want to hate on something, it's easy enough to interview people long enough to get your talking points. You can find plenty of people who will criticize the 1911... the longest serving firearm extant.
Joined
·
331 Posts
Wait.... he found some guys in some branch of the service that had something BAD to say? About issued equipment they did not choose themselves?
Well.. I'm just shocked. Stunned.
I've heard of this but, of course, no one has ever seen it.
Suppose he'll now put his skills of in-depth research to find a fighter pilot with a big ego. I'm told they exist.
I'm familiar with the Hitch study. A more stacked-deck you'll never find with more dismissive conclusions and party-line outcomes than anything since the original crop of global warming studies.
Wonder if he actually got paid or that essay or is it just a 'resume entry'?
Well.. I'm just shocked. Stunned.
I've heard of this but, of course, no one has ever seen it.
Suppose he'll now put his skills of in-depth research to find a fighter pilot with a big ego. I'm told they exist.
I'm familiar with the Hitch study. A more stacked-deck you'll never find with more dismissive conclusions and party-line outcomes than anything since the original crop of global warming studies.
Wonder if he actually got paid or that essay or is it just a 'resume entry'?
Joined
·
2,128 Posts
I agree we all love the M-14 and understand it's idiosyncrasies , me if I can't have an M-14 I'll take an M1 Garand. As for the Kraig it wasn't all that bad either I'd love to own one.
The '14 is and always has been a machine. It's not easily adapted to "devices"(as my Grandson would say) but was meant to be used by a rifleman. It's shortcomings are only such because we have become a civilization dependent on gadgets. When the gadgets fail due to enemy action, emp or more likely just plain stupid, the riflemen still among us will be sure they can strike with a rifle which always works using a sighting system dependent only on the competence of the user. There are other fine battle rifles but they will always be hampered by their relative support difficulty since most of them are foreign. The AR10 systems suffer from many of them being ammo sensitive and all of them I'm aware of being proprietary. If you think you really need a fighting rifle in 7.62 Nato you NEED a rifle on the M14 platform; the finest battle rifle the US could have chosen whether politically, operationally or just plain accidentally..
This guy is smoking dope. The M14 in my opinion was made to hold the line in Europe after WW2. Vietnam came up about the time it was issued to regular troops. It was too long for jungle use. I have never ever heard a Vietnam vet say that they didn’t like the m14. I even had a Vietnam vet in my unit that was an combat engineer. They were some of the last troops to have the weapon before being issued the m16. He told me that the Infantry guys that had used the m14 would come by and barrow his m14 all the time for missions. I had 5 M14 in my unit in Iraq in 05. Never a problem. I carried one every day for 6 months. Fiberglass stock. Loved the platform and still do. I wish these clowns that rite articles would stick to something that they know about. Usually not much.
Joined
·
81 Posts
I found NM.308 on the barrel, NM on the front sight blade and SA on the rear site windage knob. I bought it around Nov 2002 from SA through an FFL.
BTW is there a marker to cover fine scratches created by removing the hand guard?
Joined
·
1,350 Posts
You might try Aluminum Black by Birchwood Casey to touch up nicks and scratches on black parts: https://www.brownells.com/gunsmith-tools-supplies/metal-prep-coloring/blackening-browning/aluminum-black-prod4941.aspx
Joined
·
6,494 Posts
About the barrel bending during parachute drops...
That was a real thing, but not as people portray it, and it was fixed.
The early type gas cylinders did not have that little tab on the bottom, and if you hit the bottom of the exposed barrel with enough force, say a bad PLF, or a vigorous bayonet slash, the barrel will flex and the ferrule will slip off the stock. Getting the stock free to fix the problem is complicated by the increased tension on the trigger guard.
As you know, the tab was added to the gas cylinders and that problem went away.
It is always interesting to note that problems encountered early in the life of a weapon system never go away, even after they are rectified. The M14 (and M16) are no exception.
Also, to many, what you DID NOT get issued is always better than what you DID get issued....
That was a real thing, but not as people portray it, and it was fixed.
The early type gas cylinders did not have that little tab on the bottom, and if you hit the bottom of the exposed barrel with enough force, say a bad PLF, or a vigorous bayonet slash, the barrel will flex and the ferrule will slip off the stock. Getting the stock free to fix the problem is complicated by the increased tension on the trigger guard.
As you know, the tab was added to the gas cylinders and that problem went away.
It is always interesting to note that problems encountered early in the life of a weapon system never go away, even after they are rectified. The M14 (and M16) are no exception.
Also, to many, what you DID NOT get issued is always better than what you DID get issued....
Joined
·
7,684 Posts
Told ya you guys would love the article.
But I'm still scratching my head as to its point. I mean... why even write it in the first place? It's not like there's some trials out there where the U.S. Military is again thinking of adopting the M14 as the G.I. Service Rifle.
As someone else noted, the article appears to be nothing more than click-bait.
But I'm still scratching my head as to its point. I mean... why even write it in the first place? It's not like there's some trials out there where the U.S. Military is again thinking of adopting the M14 as the G.I. Service Rifle.
As someone else noted, the article appears to be nothing more than click-bait.
Joined
·
1,350 Posts
Clearly, the author is on FN's payroll and is attempting to lure people away from the M1A to the (insanely overpriced) SCAR platform.
Joined
·
6,494 Posts
Here's how the thinking goes:
1) More expensive stuff is always better than less expensive (cheaper) stuff.
2) The Army always buys from the lowest bidder.
3) Therefore, the stuff the Army buys is never as good as the stuff it didn't buy.
4) You got issued crap.
However, this thinking is flawed on a fundamental level.
1) More expensive stuff is now always 'better'. For example, the Browning BDA in .380 ACP was slightly more expensive than the Beretta Cheetah in .380 ACP, but the two were made in the same factory in Italy, there was no difference between the two. Or, a gold plated High Point might be more expensive than a Glock, but it won't be a better pistol.
2) The Army does not always buy from the lowest bidder, sometimes the better product does cost more and is what is procured.
Does the Military always get the "best" stuff? Unfortunately, no. But, generally speaking, it does get stuff the meets the requirements.
Joined
·
2,220 Posts
I've read this whole thread and decided 2 things and have one observation.
A. The author does not know what he is talking about.
B. We, the ones who care about this rifle don't give a spit what he says, and
C. are all generally ready to say so.
I will add that when I installed mine in my Sage chassis it took about a mag for the groups to settle and when they did it was far better than I had anticipated ! I don't take it out of the chassis and only had to do a small tweak on the front screw to settle the whip. I also grew up like most using a rifle that had a simple grip contoured stock and a pistol grip was on, well, a pistol. Don't get me wrong, I loved a pistol grip on my PIG !!
A. The author does not know what he is talking about.
B. We, the ones who care about this rifle don't give a spit what he says, and
C. are all generally ready to say so.
I will add that when I installed mine in my Sage chassis it took about a mag for the groups to settle and when they did it was far better than I had anticipated ! I don't take it out of the chassis and only had to do a small tweak on the front screw to settle the whip. I also grew up like most using a rifle that had a simple grip contoured stock and a pistol grip was on, well, a pistol. Don't get me wrong, I loved a pistol grip on my PIG !!
Joined
·
331 Posts
Oh, I'm intimately familiar with the process. I've spent most of my adult life in Defense Contracting at several levels and job titles.
What you say is exactly right - though i can't vouch for rank and file attitudes. But I think you get it.
The Requirements are the Bible. They reign supreme over all other considerations. Those companies that don't religiously follow those Requirements lose the contract. Way down at the end of thousand and thousands of stipulations is the price.
This whole "buys from the lowest bidder" stuff makes for wry humor and passable lampoon, but it's far from accurate.
You know, right now, about a third of the stuff the Pentagon is buying comes from a desperate search for companies able and willing to simply build the stuff. They don't care about price. They just want the goods. A lotta companies refuse to do business with the DoD and what ones that still do aren't much for efficient product output.
The Requirements don't come from people - they come from Committees. Multiple passes through multiple bureaucrats and endless, boring meetings filled with slugs and dopes on their way to another meeting with just a few gems - a decidedly brainy guy or two - in each room. In some respects, I'm surprised we're not shooting beachballs from guns with lampshades. But it seems to work out.
Not seen by the rank and file are the Requirements for building and deploying this stuff. When the M16 came along, we were still thinking we might have to suddenly deploy a quarter million rifles, with ammo and support, out to BFEgypt on a moment's notice. Now, starting at Square One, would you rather field M14s? or M16? The M16 design wins, hands-down, no-contest.
But that's a Requirement that the Infantryman never sees. He never sees it because he HAS a rifle in his hands and is not waiting weeks for one. In fact, almost ALL of the Requirements are unseen and largely irrelevant to the Infantryman. It's not that he's unimportant, it's just that getting the rifle and ammo TO HIM is pretty darned important. But the warfighter is... well... sometimes reluctant to embrace this.
I'm generally no big fan of the Logistics division of the Pentagon, but I gotta tip my hat. They can get the ball rolling like no one else.
And you can apply this philosophy to everything from toothpicks to MRAPs. Absolutely ALL of the Requirements were met, it's just that almost all of them had little or nothing to do with the end user.
Which I admit is a flaw. The poindexters come up with a smashing good idea; they take it out to Aberdeen or Edwards and show some brass. If we're LUCKY by about the third demonstration, someone will show up with a grunt or dogface that actually uses - or will use- this gizmo. He points out the (usually) obvious stuff the Committees were denying; the brass gets huffy; and it's back to the drawing boards. After several more iterations, compromises, and usually personnel - if everything goes right - it's finished. Everyone is impressed and cigars all around.
As a result, some stuff is crazy good. But some stuff not so much. It's only as good as the people writing the Requirements and the people listening instead of talking. But that's just a largely objective perspective. Once a warfighter is given a crap detail on the wrong day, suddenly ALL of his gear is crap. His HumVee is the worst bucket of bolts ever assembled -- and REMAINS that way long after his retirement. Same with his rifle, belt, boots, rations, and ruck. All subject to passionate opinion and moods for years to come. Whether Medical, Motorpool, or Missile tech, I've never met military personnel that couldn't complain all evening about the crap they had to make do with.
"They gotta like it" are words that are just never put in the Requirements. Okay, maybe the dance band at the Officers Club, but nowhere else I can ever think of.
61 - 80 of 106 Posts
