M14 vs. Bar/ fnar


PDA






sprice
September 26, 2009, 10:28 PM
What rifle would be cheaper and better out of these two; a customized chinese m14 build or a fnar bar platform rifle? chambered in .308 of course. What one is more accurate?

If you enjoyed reading about "M14 vs. Bar/ fnar" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
hak
September 26, 2009, 10:37 PM
i was just reading threads on the 'chiCom' M14 route (then to Fulton Armory, et al, for an upgrade). not sure if that would end up more 'high end' than starting with the FNAR.

i've handled both the reg and heavy barrel versions, the stock-shim and butt plate wedges make the stock shape combinations very nice for getting it fit 'for you'. the balance was nice, and the only ergo negative is the mag release not being as close as my current 7.62 (LR-308, AR-10 variant). otherwise it was impressive.

plenty will say you can't go wrong with an M1A, and that's fine :) plenty of lineage in the BAR platform that runs the guts of the FNAR, but you get the accuracy and modern synthetics and easy bipod mount if you want it of the FNAR. and at my local shop, a few months back, they were under $1500.

Winston_Smith
September 26, 2009, 10:49 PM
I would stick with the M1A/M14 route. They are riflemans rifles and parts are more available. Are you looking for an optics only rifle? I didnt see iron sights on the FNAR.

Sunray
September 27, 2009, 01:50 AM
"...customized Chinese M14 build..." Which Chinese rifle(Norinco or Polytech? Neither are currently in production) and customized by who?

sprice
September 27, 2009, 12:27 PM
used polytech by smith enterprise

Coronach
September 27, 2009, 12:49 PM
What's the purpose? General-use battle rifle? M14-type. DMR-style rifle with good accuracy and durability? M14-type. Semi-auto precision rifle? Not sure. The FNAR can probably hang there, and may be superior.

Mike

Coronach
September 27, 2009, 12:52 PM
"...customized Chinese M14 build..." Which Chinese rifle(Norinco or Polytech? Neither are currently in production)I believe they are, the government just doesn't think we shoudl be allowed to buy them (import ban). Also, AFAIK, Norinco=Polytech, just different names. Could be wrong.and customized by who?Warbirds, Smith, Fulton.

Mike

JohnMc
September 27, 2009, 01:01 PM
One consideration: magazines.

There's a net rumor going around the the FNAR takes AR-10 magazines. There's a lot of noise saying that's untrue, but the stuff I read doesn't indicate whether the FNAR doesn't take either kind of AR-10 magazine* or whether they've tested only one type.

The factory mags are 80 bucks each or so! That would sway my thinking.

*the original waffle ones, compatible with DPMS, SR-25, etc or the current Armalite ones, which are modified M-14 mags

H2O MAN
September 27, 2009, 01:03 PM
sprice used polytech by smith enterprise


Outstanding plan :)

H2O MAN
September 27, 2009, 01:06 PM
JohnMc One consideration: magazines....or the current Armalite ones, which are modified M-14 mags

Gen II ArmaLite mags are made by CMI for the ArmaLite AR-10.
ArmaLite has not use modified M14 mags in a few years.

JohnMc
September 27, 2009, 06:53 PM
Gen II ArmaLite mags are made by CMI for the ArmaLite AR-10.
So that's three types of mags that have been "official AR-10"?
Or are these CMI kind compatible with the original AR-10 from the 60's?

sprice
September 27, 2009, 07:53 PM
i have no idea how this thread has gone from a discussion on comparing rifles to magazines for a totally different gun... :banghead:

Coronach
September 27, 2009, 07:55 PM
:D You haven't been here long, have you? ;)

Mike

H2O MAN
September 27, 2009, 07:56 PM
You own an original AR-10 from the 60's?

JohnMc
September 27, 2009, 08:46 PM
Didn't mean to thread hijack, but >$70 mags should help someone decide. If it does use the original AR-10 mags, then these (click here (http://www.cproductsllc.com/shop/product_info.php?cPath=22_39&products_id=62)) will work, at less than $20.
Plus, it was an idle question.

sprice
September 27, 2009, 09:54 PM
your fine, haha- i was half joking.

USASA
October 9, 2009, 12:17 AM
I have both. No scope = M14/M1A. With scope = FNAR.

The FNAR out of the box will outshoot just about any M14/M1A. If for no other reason...the FNAR is built to use a scope.

As a matter of fact...my FNAR comes close to shooting as well as my Savage 308 bolt action setup for 300/600 yard competition. Both using Federal GM Match ammo.

Also, should add...I have had no problems getting mags for the FNAR. Cost $49.95. Mags for my M1A run right at $29.95. Not that much difference really.

Girodin
October 9, 2009, 12:48 AM
If I wanted a more of a battle rifle I would go with the M14. Based on what I have seen (and it is fairly limited), I would go with the FNAR if I was simply after a very accurate semi auto.

JShirley
October 9, 2009, 01:30 AM
They are riflemans rifles

What exactly does this mean? Use this if you prefer using iron sights?

I thought a 1903 was a rifleman's rifle, though of course the 1917 generally outshot it...

John

buttrap
October 9, 2009, 05:15 AM
I would just look a bit and get a decent Imbel FAL type gun. People do love the M-14 but its still the most huge screw up since the trapdoor at little bighorn.

H2O MAN
October 9, 2009, 07:47 AM
Now that's funny, thank you for my morning chuckle.

Brenjen
October 9, 2009, 09:32 AM
A huge screw up? How so & IF so...what did that make the M1? A colossal failure?

The M14 is an outstanding rifle; it's short mainstream service life was due to politics, not it's usability.

JShirley
October 9, 2009, 11:29 AM
The M14 is the best rifle produced 20 years too late. Despite what some apologists have said, the M14 was unsuitable for battle in the 1960s*. It would have been terrific for WWII, though it's debatable whether it would have been much better than the M1 (which it's really just a straight evolution of, anyway). Whenever deciding whether any service rifle is "good", the analyst needs to see if it makes its mission. Did the M14 make an effective and useful general issue infantry weapon in the 1960s? No? FAIL.

Glad we could make your day, H2O. But of course trapdoor's quite correct.



*
Which unfortunately also means the FN-FAL/SLR/G1 was also less relevant, which of course it was because of the US forcing 7.62x51mm onto NATO. The FN-FAL and the CETME/G3 were distinctly more modular and modern designs, though of course still hampered by the US battle cartridge.
J

Brenjen
October 9, 2009, 01:22 PM
Matter of opinion I guess, an incorrect opinion but opinion none the less. The guys I've talked to that used the weapon in combat liked it & none ever related a problem with it.

What you say is that it failed as a useful general issue infantry weapon & that's simply not true, incorrect or whatever you want to call it. It was only a failure in so much as Colts lobbyists in Washington were successful; not because of any shortcomings with the rifle.

DPris
October 9, 2009, 02:16 PM
The FNAR is not intended to be a battle rifle & does not use any other mags but its own proprietary mags.
It is very accurate. It is more complicated to break down completely for cleaning.
The two rifles are not built for the same purpose.
You want a battle rifle, M14. You want a precision shooter that can be user adjusted to fit the stock to your own build, FNAR.
Denis

Snakum
October 9, 2009, 02:21 PM
I'll have to weigh in on the side of the M14 being an excellent weapon, but not so hot as a modern battle rifle.

When I first joined up we still had a few Vietnam Veterans serving here and there, and among active duty guys that carried an M-14 in Vietnam I never heard a single one say they preferred it to the first gen M-16s. To a man, they all said the M-14 was "as accurate as a 16", but that it was heavy as hell, slower on target, and that the basic ammo load was limited due to weight/size of the round. It was generally felt that the first M-16s only needed to be cleaned regularly to remain trouble free, that they were light and fast to line up, and the instability of the old ball ammo made it a decent stopper, too (later changed, of course). I carried an M-21 in school (accurized M-14 with match-grade components and ammo) and used the first gen M-16s on a contract in Latin America. And I agree with everything the old guys said about the 14 in 'Nam, from my own personal experience.

Again, the M-14 is an excellent weapon, but it ain't no modern battle rifle, in my humble opinion. They've pulled the M-21s out again in the sandbox and they're perfect for long range shooting in the desert as a squad designated marksman weapon. But it won't match the accuracy of the tactical bolt guns currently in use, as a pure sniper weapon system. Nor does it serve as well as the 16A2/A3/M4 in jungle or woodlands combat.

Speaking to the OP's delimma, I would take the FNAR over the others mentioned, as a main battle rifle/SHTF rifle. Based on what I've read or heard from owners, and from my own experience, it appears to be the superior weapon with respect to reliability, accuracy, fit and finish, and weight/feel. As someone mentioned, an FAL clone might be a better MBR (accuracy isn't as good as the FNAR, though), but it wasn't one of the original choices. :)

EdLaver
October 9, 2009, 02:37 PM
A buddy of mine who is always into the latest firearms decided to get a FNAR, he has two of the one piece quick detach scope mounts, one with a 6-18x scope(long range) and the other with a 1-4x short dot (CQB) so he can switch them whenever he wants in no time.

I have to admit that the FNAR is lighter and has better ergonomics than a unmodified m-14. The FNAR may not have the beauty or history of an M14 but it is superior IMHO as a battle rifle or long range rifle. I'd even take one (FNAR) over an AR-10 due to the FNAR's weight.

Snakum
October 9, 2009, 03:19 PM
I forgot to mention that despite the fact that an FNAR is an excellent weapon and I'd love to have one, I'll be the first to admit that it is one of the absolutely ugliest weapons this side of a bullpup. :D

If looks made the rifle an M1A/M-14 would be top dog in every category.

Rshooter
October 9, 2009, 09:59 PM
I would love to have an FNAR in heavy barrel but if the SHTF my M1A is the rifle that I would go to.

JShirley
October 10, 2009, 02:58 PM
Hey, I find a wood or laminate-stocked M14 or M1A to be an absolutely beautiful rifle. I also believe it to be sturdy and reliable.

This is not the same as it being useful, or demonstrably successful, as a general-issue rifle. It was not. The original intent for the M14 was as a selective-fire rifle. It was absolutely unsuited for this role. Army doctrine called for a very high volume of fire to be used in engagements. Again, because of the cartridge used, the M14 was unsuitable.

My point earlier, was to not confuse (often misplaced) nostalgia for suitability. If someone wants a .308 to hammer rocks with iron sights at 300-500 meters, the M1A may be just the thing. If you want the most accurate rifle, a scope will be needed, and the M1A is just not ideal (nor is it as accurate as less expensive bolt guns). If you want the best handling rifle, again, the M1A is not it. Any Mauser or other modern bolt gun will similar barrel profiles will be better handling. The real reason to get a M1A is because the shooter wants one.

.


John

LoneStarWings
October 10, 2009, 04:45 PM
It's a bogus argument that an M1A is heavier than an FNAR. FN's site lists them at 10lbs. The M1A standard or scout is a pound or two lighter than that.

Also, most anyone with experience seems to admit that AR type .308's are less reliable than the M1A/M14 or .223 type AR's.

To answer the original question, I think which gun will be more accurate depends largely on the level of customization you are going to take the M14 to. The AR probably has an accuracy advantage, unless you throw 14 into an EBR stock or do a lot of accuracy modifications.

Brenjen
October 11, 2009, 09:13 AM
Well to the OP - the BAR was a nice weapon but not perfect, the M14 was equally nice, but not perfect - FNAR? I have no first hand knowledge or any source for knowledge other than the net since I don't own one & have never fired or known anyone who has fired one.

I relate an interesting tidbit about the current U.S. inventory as a prop for my side which is that nothings perfect & given the right circumstances any weapon can fail. U.S. designs have been less reliable than many others & the Garand based rifles were some of the best. Granted the M14 failed at ONE of it's design parameters if you accept that view, many say it's controllable in full automatic fire when the right person is behind it....you wouldn't want to put a 100 pound female behind it & yes it's heavy...again, 100 pound female....& yes the rounds are bigger which means less can be carried. But of the weapons listed....don't they utilize the same round for two & a similarly large one for the other? Yes, so the one thing the .5.56mm has going for it is negated.

OOOoooppps! (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091011/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_afghanistan_weapons_failures;_ylt=Ag7NNb28Di7HOyCNoMjd4Ff9xg8F;_ylu=X3oDMTNrbWw5NTlmBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkxMDExL3VzX2FmZ2hhbmlzdGFuX3dlYXBvbnNfZmFpbHVyZXMEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwMzBHBvcwMzBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDd2VhcG9uc2ZhaWxl)

Interesting read; if not a little heartbreaking. I am one who has always thought the M16 platform was average as a battlefield implement & have defended it's modernization. Oh how wrong I was & our fellow Americans are dying because of our penchant for whiz bang instead of reliability. I'd rather carry 500 rounds I knew were going to work every time rather than a thousand I might get to fire or might not....just my humble opinion.

Sorry /rant

JShirley
October 11, 2009, 12:59 PM
Nice of you to quote that idiotic story for evidence. I ripped just a few of the OBVIOUS fallacies contained in that story in another thread...

I'd rather carry 500 rounds I knew were going to work every time rather than a thousand I might get to fire or might not....just my humble opinion.

Respectfully for your "humble opinion", we live in different realities. In my reality, mechanical devices are subject to failure. This can be more probable with some devices than others, but "work every time" never actually happens. A bad primer, for example, will not go bang in any weapon.

John

gunnie
October 11, 2009, 05:56 PM
..."Again, the M-14 is an excellent weapon, but it ain't no modern battle rifle, in my humble opinion."...

the M-14 was not junk. it had its shortcomings, and as others have noted, THEY ALL DO. the crux of most people's dismay is that it was chosen over both the FAL and HK 91 systems for issue to our troops.

gunnie

Maj Dad
October 11, 2009, 09:44 PM
I remember pouring sand and muddy water out of my M14 magazine by turning the rifle upside down and waiting for the goo to run out & then resuming fire as if it were fresh from a detail cleaning. I'm not sure how it did it (I've read the specs, yes), but it did, and I will never be without it (or it's progenitor, the M1). Want a slick, neat, super-dooper pooper scooper? Pick yours. Want a never say die super shooter? M14/M1. I have both; each has its place, and I know which is which... :cool:

Brenjen
October 11, 2009, 10:17 PM
Nice of you to quote that idiotic story for evidence. I ripped just a few of the OBVIOUS fallacies contained in that story in another thread...



Respectfully for your "humble opinion", we live in different realities. In my reality, mechanical devices are subject to failure. This can be more probable with some devices than others, but "work every time" never actually happens. A bad primer, for example, will not go bang in any weapon.

John

Obvious fallacies? Not sure what your point is except to knit-pick on the fact I said "every time" which was a poor choice of words; nothing is 100% reliable. But the M14 came closer than the AR platform did then or does today. A bad primer? WTH does that have anything at all to do with any particular platform, that's true in ANY weapon. At least by bringing up current, factual shortcomings with the M16/M4 which replaced the M14 I was making a point; one that went over your head or you chose to ignore.

But you're right, in your reality the M14 is a failure because it wasn't ideally suited for fully automatic fire, in my reality it's one & only shortcoming doesn't make it a failure. So we are indeed in two separate "realities". You say "it was unsuited for battle in the 1960's" and "to say otherwise was misplaced nostalgia"...I say you have it wrong, but then again we're in two different realities aren't we.

JShirley
October 12, 2009, 11:30 AM
I'd rather carry 500 rounds I knew were going to work every time rather than a thousand I might get to fire or might not....just my humble opinion.

Your stated wish is an impossibility, and not completely related to platform. That was my point. And you did not bring up "current shortcomings", you referenced a badly written news story, one that's so far off track merely quoting it makes anything you have to say after that much weaker, since believing it's evidence shows an ignorance of modern battle and infantry tactics.

J

H2O MAN
October 12, 2009, 11:45 AM
Brenjen

John, ... in your reality the M14 is a failure because it wasn't ideally suited for fully automatic fire, in my reality it's one & only shortcoming doesn't make it a failure. So we are indeed in two separate "realities". You say "it was unsuited for battle in the 1960's" and "to say otherwise was misplaced nostalgia"...I say you have it wrong, but then again we're in two different realities aren't we.

Well said sir.

The M14 continues to serve out military and more of them are being modernized and returned to front line action in AFG.

The one & and ONLY shortcoming has been solved by making to selector switch non-functional.

The modern M14 battle rifle brings marksmanship skills back to the front lines.

http://www.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/World/sepo09.jpg

JShirley
October 12, 2009, 12:19 PM
The one & and ONLY shortcoming

If the "ONLY shortcoming" was the selector switch, what need would there be for modernization? You contradict yourself.

The modern M14 battle rifle brings marksmanship skills back to the front lines.

An absolutely meaningless line. Congratulations. :rolleyes: I guess, when our Marine Corporal put a tracer round through the legs of an Afghan National as a warning shot at 500 meters or more with a M4, that wasn't marksmanship? I suppose when the 7th Group ODA used to fire their Barrett off the roof they weren't using "marksmanship skills"?

John

H2O MAN
October 12, 2009, 12:32 PM
I will use a famous movie quote in response to JShirley's absolutely meaningless reply to my informative post.

"What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach."

When the subject concerns the M14, JS is a man that can't be reached.

taliv
October 12, 2009, 12:46 PM
well, count me in with JShirley too.

saying the m14 had only one flaw is preposterous.

Humorously, all the modernization that's been done has only served to make it more like the M4. i.e. usable. but they still have a long way to go to overcome the numerous shortcomings that remain.

H2O MAN
October 12, 2009, 12:50 PM
The only other remaining shortcoming I can think of is that they ceased production of the M14.

jackdanson
October 12, 2009, 12:58 PM
I own a version of both and will repeat what everyone else said. The m14 is a battle rifle. The FNAR is a target rifle. I like the FNAR better for shooting off a bench, though the m14 has nice irons. It's like comparing a jeep to a mustang... not really in the same class. Neither is a bad decision.

JShirley
October 12, 2009, 01:00 PM
JShirley's absolutely meaningless reply to my informative post

Cool. Let's do it by the numbers.

#1. Well said sir.
Okay, minimal content. Expresses agreement. Not especially informative.

#2. The M14 continues to serve out military and more of them are being modernized and returned to front line action in AFG.
Again, minimal content. No specific numbers or sources given.

#3. The one & and ONLY shortcoming has been solved by making to selector switch non-functional.
Pure opinion, not echoed by any respected firearms trainer or expert I know, that contradicts your statement immediately previous.

#4. The modern M14 battle rifle brings marksmanship skills back to the front lines.
Shows that either you have a poor grasp of the language, or have no understanding of causality. Guns don't cause crime, and matches, of themselves, don't cause arson.

Help me understand where information is hidden in your informative post.

John

taliv
October 12, 2009, 01:03 PM
weren't several of them already mentioned in this thread?

like optics. when most people complain about this, they mean there's no elegant solution for putting a scope on the rifle. when people who shoot m14s complain about it, they mean the optic gets in the way of reinstalling the extractor every few rounds

good ergonomics? especially switching from right-to-left or left-to-right hand BZZZZZT

weight? fine if all you do is drag it out to the bench to snap some pictures once a year

caliber? modernization will eventually mean a smaller cartridge and smaller caliber (e.g. 6.5) with better ballistics.

full-auto? they didn't FIX that shortcoming... they GAVE UP

dom1104
October 12, 2009, 01:07 PM
How come, when it comes to .308 rifles 3 phrases are BOUND to surface.

"M1"

"Riflemans Rifle"

and "Marksmanship"

in my eyes, the only thing a .308 is "better" for than a 5.56 is taking deer.


Which for 99% of us on this forum, we are infinatly more likely to be shooting at deer than people, so ...

go for it.

JShirley
October 12, 2009, 01:12 PM
Well, see, that's the thing. If one wants a dedicated deer rifle, there are far better choices than a heavy autoloader.

If one wants an accurate long-distance rifle, there are far better choices, if your definition of long-distance is such that optics are dictated.

If one wanted a "home defense" weapon, a lighter, more easily handled weapon with less recoil would be a good idea.

If, on the other hand, someone just wants an M1A, or wants to use iron sights on a rifle at medium-long distance with quick repeat shots possible, the M1A is a fine choice. There is NOTHING wrong with that. But it's just silly to try to re-imagine history and objective reality to make the M14 platform something it's not.

j

H2O MAN
October 12, 2009, 01:17 PM
Brenjen

John, ... in your reality the M14 is a failure because it wasn't ideally suited for fully automatic fire, in my reality it's one & only shortcoming doesn't make it a failure. So we are indeed in two separate "realities". You say "it was unsuited for battle in the 1960's" and "to say otherwise was misplaced nostalgia"...I say you have it wrong, but then again we're in two different realities aren't we.

H2O MAN

Well said sir.

(1) The M14 continues to serve out military and more of them are being modernized and returned to front line action in AFG.

The one & and ONLY shortcoming has been solved by making to selector switch non-functional.

(2) The modern M14 battle rifle brings marksmanship skills back to the front lines.

JShirley

(1) If the "ONLY shortcoming" was the selector switch, what need would there be for modernization? You contradict yourself.


*************


(2) An absolutely meaningless line. Congratulations.
John

H2O MAN I will use a famous movie quote in response to JShirley's absolutely meaningless reply to my informative post.

"What we've got here is... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach."

When the subject concerns the M14, JS is a man that can't be reached.

Modernization = Teaching an old dog new tricks.

Marksmanship skills = Aim more... shoot less.

Failure to recognize the M14 platform for what it was, is and will be is a futile attempt to re-imagine history and objective reality.

I'm sure that the FNAR is a fine rifle, but it's not in the same category as the M14.





Speaking of the full auto issue... the FN SCAR-H has a huge issue of beating itself up when fired in the full auto mode...
How do you think they will correct or fix this major problem?
.

dom1104
October 12, 2009, 01:29 PM
Failure to recognize the M14 platform for what it was, is and will be is a futile attempt to re-imagine history and objective reality.



I think people DO recognize the m14 for what it was, is and will be. Thats the issue.

taliv
October 12, 2009, 01:29 PM
I'm sure that the FNAR is a fine rifle, but it's not in the same category as the M14.

you mean it's not a 60 yr old design someone decided to paint black, attach rails and a pistol grip on?


why would i care how they fix the SCAR problem, if it even exists? how would that in any way relate to the M14's shortcomings, other than to say misery loves company?

JShirley
October 12, 2009, 01:30 PM
I don't know about the SCAR, and since I'm not much of a fan of FA fire for anything except support weapons (both from prior inclination, and my infantry training), its FA capability is not an especial concern of mine...and completely outside anything this thread has been about.

Here (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BQY/is_7_50/ai_n6038102/) is an overall good suggestion of using an M1A for home defense from immensely respected trainer Clint Smith. BUT he especially focuses on one aspect of the 7.62x51mm vs. 5.56x45mm- dramatically higher penetration through concealment- as a potential asset, and warns about using it in situations where less penetration is advised. He also suggests using a shorter version of the M1A for urban work, and uses a fiberglass stock to avoid the historical problem of stock swelling. He also advises iron sights on the M1A.

J

H2O MAN
October 12, 2009, 01:51 PM
Quote:
Failure to recognize the M14 platform for what it was, is and will be is a futile attempt to re-imagine history and objective reality.

dom1104

I think people DO recognize the m14 for what it was, is and will be. Thats the issue.

Yes, people DO recognize the M14 for what it was, is and will be, but very few of them reside on this forum.





It sounds like FA fire or lack there of, on the M14 is not a concern to M14 detractors...
this reduces the list of shortcomings to one ~ the M14 is no longer being produced.
At least TACOM-RI has about 80K M14s that they can pull from to make M14 EBRs :cool:

taliv
October 12, 2009, 02:00 PM
internal inconsistencies in your posts lately astound me

Yes, people DO recognize the M14 for what it was, is and will be, but very few of them reside on this forum.

It sounds like FA fire or lack there of, on the M14 is not a concern to M14 detractors...
this reduces the list of shortcomings to one ~ the M14 is no longer being produced.

if you meant to imply (or appeal to authority) that the professionals in charge who know what they're doing recognize the m14 as lacking any shortcomings... the fact that "the M14 is no longer being produced" should tell you all you need to know

JShirley
October 12, 2009, 02:05 PM
this reduces the list of shortcomings to one ~ the M14 is no longer being produced

Now, that's just silly. How do you expect to ever be taken seriously if you don't honestly admit potential problems with the design? And there are quite a few. Some are related, in usage, to being a full power cartridge as opposed to an intermediate one, such as the 5.56x45mm or 7.62x39mm. Some are related to it being a traditional wooden-stocked rifle, as opposed to a more modular design.

In the case of the first, sometimes it's a case of picking the right tool for the job. There may be situations where an M14 or M1A could be ideal. There are also situations where it would definitely not. Figuratively stuffing your fingers in yours ears and screaming, "La, la, la!" doesn't help anyone.

You like the M14/M1A. Yay. Shoot it and prosper. It may work just fine for many individual shooters. Just don't imagine it's an ideal tool for modern warfare, any more than it's an ideal deer hunter (though a Bush Rifle could work just fine for close hogs).

taliv, as an addendum, that it was also the general issue service rifle for the shortest amount of time could be added to that. But, cry havoc and loose the hounds of opinion! :D

J

H2O MAN
October 12, 2009, 02:07 PM
It tells me and others that "they" made a big mistake and Clinton only exacerbated the situation.




Figuratively stuffing your fingers in yours ears and screaming, "La, la, la!" doesn't help anyone.

Then stop doing that.

dom1104
October 12, 2009, 02:26 PM
totally different take on this.


What is the Cost of a "modernized" and "Marksmanized" M14 anyhow. with the required loadout of mags. Vs the FNAR. I really have no idea. Depending on how "modern" one needs to get.


I would assume polymer stock replacement is the only requirement?

dom1104
October 12, 2009, 02:31 PM
whoa. I looked, and I am still stickershocked.

the "Modernizations" sure do cost.


Its like a AR-15 and 6000 rounds of ammo.

H2O MAN
October 12, 2009, 02:33 PM
The cost depends on just how "modern" one needs to get.

taliv
October 12, 2009, 02:38 PM
Its like a AR-15 and 6000 rounds of ammo.

only, less useful

H2O MAN
October 12, 2009, 03:00 PM
In this discussion the AR would be less useful.




Back to dom's question.

TACOM-RI pulls an old M14 from their stockpile and installs it in a SAGE EBR.
They add a basic Leupold Mark 4 3.5-10x40mm LR/T, Leupold rings, a SAGE
DCSB optic rail, a Harris bi pod and a bi pod mount.

The cost to modernize an M14 that was paid for long ago is very low.

All of these M14 EBRs shoot 1.5 MOA or better with these simple yet effective changes.

dom1104
October 12, 2009, 03:24 PM
M14 - free
sage EBR stock = $700? I seen a few $500 dollar ones used.
LeupoldMark 4 3.5-10x40mm LR/T = $1500
Rings = $50 or whatever.
Sage DCSB = 219

harris bipod etc


Well I do see what you are sayin, the cost is low since they already have the rifle. Free Rifle does make a difference cost wise.

berettashotgun
October 12, 2009, 03:34 PM
**What rifle would be cheaper and better out of these two; a customized chinese m14 build or a fnar bar platform rifle? chambered in .308 of course. What one is more accurate?**

Accuracy is "possibly:confused:" on the side of the FNAR; but you would have to pop a few thousand rounds in various conditions to get a properly formed answer.
***I personally like my FN-49 in 7mm Mauser***, but any FAL rifle would always be my choice for no other reason than the sheer number of $5 mags I have bought at various times.

The rest of you guys- put a lid on it; this IS called "THE HIGH ROAD" for a reason.:banghead:

H2O MAN
October 12, 2009, 03:35 PM
:eek: You are not what I would call a savvy shopper.

I hope that you don't pay retail plus for everything else you buy.

JShirley
October 12, 2009, 03:36 PM
(beretta, disabusing specious "information" is not leaving THR)

It's a bit humorous that we are actually, once again, comparing the shortest-lived general issue rifle with the longest issued one, as though the one briefly issued still had relevance as an issue combat arm.

(emphasis mine)
Stoner, a small arms designer working for ArmaLite, helped design and develop the M16 rifle. Stoner was a forward thinker who saw the application of new technologies and innovative ideas as the answer to many of the problems inherent in the development of the M14. Though not the originator of all of the innovations that became the M16, he was the talent that refined them and made them work.12 In many respects Mr. Stoner represented what the Ordinance Department should have been. His prototype, the AR-15, was also a rifle designed around the .223 caliber cartridge which was classified as an HVSC round.

While the early stages of the M14 had little input from the administrators of Springfield Army Depot, it eventually evolved into a rational rifle program that they defended in the face of overwhelming evidence against it. The M14 came to represent the tried and true ways of the past. It represented the thinking of a subculture that had grown from the days of America’s struggle for independence and placed a high value on marksmanship. Infantry leaders identified with the concept of the marksman. The accurate hunting rifles of the colonial militias had fired the shots heard around the world. It was a subculture that saw accurate, long range marksmen as a sign of discipline and martial prowess even though historical fact had demonstrated otherwise. (Kern, online p 16-17)

In addition to experimentation and development of self loading rifles, government officials initiated research into the idea that a smaller bullet could produce higher velocities, with greater accuracy, and provide sufficient power to be acceptable for use on the battlefield. Testing in 1931 on a .276 caliber bullet that was fired from both a rifle designed by John Garand and one designed by the bullet’s inventor, John Pederson, encouraged the board to approve its use in combat. Moreover, the board noted that the bullet was better suited for self loading rifles than the 30-06 cartridge currently in service. Many felt that the 30-06 was too powerful to be fired from a light auto-loading rifle and that the .276 with its smaller powder charge would be a better fit for such a rifle.

The acceptance of a new rifle and cartridge demonstrated that there were some aspects of the Army’s culture that were willing to change. The board’s findings represented a rapid departure from the standard rifle that was already in existence. The only cultural aspect that was not challenged by the acceptance results was the culture of marksmanship. The action challenged other cultural beliefs, however, and these challenges resulted in the rejection of the change in caliber by the Army senior leadership. The marksmanship tradition was not the only influence to arms development. Economic influences resulted in the entrenchment of a culture of thrift.

Culture of Thrift
The main cultural hurdle that could not be vaulted was the culture of efficiency and fiscal responsibility...

Because of this culture of thrift, Army chief of staff Douglas McArthur decided in 1932 to decline acceptance of the .276 caliber rifle due to logistical constraints that would result from having separate rifle and machine-gun cartridges as well as the fact that there were existing large quantities of .30 caliber ammunition available and development of a new cartridge would make much of those stocks obsolete. He did, however, recognize the importance of evolving rifle technology and ordered further work on John Garand’s .30 caliber auto-loading rifle.

By 1936 John Garand’s rifle had evolved into the .30 caliber M1 rifle. This rifle would become the first semi-automatic rifle in the world to be issued as a general purpose rifle to a nation’s army. Soldiers armed with the M1 in World War II had greater accuracy and firepower than their counterparts on the battlefields of the Pacific, Europe, and North Africa. General George S. Patton’s observation that the M1 Garand was, “the greatest battle implement ever devised,”32 illustrated the popularity of the rifle. The affectionate regard for the M1 rifle that evolved out of its service in World War II resulted in another cultural pattern, one where many perceived the M1 as the perfect rifle despite statistical evidence that demonstrated potential improvements could be made.

Post war research into the effectiveness of the M1 and its .30 caliber bullet found that there were many misperceptions by soldiers about the rifle. Its lethality was not any better than the .276 caliber bullet that the Japanese copied from Pederson in the 1930s and used on American soldiers throughout the pacific campaign. (Kern, online p 38-41)

The Army’s Ballistics Research Laboratories research into HVSC rounds in the 1920s and 30s continued to show promise. They discovered that a projectile’s lethality directly correlated to the cube of its velocity at impact. The importance of this finding was that increases in velocity had a significantly greater influence on lethality than did increases in bullet mass. With this in mind, great gains in lethality were possible by merely increasing a bullet’s velocity. Since it was easier to move lighter bullets at higher velocities, a reduction in bullet mass provided the increase in velocity that actually increased a bullet’s lethality. The ballistics research findings proposed that HVSC cartridges could produce greater lethality than the .30 caliber 7.62mm NATO round while at the same time reducing the combat load of the soldier and his logistical requirement (Kern, online p 56)

In September 1961, 10 rifles were sent to Vietnam for testing in a combat environment with the Military Assistance Advisory Group, Vietnam. The results of this evaluation were very favorable for the AR-15 and the Army initiated requests for more rifles. American military advisors reported that the light recoil and weight combined with the ergonomic design made the rifle suitable for the smaller stature of the Vietnamese soldiers. The request for more weapons was made by soldiers in the field after having seen demonstrations by Colt in the Republic of Vietnam. From that point on, combat soldiers and the culture they represented dramatically influenced the course of the M16 program. (Kern, online, p 63-64)

The favorable ARPA report and continuing pressure from the Air Force to procure rifles for security force use encouraged the DOD Comptroller to conduct a cost effectiveness comparison of the M-14 and the AR-15 rifles. The comparison was complete and the Comptroller published the results in 1962 which indicated that the AR-15 was superior to the M-14 in all respects. In addition to the technical aspects of combat effectiveness, the report addressed the fact that the AR-15 was less expensive to produce. The report criticized the M-14 by even stating that it was inferior to its parent, the M1, and the Russian AK-47. (Kern, online, p 65)

The hearings and report by the Ichord committee, provides the historian a detailed and accurate synopsis of the M16 program and sheds light on the complexity of Army acquisition during the 1960s. The subcommittee met its charter to investigate the development, history, distribution, sale, and adequacy of the M-16 rifle. The committee’s hearings lasted from 15 May to 22 August 1967 and included members of the military, industry, and civilian leaders in the DOD. Additionally, they traveled to Vietnam and throughout the United States visiting training and manufacturing facilities in order to conduct field investigations. The findings were thorough and addressed many aspects of the M16 program. Much of the important information they gathered came from their visit to Vietnam.
During the ten day trip to Vietnam which started 1 June 1967, the subcommittee members visited Army and Marine infantry units equipped with the rifle and logistics support and maintenance units involved with the rifle. The subcommittee found that initial failures of the rifle by both Marine and Army units were the result of improper maintenance and lack of repair parts. The Army took action to solve the problem by sending technical assistance teams to Vietnam. The success of the team was evidenced in the interviews conducted by the subcommittee members of soldiers serving in front line combat units. During those interviews committee members interviewed hundreds of soldiers and Marines of which only two stated a preference for the M-14. The soldiers reported having had malfunctions in the past but that training in maintenance and the improvements in the supply of replacement parts and cleaning supplies resulted in few of the soldiers having problems with their rifles by the time the interviews were conducted. (Kern, online p 99-100)


I am a military history student. "The Myth of the American Rifleman"* has been influencing upper-echelon US Army thinking since before 1900. This, combined with a desire to "pinch a penny" meant that the M1 Garand was fielded in .30 instead of the .276. The belief that .30 was necessary for long-range fire led to the M14, which was an abominable general-issue rifle (if you actually read the quotes, of several hundred soldiers and Marines with experience of both in 'Nam, ONLY TWO preferred the M14). The merest bit of honest research will show that the M14 was flawed all the way from inception.


*Even back at the beginning, as the British marched back to Boston from Lexington and Concord, the Americans fired an estimated 250,000 shots or more at them. IIRC, British casualties were 90; American casualties were 60, all from friendly fire. (If you just do a web search on this, you'll come up with a lot of misinformation, including that the British fired upon the Americans at Lexington Green. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. After "the shot heard 'round the world" was fired, the British regulars performed an unauthorized bayonet charge, driving the Colonials from the field.)


Kern, Danford A. THE INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE ON THE ACQUISITION OF THE M16 RIFLE. US Army Command and General Staff College, 1994. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA460822&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

dom1104
October 12, 2009, 03:37 PM
You are not what I would call a savvy shopper.

I hope that you don't pay retail plus for everything else you buy.

well its not that, its just I am not going to spend more than 5 minutes searching for prices on this subject :) :evil:

H2O MAN
October 12, 2009, 03:43 PM
John, the military history of the M14 battle rifle is not finished, it's still being written.


.

JShirley
October 12, 2009, 03:45 PM
AR-15s and M-16s are known for high accuracy, usually even before another $1500 or more is spent on them. The sole addition of an ACOG makes almost any M4 or M16A2 and later a useful DMR/SDM rifle.

As I've mentioned previously, when I deployed to OEF in '06, my battalion had a Connex full of M14s. I believe I saw *1* carried during my whole time in Afghanistan (10.5 months). I saw more shotguns carried...

Jeff White
October 12, 2009, 03:55 PM
H2O MAN,

When and where did you serve and what was your MOS? It's time you told us where all of your extensive knowledge of the M14s use in combat comes from. Where did you get your CIB or CAR?

It's time you stepped forward and gave us your resume. If you have similar combat experience then some of the veterans your are arguing with your points have some merit. If you are a hobbyist then you just don't have the proper practical experience to have such strong opinions carry much weight.

Time to put up or shut up. You may PM me with your experience if you don't want to post it publically.

H2O MAN
October 12, 2009, 04:08 PM
JShirley AR-15s and M-16s are known for high accuracy, usually even before another $1500 or more is spent on them.
The sole addition of an ACOG makes almost any M4 or M16A2 and later a useful DMR/SDM rifle.
True, but AR-15s and M-16s are not the best tool for the terrain in AFG.
If they were the ARMY would not have made the urgent request for a 'longer-range' infantry weapon (http://www.janes.com/news/defence/land/jdw/jdw080801_1_n.shtml) as they did in 2008.


JShirley
As I've mentioned previously, when I deployed to OEF in '06, my battalion had a Connex full of M14s.
I believe I saw *1* carried during my whole time in Afghanistan (10.5 months). I saw more shotguns carried...
The situation has changed since '06...
The M14EBR program did not really get off the ground until late 2008.
TACOM-RI is now building and shipping about 300 M14EBRs per month.





.

Jeff White
October 12, 2009, 04:18 PM
True, but AR-15s and M-16s are not the best tool for the terrain in AFG.
If they were the ARMY would not have made the urgent request for a 'longer-range' infantry weapon as they did in 2008.

What year did you graduate Infantry School at Benning or the USMC School of Infantry? What personal experience do you have on the ground in Afghanistan or any other combat zone? How much time have you spent under a ruck in the service of this or any other nation? These are important questions you must answer so we can effectively weigh your response again those of people who do have first hand experience.

The situation has changed since '06...

Really? How has it changed? What TTPs have changed? Why do we need M14s more now then we did in 06?

Maj Dad
October 12, 2009, 04:27 PM
This is getting tedious.

Out.

taliv
October 12, 2009, 05:21 PM
(just for the record, jeff and John are the ones with experience. I shoot more than my share but my targets never shot back. I didn't want to misrepresent myself as a vet)

Robert
October 13, 2009, 02:55 PM
I find this thread to be very interesting and eagerly await more information.

General Geoff
October 13, 2009, 03:10 PM
Disclaimer: I am an M14 fan and own an M1A myself.

I think the M14 was an ill-fated attempt to move forward with the standard issue infantry rifle, while retaining the perceived necessary range and power of the previous generations of infantry rifles. It combined the new features of selective-fire, detachable box magazine, short-stroke gas piston, and (in later examples) synthetic stock.

Unfortunately, these additions did not address fundamental problems such as overall weight of the rifle, weight of the ammunition, massive recoil during automatic fire, monolithic (as opposed to modular) design, etc.

The AR-15 addresses all of these problems, and only gives up a modest amount of range and penetration in return. It is a far more suitable weapon for a modern, organized military force. The M14 is and always will be a proverbial "rifleman's rifle," but unfortunately the lone rifleman is an obsolete concept in a modern military (snipers are a special case).

H2O MAN
October 13, 2009, 04:24 PM
General Geoff The M14 is and always will be a proverbial "rifleman's rifle," ...

The M14 is a "Warriors Rifle".

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5403/115492wu8.jpg

The photo was taken Sept. 8, 2008 at Forward Operating Base Salerno in the Khost province.

Justin
October 13, 2009, 04:32 PM
So, you've opted to re-post, yet again, the same photo you've been posting on this board for God knows how long, instead of actually responding to any of Jeff's questions?

Look, if you have the qualifications that make you an expert on military doctrine, you should have no issue whatsoever with proving it. In fact, it's the sort of thing that ought to be a point of pride.

Likewise, if you well and truly do possess insight into marksmanship beyond that of the average shooter, you should have no problem posting what competitive or training events you've attended, what your current rankings are, and how you've placed.

Robert
October 13, 2009, 04:41 PM
The M14 is a "Warriors Rifle".
So my brother, my best friend, and all the other soldiers that carried/ carry M4s are somehow less than a warrior? That is just silly. An over one year old pic of 7 soldiers shooting heavily modified M14s is not fielding a new weapons platform en mass. This in no way proves that the US military is going back to the M14. Sure squad sharpshooters use them, my best friend's life was saved by one while in Iraq but the M4 main rifle of the modern US military. And unless addressed in private Jeff White's questions have yet to be answered.
TACOM-RI is now building and shipping about 300 M14EBRs per month.

Source?

Btw,
I placed 18th out of 24 at the last Tactical Rifle Match held in Pueblo shooting my iron sighted FAL. Hit the 400 yard plate all 5 time. Guess I am not a rifleman...

Jeff White
October 13, 2009, 05:00 PM
The M14 is a "Warriors Rifle".

Really?? Tell me what your qualifications are as a warrior? What year did you go through Sand Hill, or are you old enough to have taken OSUT at Harmony Church? Parris Island? Sand Diego?

So do you have any personal experience to back up your posts or are you jst repeating thing you've read?

LoneStarWings
October 13, 2009, 05:10 PM
This thread certainly isn't "high road". What gives, staff?

H2O MAN
October 13, 2009, 05:10 PM
Maybe you could share what you know.

1. What personal experience do you have with modernized and enhanced M14s and/or their civilian counterparts?

2. Share with us all of your first hand experience with the modernized and enhanced M14.

3. Tell us when you first handled a SAGE EBR stock.

4. Share with us your experience with the folks at Crane, Troy, SEI, SAGE and TACOM-RI.






LoneStarWings This thread certainly isn't "high road". What gives, staff?

Excellent question!







.

Justin
October 13, 2009, 05:37 PM
LoneStarWings-

Which rules in the code of conduct (http://www.thehighroad.org/announcement.php?a=20) are being violated?

H2O MAN has simply been asked some pointed questions about how he came to his claimed level of expertise. There's nothing low road about asking for verification of one's qualifications. Were anyone on this board to ask me to back up the claims I've made about shooting, skill level, or firearms expertise, I would be happy to volunteer such information, which would ideally allow anyone reading this board to make up their own mind as to whether I have anything useful to say on a given topic.

Jeff White
October 13, 2009, 05:42 PM
What personal experience do you have with modernized and enhanced M14s and/or their civilian counterparts?

Hundreds of rounds through them at various police rifle courses I've taught and taken, thousands of observed rounds at these courses. I can document the total failure of a Smith Enterprise conversion of an M14 a dept acquired on the 1033 program. The officer had to finish the course with a borrowed M4 because it simply would not run. Everyone produces a lemon.

Tell us when you first handled a SAGE EBR stock.

Probably two years ago, I didn't exactly mark it down on my calendar.

Share with us your experience with the folks at Crane, Troy, SEI, SAGE and TACOM-RI.

I only knew one person at Crane and he didn't work in that program. Owen here on THR also works at Crane but I don't think he deals with that program. Who do you know there?

How many Soldiers and Marines do you know who've actually used your favorite toy? Any? How much time do you have humping a ruck that makes you qualified to speak with such authority on small arms employment in combat?
I enlisted in the US Army on 6 Dec 1974 and retired on 1 November 2003. I was an Infantryman for 21 of those years. Concurrent with my Army service I became a police officer, first as a reserve officer then a part time and eventually a full time offer after retirement from the Army. I have used small arms professionally for more the 35 years. I don't post under a screen name as I have nothing to hide. Those are my quals, now it's time to put up or shut up. You speak with authority but it all smacks of what's printed in articles on military small arms or advertisers brochures. You have the audacity to hide behind a screen name and call out combat veterans whose personal experience doesn't match your preconceived notions of what thing should be. So tell me where you got your training and experience so that we may judge the veracity of your claims.

Justin
October 13, 2009, 05:43 PM
What personal experience do you have with modernized and enhanced M14s and/or their civilian counterparts?

Share with us all of your first hand experience with the modernized and enhanced M14.

Tell us when you first handled a SAGE EBR stock.

Share with us your experience with the folks at Crane, Troy, SEI, SAGE and TACOM-RI.

If you go about making claims about what does or does not constitute a "warrior's rifle" you're going to need to be able to back up your claims with experiences demonstrating how you came by those beliefs.

For instance, JShirley's comments about warfighting in Afghanistan certainly would carry more weight than anything I could say on the topic, because he's actually been deployed there. Meanwhile, I've never left the United States, so anything I have to say about Afghanistan is merely conjecture.

If it is your belief that your rifles are truly a "warrior's rifle" or are more suited to being issued as a general infantry weapon, it should be no problem for you to back up your claims.

Have you been deployed overseas as a member of the military? If so, did you carry a rifle? Have you carried a rifle in the configurations that you prefer for any great length of time? What is your experience with long-term durability, accuracy, and maintainability of such a rifle under adverse circumstances?

LoneStarWings
October 13, 2009, 05:45 PM
Attack the argument, not the arguer.

It seems the arguer is being attacked in this case, rather than the argument, and by staff no less. But hey, it's not my site, so carry on.

H2O MAN
October 13, 2009, 05:48 PM
You moderators are breaking forum rules by badgering and attacking me personally.

I have offered only personal, first hand information and information that I know to be true.

If you take exception to a point I have made, quote that point and ask for clarification on that point.


And if any of you think rifles are "toys" you need to find an air-soft forum to moderate.

JShirley
October 13, 2009, 05:49 PM
Nope, *experience* and *evidence* are being questioned.

If any poster repeatedly makes claims that do not appear to be supported over a length of time, asking for evidence or proof of knowledge about the subject is in order.

I'm glad if a shooter has a firearm he likes. I'm happy if collectors have firearms they like, whether they shoot them or not. Making claims that contradict every expert on a weapons system with whom I've spoken- well, I'd like some evidence, if you please.

Jeff White
October 13, 2009, 05:51 PM
H20 MAN,
This is no longer a request, you will provide your creds if you wish to continue to participate. Understood?

H2O MAN
October 13, 2009, 05:55 PM
Making claims that contradict every expert on a weapons system with whom I've spoken- well, I'd like some evidence, if you please.


Exactly what claims are you referring to?

Justin
October 13, 2009, 05:55 PM
I have offered only personal, first hand information and information that I know to be true.

Why is it true? What are the experiences you've had that led you to your conclusions? What situations have you shot such firearms under?

What evidence do you have that should compel us to believe what you have to say?

Why is it such an ordeal for you to show us the evidence for why you are right?

You see, when I read posts on this forum, I try to read them with the following questions in my mind:
-What information does this post contain that may be useful to the kind of shooting I do?
-What are the qualifications and experience of the person making these posts?
-How can I put this information to good use?
-How do the claims of this person stack up against what I have learned through experience?
-Why should counter-claims be considered, if they run against what I know?

BullfrogKen
October 13, 2009, 08:34 PM
A good portion of the Staff lead public lives here, at least public enough that we know who each other is, and most of the board does, as well.

When a Staff person makes a claim about something requiring specialized knowledge, the creds are right on the table when it comes to personal opinion, actual experience, or however else that knowledge and those preferences were acquired.


I guess some folks have gotten weary of you, H2O MAN, and have finally asked you to provide something more than a personal opinion to back up the assertions and claims.


Semper Fi.

LoneStarWings
October 13, 2009, 09:39 PM
Attack the argument, not the arguer.

So are we going to take this out of the TOS now, or what?

rbernie
October 13, 2009, 09:44 PM
Nobody's attacking the arguer - they are asking for substantiating data to validate the claims made by the poster.

Here on THR, we actually believe that what is posted in public has an obligation to the truth. We are *all* responsible for the words that we write. If somebody makes claims to experience or knowledge, they should expect to be asked for the source of those claims. Data that is second-hand or third-hand should be prefaced as such.

What we talk about here is not all sweetness and light. This is not the office cooler, where BS can flow as freely as the water. This is The High Road.

LoneStarWings
October 13, 2009, 10:10 PM
What claims are you guys looking to substantiate? That the M14 is a warrior's rifle? I see "warriors" using them, just like I see some using AK's, AR's, and HK's. I haven't seen where he's making outlandish claims about his own experience level. I'm sure he's just a civilian enthusiast like 75% of the people on this forum.

I have really only seen H2O make a couple of "claims" on this thread:

-300 rifles shipping monthly from TACOM-RI
-CMI makes ar-10 mags
-The M14 continues to serve out military and more of them are being modernized and returned to front line action in AFG.

Just about everything eles he has offered up has been an opinion.

Do you need a West Point degree and a medal of honor to have an OPINION about a rifle on THR? I realize you guys are just "sticking up for your boy" (JShirley), but in fairness, he does go out of his way to bash M14 type rifles at every opportunity and has done so consistently for years. Obviously he feels the need to balance H2O's enthusiasm, but they are both entitled to their opinions. JShirley is not the last word, regarldless of his position in the military. I could not care less what anyone thinks about the M14/M1A, I just think it's absurd that you guys would belittle someone for not having served in the military. It has been optional or the last 30 years, after all.

Rshooter
October 13, 2009, 10:14 PM
I am with LoneStarWings on this one. :fire: The moderators are being low road. Bust me from this forum but your moderators have been low road in the shotgun forum also.

BullFrogKen...I may not have twenty but I gave eight years and my health so I have the right to my opinion too!

JShirley
October 13, 2009, 10:27 PM
I don't "bash" M14s- I understand the concept was flawed from the beginning, which it was.

Compare:

I think I'm starting to get a reputation as an M14/M1A hater. I think they're beautiful rifles, just not what some American gunners fantasize they are.

To:

it's better than ever and kicking ass all over in AFG.

Now, sure, "better than ever" would hopefully be true after another 2 grand in mods, right? But "kicking ass all over the AFG" is a claim that many modified M14s are in use in Afghanistan today. It's the type of claim that rightly deserves some validation, and asking for it is not unfair.

LoneStarWings
October 13, 2009, 10:51 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle
Few M14s were in use in the Army until the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars. Since the start of these conflicts, many M14s have been employed as designated marksman and sniper rifles. These are not M21 rifles, but original production M14s. Common modifications include scopes, fiberglass stocks, and other accessories.[11] In the mid-1990s, the USMC chose a new rifle for DM use, an M14 modified by the Precision Weapons Shop in Marine Corps Base Quantico called the Designated Marksman Rifle (DMR). It is intended for use by security teams (SRTs, FAST companies), and USMC Scout Snipers in the cases where a semi-automatic rifle would be more appropriate than the standard bolt-action M40A1/A3 rifle. The USMC Rifle Team uses the M14 in shooting competitions.

I do know soldiers that used M14's in theatre as DMR's as early as 2003 and speak favorably of the results. No, I wasn't there personally but I see no reason why they would lie to me about having used the rifles.

dom1104
October 13, 2009, 10:52 PM
I think, and nobody cares or should care what I think.

That is a rifles merit, previously decided to be a dismal failure, can be somehow transformed by the SAGE EBR stock... kinda flys in the face of everything I know about tacticoolness.

You cant take a mossberg pump, put an awesome stock and rails on it, and have it be some uber-weapon of doom.

a model 700 wood stock is as good as the as one with rails all over it and painted black.


H20 Mans rifle looks like it is out of Blade Runner, which I gotta admit it is cool.

http://www.athenswater.com/images/MK14SEI-MOD0-RI-Tshirt.jpg


But I dont think a new stock makes a gun suddenly amazing. at its core its the same gun.

but hey thats me. it IS cool looking I will admit, I wouldnt turn one down if it were given to me.

I would not however pay the price tag for that coolness.

BullfrogKen
October 13, 2009, 10:58 PM
I haven't seen where he's making outlandish claims about his own experience level. I'm sure he's just a civilian enthusiast like 75% of the people on this forum.

The difference here is the poster is trying to bolster his argument with the weight of "the military" switching to the system, which isn't entirely true, and using the claim that "the military" beefing up the system and pressing it into service suggests the M-14 is the ultimate in rifles.


To those who know nothing of the military's procurement and logistics system, that sounds like a plausible reason. For those of us who've actually served, we know the scope of considerations and choices involved in finding a better long range weapon to field.


Talking "about" what the military is doing is a lot different than understanding how that machine makes its decisions from the inside. There are few ways to say, "What you're offering as fact is a little bit of conjecture, anecdotal experiences, and personal preferences mixed together to justify a point," without getting a little personal. When the response to that is basically nothing more than, "Nuh uh. I know <insert assertion> ," those of us who actually do know call BS.

And there's no way that's done without asking someone to prove the assertion with some actual credentials.


There are other forums that allow the anonymous to make wild claims and use their unsubstantiated expertise as a bludgeon on others. That's never been permitted here. It's the reason I joined this place.

Robert
October 13, 2009, 11:14 PM
And Jeff's legitimate questions continue to go unanswered. The silence is deafening.

LoneStarWings
October 13, 2009, 11:26 PM
And Jeff's legitimate questions continue to go unanswered.

Just a guess, but I'm going to say that H2O won't be able to answer those for a little while on this forum.

With that said, I don't really see any legitimate questions in Jeff's posts other than belittlement for a lack of military service, which is completely optional in the USA at the current time. I don't think H2O's civlian status makes him any less entitled to an opinion, and can't see that he's offered up any falsehood's on this thread. I don't know why anyone would assume that H2O_Man was military unless he has stated it somewhere in the past and I missed it.

JShirley
October 13, 2009, 11:36 PM
Look, Jeff's questions were in regard to claims made about military usage. Enough speculation~ if Jeff wants to open the thread later, he certainly can.

I have to be at my unit in the AM, so I'm shutting this down and hitting the sack.

Justin
October 14, 2009, 11:48 AM
It's generally kind of poor form for a staff member to tack a post to a thread that's already been closed, however, I would like to clarify a point. I hope JShirley doesn't mind.

With that said, I don't really see any legitimate questions in Jeff's posts other than belittlement for a lack of military service, which is completely optional in the USA at the current time.

Patently untrue. Both Taliv and I have taken part in this discussion, along with many other members of this forum who have no military experience or background, so making the assertion that this is a "military vs. civilian" thing is patently ridiculous. H2O MAN has repeatedly made claims about the M14 design and it's use/utility as an infantry weapon in this thread as well as others.

His claims fly in the face of those with actual experience. If he is to have his claims taken seriously, then we, as a community, have a right to ask for his credentials.

If I were to go to a forum dedicated to, say, motorcycle racing, and made all sorts of claims that flew in the face of commonly accepted wisdom from those who've been racing motorcycles for years, those people would have the right to ask for my credentials. There's fundamentally nothing wrong with doing that.

However, if you cannot produce adequate proof for your claims, then the issue isn't one of getting picked on, it's an issue of having misrepresented yourself as something that you are not.

I am not an expert on racing motorcycles, so therefore anything I have to say on the topic is to be taken with a grain of salt. Likewise, anything I have to say about how the military operates is also to be suspect as I do not have the background to be able to speak on the subject with any authority.

If H2O MAN had the background to speak on issues of military doctrine, infantry gear, or combat, he would have volunteered the information three pages ago.

If you enjoyed reading about "M14 vs. Bar/ fnar" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!