M14 vs. Bar/ fnar

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.

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.

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.

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

I would love to have an FNAR in heavy barrel but if the SHTF my M1A is the rifle that I would go to.

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.

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!

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

..."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

M14

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...

JShirley said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

The only other remaining shortcoming I can think of is that they ceased production of the M14.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?
.

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.

Click to expand...

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