Quantcast

M14 vs. Bar/ fnar

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by sprice, Sep 26, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Snakum

    Snakum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Messages:
    586
    Location:
    North Carolina
    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. :)
     
  2. EdLaver

    EdLaver Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,243
    Location:
    Texas
    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.
     
  3. Snakum

    Snakum Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2009
    Messages:
    586
    Location:
    North Carolina
    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.
     
  4. Rshooter

    Rshooter Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,223
    Location:
    Tennessee
    I would love to have an FNAR in heavy barrel but if the SHTF my M1A is the rifle that I would go to.
     
  5. JShirley

    JShirley Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    22,227
    Location:
    Atlanta
    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
     
  6. LoneStarWings

    LoneStarWings Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    445
    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.
     
  7. Brenjen

    Brenjen Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    35
    Location:
    arkansas
    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
     
  8. JShirley

    JShirley Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    22,227
    Location:
    Atlanta
    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
     
  9. gunnie

    gunnie Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    787
    ..."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
     
  10. Maj Dad

    Maj Dad Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,675
    Location:
    Carolina Low Country
    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... :cool:
     
  11. Brenjen

    Brenjen Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    35
    Location:
    arkansas
    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.
     
  12. JShirley

    JShirley Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    22,227
    Location:
    Atlanta
    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
     
  13. H2O MAN

    H2O MAN member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    2,438
    Location:
    USA
    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.

    sepo09.jpg
     
  14. JShirley

    JShirley Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    22,227
    Location:
    Atlanta
    If the "ONLY shortcoming" was the selector switch, what need would there be for modernization? You contradict yourself.

    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
     
  15. H2O MAN

    H2O MAN member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    2,438
    Location:
    USA
    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.
     
  16. taliv

    taliv Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    27,066
    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.
     
  17. H2O MAN

    H2O MAN member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    2,438
    Location:
    USA
    The only other remaining shortcoming I can think of is that they ceased production of the M14.
     
  18. jackdanson

    jackdanson Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    Messages:
    859
    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.
     
  19. JShirley

    JShirley Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    22,227
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Cool. Let's do it by the numbers.

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

    #2.
    Again, minimal content. No specific numbers or sources given.

    #3.
    Pure opinion, not echoed by any respected firearms trainer or expert I know, that contradicts your statement immediately previous.

    #4.
    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
     
  20. taliv

    taliv Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    27,066
    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
     
  21. dom1104

    dom1104 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,366
    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.
     
  22. JShirley

    JShirley Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    22,227
    Location:
    Atlanta
    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
     
  23. H2O MAN

    H2O MAN member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    2,438
    Location:
    USA
    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?
    .
     
  24. dom1104

    dom1104 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,366

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

    taliv Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    27,066
    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?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice