Nom de Forum
Member
Got oil?
This rifle looks bone dry to me.
This rifle appears to be using an old G.I. 20 round magazine. I gotta wonder about the condition of that magazine. The failure appears to be from an over ride.
M14 vs M16. What Is the Better Overal Combat Rifle?
- Thread starter Red Wind
- Start date
- Status
Got oil?
This rifle looks bone dry to me.
This rifle appears to be using an old G.I. 20 round magazine. I gotta wonder about the condition of that magazine. The failure appears to be from an over ride.
The M14 jams pretty readily - that open bolt that allows clearing a misfeed also is vulnerable to debris. It's been posted in the recent past when a range test was conducted.
As for many of the other defects, they were exposed in an Army study which is available on line to read. An article summarizing the study is here with a link to the .gov pub: http://looserounds.com/2015/01/30/the-m14-not-much-for-fighting-a-case-against-the-m14-legend/
I've found it interesting that detractors of the M16 have an abundance of materials available to them for recitation, but that the M14 has been conveniently allocated far less documentation over the years. I attribute this to it's fans in the military who are more than ordinarily reactionary and incapable of accepting technological advances.
In other words, there are Fudds in the military, too. Which has been proven over an over - to the point that it's now part of our doctrine in fighting wars. We now recognize that we will likely come to war with what we have - which answered all the needs of the last war but which were never proven. Once you pass the departure line of the first attack, what we planned to do and how things turn out are different.
What we planned to do was use the M14 - what we had to do was adopt the M16. Even with it's early problems the gun was not why we lost the Vietnam War. Neither were our tactics, which were bring the enemy to heel. We lost the war because the American People didn't want to win it.
The Baby Boomers.
And their attitude has been in charge ever since, which should underline our successes in combat over the decades. We not only have the misinformed attempting to direct what works in combat, we also have those who's Prime Directive seems to be "Why can't we all get along?" They haven't suffered generations of oppression to know better.
Ask any Russian émigré on the local shooting range what he thinks about gun control and what is the better combat rifle. He served his two years - mandatory - and learned about weapons, too.
I don't think you will find many glorifying the PKM as the best combat rifle anymore that you will find Vietnam era veterans claiming the M60 answered all their needs in combat. I'd suggest that those who would haven't been thru Basic and had to carry it. Same for the M14 fans - of which there are plenty now. Then? Not so much. The M16 has it's fans from Vietnam, many of whom never had issues with the gun. But we don't hear them posting online often. Just the complainers, many of whom also never served.
Given a choice of carrying one or the other, 24/7 for a month at a time, I would suggest actually doing it. Experience and fatique are great instructors. At one time I was in the USAR, working two weeks in the field with the M16 24/7 in full battle gear. I could then go home, grab my HK91, and with half the kit, get just as winded by noon hunting in the field. A heavy rifle will wear anyone down. Ask a combat vet - read the posts - the #1 thing every soldier does is cut weight anyway he can. There's a reason for the phrase "travel light, freeze at night."
No, the M14 was not nor would ever be a great combat rifle. It was a flawed design for an concept that didn't meet the needs of changing combat. I find it interesting that the argument keeps coming up - when the evidence shows even the Russians saw the handwriting on the wall and moved first into intermediate carbines with the AK-47. It took America another 15 years, and most of the first world countries just waited to see what was happening until their main battle rifles wore out. They made no effort to change until they had to. Ironic for Germany as they had invented the concept which was copied by the Russians.
Intermediate cartridge weapons were being prototyped before 1940, it just took some time to get around to them. The continuing trend has been to make cartridges smaller, and like the progression of binoculars from straight thru field glasses to porro prism to roof prism, we are about as advanced as we can get. Which is why the M16 is still in service over the last 50 years. It will take a technological leap to advance, and it likely will be with ammo again, with the LSAT and non metallic cartridge development.
The next level of firearms will be different, but one thing is sure, there will be those steadfastly opposed to them because they haven't used them and won't even try. Much like a lot of my auto parts customers - who refuse to have a computer and still rely on word of mouth how to fix things. It leaves them dangerously underinformed.
As for many of the other defects, they were exposed in an Army study which is available on line to read. An article summarizing the study is here with a link to the .gov pub: http://looserounds.com/2015/01/30/the-m14-not-much-for-fighting-a-case-against-the-m14-legend/
I've found it interesting that detractors of the M16 have an abundance of materials available to them for recitation, but that the M14 has been conveniently allocated far less documentation over the years. I attribute this to it's fans in the military who are more than ordinarily reactionary and incapable of accepting technological advances.
In other words, there are Fudds in the military, too. Which has been proven over an over - to the point that it's now part of our doctrine in fighting wars. We now recognize that we will likely come to war with what we have - which answered all the needs of the last war but which were never proven. Once you pass the departure line of the first attack, what we planned to do and how things turn out are different.
What we planned to do was use the M14 - what we had to do was adopt the M16. Even with it's early problems the gun was not why we lost the Vietnam War. Neither were our tactics, which were bring the enemy to heel. We lost the war because the American People didn't want to win it.
The Baby Boomers.
And their attitude has been in charge ever since, which should underline our successes in combat over the decades. We not only have the misinformed attempting to direct what works in combat, we also have those who's Prime Directive seems to be "Why can't we all get along?" They haven't suffered generations of oppression to know better.
Ask any Russian émigré on the local shooting range what he thinks about gun control and what is the better combat rifle. He served his two years - mandatory - and learned about weapons, too.
I don't think you will find many glorifying the PKM as the best combat rifle anymore that you will find Vietnam era veterans claiming the M60 answered all their needs in combat. I'd suggest that those who would haven't been thru Basic and had to carry it. Same for the M14 fans - of which there are plenty now. Then? Not so much. The M16 has it's fans from Vietnam, many of whom never had issues with the gun. But we don't hear them posting online often. Just the complainers, many of whom also never served.
Given a choice of carrying one or the other, 24/7 for a month at a time, I would suggest actually doing it. Experience and fatique are great instructors. At one time I was in the USAR, working two weeks in the field with the M16 24/7 in full battle gear. I could then go home, grab my HK91, and with half the kit, get just as winded by noon hunting in the field. A heavy rifle will wear anyone down. Ask a combat vet - read the posts - the #1 thing every soldier does is cut weight anyway he can. There's a reason for the phrase "travel light, freeze at night."
No, the M14 was not nor would ever be a great combat rifle. It was a flawed design for an concept that didn't meet the needs of changing combat. I find it interesting that the argument keeps coming up - when the evidence shows even the Russians saw the handwriting on the wall and moved first into intermediate carbines with the AK-47. It took America another 15 years, and most of the first world countries just waited to see what was happening until their main battle rifles wore out. They made no effort to change until they had to. Ironic for Germany as they had invented the concept which was copied by the Russians.
Intermediate cartridge weapons were being prototyped before 1940, it just took some time to get around to them. The continuing trend has been to make cartridges smaller, and like the progression of binoculars from straight thru field glasses to porro prism to roof prism, we are about as advanced as we can get. Which is why the M16 is still in service over the last 50 years. It will take a technological leap to advance, and it likely will be with ammo again, with the LSAT and non metallic cartridge development.
The next level of firearms will be different, but one thing is sure, there will be those steadfastly opposed to them because they haven't used them and won't even try. Much like a lot of my auto parts customers - who refuse to have a computer and still rely on word of mouth how to fix things. It leaves them dangerously underinformed.
lemaymiami
Member
Tried to read through all the comments but gave up about half way through.... Here's my take on the two weapons systems....
In the winter of 1968 my basic training weapon was the M14 and carrying/running with it everywhere beat that young civilian into a soldier (but a pretty sore one, many days). I finally qualified expert with it (barely, after I learned to allow it to do its job...). A year out of basic as a stateside REMF to be... we were required to re-qualify with the M16 (and that weapon was a snap to qual expert with....). Just before I was sent to a very bad place (1971) the actual duty weapon I had to qualify with (if you can call it that...) was a beat up old Colt Agent (don't ask)....
For years (even as a cop for 22 years) I've been an armchair commando at best....
If I had to hump 100 miles then go into battle the lighter weapon would be my hands down first choice, period. For some kind of fixed defensive position the M14 or it's variants would be great. Yes the heavier weapon would be superior at longer, open distances - but the last I heard the rifle was only one of the weapons that modern warriors employ... Any target out at a distance is going to be getting a lot of attention from things other than rifles....
Simply put, the two systems were for different needs - in a modern world where mobility is everything the lighter your weapon the better in my book.
In the winter of 1968 my basic training weapon was the M14 and carrying/running with it everywhere beat that young civilian into a soldier (but a pretty sore one, many days). I finally qualified expert with it (barely, after I learned to allow it to do its job...). A year out of basic as a stateside REMF to be... we were required to re-qualify with the M16 (and that weapon was a snap to qual expert with....). Just before I was sent to a very bad place (1971) the actual duty weapon I had to qualify with (if you can call it that...) was a beat up old Colt Agent (don't ask)....
For years (even as a cop for 22 years) I've been an armchair commando at best....
If I had to hump 100 miles then go into battle the lighter weapon would be my hands down first choice, period. For some kind of fixed defensive position the M14 or it's variants would be great. Yes the heavier weapon would be superior at longer, open distances - but the last I heard the rifle was only one of the weapons that modern warriors employ... Any target out at a distance is going to be getting a lot of attention from things other than rifles....
Simply put, the two systems were for different needs - in a modern world where mobility is everything the lighter your weapon the better in my book.
Nature Boy
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2015
- Messages
- 8,258
I like to think of myself as a decisive man but I have one of each in their civilian form and like them both.
I can tell you I really enjoy shooting the M1A and reloading the .308 cartridge, but I'm voting "undecided" since you didn't give me a "both" option
I can tell you I really enjoy shooting the M1A and reloading the .308 cartridge, but I'm voting "undecided" since you didn't give me a "both" option
tark
Member
Almost all of the M-14s in service had selector locks on them, so the fact that the M-14 is uncontrollable in full auto is true, but largely irrelevant. You can never flat-out say one is better than the other, they are as different as apples and prunes. Each one is better than the other in certain situations. I know this; I took basic in Oct-Dec of 1967, at Ft Bliss, Texas. The blowing sand didn't seem to bother the M-14s at all. I have heard that sand will stop an M-14 cold. Not in my first hand experience it won't!
And I also know this: If an enemy is shooting at me, I hope he is carrying something in the smaller caliber. I have a better chance of finding adequate cover and surviving the encounter. Just my opinion, which is worth absolutely nothing.....
And I also know this: If an enemy is shooting at me, I hope he is carrying something in the smaller caliber. I have a better chance of finding adequate cover and surviving the encounter. Just my opinion, which is worth absolutely nothing.....
Zerodefect
member
Can't really make this argument without mentioning the AR10.
It's only a matter of time before PSA and DPMS get the reliability bugs worked out so we can have AR10's for less than Larue money. Sure LMT, Larue, and KAC have 100% reliable AR10's, but they're serious $$$$.
Then it's all over for the M1, M14. The examples I shot, were neither reliable or durable. And a Springfield M1 National Match ain't exactly a cheap rifle.
How long before the others copy the lighter DPMS Gen II?
It's only a matter of time before PSA and DPMS get the reliability bugs worked out so we can have AR10's for less than Larue money. Sure LMT, Larue, and KAC have 100% reliable AR10's, but they're serious $$$$.
Then it's all over for the M1, M14. The examples I shot, were neither reliable or durable. And a Springfield M1 National Match ain't exactly a cheap rifle.
How long before the others copy the lighter DPMS Gen II?
Slamfire1 said;
The double feed stoppage is the fault of the magazine not the weapon. Every weapon that uses a magazine must have one that is within spec or it will malfunction! It is very common when someone uses worn out magazines with spread feed lips. All you have to do to clear that type of malfunction is to drop the magazine and and the loose round will fall from the magazine well. Pull the bolt to the rear, let it go forward and pull it back again and it will extract the loaded round if it didn't fall out on it's own when you tilted the weapon. Dis-assembly is not necessary unless you have other issues. Which you might if you run the weapon without lube as the one in your photos is.
Pretty much a non-issue with the double crimped primers in the military ammunition the weapon was designed to shoot. I've been retired from the army for 12 years but my son is a 1SG in the 1st ID. They still don't let you use hand loads in your issued weapon. Hot ammo, blown primers, so what, it's irrelevant to a discussion of if the M16 or M14 is the better combat weapon.
What do you think an M14 weighs once you add a rail system, optics, PEQ-15 laser, and white light? Yes you can add all of that stuff to a 6 pound rifle get it it up to 9 or 10 pounds. Add it all to a 9 pound rifle and you are at 12 or more pounds so there still is a huge weight advantage. Maybe the competition ARs that you shoot on the line at Camp Perry weigh as much without accessories, but the military doesn't add all kinds of counterweights to weapons issued to soldiers to fight with so they can hold the "X" ring from the offhand position.
And you really believe that? I've got some ocean front property here in Southern Illinois you might be interested in. I used an M16 in every climatic condition you can find on the planet during the 20 years I was an Infantryman. From the arctic in the winter, to the desert, to the jungle in Central America to temperate regions in the rest of the world. If the sand is blowing bad enough that you need to break it down and clean it 3 times a day then you need to warp it (and every other weapon in the unit) in something to keep the sand and dust out of it.
I guarantee you that if you don't clean a Garand or an M14 it will malfunction. If you don't keep the sand, dirt and dust out of the action it will malfunction. This applied to ALL small arms. If the Korean war vet you know, really never cleaned his weapon then his first line supervisor needs to be charged with negligence.
The notion that the M16 requires more maintenance then any other weapon is a MYTH! It's a myth that was born out of the problems they had when the XM16E1 was fielded in Vietnam with ammunition that was loaded with ball powder, not the IMR powder the rifle was developed to function with. Once the M16A1 was fielded (after 10 modifications to make the rifle function reliably with ammunition loaded with ball powder) the problems were solved.
I clean my Colt 6920 once a year. I average 5000 rounds a year through it. I trusted that weapon with my life when it rode in the rack of my squad car after I retired from the army went into LE full time. Keep it lubed and it will pretty much run forever.
Nom de Forum said;
From The Black Rifle M16 Retrospective by R. Blake Stevens and Edward C. Ezell Collector Grade Publications 1987 pp 32-40:
That's all I have about the barrel bursting, sorry it doesn't say at what round count the barrel burst.
The double feed stoppage is the fault of the magazine not the weapon. Every weapon that uses a magazine must have one that is within spec or it will malfunction! It is very common when someone uses worn out magazines with spread feed lips. All you have to do to clear that type of malfunction is to drop the magazine and and the loose round will fall from the magazine well. Pull the bolt to the rear, let it go forward and pull it back again and it will extract the loaded round if it didn't fall out on it's own when you tilted the weapon. Dis-assembly is not necessary unless you have other issues. Which you might if you run the weapon without lube as the one in your photos is.
Pretty much a non-issue with the double crimped primers in the military ammunition the weapon was designed to shoot. I've been retired from the army for 12 years but my son is a 1SG in the 1st ID. They still don't let you use hand loads in your issued weapon. Hot ammo, blown primers, so what, it's irrelevant to a discussion of if the M16 or M14 is the better combat weapon.
What do you think an M14 weighs once you add a rail system, optics, PEQ-15 laser, and white light? Yes you can add all of that stuff to a 6 pound rifle get it it up to 9 or 10 pounds. Add it all to a 9 pound rifle and you are at 12 or more pounds so there still is a huge weight advantage. Maybe the competition ARs that you shoot on the line at Camp Perry weigh as much without accessories, but the military doesn't add all kinds of counterweights to weapons issued to soldiers to fight with so they can hold the "X" ring from the offhand position.
And you really believe that? I've got some ocean front property here in Southern Illinois you might be interested in. I used an M16 in every climatic condition you can find on the planet during the 20 years I was an Infantryman. From the arctic in the winter, to the desert, to the jungle in Central America to temperate regions in the rest of the world. If the sand is blowing bad enough that you need to break it down and clean it 3 times a day then you need to warp it (and every other weapon in the unit) in something to keep the sand and dust out of it.
I guarantee you that if you don't clean a Garand or an M14 it will malfunction. If you don't keep the sand, dirt and dust out of the action it will malfunction. This applied to ALL small arms. If the Korean war vet you know, really never cleaned his weapon then his first line supervisor needs to be charged with negligence.
The notion that the M16 requires more maintenance then any other weapon is a MYTH! It's a myth that was born out of the problems they had when the XM16E1 was fielded in Vietnam with ammunition that was loaded with ball powder, not the IMR powder the rifle was developed to function with. Once the M16A1 was fielded (after 10 modifications to make the rifle function reliably with ammunition loaded with ball powder) the problems were solved.
I clean my Colt 6920 once a year. I average 5000 rounds a year through it. I trusted that weapon with my life when it rode in the rack of my squad car after I retired from the army went into LE full time. Keep it lubed and it will pretty much run forever.
Nom de Forum said;
From The Black Rifle M16 Retrospective by R. Blake Stevens and Edward C. Ezell Collector Grade Publications 1987 pp 32-40:
That's all I have about the barrel bursting, sorry it doesn't say at what round count the barrel burst.
Nom de Forum
Member
Total WWII production of M1s: 4,040,000
Total number of Army personnel on active duty in 1945: 8,266,373
Total number of U.S. made M14s when production ceased in 1964: 1,380,353
Total number of Army personnel on active duty in 1965: 969,066
No doubt about it the M14 was mass produced and enough were made to arm soldiers needing rifles.
By 1962 the Army was aware that the M14 had problems that had nothing to do with changing doctrine. Extensive testing by the Development and Proof Services at Aberdeen Proving Ground was conducted from September 1961 to January 1962. A report was prepared that conclude that not only was average M14 accuracy substandard it was erratic from rifle to rifle. The M14 accuracy problems were determined to be from several factors but primarily due to ammunition sensitive, flash suppressor design, and most damningly a gas system that inherently created inaccuracy. All these factors certainly combined with complaints from Vietnam about being outgunned by AK-47s with 30rd magazines that were more controllable in full auto, the realization that doctrine was obsolete, cabinet level political opposition to the intransigence of Army Ordinance officials coupled with impressive demonstrations of the AR-15s performance, and the expected performance of the SPIW are what killed the further production of the M14.
The Garand action’s reliability is overrated. This is probably due to several factors: the M1 had few contemporaries that were reliable so the bar was set rather low, soldiers were trained to clean and lube the M1 at every opportunity, it is human nature to remember the mostly good performance of the M1 rather than the sometimes poor performance because it was the rifle that saved the soldier’s life and won the war. The exposed action design of the M1 and M14 is probably a desirable feature if clearing malfunctions induced by poor quality ammunition or magazines are of primary concern instead of debris induced malfunctions. Since ammunition quality and magazine quality (if the magazine is properly designed and maintained) are not a manufacturing issue since the 1950s, an exposed action design suffers in comparison to a non-exposed action design in preventing more common debris induced malfunctions in a combat environment. All the postings I see about ARs and M16s having feeding problems makes me wonder how I never had frequent problems even when using blanks. Oil is the best friend of the M16. I have seen a M21 jam on a sandy range at Ft Bragg because of debris.
While the AR-10 itself possibly could be considered a complete failure, the concept of using the AR-10 operating system for a 7.62x51 military rifle has been a story of success in international sales to armies and police.
The M16 was fielded after far less engineering development than the M1 or M14. Given first equal and later more engineering development than the M14 the AR system has shown itself to be superior to the Garand system. The best soldiers in the militaries of several nations who can choose whatever they want have selected the M16 because it offers more advantages in combat than other designs. While, as barnbwt frequently posts, nobody has copied the M16 operating system for use in a combat rifle, nobody since the 1950’s has copied the Garand operating system as used in the M1 and M14 for use in a combat rifle. Before anyone mentions the Mini14; it is a civilian light carbine that had little success in sales to any military and it is not designed to withstand the usage required of a combat rifle.
Never made enough to equip the total force. How many units had MTOEs that called for M14s but still had M1s as a substitute item? Virtually the entire reserve component for one, low priority AC units for two, several hundred thousand of those rifles went to the USMC and I would guess at least 10,000 went to weapons pools at training centers and branch schools. We never had enough of them to equip the total force. Don't forget in 1965 we gave the M16 to Airborne, Air Assault and Special Forces units. It was the standard service rifle on paper, in reality we never produced enough of them. To me that makes it a failure. It was replaced before we could build enough of them to equip the force. And one of the reasons McNamara shut it down was the problems we had producing it.
Nom de Forum
Member
Total number of U.S. made M14s when production ceased in 1964: 1,380,353
Total number of Army personnel on active duty in 1965: 969,066
Seems to me that these numbers make it clear that for Army active duty troops serving in combat arms units more than enough M14s were available. The fact that M1s remained in use is nothing unusual. You see the same thing with 1903s still in use by units until enough M1s were built. Same with all the M16 variants still in use before enough M16A2 were available.
But, the M16A2 did in fact equip all of the units authorized it before it was replaced. The same cannot be said for the M14.
I think it took about 17 years from the time the M16A2 to be fielded throughout the total force and about 2 years later the Army adopted the A4 as standard for Infantry units that didn't get the M4. The long time to field the M16A2 was a budgeting decision, not a production problem. The M14 was not fielded on schedule because of production problems.
I think it took about 17 years from the time the M16A2 to be fielded throughout the total force and about 2 years later the Army adopted the A4 as standard for Infantry units that didn't get the M4. The long time to field the M16A2 was a budgeting decision, not a production problem. The M14 was not fielded on schedule because of production problems.
Nom de Forum
Member
Yes, there were production problems with the M14, the same is true with the M16 and many other U.S. Army rifles, but I think it has been shown in this thread that production problems alone did not doom the M14's issue to all troops. I am well aware of those production problems from my reading of U.S. Rifle M14: from John Garand to the M21. You don't think I find so much stuff to post just from my memory do you?
If I am staying in one location I take the M14. At 55 mobility might be my biggest weakness. I think you have to consider your personal limitations in the decision of these two firearms. I am still pretty accurate at long distance. At my age I take the M14.
johnnydollar
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 621
The .223 is a fine varmint cartridge, suitable for prairie dogs, woodchucks, coyotes, and small poodles. When and if the zombie poodle apocalypse ever arrives the U.S. armed forces will be well armed.
Yes, there were production problems with the M14, the same is true with the M16 and many other U.S. Army rifles, but I think it has been shown in this thread that production problems alone did not doom the M14's issue to all troops. I am well aware of those production problems from my reading of U.S. Rifle M14: from John Garand to the M21. You don't think I find so much stuff to post just from my memory do you?
Now I'm disappointed
I thought I was one in this conversation who had to hit the books...I voted M16. I went through basic in the 60s with a M14 and had one when I first got to Vietnam. When I got issued M16 there was no looking back AFAIC. It worked well for me anywhere I used it and is still my first choice for a battle rifle.
Some comments made by others are worthy of discussion.
Someone mentioned M16 out to 300 yds and M14 for longer ranges. The fact remains that most soldiers can't hit anything past 200 meters anyway. That includes infantry men. No sense in giving them a heavier rifle and heavier ammo when they can't hit any farther than they can with an M16.
Another response said to get some gym time in to deal with the weight and recoil of a full auto M14. The M16 will still be easier to carry and shoot FA. Most of our M14s we had in Vietnam had selector switches. I knew some pretty big aND muscular guys and none of them could control a M14 as well as a M16.
Another response said a M14 in open country and a M16 in MOUT operations. You can't haul around two rifles for each soldier. You have to go with one. The M16 fits both roles fine.
Anyone read "Bravo Two Zero"? The SAS guys could have picked any rifle they wanted when going after SCUD sites. They chose the M16 probably for the same reasons I do.
Some comments made by others are worthy of discussion.
Someone mentioned M16 out to 300 yds and M14 for longer ranges. The fact remains that most soldiers can't hit anything past 200 meters anyway. That includes infantry men. No sense in giving them a heavier rifle and heavier ammo when they can't hit any farther than they can with an M16.
Another response said to get some gym time in to deal with the weight and recoil of a full auto M14. The M16 will still be easier to carry and shoot FA. Most of our M14s we had in Vietnam had selector switches. I knew some pretty big aND muscular guys and none of them could control a M14 as well as a M16.
Another response said a M14 in open country and a M16 in MOUT operations. You can't haul around two rifles for each soldier. You have to go with one. The M16 fits both roles fine.
Anyone read "Bravo Two Zero"? The SAS guys could have picked any rifle they wanted when going after SCUD sites. They chose the M16 probably for the same reasons I do.
Last edited:
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"While, as barnbwt frequently posts, nobody has copied the M16 operating system for use in a combat rifle, nobody since the 1950’s has copied the Garand operating system as used in the M1 and M14 for use in a combat rifle"
BTW, while the Mini never served as an infantry arm, it did at least see widespread civilian use as a rear-guard arm in prisons, police units, and the A-Team. Not unlike the AR-180 which is basically an unquestionably excellent design (not saying the Mini is, just that service adoption status is second to demonstrable technical traits in a technical discussion, as always)
Since no one presently uses a Garand-derived weapon any more (in the whole world, I think) it's kind of implied that that design was also a dead end. Or rather, the antiquated notion of placing the piston rod beneath the barrel of anything but a heavy machinegun. That design feature, mandated in order to get the sights down on the barrel like the old bolt-guns if memory serves, was basically the 'original sin' that ultimately doomed the platform. Had the piston been mounted above the barrel, box-mags would have been a veritable certainty, and the resulting gun would have very much resembled the Kalashnikov action in practically every way (gas block, piston, bolt, bolt carrier, trigger group) and been an even bigger quantum leap in firearms technology.
But, the 1918 BAR had already come out and sorta-kinda 'proven' that the low-set piston design (fully derived from large machine guns that came earlier like the Hotchkiss) was feasible in an infantry auto-loader, so the die was cast. Very similar situation to the G41 which endured some painful arbitrary design constraints that doomed its adoption.
Back to the AR and Garand; although no one has since copied the Garand's piston layout (or technically excellent if stupidly expensive receiver construction), the concept of a rotating two-lug bolt actuated by a fixed-piston bolt carrier contacting a bolt lug is hardly obsolete. Nor the concept of an S-shaped trigger w/ disconnector that pivots on the same axis.
However, I'm not aware of a single, solitary example of any other firearm design anywhere --that isn't a veritable clone of the entire platform-- operating by way of 'inflating' the bolt/carrier apart from each other with tapped high pressure gas. The Ljungmann and MAS49/56 are actuated purely by gaseous contact as well, but the stuff is merely blown into a deep recess bored into the upper portion of the bolt carrier, the gas tube itself acting as the 'piston.' While I suspect a good portion of the AR's operating force is derived similarly, it still requires gas to flow down into the gap between bolt and carrier where it can expand and act on the larger faces of the two and cycle the action.
Whatever you say about the Stoner gas system in the AR series, it is truly as weird and unique as the Krag's magazine pan, and has yet to find a place of honor in any scratch-design firearm that I'm aware of. If there is one, I'd love to hear about it.
"Who else has actually used both while being shot at?"
What, like at a range? Both. I'd rather hear the opinion of those who've been shot at by both, and go with the feelings of the guy who didn't live to tell the tale
TCB
BTW, while the Mini never served as an infantry arm, it did at least see widespread civilian use as a rear-guard arm in prisons, police units, and the A-Team. Not unlike the AR-180 which is basically an unquestionably excellent design (not saying the Mini is, just that service adoption status is second to demonstrable technical traits in a technical discussion, as always)
Since no one presently uses a Garand-derived weapon any more (in the whole world, I think) it's kind of implied that that design was also a dead end. Or rather, the antiquated notion of placing the piston rod beneath the barrel of anything but a heavy machinegun. That design feature, mandated in order to get the sights down on the barrel like the old bolt-guns if memory serves, was basically the 'original sin' that ultimately doomed the platform. Had the piston been mounted above the barrel, box-mags would have been a veritable certainty, and the resulting gun would have very much resembled the Kalashnikov action in practically every way (gas block, piston, bolt, bolt carrier, trigger group) and been an even bigger quantum leap in firearms technology.
But, the 1918 BAR had already come out and sorta-kinda 'proven' that the low-set piston design (fully derived from large machine guns that came earlier like the Hotchkiss) was feasible in an infantry auto-loader, so the die was cast. Very similar situation to the G41 which endured some painful arbitrary design constraints that doomed its adoption.
Back to the AR and Garand; although no one has since copied the Garand's piston layout (or technically excellent if stupidly expensive receiver construction), the concept of a rotating two-lug bolt actuated by a fixed-piston bolt carrier contacting a bolt lug is hardly obsolete. Nor the concept of an S-shaped trigger w/ disconnector that pivots on the same axis.
However, I'm not aware of a single, solitary example of any other firearm design anywhere --that isn't a veritable clone of the entire platform-- operating by way of 'inflating' the bolt/carrier apart from each other with tapped high pressure gas. The Ljungmann and MAS49/56 are actuated purely by gaseous contact as well, but the stuff is merely blown into a deep recess bored into the upper portion of the bolt carrier, the gas tube itself acting as the 'piston.' While I suspect a good portion of the AR's operating force is derived similarly, it still requires gas to flow down into the gap between bolt and carrier where it can expand and act on the larger faces of the two and cycle the action.
Whatever you say about the Stoner gas system in the AR series, it is truly as weird and unique as the Krag's magazine pan, and has yet to find a place of honor in any scratch-design firearm that I'm aware of. If there is one, I'd love to hear about it.
"Who else has actually used both while being shot at?"
What, like at a range? Both.
I'd rather hear the opinion of those who've been shot at by both, and go with the feelings of the guy who didn't live to tell the tale TCB
Nom de Forum
Member
Those are all uses that an inexpensive, light carbine, that is politically correct in appearance, and not intended to be used in engagements where hundreds of rounds will be fired is a good choice. It used to be that Mini14s were cheaper than ARs. It amazes me how a rifle so limited in capability compared to an AR is now more expensive than some ARs.
Nom de Forum
Member
This is about the third post where someone says they would prefer a M14 if in a defensive position. Why would you want a rifle that is slower to fire accurately, more physically fatiguing to fire, and that the weight and bulk of the ammunition that could be stored in a defensive position means less ammunition available than if using an M16. Furthermore, good commanders know that attacks on defensive positions are supposed to be conducted by superior numbers. So why would you want an M14 when an M16 will allow you to hit the hoard attacking you faster, more times, so it might be stopped before you run out of ammunition and life?
Mosin Bubba
Member
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 1,936
To be fair, Minis are built as a commercial gun. The design and action are proven, it's just the construction that lets it down. It's like how you wouldn't expect a DPMS to be a combat rifle, even though the AR design is more than capable of that.
As an aside, I don't know what a military-grade Mini would be like, but it would probably be pretty cool.
Last edited:
1911 guy
Member
M16 or M4 hands down. Weight, capacity, ergonomics (the stock wrist is too thick and the garand style safety always irked me).
The real question is M1 Garand or M16. The M14 is nothing more or less than a detachable magazine, short action M1 Garand.
The real question is M1 Garand or M16. The M14 is nothing more or less than a detachable magazine, short action M1 Garand.
Nom de Forum
Member
In semiauto only it is a Mini14 GB, in selective fire it is an AC556 IIRC. I owned a Mini14 GB in the early 80's. It was really suitable for Hannibal and the A-Team, and somewhat suitable for civilians, police, correction officers, not expecting a long firefight or sufficient accuracy beyond 100 meters. It is possible to make a Mini14 much more accurate but it is not built to stand-up to combat rifle demands.
C-grunt
Member
That poodle cartridge worked really well on all the poodles we shot in Iraq. Though they were strange looking poodles. They walked on their hind legs and wore clothing.
- Status